f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\1960s.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1960's Many social changes that were addressed in the 1960s are still the issues being confronted today. the '60s was a decade of social and political upheaval. in spite of all the turmoil, there were some positive results: the civil rights revolution, john f. Kennedy's bold vision of a new frontier, and the breathtaking advances in space, helped bring about progress and prosperity. however, much was negative: student and anti-war protest movements, political assassinations, and ghetto riots excited american people and resulted in lack of respect for authority and the law. The decade began under the shadow of the cold war with the soviet union, which was aggravated by the u-2 incident, the berlin wall, and the cuban missile crisis, along with the space race with the ussr. The decade ended under the shadow of the viet nam war, which deeply divided americans and their allies and damaged the country's self-confidence and sense of purpose. Even if you weren't alive during the '60s, you know what they meant when they said, "tune in, turn on, drop out." you know why the nation celebrates Martin luther king, jr.'s birthday. all of the social issues are reflected in today's society: the civil rights movement, the student movement, space exploration, the sexual revolution, the environment, medicine and health, and fun and fashion. The Civil Rights Movement The momentum of the previous decade's civil rights gains led by rev. Martin luther king, jr. carried over into the 1960s. but for most blacks, the tangible results were minimal. only a minuscule percentage of black children actually attended integrated schools, and in the south, "jim crow" practices barred blacks from jobs and public places. New groups and goals were formed, new tactics devised, to push forward for full equality. as often as not, white resistance resulted in violence. this violence spilled across tv screens nationwide. the average, neutral american, after seeing his/her tv screen, turned into a civil rights supporter. Black unity and white support continued to grow. in 1962, with the first large-scale public protest against racial discrimination, rev. Martin luther king, jr. Gave a dramatic and inspirational speech in washington, d.c. After a long march of thousands to the capital. the possibility of riot and bloodshed was always there, but the marchers took that chance so that they could accept the responsibilities of first class citizens. "the negro," King said in this speech, "lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity and finds himself an exile in his own land." King continued stolidly: "it would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the negro. this sweltering summer of the negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality." when King came to the end of his prepared text, he swept right on into an exhibition of impromptu oratory that was catching, dramatic, and inspirational. "I have a dream," King cried out. the crowd began cheering, but king, never pausing, brought silence as he continued, "i have a dream that one day on the red hills of georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." "I have a dream," he went on, relentlessly shouting down the thunderous swell of applause, "that even the state of mississippi, a state sweltering with people's injustices, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. i have dream," cried King for the last time, "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Everyone agreed the march was a success and they wanted action now! but, now! remained a long way off. president kennedy was never able to mobilize sufficient support to pass a civil rights bill with teeth over the opposition of segregationist southern members of congress. but after his assassination, president johnson, drawing on the kennedy legacy and on the press coverage of civil rights marches and protests, succeeded where kennedy had failed. However, by the summer of 1964, the black revolution had created its own crisis of disappointed expectations. rioting by urban blacks was to be a feature of every "long, hot, summer" of the mid-1960s. In 1965, King and other black leaders wanted to push beyond social integration, now guaranteed under the previous year's civil rights law, to political rights, mainly southern blacks' rights to register and vote. king picked a tough alabama town to tackle: selma, where only 1% of eligible black voters were registered to vote. the violence, the march, the excitement all contributed to the passage of the second landmark civil rights act of the decade. even though there was horrendous violence, rev. king announced that as a "matter of conscience and in an attempt to arouse the deepest concern of the nation," he was "compelled" to lead another march from selma to montgomery, alabama. The four-day, 54-mile march started on the afternoon of sunday, march 21, 1965, with some 3500 marchers led by two nobel prizewinners, the rev. Martin luther king, jr. And ralph bunche, then u.n. Under secretary for special political affairs. in the march, whites, negroes, clergymen and beatniks, old and young, walked side by side. president johnson made sure they had plenty of protection this time with 1000 military police, 1900 federalized alabama national guardsmen, and platoons of u.s. Marshals and fbi men. When the marchers reached the capital of alabama, they were to have presented a petition to then governor george wallace protesting voting discrimination. however, when they arrived, the governor's aides came out and said, "the capital is closed today." About this same time, the term, "black power" was coming into use. it was meant to infer long-submerged racial pride in negroes. Martin luther king, jr. Specifically sought to rebut the evangelists of black power. "it is absolutely necessary for the negro to gain power, but the term black power is unfortunate, because it tends to give the impression of black nationalism. we must never seek power exclusively for the negro, but the sharing of power with white people," he said. Unfortunately, the thing that really moved the civil rights movement along significantly was the murder of rev. Martin luther king, jr. In late 1965. cruelty replaced harmony with nightmarish suddenness. rioting mobs in the negro suburb of watts, california, pillaged, burned and killed, while 500 policemen and 5000 national guardsmen struggled in vain to contain their fury. hour after hour, the toll mounted: 27 dead at the week's end, nearly 600 injured, 1700 arrested, and property damage well over $100 million. The good that came out of all of this, is that thousands of negroes were flocking to register in the nine counties in alabama, louisiana, and mississippi where the government posted federal examiners to uphold the voting law. in four days, 6,998 negro voters were added to the rolls in counties where there had previously been only 3,857. In that time of sorrow and guilt when King was murdered, there was an opening for peace between the races that might otherwise never have presented itself. president johnson pleaded, "i ask every citizen to reject the blind violence that has struck dr. King." he went on to say that to bring meaning to his death, we must be determined to strike forcefully at the consciences of all americans in order to wrest from tragedy and trauma, the will to make a better society. The Student Movement Americans who were young in the 1960s influenced the course of the decade as no group had before. the motto of the time was "don't trust anyone over 30." another, "tell it like it is," conveyed a real mistrust of what they considered adult deviousness. Youthful americans were outraged by the intolerance of their universities, racial inequality, social injustice, the viet nam war, and the economic and political constraints of everyday life and work. one group that formed during this time was s.d.s. (students for a democratic society). opposed to "imperialism," racism, and oppression, the s.d.s. found the american university guilty of all three. they did do some good at the beginning like organizing northern ghetto dwellers in projects such as chicago's jobs or income, now (join). but the viet nam war led to a change in their tactics. they became an independent radical force against society. the deluge of disorders made it harder and harder for most americans to keep events in perspective. they tended to forget that most of the nation's 6,700,000 collegians were studying hard at school and not causing trouble. an underlying pattern emerged in the american university. the university suddenly became a political arena. the students wanted to address the national problems of war, race, and poverty. as a result, the university lost some of its neutrality. students created a new u.s. institution: the political university. However, another element among youths was also emerging. They were called hippies. this movement marked another response to the decade as the young experimented with music, clothes, drugs, and a "counter-culture" lifestyle. in 1967, hippies preached altruism and mysticism, honesty, joy and nonviolence. they had a child-like fascination for beads, blossoms, and bells, strobe lights, ear-shattering music, exotic clothing and erotic slogans. they wanted to profess "flower power" and love. they were predominantly white, middle-class, educated youths, ranging in age from 17 to 25. Perhaps the most striking thing about the hippie phenomenon, is the way it touched the imagination of the "straight" society. hippie slang entered common usage and spiced american humor. boutiques sprang up in urban and suburban areas to sell the "psychedelic" color clothes and designs that resembled art nouveau. A major development in the hippie world was the "rural community," where nature-loving hippie "tribesmen" escaped the commercialism of the cities in an attempt to build a society outside of society. another development was the illicit use of drugs, creating the slogan, "tune in, turn on, drop out." "better living through chemistry" was another advertising slogan that was a sly joke to the young, but a real worry to their parents. Marijuana (pot, grass, mary jane, weed) was their favorite preparation. however, some were smoking hash, taking mescaline, peyote, lsd, barbiturates and sedatives. The list goes on and on. and it was only the beginning. Drug use was everywhere. rock musicians used drugs frequently and openly. their compositions were riddled with references to drugs, from the beatles' "i get high with a little help from my friends" to the jefferson airplane's "white rabbit." Space Exploration At the end of 1968, americans became the first human beings to reach the moon. seven months later, they were the first to actually walk on the moon. their telecast gave earthbound viewers an unforgettable view of the moon. Astronaut lovell reported, "the moon is essentially grey, no color. we can see quite a bit of detail. the craters are all rounded off." On christmas eve, the astronauts of apollo 8 (borman, lovell, and anders) gave their best description of the moon in a most impressive telecast. "this is apollo 8 coming to you live from the moon," reported borman, focusing his camera on the lunar surface. "the moon is a different thing to each of us," said borman. "my impression is that it's a vast, lonely, forbidding-type existence......it certainly would not be a very inviting place to live or work." Lovell agreed, but added, "the vast loneliness up here is awe-inspiring, and it makes you realize just what you have back there on earth." In apollo 11, the astronauts landed on the moon on july 25, 1969. astronaut neil armstrong called out the word everyone was waiting for......."houston," he called. "tranquility base here. the eagle has landed." all of america was on the edge of their seats. it was a very exciting time; cheers, tears and frantic applause went up around the nation. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," became the watchword when u.s. Astronaut armstrong said this as he placed his foot firmly on the fine-grained surface of the moon. after centuries of dreams and prophecies, the moment had come. man broke his terrestrial shackles and set foot on another world. the new view could help man place his problems, as well as his world, in a new perspective. The Sexual Revolution The medical introduction of the "pill" changed the interaction between the sexes dramatically in 1964. Americans discovered that the freedom from fear of unwanted pregnancy went hand in hand with other kinds of sexual freedom. it became an era in which morals were held to be both private and relative, in which pleasure was being considered almost like a constitutional right rather than a privilege, in which self-denial became increasingly seen as foolish rather than virtuous. The "pill" is a tablet that contains as little as one thirty-thousandth of an ounce of chemical. it used to cost 1 1/4 cents to manufacture and a month's supply sold for $2.00, retail. yet, in a mere six years, it changed and liberated the sex and family life of a large segment of the u.s. Population. did the convenient contraceptive promote promiscuity? are americans paying the price today for the decline in morals and values? The Environment A book written by rachel carson, silent spring, earned her a reputation not only as a competent marine biologist, but as a gifted writer. the villains in silent spring are chemical pesticides, against which miss carson took up her pen in alarm and anger. many readers were firmly convinced that most of the u.s. Was already laced with poison that would soon start taking a dreadful toll. the only way to fix the situation was to stop using chemical pesticides and let the "balance of nature" take care of the insects. Another "activist" of the day was lady bird johnson, president johnson's wife. she envisioned beautification all over america. she is generally credited with inspiring the highway beautification act of 1965. This is the decade when scientists were becoming more vocal about the ozone layer, pollution, and smoking cigarettes. americans became aware of the dangers they encountered everyday and would perhaps hand down to their children. the federal communications commission voted 6 to 1 to ban cigarette advertising on radio and tv. eventually, with congressional approval, cigarette packages had a new warning on them: "caution: cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health." Medicine and Health Mistakes made in the past caused great social and health problems to children around the world when it was discovered that using a tranquilizer called thalidomide caused severe birth defects. babies were born with hands and feet like flippers, attached close to the body with little or no arm or leg. as results of using thalidomide became apparent, every compound drug containing thalidomide was taken off the market. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Abraham of Chaldea.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Abraham of Chaldea Abraham : From the Bible The following is a narrative description on the life and times of one of the most powerful characters in the Old Testament. Abraham was indeed a man of God in a time where few men believed in the One true God. Through many triumphs and errors, he always returned to God to lead him back to his calling. His dedication resulted in great promises from God that were eventually fulfilled and affect each of our lives today. His story is our story. Abraham was a native of Chaldea, and a ninth generation descendant of Shem, the son of Noah. He was born on the southern tip of the Tigris and Uuphrates rivers in the city of Ur around 2161BC.1 Before his name was changed to Abraham, his name was Abram. When Abram was about seventy years of age he moved with his family to live in Haran. The reason he moved was because "The God of glory appeared to our father Abram when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, "Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you." 2 While in Haran, Abram's father died and God spoke to him again saying, "Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you." 3 He obeyed and left Haran with his brother Nahor's family and his Nephew Lot without really knowing where he was going. At this time, God did not reveal to him he was going to Canaan. God only told him "the land which I will show you." 4 When he did arrive in Canaan, he camped in the plains of Moreh, between the mountains of Ebal and Cerizim. It was here he was given the second promise from God that his seed would possess this land. Abram built "an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him" 5 He then moved to the mountainous district between Bethel and Ai. Here, he built another altar to Jehovah. Throughout the story of Abram, he consistently went back to Bethel to make amends with God. All of God's children should have a similar alter they should go to when praising God. This could be the front of your church, but should be in public. 6 Archeo logy has since proved that Bethel is the modern village of Baytin. 7 When in this area, a famine struck forcing Abram to move southward toward Egypt. God talked to Abram on the mountain East of Bethel where he built an alter unto the Lord. Each person should have their own personal alter to go before God, this should also be done in public. When he did get to Egypt, Abram told his first recorded lie. Because his wife Sarah was beautiful, he feared she would lusted by after the Egyptians and endanger his life. He also knew the Pharaoh was also concerned of Abram's presence along with other Hyksos in the region. 8 Abram persuaded Sarah to pass herself off as his sister. This lie could probably be considered a lighter shade of gray considering Sarah was his half sister, having the same father but a different mother. 9 When the Egyptians saw how beautiful she was, they took her to Pharaoh's harem. As a consequence, God plagued Pharaoh & his house. When the Pharaoh found out Sarah was Abram's wife, he sent him and his clan out of Egypt to fend for themselves in the famished land. Because Abram told this lie, God allowed this to happen. Abram went out of Egypt and returned to Bethel the second time to call on the name of the Lord. While in Bethel, both Lot's and Abram's livestock could not be supported by the land, and strife began between their herdsmen. Abram gave Lot his first choice of where he wanted to settle. Instead of choosing the unknown territory toward Canaan, Lot chose the easy way out and went East to Jordan near the populated city of Sodom. The motif of scripture for this story is simple. Abram gave more than he took. He let Lot take what he wanted and left it to God to bless him with what was left. Lot's mistake was he stopped growing in God's faith and stagnated. He soon found out that everything is not as it seem s. If one only takes, but does not give, it soon gets them into trouble. On the other hand, Abram was rewarded with a third blessing for his faith. God reiterated His promise to give him the land of Canaan and a posterity as numerous as the dust of the earth. So Abram moved his clan and camped near Hebron where he built another altar to Jehovah. In the mean time, Lot got himself in the middle of a war between rivaling Babylonian kings in the area. As a result, the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fell and their cities were spoiled. Lot and his goods were also carried off. When Abram heard of this, he immediately armed his dependents, 318 men, and some of his neighbors. They overtook and defeated the kings at Dan, near the springs of Jordan. To accomplish this, Abram must have been a military genius. After Abram freed Lot, you would think he would have learnt his lesson, but he returned with his family to live in Sodom. When Abram was returning, the king of Sodom came out to meet him at the King's Valley along with Melchizedek, king of Salem and "priest of the most high God." 10 Melchizedek brought him bread and wine, and blessed him by saying, "Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand." 11 Hebrew tradition says that Melchizedek was Shem, son of Noah and survivor of the flood This tradidion believes he was still alive at the time and the earth's oldest living man. Others think that Melchizedek was an Angel or the Messiah himself. 12 In return, Abram presented Melchizedek a tenth of all he had. This is the first mention of tithing, and is still used as a guideline today. The king of Sodom attempted to give Abram the spoils of the war, but he refused. Abram told the king, "I have sworn to the Lord God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, that I would not take a thread or a sandal- thong or your, lest you should say, "I have made Abram rich." I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten." 13 After this episode, The Lord rewarded Abram for his faithfulness and came to him in a vision. God said, "Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." 14 In response, Abram asked how this could be since he did not have any children. God proceeded to encourage Abram through a distinct and detailed repetition of former promises He had made and by a solemn covenant contracted between himself and God. God told him his seed should be as numerous as the stars of heaven, that his posterity should grow up into a nation under foreign bondage, and that after four hundred years they should come up and possess the land in which he sojourned. After living in Canaan for ten years, Sarai went to Abram and said, " The Lord has prevented me from bearing children." 15 As she was seventy-five years of age, she followed contemporary custom and allowed Abram to impregnate Hagar, 16 her Egyptian handmaid. After this, Sarai got jealous of Hargar and told Abram that Hargar was looking at her with contempt. Abram told Sarai that Hargar was under her authority, and she could to with her as she pleased. Sarai subsequently dealt so harshly with Hagar that she fled. But an angel of the Lord appeared to her in the wilderness and convinced her to return to Sarai and submit herself to her. The angel told her she was pregnant and would give birth to a son who would greatly multiply her descendants. The angel told her to call the name of this child Ishmael. Thirteen years later, when Abram was 99 years old, God appeared to him and changed his name from Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah. In a token to consummate the covenant, God commanded that Abraham, all males of his tribe and male descendants of his be circumcised. God also renewed his covenant to Abraham through the angles by assured him that Sarah, then ninety years old, would bear a child from his loins. Abraham laughed at this and questioned how an old man like himself could impregnate a 90 year old woman. Abraham said, "O that Ishmael might live in thy sight!" 17 God assured him Ishmael would make him fruitful also and make a great nation of him. But God told him that Sarah would indeed bear him a son and he should call his name Isaac. God said he would establish a covenant with Isaac and all his descendants. After this meeting with conversation with God, Abraham obeyed him and all males were circumcised. After this covenant, Abraham was visited by three travelers. One of these travelers was the "Angel of Jehovah" and two others were attending angels. 18 These angels proceeded to reiterate to Abraham the promise of a son by Sarah. Sarah was listening at the tent door and laughed to herself thinking of how preposterous it was for a woman and man of their age to actually have sex, let alone for her to conceive a child. The angels knew of this laughter and asked why she had done so. Sarah denied it, but the Lord said through the angels "No, but you did laugh." 19 These angels then left and set out toward Sodom. As Abraham was walking with them for a part of the way, God chose to disclose to him the destruction he had in mind for Sodom and Gomorrah. At this time, God allowed Abraham to negotiated with Him over destroying the cities if any righteous people were found living their. As it was, no righteous people lived in these cities, not even Lot and his family. The next morning, Abraham got up early in the morning and saw the fate of the cities as smoke rose "up as the smoke of a furnace. 20 When Abraham was one hundred years old, and Sarah ninety, Isaac was born. Abraham circumcised Isaac when he was eight days old as commanded. Subsequently, during a feast on the day Isaac was weaned, Sarah saw Ishmael and Hagar mocking her. This infuriated her so much that she insisted to Abraham they be sent away. Abraham reluctantly consented after God told him that not only would his descendants be numerous through Isaac, but also Ishmael. Abraham gave Hagar bread and water and sent her off. God subsequently kept Hagar from leaving Ishmael to die when all food and water was gone. An angel of God called to her from heaven and told her a great nation would rise from Ishmael. This great nation would be the Arabs. God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water and gave her son a drink. Ishmael eventually grew up in the wilderness of Paran, and became an expert archer. The dispute of who received the promise of Canaan, Isaac or Ishmael, still broils the hatred between the Jews and Arabs today. The Jews believe Isaac was given the promise of Canaan, and the Arabs believe Ishmael inherited this promise. After this, God tested Abraham by commanding him to go to Mt. Moriah and offer up Isaac as a sacrifice. This was a great test of Abraham's faith, because Isaac's death would nullify all the promises God gave to Abraham concerning Isaac. Abraham probably decided to obey, because "he considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead." 21 Abraham rose early in the morning, cut wood for the burnt offering, and set off for the mountains near Moriah with two of his servants and Isaac. On the third day of their journey, Abraham saw the place God told him to go to. He told his servants he and his son would go on without them to worship and then return. When Isaac asked Abraham where was the lamb for the burnt offering, Abraham told him that God would provide the lamb Himself. Abraham proceeded to build the altar and secured on top of it. As he was about to slay Isaac with a knife, the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, " Abraham! Abraham! Do not lay your hand on the lad, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son from me." 22 Abraham stopped, looked up, and saw a ram caught in a thicket by his horns. He took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. This test of Abraham 's faith is a Type of Christ. This is because Abraham can be considered like God when he was willing to sacrificed his only son on the cross. Also, Isaac was a young man as was Jesus and adult Ram was offered in Isaac's place. Abraham called the name of this sacrificial place "The Lord Will Provide." 23 After this, the angel of the Lord called Abraham a second time and said, "Because you have done this, I will indeed bless you. I will Multiply you descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand on the seashore. They shall possess the gate of their enemies, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed by them, because you have obeyed my voice.". After this event, Abraham returned to his servants and with them went to Beer-sheba where Abraha m dwelt. 24 The next event recorded in Abraham's life is the death of Sarah at 127 years of age. She died near Hebron in the land of Canaan. Abraham buried her in a cave he cleverly purchased from the Hittites n the field of Machpelah. The next significant act of Abraham was to procure a suitable wife for Isaac. He commanded his eldest servant to go to Haran, where Abraham's brother Nahor lived to get Isaac's wife. The servant went to Haran with many camels and gifts. When he got to Haran, he made the camels kneel down by a well during the evening. He did this because he knew the women of the city would come out at that time to get water from the well. He then prayed to the Lord, "O Lord, God of my master Abraham, grant me success today, I pray thee, and show steadfast love to my master, I am standing by the spring, and the daughters of the city are coming out to draw water. Let the maiden to whom I shall say, "Pray let down your jar that I may drink, "and who shall say, "Drink, a nd I will water your camels"--let her be the one whom thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac". 25 Before he had finished this prayer, Rebekah, a beautiful virgin, and granddaughter of Nahor, came out with her water jar upon her shoulder. When she had filled her jar with water, the servant ran to meet her and asked her for a drink. Rebekah quickly let down her jar and told him she would draw water for his camels also. After the camels finished drinking, the servant gave her gold ring and two bracelets and asked her who her father was. Rebekah said she was the daughter of Nahor and ran to show her family the jewelry. After some convincing by the servant who told the family it was God's will for Rebekah to return with him, they let her go. She returned with the servant and married Isaac. Abraham died when he was 175 years old and was buried by Isaac and Ishmael in the cave of Machpelah around 1986 BC with his wife Sarah. After Abraham's death, God blessed Isaac as promised. SUMMARY Abraham was truly a man of God. Although he still had his human frailties, he ultimately trusted in God and always came back to Him for forgiveness and guidance. His spiritual experience with God was indicative of four specific areas in which his faith was tested. First, he gave up his country and kindred; second, he broke off with his nephew, Lot; thirdly, he abandoned his plans for Ishmael to be his hope for his ultimate heritage, and fourth, he was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac. 26 In the end, God rewarded Abraham by fulfilling the four great promises He made to him: 1) Great nations would come from him. 2) God would bless and prosper him. 3) Sarah would give him a child named Isaac. 4) His generations would produce the savior of the world, Jesus Christ. Praise God for the lessons he has given us through the life of Abraham. I stand in awe thinking that not only will I be able to meet Abraham in heaven, but also our Lord who guided him throughout. BIBLIOGRRAPHY * J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology (Wm. B. Eerdmands Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan) * Henry H. Halley, Bible Handbook, 1951 * National Geographic Society, Everyday Life in Bible Times * Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks (Harper & Row, Publishers) * John H. Tullock, The Old Testament Story (Prentice-Hall, Inc.) * The Reader's Digest Bible Illustrated Edition (Reader's Digest Associated Limited) * The Holy Bible, King James Version (The World Publishing Company) * The New Ungers's Bible Dictionary (Moody Press) 1 Ungers, pg. 12 2 King James, Acts 7:2-3 3 King James, Gen. 12:1 4 King James, Gen. 12:1 5 King James, Gen. 12:6-7 6 Class Lecture, Jon Randles 7 Everyday life in Bible Times, pg. 89 8 Class Lecture, Jon Randles 9 King James, Gen. 20:12 10 King James, Gen. 14:17 11 King James, Gen. 14:19-20 12 Halley, pg. 95 13 Reader's Digest Bible, pg. 35 14 King James, 15:1 15 Reader's Digest Bible, pg. 35 16 Unger's, pg. 13 17 Reader's Digest Bible, pg. 36 18 Unger's, pg. 13 19 Reader's Digest Bible, pg. 37 20 King James, Gen. 19:28 21 Heb. 11:19 22 Reader's Digest Bible, pg. 40 23 Unger's, pg. 14 24 Reader's Digest Bible, pg. 40 25 Reader's Digest Bible, pg. 40-41 26 Ungers's, pg. 14 Word Count: 3207 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Abstraction in Early Christian and Roman Art.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Syndretizm and Abstraction in Early Christian and Roman Art Within the 500 years of history from the introduction of Christian art around 200 CE until the ban on religious images in eighth century Byzantium,a continuity between the classical religious tradition and Christianity is evident. Syncretism, or the assimilation of images from other traditions, defined the Late Antique period's aesthetic transition into the first three centuries of Byzantine art creating a bridge between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. In late Rome, amidst a growing trend toward abstraction, classical forms and values were yielding to a symbolic realism in imperial secular art, setting the stage for later abstract spiritual values in Christian artworks. The late Roman world was experiencing a variety of problems.The rapid succession and violent overthrow of the imperial leaders, military disasters, growing inflation and taxation, along with the abandonment of traditional religion, opened the door for new trends in philosophy and religion that offered an escape from the realities of a harsh world.The Greek concept of a man-centered humanistic art was fading. Art shifted away from Hellenistic skills including foreshortening, atmostpheric perspective, and re-creating reality, toward a two dimensional symbolic approach with a more rigid style. "The contrast of light and shadow, the generation of natural forms, and the optical effects of classical art, gave way to newly abstracted forms with a concentration on sybolism played against the classical backdrop creating aesthic and emotional appeal. " (Byzantine Art in the Making, p.114) The Arch of Constantine and the statue group known as The Tetrarchs are examples of the collapse of the classical art forms in official works of late Roman art. Both exhibit "characters with stubby proportions, angular movements, and ordering of parts through symmetry and repetition " (Art History, p.283) Symbolic importance was stressed rather than laws of nature. Simplfied and stripped down to essentials, the images communicated forceful and direct messages. As the traditional Roman influence on art starts to decay, early Christian art continues the use of symbolism and demonstrates a continuity with the classical period by incorporating ancient symbols and ideas. Until Constantine the Great made Christianity one of the Roman Empire's state religions with the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, Christian art was restricted to the decoration of the hidden places of worship, such as catacombs and meeting houses."In imperial Rome, citizens had the legal right to bury their dead in underground rooms beside the Appian Way, the city's chief thoroughfare.By the late second century some of the tombs displayed Christian symbols and subjects, suggesting the increasing confidence of the new religion in an otherwise hostile Roman environment."(Western Humanities , p.149) Most of the early representations in Christian painting were derived from Roman art, stylized to fit into Christian beliefs."There are several reasons for this use of a common visual language; central to all of these reasons is the fact that adaptation to the surrounding culture was necessary for the survival of the new religion, and a primary cause of its triumph over the Greco-Roman religion." (The Begining of Christian Art , p.27) The catacomb paintings were rich in images, using iconography and symbolism to convey the ideas of Christian resurrectrion, salvation,and life after death. The style of these paintings mainly focused on the message, rather than on the naturalism of earlier Greco-Roman art. "The mundane aspects of the scenes are disregarded; their settings contain a bare minimum of furniture and architecture. The figures themselves, apart from the faces, with their big, staring eyes, lack plasticity and their attitudes and gestures are quite unlike those of real life. They have no weight, no real contact with the ground, but seem to hover lightly just above it. The space surrounding the figures and objects is sketchily indicated, everything is flattened, schematized. Clearly, for the artists who made these images, material reality counted for nothing, and one can only suppose that this habit of shutting their eyes to the physical world was a whole-hearted adoption of the new faith, in which the spiritual world was man's sole concern." (The Catacombs, p.73 ) The visual aspect of religion was very important, especially in an environment in which, for the most part, people did not read. This symbolic and syncretic religious art becomes an easy way to spread teachings, especially among a people that are used to seeing their gods as the Greeks and Romans. There are many instances of pagan images being either adapted to Christian use or placed alongside Christian images. Common motifs were used in the early Christian catacomb paintings melding Greco-Roman images into Christian artistic representations. Depictions of Jesus as shepherd, Christ as Helios, and the story of Jonah are all examples of syncretism used to convey religious messages within the fledgling Christian religion. In this paper I will focus on the image of the Good Shepherd. In the Catacomb of Callixtus, a third-century fresco depicts a youthful shepherd as a symbol of Jesus. A similar depiction can also be found at Dura Europas, in an ancient Christian meeting- house. Christ the Good Shepherd of the Twenty-third Psalm was often depicted as a beardless youth derived from the pagan god Apollo and with other ties to many Mediterranean mythologies. " Beyond the Apollonian parallels found in the depictions of the shepherd... one must think only of the Babylonian Tammuz, the Greek Adonis, and by extension, the Egyptian Osiris, who bears, as symbols of his royalty, a flail and a small staff that resembles a shepherd's crook" (The Origins of Christian Art , p.62) Other evidence of a continuity based on the mythological past are the musical pipes the shepherd is sometimes portrayed with, reminiscent of Orpheus figures surrounded by animals that listen to him play. "The profession of shepherd was associated with the Orphic cult leader Orpheus" (The Beginning of Christian Art, p.58) In early Christian art, the shepherd figure was sometimes portrayed as a man with a sheep on his shoulders;Christ as the shepherd leading the stray sheep back to the fold. Interestingly, this pose of the youth carrying an animal on his shoulders appeared in Archaic Greek sculpture as early as the sixth century BCE. Even though the shepherd and sheep convey a Christian message, the image adapts a familiar Greco-Roman theme-known already in popular art. From the first appearance of serious cracks in the structure of the Roman empire as a universal power, until the Early Byzantine period, artistic trends were dominated by a blending of traditional images, or syncretism,and symbolism conveyed emotionally by the increased use of abstraction. During this turbulent period, a firm foundation developed for medieval art both in the East and in the West.Throughout the Middle ages this same basic formula with its focus on symbolism was used many times in religious contexts to express similar ideas. Word Count: 1123 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\ADOLF HITLER.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ADOLF HITLER 1. THE BEGINNING At half past six on the evening of April 20th, 1889 a child was born in the small town of Branau, Austria. The name of the child was Adolf Hitler. He was the son a Customs official Alois Hitler, and his third wife Klara. As a young boy Adolf attendated church regulary and sang in the local choir. One day he carved a symbol into the bench which resembled the Swastika he later used as the symbol of the Nazi party. He was a pretty good student. He received good marks in most of his classes. However in his last year of school he failed German and Mathematics, and only succeeded in Gym and Drawing. He drooped out of school at the age of 16, spending a total of 10 years in school. From childhood one it was his dream to become an artist or architect. He was not a bad artist, as his surviving paintings and drawings show but he never showed any originality or creative imagination. To fullfil his dream he had moved to Vienna the capital of Austria where the Academy of arts was located. He failed the first time he tried to get admission and in the next year, 1907 he tried again and was very sure of success. To his surprise he failed again. In fact the Dean of the academy was not very impressed with his performance, and gave him a really hard time and said to him "You will never be painter." The rejection really crushed him as he now reached a dead end. He could not apply to the school of architecture as he had no high-school diploma. During the next 35 years of his live the young man never forgot the rejection he received in the dean's office that day. Many Historians like to speculate what would have happened IF.... perhaps the small town boy would have had a bit more talent....or IF the Dean had been a little less critical, the world might have been spared the nightmare into which this boy was eventually to plunge it. 2. WORLD WAR I While living in Vienna Hitler he made his living by drawing small pictures of famous landmarks which he sold as post cards. But he was always poor. He was also a regular reader of a small paper which claimed that the Araban race was superior to all and was destined to rule the world. The paper blamed Communists and Jews for all their problems and hitler agreed to those views. Hitler agree with most of the points made in the publication. He continued to live a poor live in Vienna and in 1913 decided to move to Munich. Still living in Vienna and being Austrain by birth, Hitler showed more loyalty to the Geramny. He thought that the Aryan race was destined to rule the world. Many believe that he tried to escape the draft but it was never proven. His live in Munich was not much better then before and he continued to be poor. Then in 1914 World War I broke out and Hitler saw this as a great opportunity to show his loyalty to the "fatherland" by volunteering for the Imperial army. He did not want to fight in the Austrian Army. Hitler was a good soldier. Many of political opponents claimed that he was a coward but records clearly show that he was not. He received to awards of bravery but never achieved a high Rank. In 1918 Germany surrendered and Hitler was very upset about the loss. He believed that it was the Jews and the Communists who betrayed the "fatherland" and it was here that his disliking of the Jews most likely began. Germany after the war was in chaos. With no real Government to control the country, many groups tried to take control. One day a big communist group staged a big riot but another group of ex-soldiers including Hitler managed to hold them back. 3. THE NAZI PARTY Since there were not many chances for employment Hitler stayed in the army. Hitler was assigned the job of going go to various meetings of groups which sprang up like mushrooms and to report on them. One day September 12, 1919 - a fateful day in history, Hitler was sent to investigate a small group which called itself the "German Workers Party". Hitler was not to happy about his assignment. He thought it wouldn't be worth it to even go. At the group mainly talked about the Countries problem and how the Jews, communists and others where threatening the master race and offered their own solutions. Hitler was bored by the meeting but when a man stood up and claimed that Bavaria should separate from Germany, Hitler got up and argued that point. He argued that Germany and germans must unite into one to survive. His natural ability to speak imprest the leader of the group and at the end of the meeting he gave Hitler a pamphlet and an initiation the next meeting. He wasn't interested in attending but after reading the hand out he accepted. He later joined the German Workers Party and was in charge of Propaganda. The party was small at first but Hitler's great skill at deliberating speeches attracted more and more listeners and it soon became a major party with many followers. Eventually Adolf Hitler became it's leader and the rest as they say....is history. 4. HITLER IN POWER While spending time in prison for trying to overthrow the government Adolf Hitler wrote his famous book "Mein Kampf", in which he describes many problems and where he states that the Jews and communists were responsible for those problems. He also decided on the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Question". It was his goal to eliminate the Jewish race from the European continent. It is interesting to look and see how a small time boy from Austria with no education, money or political background could become within a few years the leader of big nation such as Germany. Historians believe that Hitler saw a great opportunity to get his views across to the German people who have lost all hope. Of course people did not start to support him right away. After he came into power, the Nazi party took control over every aspect of every day life. Hitler ordered the creation of a special police force to make sure that all opponents would be elimanted, the Gestapo. He also gave orders to set up a special force which would be used to transport and take care of all political prisioners and people thought to be inferior. The name of the force was the feared SS. Mass propaganda was used to persuade the German people that the "Fuhrer" would make the country strong and powerful again. They also used propaganda against the Jews and other minority groups which were considered enemies. Teachers had to belong to the Nazi party, and children were taught that Jews very the source of all their problems. Since the country was in chaos after the war, and was forced to pay billions in damages, The Germans saw hope in Adolf Hitler. In the late 20's the depression hit which made the situation even worse. Hitler in his speeches blamed the Jews and Communists for their misfortunes and many listed. Unemployment was very high at that time standing at about 25%. Hitler also spoke out against the unfairness of the Versailles treaty. Germany lost a lot of its territory. The Empire was no more. He believed the pure Araban race is destined to rule the world and wanted to build an Empire that would last a 1000 years. He preached that all Germans must unite in order for this goal to succeed. Hitler publicly stated his views on the Jews. But the Jews of Germany didn't see Hitler as a great threat at first. However when Hitler became chancellor and eventually took over totally they changed their mind. The first thing he did was to take the Jews their right to vote. Soon they were not allowed to marry with a pure german, they could not hold positions such as teachers, doctors lawyers,..and so on. Many Jews only then realized that he was serious and many fled Germany. Why did so many Germans follow Hitler? When he took power the economy was basically non existent. Many looked for answers and hope. Hitler was their answer. He promised to rebuild the Glorious Germany of the past. First he started to build up the Wehrmacht. Germany was not allowed to have more than 100,000 men, but Hitler broke the treaty and gave orders to increase that number. Factories started putting out weapons and people now had jobs. To the Germans this was a very good sign. Mass rallies were held, where Hitler continued to use his powers of speech on the German people. 5. THE ROAD TO WAR At first the allies did nothing about the fact that Hitler broke the Treaty. He gave speeches in which he indicated that the German people needed living space. Later he Marched into the Reihnland, and area which Germany lost. Next He moved into Austria, his home country and annexed it without a shoot being fired into the Reich. Following Austria, he wanted control of the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia which was mainly German speaking. He also achieved that goal. The allies didn't want another war so they led Hitler do what he wanted to, but when he Attacked Poland on September 1st, 1939 the allies no longer stood by and watched. Britain and France declared war on Germany a few days after later, World War II began. 6. THE DARK SIDE After the Wehrmacht conquered and occupied a territory the SS quickly followed. They would round up Jews, Communists, Gypsies, Homosexuals and others which were viewed as "Inferior" according to Nazi racial theory and enemies of the German people and put on trains. They were all sent to Concentration camps, which were set up to implement the 'final solution'. Camps such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergen Belsen were all equipped with gas chambers to make the killing process quick and efectfull. In those camps 6 million Jews and many others were killed by the Nazis. Hitler's army seemed unstoppable but in the end, the allies managed to win many decisive battles. Eventually on Aril 30th, 1945 Hitler committed suicide in his bunker by shooting himself in the mouth. His body was burned, but no ones knows what happened to the "Fuhrer's" ashes. On May 7th, 1945 Germany surrendered unconditionally. 7. THE MAN Hitler was one of the most, if not the most cruel man to ever walk the face of the earth. His believe of the superiorority of the "Aryan" race made him hate all others. He believed that the slaws to the east should be made work for the German people. He thought of blacks as being "Sub-human". And Most of all he hated the Jews. So much that in early 1945, when equipment and manpower was badly needed on the front Hitler insisited on man and equipment staying and continuing to tranport Jews to the camps. In his Testament he left his money to his family. And message to the Germany people "Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, international Jewry." The only people which would be spared where the Scandinavians to the north, since they were closely related to the German race. With Hitler's death the Nazi party quickly fated. But there is still a lot of tension in todays Germany. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\African American Troops in the Civil War The 54th Massachus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ African-American Troops in the Civil War: The 54th Massachusetts The Fifty-fourth Massachusetts was organized in early 1863 by Robert Gould Shaw, twenty-six year old member of a prominent Boston abolitionist family. Shaw had earlier served in the Seventh New York National Guard and the Second Massachusetts Infantry, and was appointed colonel of the Fifty-fourth in February 1863 by Massachusetts governor John A. Andrew. As one of the first black units organized in the northern states, the Fifty-fourth was the object of great interest and curiosity, and its performance would be considered an important indication of the possibilities surrounding the use of blacks in combat. The regiment was composed primarily of free blacks from throughout the north, particularly Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Amongst its recruits was Lewis N. Douglass, son of the famous ex-slave and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass. After a period of recruiting and training, the unit proceeded to the Department of the South, arriving at Hilton Head, South Carolina, on June 3, 1863. The regiment earned its greatest fame on July 18, 1863, when it led the unsuccessful and controversial assault on the Confederate positions at Battery Wagner. In this desperate attack, the Fifty-fourth was placed in the vanguard and over 250 men of the regiment became casualties. Shaw, the regiment's young colonel, died on the crest of the enemy parapet, shouting, "Forward, Fifty-fourth!" That heroic charge, coupled with Shaw's death, made the regiment a household name throughout the north, and helped spur black recruiting. For the remainder of 1863 the unit participated in siege operations around Charleston, before boarding transports for Florida early in February 1864. The regiment numbered 510 officers and men at the opening of the Florida Campaign, and its new commander was Edward N. Hallowell, a twenty-seven year old merchant from Medford, Massachusetts. Anxious to avenge the Battery Wagner repulse, the Fifty-fourth was the best black regiment available to General Seymour, the Union commander. Along with the First North Carolina Colored Infantry, the Fifty-fourth entered the fighting late in the day at Olustee, and helped save the Union army from complete disaster. The Fifty-fourth marched into battle yelling, "Three cheers for Massachusetts and seven dollars a month." The latter referred to the difference in pay between white and colored Union infantry, long a sore point with colored troops. Congress had just passed a bill correcting this and giving colored troops equal pay. However, word of the bill would not reach these troops until after the battle of Olustee. The regiment lost eighty-six men in the battle, the lowest number of the three black regiments present. After Olustee, the Fifty- fourth was not sent to participate in the bloody Virginia campaigns of 1864-1865. Instead it remained in the Department of the South, fighting in a number of actions before Charleston and Savannah. More than a century after the war the Fifty-fourth remains the most famous black regiment of the war, due largely to the popularity of the movie "Glory", which recounts the story of the regiment prior to and including the attack on Battery Wagner. To better show how the 54th felt underfire, here is a letter home from Orderly Sergeant W.N. Collins of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry accounting Plotter's Raid. "Well, we arrived at Georgetown, S.C., on the 3Ist (March 1865), and went into camp. On the 1st of April we started upon our errand through the State, and had nothing to molest us for three days. We saw nothing of the Johnnies, and on Friday the 8th of April, at Epp's Ferry, Cos. H and A were detached from the regiment to go and destroy the said Ferry. Myself, one corporal and fifteen privates were in the advance. On we went, neither hearing nor seeing any thing in particular. After advancing about two miles, and wading through water and mud, we spied a Johnny sitting upon his horse as a picket. He left his post and secreted himself. Halting my men for further orders, I received instructions to proceed forward with the utmost caution, and screen my men as much as possible in the woods. The swamp through which we had to pass was waist-deep. Onward we went, and after getting through the swamp, not over seventy-five yards from Johnny, he saw that we were getting too close to him; and at that time the Second-Lieutenant of Co. A came along, and I told him that Johnny was getting ready to fire; and at that moment, Johnny's balls began to fall thick and fast around us. The Lieutenant got wounded in the right arm. I had two men wounded - one in the right leg, the other in both shoulders; and it appeared to us that the Johnnies had nothing much but bird-shot to fire at us, which whizzed about our ears in perfect showers. The writer got stung slightly in the left hand by one of these diminutive missiles from Johnny's shot-gun. They saw that we were determined to complete the job, and they destroyed the levee and fled. So we returned to our command on the 8th. We entered Manningville with a loss of but one man killed, who belonged to the 4th Massachusetts Regiment. On the I0th we left Manningville, and arrived at Sumterville on Sabbath, the 11th; and after a short and sharp fight, we took the place, captured three pieces of artillery complete, killed five rebels, wounded some more, and also captured a few. We encamped in the city that night, and destroyed the depot, together with three locomotives and a train of thirty-five cars. We left on the I3th, after destroying every thing that fire would burn, and went to Manchester, and there destroyed one locomotive and a train of twenty cars. The 54th was detailed to go seven miles from the place for the purpose of destroying some trestle-work. After a considerable amount of delay, the advance guard, which was from Co. F, Sergeant Frank M. Welch commanding, pushed forth. They had not gone far when they espied a train of cars, with locomotive attached, and a full head of steam on. The column at once halted and Colonel Henry N. Hooper went forward to see for himself and there, sure enough, was the train. The sharp report of a rifle soon told those on the train that the blood-hounds were on the track. The engineer immediately jumped from the train and ran for his life. Nothing could be seen of him but coat-tails and dust. The command to move forward was given. With a loud yell and tremendous cheer the boys charged over the trestle-work, three miles in length, caught the cars, and ran them ourselves in place of the rebels. Lieutenant Stephen A. Swails got wounded in his right arm. There are forty cars and six locomotives, and we destroyed then all. Some of the cars were loaded. We then turned the track upside-down. Sergeant Major John H. Wilson and Private Gee. Jorris, of Co. A, got mashed by the cars. Private Jorris got his collar-bone broken. The Sergeant Major has got partly over the injuries he received. Leaving there, we encamped at Singleton's plantation, and sent two thousand contrabands to Georgetown in charge of the 32 U.S.C.T. When they returned, we started upon our mission - and from that time, the 14th, we fought every day with the rebels, and drove them before us. But at length they made a stand at Swiss Creek, and fought desperately. We captured nine prisoners. On the 15th we left for the purpose of taking Camden, which we did capturing all of the rebel sick and wounded there, numbering, a least, from three to four hundred men. On the I6th. we left Camden, and from that we fought until we got to Swiss Creek, where the rebels again made a stand. Cos. F and H were on the skirmish line, the battalion on the reserve, the 102d U.S.C.T. in the center, and the 3rd U.S.C.T. on the left wing. We drove them to their den, when they fought quite desperately for a time. For if they flee from the horsemen, how can they contend with the footmen? The rebels had a dam constructed all around them, and there was no way of getting at them but to pass over it in single file. The left wing went to extreme right for the purpose of flanking Johnny and there it was that we lost our noble Lieutenant Edward L. Stevens. Who will help us mourn his loss - for he fell in defense of the dear old flag? Corporal Uames P. Johnson and Corporal Andrew Miller of Co. H had six privates wounded. But the 54th stormed the hill and carried it at the point of the bayonet, making themselves masters of the field, as they always do. Just like them! Brave boys they are! Who will say, Three cheers for the 54th Mass. Vols., 32d and I02d U.S.C.T., and for the 25th Ohio Vols., the I07th Ohio Vols., I5th and 56th N.Y. vols., and the 4th Mass., and the 3d New York Artillery, and for General [Edward E.] Potter's brave troops? For we are the ones that destroyed and drove the rebels from the field, totally demoralizing them. The last fight we had was at Statesburg, and there the rebels stood for the last time; for we slaughtered them in great numbers. They left the field strewn with their dead and wounded. We captured, for the rest, in South Carolina, on our return to Georgetown, fifteen locomotives, and one hundred and forty cars loaded with ammunition, small arms and stores. We destroyed them all. We captured five hundred contrabands, five hundred prisoners, destroyed a vast deal of property, and captured about eighty head of horses. We are now encamped at Georgetown, and I hope we will soon be home with our friends and relatives." f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\African Art.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ African Art The traditional art of Africa plays a major part in the African society. Most ceremonies and activities (such as singing, dancing, storytelling, ect.) can not function without visual art. It can also be used as an implement and insignia of rank or prestige, or have a religious significance.African art consists mainly of sculptures, paintings, fetishes, masks, figures, and decorative objects. Sculptures are considered to be the greatest achievement for African art. A majority of the sculptures are done in wood but are also made of metal, stone, terra-cotta, mud, beadwork, ivory, and other materials. It is found in many parts of Africa but mainly in western and central Africa. Many ancient rock paintings have been found in Southern and Eastern Africa. These paintings are believed to be attributed to the SAN (Bushman) people. Masks and fetishes are often used to scare off bad things such as evil spirits, witches or ghosts. They are also used to bring about a desired end-break a bad habit, improve ones love life, or kill a natural or supernatural enemy. There are three basic themes of African art. The first is the dualism between bush and village. African tribes wear masks and headresses: the male is represented by the elephant, the most powerful of bush creatures and the female is delicately coiffed to express refinement and civilization. The second theme of African art is the problematic relationships between the sexes.African tribes use art as a therapeutic device to deal with the problems and issues dealing with the relations between the sexes. The third theme is the struggle to control natural or supernatural forces to achieve a desired end. African tribes often use masks in ceremonies (called Gelede) to please and honor the forces. For each region in Africa,there is a different style of art. The western Sudanic Region have masks and figures representing legendary ancestors and religious sacrifices. The central Sudanic Region art includes mud architecture, embroidered textiles, elaborate coiffure, metal and beadwork jewelry,and leatherwork. This style usually doesn't represent anything special. The west Guinea Coast Region use masks and figures to police ceremonies,punish people for doing something wrong, settle land-owning problems and start or end wars. The Central Guinea Coast Region art employs aristocratic materials. Specialized artists creature works of art for the leaders that include: stools, drums, cloth, pottery, terra-cotta, figures, miniature masks, combs, mirrors, pipes, and carved musical instruments. African art is traditionally essential and optimistic. Without art, there would be no African culture. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\AfricanAmerican Troops in the Civil War The 54th Massachus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ African-American Troops in the Civil War: The 54th Massachusetts The Fifty-fourth Massachusetts was organized in early 1863 by Robert Gould Shaw, twenty-six year old member of a prominent Boston abolitionist family. Shaw had earlier served in the Seventh New York National Guard and the Second Massachusetts Infantry, and was appointed colonel of the Fifty-fourth in February 1863 by Massachusetts governor John A. Andrew. As one of the first black units organized in the northern states, the Fifty-fourth was the object of great interest and curiosity, and its performance would be considered an important indication of the possibilities surrounding the use of blacks in combat. The regiment was composed primarily of free blacks from throughout the north, particularly Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Amongst its recruits was Lewis N. Douglass, son of the famous ex-slave and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass. After a period of recruiting and training, the unit proceeded to the Department of the South, arriving at Hilton Head, South Carolina, on June 3, 1863. The regiment earned its greatest fame on July 18, 1863, when it led the unsuccessful and controversial assault on the Confederate positions at Battery Wagner. In this desperate attack, the Fifty-fourth was placed in the vanguard and over 250 men of the regiment became casualties. Shaw, the regiment's young colonel, died on the crest of the enemy parapet, shouting, "Forward, Fifty-fourth!" That heroic charge, coupled with Shaw's death, made the regiment a household name throughout the north, and helped spur black recruiting. For the remainder of 1863 the unit participated in siege operations around Charleston, before boarding transports for Florida early in February 1864. The regiment numbered 510 officers and men at the opening of the Florida Campaign, and its new commander was Edward N. Hallowell, a twenty-seven year old merchant from Medford, Massachusetts. Anxious to avenge the Battery Wagner repulse, the Fifty-fourth was the best black regiment available to General Seymour, the Union commander. Along with the First North Carolina Colored Infantry, the Fifty-fourth entered the fighting late in the day at Olustee, and helped save the Union army from complete disaster. The Fifty-fourth marched into battle yelling, "Three cheers for Massachusetts and seven dollars a month." The latter referred to the difference in pay between white and colored Union infantry, long a sore point with colored troops. Congress had just passed a bill correcting this and giving colored troops equal pay. However, word of the bill would not reach these troops until after the battle of Olustee. The regiment lost eighty-six men in the battle, the lowest number of the three black regiments present. After Olustee, the Fifty- fourth was not sent to participate in the bloody Virginia campaigns of 1864-1865. Instead it remained in the Department of the South, fighting in a number of actions before Charleston and Savannah. More than a century after the war the Fifty-fourth remains the most famous black regiment of the war, due largely to the popularity of the movie "Glory", which recounts the story of the regiment prior to and including the attack on Battery Wagner. To better show how the 54th felt underfire, here is a letter home from Orderly Sergeant W.N. Collins of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry accounting Plotter's Raid. "Well, we arrived at Georgetown, S.C., on the 3Ist (March 1865), and went into camp. On the 1st of April we started upon our errand through the State, and had nothing to molest us for three days. We saw nothing of the Johnnies, and on Friday the 8th of April, at Epp's Ferry, Cos. H and A were detached from the regiment to go and destroy the said Ferry. Myself, one corporal and fifteen privates were in the advance. On we went, neither hearing nor seeing any thing in particular. After advancing about two miles, and wading through water and mud, we spied a Johnny sitting upon his horse as a picket. He left his post and secreted himself. Halting my men for further orders, I received instructions to proceed forward with the utmost caution, and screen my men as much as possible in the woods. The swamp through which we had to pass was waist-deep. Onward we went, and after getting through the swamp, not over seventy-five yards from Johnny, he saw that we were getting too close to him; and at that time the Second-Lieutenant of Co. A came along, and I told him that Johnny was getting ready to fire; and at that moment, Johnny's balls began to fall thick and fast around us. The Lieutenant got wounded in the right arm. I had two men wounded - one in the right leg, the other in both shoulders; and it appeared to us that the Johnnies had nothing much but bird-shot to fire at us, which whizzed about our ears in perfect showers. The writer got stung slightly in the left hand by one of these diminutive missiles from Johnny's shot-gun. They saw that we were determined to complete the job, and they destroyed the levee and fled. So we returned to our command on the 8th. We entered Manningville with a loss of but one man killed, who belonged to the 4th Massachusetts Regiment. On the I0th we left Manningville, and arrived at Sumterville on Sabbath, the 11th; and after a short and sharp fight, we took the place, captured three pieces of artillery complete, killed five rebels, wounded some more, and also captured a few. We encamped in the city that night, and destroyed the depot, together with three locomotives and a train of thirty-five cars. We left on the I3th, after destroying every thing that fire would burn, and went to Manchester, and there destroyed one locomotive and a train of twenty cars. The 54th was detailed to go seven miles from the place for the purpose of destroying some trestle-work. After a considerable amount of delay, the advance guard, which was from Co. F, Sergeant Frank M. Welch commanding, pushed forth. They had not gone far when they espied a train of cars, with locomotive attached, and a full head of steam on. The column at once halted and Colonel Henry N. Hooper went forward to see for himself and there, sure enough, was the train. The sharp report of a rifle soon told those on the train that the blood-hounds were on the track. The engineer immediately jumped from the train and ran for his life. Nothing could be seen of him but coat-tails and dust. The command to move forward was given. With a loud yell and tremendous cheer the boys charged over the trestle-work, three miles in length, caught the cars, and ran them ourselves in place of the rebels. Lieutenant Stephen A. Swails got wounded in his right arm. There are forty cars and six locomotives, and we destroyed then all. Some of the cars were loaded. We then turned the track upside-down. Sergeant Major John H. Wilson and Private Gee. Jorris, of Co. A, got mashed by the cars. Private Jorris got his collar-bone broken. The Sergeant Major has got partly over the injuries he received. Leaving there, we encamped at Singleton's plantation, and sent two thousand contrabands to Georgetown in charge of the 32 U.S.C.T. When they returned, we started upon our mission - and from that time, the 14th, we fought every day with the rebels, and drove them before us. But at length they made a stand at Swiss Creek, and fought desperately. We captured nine prisoners. On the 15th we left for the purpose of taking Camden, which we did capturing all of the rebel sick and wounded there, numbering, a least, from three to four hundred men. On the I6th. we left Camden, and from that we fought until we got to Swiss Creek, where the rebels again made a stand. Cos. F and H were on the skirmish line, the battalion on the reserve, the 102d U.S.C.T. in the center, and the 3rd U.S.C.T. on the left wing. We drove them to their den, when they fought quite desperately for a time. For if they flee from the horsemen, how can they contend with the footmen? The rebels had a dam constructed all around them, and there was no way of getting at them but to pass over it in single file. The left wing went to extreme right for the purpose of flanking Johnny and there it was that we lost our noble Lieutenant Edward L. Stevens. Who will help us mourn his loss - for he fell in defense of the dear old flag? Corporal Uames P. Johnson and Corporal Andrew Miller of Co. H had six privates wounded. But the 54th stormed the hill and carried it at the point of the bayonet, making themselves masters of the field, as they always do. Just like them! Brave boys they are! Who will say, Three cheers for the 54th Mass. Vols., 32d and I02d U.S.C.T., and for the 25th Ohio Vols., the I07th Ohio Vols., I5th and 56th N.Y. vols., and the 4th Mass., and the 3d New York Artillery, and for General [Edward E.] Potter's brave troops? For we are the ones that destroyed and drove the rebels from the field, totally demoralizing them. The last fight we had was at Statesburg, and there the rebels stood for the last time; for we slaughtered them in great numbers. They left the field strewn with their dead and wounded. We captured, for the rest, in South Carolina, on our return to Georgetown, fifteen locomotives, and one hundred and forty cars loaded with ammunition, small arms and stores. We destroyed them all. We captured five hundred contrabands, five hundred prisoners, destroyed a vast deal of property, and captured about eighty head of horses. We are now encamped at Georgetown, and I hope we will soon be home with our friends and relatives." f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Airplane Warfare in WWI.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Airplane Warfare in WWI During World War One, the role of airplanes and how they were used changed greatly. At first planes were only used for sport, but people started realize that not only could airplanes be useful but they could even influence an outcome of the war greatly. Soon the war was filled with blimps, planes, and tethered balloons. By the end of the war, planes became a symbol of fear, but they were not always treated with such respect. In the time leading up to the war, the general feeling about planes was, they were a sneaky, unfair tactic that should not be used in warfare. During The 1899 Hague Peace Conference it was put on record that the dropping or shooting of any projectiles or explosives from the air during a time of war was forbidden and was considered a crime of war. It was also decided that airplanes could only be used for reconnaissance or spying missions. (Villard-227) "The airplane may be all very well for sport, but for the army it is useless" (Quoted in Villard-227) Even by the beginning of the war in 1912, the use of planes in war was still prohibited by the War Office. Shortly thereafter this changed, people awakened to the possibilities of air warfare. The world soon started to realize the effectiveness of planes in war and how the control of the skies could influence the outcome. Although the French were the first to have a working, conscripting air force and to license fliers, their trust in airplanes still was not up to par. Their lack of trust was justified, for the planes had no armaments, too many wires, and no reliable motor. (Villard-228) Soon all countries in the war effort had their own little air force, built hangers, and started to train pilots. The first bombing occurred in November 1911. Although the first bomb was dropped by the Italians, soon all countries were involved in bombing raids. (Villard-229) It was followed by the first aerial dogfight in 1912. This consisted of a primitive exchange of pistol fire between British and German planes . (Harvey-95) The first flying experience for the United States occurred in 1862, during the Civil War. General McClellan went into battle against the South with a balloon corps floated by hydrogen and pulled by four horses. (Saga-51) Literary fiction started to breed ideas about the use of planes in warfare. The most famous writer to explore the idea was H.G. Wells. He wrote The War In The Air, a book about the future in which battle is conducted with planes. (Wohl-70). In Germany, literary fiction preceded the actual development of warfare in the air. Rudolph Martin was a writer who predicted that the German's future was not on the sea, but in the air. He also believed that further development in aviation would kill the importance of distance and help to lead toward the German unification of the world. (Wohl-81) Martin's novel helped to prepare the Germans for their use of planes in the war. The fiction soon became scientific fact. (Wohl-71) The United States, ultimately was slower than France and Germany to develop an air force. On March 3, 1911, Congress appropriated $125,000 to start an air force, which consisted of five planes. The first squadron was organized by the Americans on March 5, 1913, in Texas City. It consisted of nine planes. Although the United States entered the war in 1917, it did not use planes in the war at that time. (Villard-231) U.S. pilots had little or no experience in "cross-country navigation." They did not have good maps and sometimes they became lost, ran out of fuel and would have to land behind enemy lines. (Villard-233) As the Americans advanced in the use of planes in warfare, so did the Germans. Initially, the Germans made no effort to hide their skepticism about the use of planes in warfare. In the beginning of the war, many Germans raised in newspaper articles and on government committees the possibilities of warfare in the air, but the country as a whole was not quick to initiate the effort. (Wohl-70) This quickly changed, however, because the development of airplanes during the war was mostly credited to the Germans. The Germans came out with advances in planes that outdid anything that France had to offer. Even though France had the largest air force in the world, they soon became second-best. No matter how hard the other countries tried, the Germans were always one step ahead in airplane advances. These advances were so great that even though the Germans were outnumbered eight to one, they still came out on top. For instance, the mounting of a machine gun behind the propellers seemed like suicide, but the Germans came up with the idea of a timed switch that would allow the gun to fire in-between rotations. This made it easier to aim and fly at the same time. Roland Garros, an allied flier, who mounted a gun in the cockpit and put protective plates on his propellers was trying to match the German timed device, but it was a faulty, unsafe rip-off . (Harvey-95) Another advancement used by the Germans was the introduction of luminous paint so that pilot would not fly into each other or shoot each other during night raids. (Duke-130) The allied countries tried many times to duplicate this and many other German inventions, but failed each time. The Germans started putting up hangers and domes around it's boarders. They introduced more and more types of planes. As the war went on, Germany introduced the BI-planes and Tri-planes which made the use of one winged planes obsolete. The more wings, the more mobility, stability, and speed the plane had. The mobility made it easier to evade gun fire or to maneuver better in dogfights. The stability made these new planes handle better in turbulence, and in reconnaissance missions the speed was most important for escaping the enemy. These new German planes dominated the skies and made lumber of the allies' "flaming coffins" (old mono-planes) The BI-plane was considered to be the best all-around plane. It was the favorite of the German Flying Ace, Manfred von Richthofen, better known as the "Red Baron" The Red Baron was the best pilot in the war, and was credited with shooting down 80 allied planes. He was equally respected by both sides, and when he was shot down, his enemies held a service for him to show how much respect they had. This show of chivalry was not uncommon, for in the beginning of the war, it was tradition to throw down a wreath if an enemy plane was shot down, to show respect and honor. However when bombing was introduced, the feeling about planes turned from noble flying knights into fear, death from above. The evolution of aircraft during World War One was profound and unmatched by any other advancements in any other field at the time. From Reconnaissance to bombing, the use of airplanes in the war became a necessity and by the end of the war airplanes and pilots had earned the respect they deserved. Today's warfare relies heavily on the use of aircraft, not only for destruction and transportation of troops and supplies, but also for it's initial use of reconnaissance. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Albert Einstein.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Albert Einstein Of all the scientists to emerge from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries there is one whose name is known by almost all living people. While most of these do not understand this man's work, everyone knows that its impact on the world of science is astonishing. Yes,many have heard of Albert Einstein's General Theory of relativity, but few know about the intriguing life that led this scientist to discover what some have called, "The greatest single achievement of human thought." Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany on March 14, 1874. Before his first birthday, his family had moved to Munich where young Albert's father, Hermann Einstein, and uncle set up a small electro-chemical business. He was fortunate to have an excellent family with which he held a strong relationship. Albert's mother, Pauline Einstein, had an intense passion for music and literature, and it was she that first introduced her son to the violin in which he found much joy and relaxation. Also, he was very close with his younger sister, Maja, and they could often be found in the lakes that were scattered about the countryside near Munich. As a child, Einstein's sense of curiosity had already begun to stir. A favorite toy of his was his father's compass, and he often marveled at his uncle's explanations of algebra. Although young Albert was intrigued by certain mysteries of science, he was considered a slow learner. His failure to become fluent in German until the age of nine even led some teachers to believe he was disabled. Einstein's post-basic education began at the Luitpold Gymnasium when he was ten. It was here that he first encountered the German spirit through the school's strict disciplinary policy. His disapproval of this method of teaching led to his reputation as a rebel. It was probably these differences that caused Einstein to search for knowledge at home. He began not with science, but with religion. He avidly studied the Bible seeking truth, but this religious fervor soon died down when he discovered the intrigue of science and math. To him, these seemed much more realistic than ancient stories. With this new knowledge he disliked class even more, and was eventually expelled from Luitpold Gymnasium being considered a disruptive influence. Feeling that he could no longer deal with the German mentality, Einstein moved to Switzerland where he continued his education. At sixteen he attempted to enroll at the Federal Institute of Technology but failed the entrance exam. This forced him to study locally for one year until he finally passed the school's evaluation. The Institute allowed Einstein to meet many other students that shared his curiosity, and It was here that his studies turned mainly to Physics. He quickly learned that while physicists had generally agreed on major principals in the past, there were modern scientists who were attempting to disprove outdated theories. Since most of Einstein's teachers ignored these new ideas, he was again forced to explore on his own. In 1900 he graduated from the Institute and then achieved citizenship to Switzerland. Einstein became a clerk at the Swiss Patent Office in 1902. This job had little to do with physics, but he was able to satiate his curiosity by figuring out how new inventions worked. The most important part of Einstein's occupation was that it allowed him enough time to pursue his own line of research. As his ideas began to develop, he published them in specialist journals. Though he was still unknown to the scientific world, he began to attract a large circle of friends and admirers. A group of students that he tutored quickly transformed into a social club that shared a love of nature, music, and of course, science. In 1903 he married Mileva Meric, a mathematician friend. In 1905, Einstein published five separate papers in a journal, the Annals of Physics. The first was immediately acknowledged, and the University of Zurich awarded Einstein an additional degree. The other papers helped to develop modern physics and earned him the reputation of an artist. Many scientists have said that Einstein's work contained an imaginative spirit that was seen in most poetry. His work at this time dealt with molecules, and how their motion affected temperature, but he is most well known for his Special Theory of Relativity which tackled motion and the speed of light. Perhaps the most important part of his discoveries was the equation: E= mc2. After publishing these theories Einstein was promoted at his office. He remained at the Patents Office for another two years, but his name was becoming too big among the scientific community. In 1908, Einstein began teaching party time at the University of Berne, and the following year, at the age of thirty, he became employed full time by Zurich University. Einstein was now able to move to Prague with his wife and two sons, Hans Albert and Eduard. Finally, after being promoted to a professor, Einstein and his family were able to enjoy a good standard of living, but the job's main advantage was that it allowed Einstein to access an enormous library. It was here that he extended his theory and discussed it with the leading scientists of Europe. In 1912 he chose to accept a job placing him in high authority at the Federal Institute of Technology, where he had originally studied. It was not until 1914 that Einstein was tempted to return to Germany to become research director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics. World War I had a strong effect on Einstein. While the rest of Germany supported the army, he felt the war was unnecessary, and disgusting. The new weapons of war which attempted to mass slaughter people caused him to devote much of his life toward creating peace. Toward the end of the war Einstein joined a political party that worked to end the war, and return peace to Europe. In 1916 this party was outlawed by the government, and Einstein was seen as a traitor. In that same year, Einstein published his General Theory of relativity, This result of ten years work revolutionized physics. It basically stated that the universe had to be thought of as curved, and told how light was affected by this. The next year, Einstein published another paper that added that the universe had no boundary, but actually twisted back on its self. After the war, many aspects of Einstein's life changed. He divorced his wife, who had been living in Zurich with the children throughout the war, and married his cousin Elsa Lowenthal. This led to a renewed interest in his Jewish roots, and he became an active supporter of Zionism. Since anti-Semitism was growing in Germany, he quickly became the target of prejudice. There were many rumors about groups who were trying to kill Einstein, and he began to travel extensively. The biggest change, though, was in 1919 when scientist who studied an eclipse confirmed that his theories were correct. In 1921, he traveled through Britain and the United States raising funds for Zionism and lecturing about his theories. He also visited the battle sites of the war, and urged that Europe renew scientific and cultural links. He promoted non-patriotic, non-competitive education, believing that it would prevent war from happening in the future. He also believed that socialism would help the world achieve peace. Einstein received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922. He gave all the money to his ex-wife and children to help with their lives and education. After another lecture tour, he visited Palestine for the opening the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He also talked about the possibilities that Palestine held for the Jewish people. Upon his return he began to enjoy a calmer life in which he returned to his original curiosity, religion. While Einstein was visiting America in 1933 the Nazi party came to power in Germany. Again he was subject to anti- Semitic attacks, but this time his house was broken into, and he was publicly considered an enemy of the nation. It was obvious that he could not return to Germany, and for the second time he renounced his German citizenship. During these early years in America he did some research at Princeton, but did not accomplish much of significance. In 1939 the second World War began to take form. There was heated argument during this time over whether the United States should explore the idea of an atomic bomb. Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt warning him of the disaster that could occur if the Nazi's developed it first. Einstein did not participate in the development of the bomb, but the idea did stem from his equation E=mc2. Just as he knew that the bomb was under development, he also knew when it was going to be used. Just before the bomb was dropped on Japan Einstein wrote a letter to the President begging him not to use this terrible weapon. The rest of Einstein's life was dedicated to promoting peace. After the war ended, he declared, "The war is won, but the peace is not." He wrote many articles and made many speeches calling for a world government. His fame, at this point, was legendary. People from all over would write to him for advice, and he would often answer them. He also continued his scientific research until the day he died. This was on April 18, 1955. There is no doubt that he was dissatisfied that he never was able to find the true meaning of existence that he strove for all his life. Bibliography Clark, Ronald W., Einstein - The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing, 1971. Dank, Milton, Albert Einstein, New York: An Impact Biography, 1920. Dukas, Helen and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton: University Press, 1979. Einstein, Albert, Carl Seelig, ed., Ideas and Opinions, New York: Bonanza Books, 1954. "Einstein, Albert." Random House Encyclopedia, Random House Press, 1990 edition. Hunter, Nigel, Einstein, New York: Bookwright Press, 1987. Nourse, Dr. Alan E., Universe, Earth, and Atom: The Story of Physics, New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Alcatraz.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ALCATRAZ ISLAND AND PRISON Alcatraz Island has quite a distinct history. Many people know that Alcatraz served as a federal prison, but most are reluctant to know that this island served as fort. Built before the Civil War, it served two main purposes. First, that it was to guard the San Francisco bay area from enemy ships against a foreign invasion, and second, to hold hostage prisoners of war or POW's as they were called. In this report, I'll show you how this fortress came to be a federal prison, why it is no longer in operation today, and most importantly, to show why it was built in the first place. When the great "Gold Rush" of 1849 first started, California grew from what would be considered a small, unpopulated state, into what it is now. California is now one of the most populated states and it was mostly the gold rush that brought attention to California. As the government saw all of this happening, they realized that California was much more important than they ever realized. In their realization, they decided that California must be protected. San Francisco has one of the largest bays in all of California, and so this was where enemy countries would most likely to try to invade the country. So this is where Alcatraz was to lie, to serve as a military fort. It was supposed to serve as a secondary base in companionship to another base located on the other side of Golden Gate Bridge. But with severe problems trying to build this other base, Alcatraz was to remain alone. "Out in the middle of the San Francisco Bay, the island of Alcatraz is definitely a world unto itself. Isolation is just one of the many constants of island life for any inhabitant on Alcatraz Island. It is the most reoccurring theme in the unfolding history of Alcatraz Island. Alcatraz Island is one of Golden Gate National Recreation Area's most popular destinations, offering a close-up look at a historic and infamous federal prison long off-limits to the public. Visitors to the island can not only explore the remnants of the prison, but learn of the American occupation of 1969 - 1971, early military fortifications and the West Coast's first and oldest operating lighthouse. These structures stand among the island's many natural features - gardens, tidepools, bird nests, and bay views beyond compare." (1) Fortress Alcatraz ran in operation from 1850 - 1933. It served as San Francisco's only major defense. It started off with only eleven cannons, that were transported onto the island in 1854. By the early 1860's, Alcatraz had 111 cannons. Some were enormous, firing a fifteen-inch ball weighing over 450 pounds. Defenses included a row of brick enclosed gun positions called case mates to protect the dock; a fortified gateway or a Sally Port to block the entrance road; and a three-story citadel on top of the island. This served both as an armed barracks and as a last line defense strategy. Even though Alcatraz was built to withstand a foreign invasion, its most important use was during the Civil War, 1861 - 1865. Seeing as it was the only completed fort in the entire bay, it was vital in the protecting from Confederate Raiders. Early in the war, ten thousand rifles were moved to Alcatraz from the State armory, to prevent them from being used by southern sympathizers. The crew of a Confederate privateer were among the first inmates to be held within "The Rock." Alcatraz's notoriety as a penitentiary overshadows its earlier, and longer use by the Army. Surprisingly, this small island once was the most powerful fort west of the Mississippi River. There was some limited modernization of the island's defenses after the Civil War. Rifled cannons were mounted. In 1854 some 450 electrically controlled underwater mines were brought to the island to protect the Bay. However, as the ships of potential enemies became more and more powerful, the defenses were increasing! ly obsolete. In 1907 Alcatraz officially ceased being a fortress and became Pacific Branch, U.S. Military Prison. Alcatraz Island's use as a prison began in December 1859 with the arrival of the first permanent garrison. Eleven of these soldiers were confined in the Sally Port basement. The Army recognized that the cold water (53 F) and swift currents surrounding Alcatraz made it an ideal site for a prison, and in 1861 the post was designated as the military prison for the Department of the Pacific - most of the territory west of the Rocky Mountains. The prison population grew during the Civil War with the addition of prisoners from other army posts, the crew of a Confederate privateer, and civilians accused of treason. The Sally Port's basement was filled, then one of the gun rooms, and a wooden stockade was built just to the North of the Sally Port. During the next three decades additional buildings were erected just north of the Sally Port to house up to 150 Army prisoners. These provided hard labor for construction projects both on and off the island. At various times "rebellious" American Indians were also held on Alcatraz. The largest group was nineteen Hopi, held in 1895. The Spanish-American War of 1898 increased the size of the Army enormously, and the prison population also grew. A prison stockade, known as the "Upper Prison" was hastily built on the parade ground and by 1902 there were 461 prisoners on the Island. In 1904 the upper prison stockade was expanded to house 300 inmates, and the lower prison buildings near the Sally Port were used for other purposes. With modern weaponry making Alcatraz more and more unsuitable as a site for a fort, in 1907 the Army dropped plans to mount new guns, and instead designated the island "Pacific Branch, U.S. Military Prison." The next year, with plentiful prison labor available, work began on the Cellhouse which still stands today. Completed in 1912 with 600 single cells, each with toilet and electricity, the Cellhouse was the largest reinforced concrete building in the world! In 1915 Alcatraz was changed from a military prison to "Pacific Branch, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks." The new name reflected the growing emphasis on rehabilitation as well as punishment. Prisoners with less serious offenses could receive training, education and an opportunity to return to the Army. Prisoners convicted of serious crimes were not given these chances, and were discharged from the Army when their sentences were completed. During the great depression of the 1930s military budgets were cut, and the Army was considering closing the Disciplinary Barracks - a perfect match for the Justice Departments desires for a super prison for incorrigible prisoners. Negotiations moved rapidly, and Alcatraz was transferred to the Bureau of Prisons in October 1933. By early 1934 eighty years of the U.S. Army on Alcatraz had ended - except for 32 hard case prisoners, who were left to become the first penitentiary inmates. Some of the inmates included Al Capone and Robert Stroud, also known as the birdman of Alcatraz. Capone's exact cell is not identified because records are not available. Former prisoners and Correctional Officers indicate that Al Capone's cell is located on the outside west end of Cellblock B. Capone spent more time in the hospital than in the general population (GP).Robert Stroud (Birdman of Alcatraz) arrived in 1942, spent some 90 days in the GP. and was then transferred to D Block. Occupying more than one cell over a period of seventeen years, Stroud stayed in D block cell for approximately six years and was then moved up to the hospital in 1948, staying for eleven years, by request of Warden Swope. "Many times the prison was almost shut down, but I never thought the government would actually shut this place down. It was the best thing for the country. It lowered crime rates, because it scared the citizens of the U.S. into believing they would go to "The Rock" if they were even remotely bad. They shut it down, Oh God, they shut it down" (2) The prison ran effectively, yet due to cost effectiveness, administrative changes in Washington, a change in BOP's operating philosophy (reinstitution rehabilitation). USPAZ. closed on 21 March 1963 (last prisoners removed on this day); Alcatraz was transferred to the General Services Administration (GSA) in May of 1963. Alcatraz witnessed eight murdered by other inmates (although records indicated only 7), five suicides, and 15 from illness. These were all of the deaths that took place on the island. Some people heard that many prisoners were killed in the gas chamber located on Alcatrz Island, they are wrong. Although Federal courts do impose capital punishments, the reason why there is a gas chamber, but the actual carrying out of that sentence is attended to in the nearest State facility (in this case the death sentence was fulfilled at San Quentin State Prison). Is was rumored that no one ever escaped this island, but that is not exactly the case. Thirty-six prisoners were involved in attempts: 7 shot and killed, 2 drowned, 5 unaccounted for, the rest recaptured. 2 prisoners made it off the island but were returned, one, in 1945 (Giles) and one in 1962 (Scott). As for June 1962 escape, Morris and the Anglin brothers were successful in escaping both institution and island, but survival is very questionable. So to say that no one ever escaped the island, that is not true. But if they survived, we may never know. Some people heard that many prisoners were killed in the gas chamber located on Alcatrz Island, they are wrong. Although Federal courts do impose capital punishments, the actual carrying out of that sentence is attended to in the nearest State facility Which in this case the death sentence would be fulfilled at San Quentin State Prison. There were several families that were housed on the island. The families were distributed in 64 Building, four wood frames houses, one duplex and three apartment buildings. Warden resided in large house adjacent to cell house, Captain and Associated Warden lived in duplex. The question that most people wonder, is how many guards actually upheld the island of Alcatraz, their answer is, 90 officers were required to cover the three 8-hour shifts, plus sick leave and vacation time. Two-thirds of the custody staff resided on the island with the rest in the San Francisco and local areas. The actual amount prisoners that were contained on the island is somewhat vague due to the lack of accurate records. But as far as we know, it is somewhere in the vicinity of 1545 total, with 1576 numbers issued (some 30+ were returned to the institution with same number reissued). The most that was ever held in the prison at one time was 302, and as few as 222, but the typical average was around 260. Born of necessity, perhaps even political expediency, Alcatraz represents the federal government's response to post-Prohibition, post-Depression America. Both the institution and the men confined within its walls are a part of this era, and in order to be studied with any degree of understanding, it must be attended to with a focus on this time period. Prisons are a reflection of society and the reflection offered by Alcatraz is one of great clarity. The collaborative effort of attorney general Homer Cummings and Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Sanford Bates, produced a legendary prison that seemed both necessary and appropriate to the times. The emergence of persistent assertions about J. Edgar Hoover's interest and influence with regard to Alcatraz cannot be corroborated, but neither have they been completely denied. With the public peace constantly threatened by crime, a response had to be made and Alcatraz was that response. An in-house memo issued by Cummings shortly after taking office addressed the subject of creating a special prison for kidnapers, racketeers, and individuals guilty of predatory crimes. A remote site was sought, one that would prohibit constant communication with the outside world by those confined within its walls. Although land in Alaska was being considered, the availability of Alcatraz Island conveniently coincided with the government's perceived need for a super-prison. Having taken possession of the former Army prison and having circumvented the San Francisco citizens who were concerned at the prospect of vicious criminals in the near vicinity, the Bureau of Prisons set about selecting a warden who could do the job. A well-organized, no-nonsense businessman and prison administrator with twelve years of experience in the California Department of Corrections, James A. Johnston was to be that man. Johnston had retired at the time of his appointment by the Department of Justice, and its acceptance resulted in his serving as warden of Alcatraz for the next fourteen years. Classified as a concentration model, where difficult-to-manage prisoners from other institutions would be concentrated under one roof, Alcatraz served as an experiment. Segregation on this scale had not before been practiced, and only time would indicate its success or failure. Warden Johnston and the second Director of the Bureau of Prisons, James V. Bennett, both were men well ahead of their time. Visionaries in the field of penology, their knowledge enabled Alcatraz to function as it had been hoped and to serve later as a model for the federal prison located in Marion, Illinois. Contrary to popular myth, Alcatraz was to confine only a few of the infamous headline-makers of the era. Of the 1545 men to do time within its walls, the vast majority were not to be found on wanted posters adorning post office walls. "I was doctor on that hell-hole. I served diligently for the better of three years. I attented to some of the most notorious criminals, and I got to really know them. I found out that they were people just like anyone else, but just with a severe case of bad luck."(3) Alcatraz was, of course, home to Al Capone for slightly under four and a half years. Transferred from USP Atlanta in August of 1934, Capone was among the first "official" shipment of prisoners to be received. His arrival generated bigger headlines than the opening of the institution, giving birth to the endless myth of Alcatraz. The most difficult aspect of Capone's management in Atlanta was his constant contact with family members who took up residence at a nearby hotel. Through this channel of communication Capone continued to run his organization in Chicago. He also worked at corrupting officers and enlisting fellow prisoners as personal servants. Influence and privilege were lost at Alcatraz where Capone was assigned menial jobs and treated in accordance with others. In failing health due to syphilis, he was transferred to FCI Terminal Island in January of 1939, and then on to USP Lewisburg, released from there in November of that same year. "Yes I served on the rock. I was a prison guard for some of the meanest criminals I've ever seen. I still have nightmares today of being there. We were commanded to be cruel. We were taught that the only way we would survive, was to show no fear, or else those criminals would eat you for breakfast. I'll never forget the look on the inmates face as they came onto Alcatraz, the most repulsive look, like they had nothing else to live for. I'll never forget happened there, my dreams won't let me." (4) Arriving on the second "official" shipment to Alcatraz in September of 1934 was George "Machine Gun" Kelly. Involved first in bootlegging, he was apprehended and sentenced to Leavenworth. At the conclusion of a three-year stay, Kelly emerged from prison in touch with some of America's best bank robbers, and immediately pursued a new line of work. From lucrative bank jobs, he advanced to kidnaping in 1933, holding for ransom a wealthy Oklahoma oil magnate. His capture resulted in the first Lindbergh Law trial and it was a courtroom sensation. Kelly was given a life sentence and returned to USP Leavenworth, within months being transferred to Alcatraz. He was considered a model prisoner by the officers with whom he came in contact, causing some question regarding his transfer to the more secure institution. Headlines and Hoover must here be considered. After seventeen years on Alcatraz, Kelly suffered a mild heart attack and was returned again to Leavenworth in 1951. Within months of being paroled in 1954, a final attack ended his life at the age of 59. From early days as a petty thief, Alvin Karpis moved on in his career to join Ma Barker and form the Barker-Karpis partnership literally laying waste to the Midwest between 1931 and 1936. His flamboyant style of robbery and kidnaping earned him the absolute wrath of J. Edgar Hoover. Karpis soon found himself with a new title, that of Public Enemy No. 1, and his name was recognized throughout the country, Avoiding capture for some fifteen months after the Barkers were apprehended, Karpis was finally taken into custody in New Orleans on May first, 1936. By August of that year, Karpis was residing on Alcatraz where he would spend the next 26 years, transferred to USP-McNeil Island in April of 1962, and released from the federal prison system via deportation to Canada in 1969. Leaving that country to assume residency in Spain, Karpis committed suicide in 1979. The most complete media coverage to be accorded an Alcatraz inmate was given to Robert Franklin Stroud. He was to gain world wide attention and notoriety as the Birdman of Alcatraz, regardless of the fact he was not permitted to continue his avian studies during his 17 years on the island. Following incarceration in USP McNeil Island, where he was sentenced to 12 years for manslaughter in 1909, Stroud was transferred to Leavenworth after serving only three years. A history of violence dictated the move, and Stroud had been in Leavenworth less than four years when he attacked and killed a custodial officer in front of better than 2,000 other inmates. His trial resulted in the death sentence, but was commuted to life after his mother requested the intervention of President Wilson. Stroud's hostile and sometimes violent nature left prison administrators no choice but to keep him away from other inmates and officers, and prison officials interpreted this to mean he should spend the remainder of his life in segregation of some sort. The keeping of birds and the studying of avian diseases gained international attention for Stroud, but it was also to figure prominently in his ultimate transfer to Alcatraz. He began to openly violate prison rules and regulations in favor of continuing his experiments and communications with bird breeders and fanciers around the world. Stroud was literally packed up and moved out in the middle of the night, with his destination being San Francisco. Arriving on Alcatraz in 1942, he was to enjoy the company of fellow inmates within the confines of D Block until there occurred a change in administration with the retirement of Warden James Johnston and the arrival of Warden Ed Swope. The enigmatic Swope was not to be challenged in any way by Robert Stroud and immediately moved him into a private room in the prison's hospital. Using ill health to justify the move, Swope was able to segregate Stroud in such fashion that few, if any, were ever able to again see him. Genuine ill health forced Stroud's transfer to the Federal Medical Facility in Springfield, Missouri in 1959. Four years after being received at the FMC, Stroud died of natural causes. The man about whom the world knew, the man about whom books were written and films were made was to be ignored in death as the date of his passing followed by one day the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. On the morning of his death, Stroud was found by a fellow inmate who is probably more widely recognized on an international scale than any other confined on Alcatraz - recognized not so much by his own name than by the defendants with whom he was tried in 1951. Charged with conspiracy to commit treason, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed at Sing Sing Prison in 1953, and Morton Sobell was to arrive on Alcatraz the year before, 1952, and would spend the next five years as the federal system's most famous political prisoner. Sobell's case could easily be an example of J. Edgar Hoover's influence. He simply did not fit the type generally selected for incarceration on Alcatraz, but he most assuredly did meet the criteria for the type particularly targeted by the FBI director. At this point, it is again emphasized that the historic era must be given clear and serious focus, as the red witch hunt for Communist subversives spread across the country, led by Joseph McCarthy a! nd J. Edgar Hoover. Sobell alleged that Hoover dictated his placement in this maximum security institution, and there really exists no denial regarding this allegation. Following the five years inside Alcatraz, Sobell finished out the remainder of his sentence in USP Atlanta for a total of eighteen and a half years out of the original thirty set forth by Judge Irving R. Kaufman, Taken by the beauty of the Pacific and the Golden Gate, Sobell expressed a desire to return to San Francisco when freedom was again his to enjoy. Morton Sobellresides today in the city, and is part of the living history of Alcatraz. By 1962 the era on which the Federal Prison history of Alcatraz is predicated was coming to an end. Times were changing and the Bureau of Prisons knew that they would have to respond to that change. Alcatraz offered no concept of rehabilitation, and the bureau was reconsidering its philosophy as it examines the pros and cons of warehousing as opposed to rehabilitation. The physical structures on Alcatraz were indicating wear and tear that would cost the government millions of dollars to upgrade to required security. Always an expensive institution to operate, 1961 found the daily cost of inmate upkeep approaching one-hundred dollars, and an overall cost for continuing operation at better than six-million dollars. A new prison could and would be constructed at Marion, Illinois for ten-million, so to continue incarceration of inmates on Alcatraz was economically unsound. It is said that J. Edgar Hoover expressed displeasure at the closure of the prison, but his decades-long power base could not stand up to the new attorney general who made it quite clear to Hoover that a contrary decision had been made - a decision that would be backed by the attorney general's brother in the White House. On Thursday, 21 March 1963, the end of an era arrived with the offic! ial closure of Alcatraz. The population had been gradually reduced commencing in February, with the final twenty-seven inmates taken off on the aforementioned date. For the first time in its long and controversial history reporters were permitted on the island to cover the news story that would make headlines across the country. "ALCATRAZ CLOSES!" In looking for lessons to be learned from the operation of Alcatraz, lessons that can be applied to our present society, one can only wonder as we examine overcrowded prisons and the continuing attendant problems. Perhaps consideration should be given to the prophetic words of a long ago Alcatraz prisoner, reflecting upon his plight: "Can anything be worth THIS?" We can either learn from what valuable lessons that were taught at alcatraz, or we can be ignorant and let it happen again. Alcatraz was considered hostile, cruel, and unjust, and it was. But there was a lesson to be taught, now if we don't learn that human life is the most precious gift that we take for granted, then Alcatraz was a good idea and it needs to be reinstated. But when you allow a man to lose his freedoms that our forefather fought for, with impunity, it is simply the worst thing to happen. Alcatraz was built for a good reason, it served for a good reason. Then it was transformed into "The Rock." Al! l the good that went into was lost. We as a country lost sight of what was important to us, and now if we don't learn from it, we are only asking ourselves for it again. Bibliography 1. The Alcatraz WWW Homepage, Yahoo Search Engine, 1996 2. Professor Clyde W. Richins, University of Michigan, 1990, Vol. 1 of "In the life of Alcatraz" pages 1944- 46 3. Doctor William M. Hellem, Medical Physician on Alcataz Island, 1983, Vol. 1 of "In the life of Alcatraz" pages 132-134 4.Lutenient George R. Hendershaw, Guard that seved on Alcatraz Island, Word Count: 4111 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Alcatraz1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Alcatraz: United States Penitentiary 1934-1963 As a result of the Great Depression, a new breed of violent criminals swept the streets of America. In response to the cries of alarmed citizens, Congress enacted a number of statutes, which gave the federal government jurisdiction over certain criminal offenses previously held by the states. With the suggestion of former US Attorney General, Homes Cummings, Congress agreed that a special penal institution of maximum security and minimum privilege be established. In 1934, the legendary US Penitentiary of Alcatraz was born and became the home of Americas most wanted for the next thirty years. Once authorized by Congress, the US Department of Justice acquired control of Alcatraz Island, previously a US Army compound. As the island was redeveloped into a maximum-security prison, seven of its twelve acres were enclosed in a prison compound. The remaining five were set aside for employee residences, apartments, and recreational space. Soon after the redesigning of the old Army fortress, the Alcatraz prison was ready for the grand opening (or better said lockout!). Equipped with four different cellblocks, A, B, C and D, the Rock began its operations on January 2, 1934. Although cellblock A was seldom used, B, C and D provided 378 "cages" to accommodate the most notorious felons that America could produce. The first of four wardens to take charge of the penitentiary was a retired, professional administrator named James A. Johnston. The Department of Justice carefully selected Johnston because he was a well-organized, no-nonsense businessman with over twelve years of experience in the California Department of Corrections. Under Johnston, another ninety officers were required to cover the three eight-hour shifts (plus leave and vacation time). During its thirty years of service, close to 1545 inmates resided at the Alcatraz penitentiary. Contrary to popular belief, Alcatraz was initially meant to confine only a few of the infamous headline-makers of the era. However, out of the total population ever to occupy this prison, the vast majority was not to be found on wanted posters adorning post office walls. The average number of prisoners maintained in the prison (at one time) was 260, with a high count of 302 and a low count of 222 men. Although many stories exist of escapes from Alcatraz, only three men were successful in escaping the prison and the island, Morris and the Anglin brothers (June of 1962). Thirty-six prisoners were involved in attempts to escape: seven shot and killed, 2 drowned, 5 unaccounted for and the rest recaptured. Even though some men have made it off the island, survival still remains questionable. Alcatraz was, of course, home to Al Capone for about four and a half years. He was first transferred from US Penitentiary Atlanta in August of 1934. Capone was also among the first "official" shipment of criminals to be received at the Rock. Capone's arrival actually generated bigger headlines than the opening of the institution, giving birth to the endless myth of Alcatraz. For this famous gangster, the influence and privileges he possessed in Atlanta were lost at Alcatraz where he was assigned menial jobs in accordance with other inmates. More importantly, Capone's transfer to Alcatraz solved the problem caused by his ability to run his criminal organization from jail. Once at the Rock, the channel of communication between Capone and his family members was simultaneously shut down. Arriving on the second "official" shipment of prisoners was George "Machine Gun" Kelly. After an initial sentence at Leavenworth, Kelly emerged from prison to a lucrative career in bank robbery and kidnapping. Kelly's capture resulted in a courtroom sensation at the first Lindbergh Law Trial and a life-sentence that send him back to Leavenworth. He was transferred to the Penitentiary of Alcatraz in September of 1934 for a period of seventeen years. After suffering a mild heart attack, he was returned to Leavenworth where he was paroled in 1954. Soon after his parole, a final heart attack ended his life at the age of 59. In August of 1936, another well-known celebrity named Alvin Karpis joined Capone and Kelly at Alcatraz. After being a fugitive on the run for fifteen years, Karpis was apprehended and taken into custody in New Orleans. Karpis began his career as a petty thief who moved on to join Ma Barker in violent rampage of robbery and kidnapping. It was during this time that Karpis gained the title of Public Enemy No. 1, given to him by J. Edgar Hoover. After serving 26 years in Alcatraz, Karpis was transferred and released for deportation to Canada. After leaving Canada, Karpis assumed residency and Spain and committed suicide in 1979. Finally, the United States Penitentiary of Alcatraz was closed on March 21, 1963 and has not since reopened. The island was turned over to the General Services Administration (GSA) in May of 1963 and later became a national park and monument. Today, Alcatraz has become one of the biggest attractions of the San Francisco Bay-area and has even inspired films such as The Rock, with Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage. Even though the Alcatraz prison is dead, its legacy continues at other penal institutions such as the federal prison in Marion, IL, which operates in the footsteps of Alcatraz. References: 1. Coy, Bernard Paul. Alcatraz'46: The Anatomy of a Classic Prison Tragedy. Leswing Press, San Rafael, CA 1974. 2. Roberts, John W. Escaping Prison Myths. The American University Press, Washington , D.C. 1994. Word Count: 905 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\AmericanMafia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN MAFIA OMERTA? THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN MAFIA Throughout history, crime has existed in many different forms and has been committed by not only individuals, but by groups as well. Crime is something that knows no boundaries; it exists in all cultures, is committed by all races, and has existed in all time periods. Crime exists as a part of the economic institution and is a lifestyle for many people. Crime also exists in both organized and un organized forms. Since the early 1900's, "organized" crime has existed in the United States. The following will show where, when, and why the Mafia came to the United States, who organized it in the United States, and how it differed from its origins in the European mafia. By showing this you will see how this specific type of organized crime has In the ninth century, Arab forces occupied Sicily. The native Sicilians were oppressed and took refuge in the surrounding hills. The Sicilians formed a secret society to unite the natives against the Arab and Norman invaders. This secret society was called Mafia after the Arabic word for refuge. The society's intentions were to create a sense of family based on ancestry and Sicilian heritage. In the 1700's, pictures of a black hand were distributed to the wealthy. This was an unspoken request for an amount of money in return for protection. If the money was not paid, the recipients could expect violence such as kidnappings, bombings, and murder. By the nineteenth century, this society grew larger and more criminally oriented. In 1876, Mafia Don Rafael Palizzolo, ran for political office in Sicily. He forced the voters to vote for him under gunpoint. After being elected into office, he promoted Mafia Don Crispi as Prime Minister. Together the two put Sicily under government control and funneled government funds to the society known as the Mafia. In the 1800's, New Orleans was the largest Mafia site in the United States. It was while investigating the murder of an Italian immigrant that the current Police Chief, David Hennessey discovered the existence of this secret society. Police Chief Hennessey was assassinated before this murder case could go to trial. Twelve men were charged with this assassination but were lynched by a newly formed vigilante group. The Italian Ambassador demanded that the vigilantes be tried. President Harrison who disproved of the vigilantes and gave a large cash settlement to the families of the lynched men. This was a widely publicized case because of its' foreign ramifications and the involvement of the President of the United States. Don Vito, Vito Cascio Ferro, was the first Sicilian Capo de Tutti Capi. He fled to the United States in 1901 to escape arrest and formed a group of the Black Hand. Its' members were hardened criminals currently fugitives from Sicily. He is known as the Father of the American Mafia. In 1924, Mussolini was determined to rid Italy of the Mafia so many members fled to the United States to avoid persecution . This increased the numbers of members in the organization. These fleeing Italians were well aware there was money to be made in the United States through extortion, prostitution, gambling and bootlegging. Every large city soon had its own Mafia chapter. Prohibition which was a legal ban on the manufacturer and sale of intoxicating drinks generated a wave of illegal activity since there was big money to be made. During this time, gangsters openly flaunted their wealth and power. This period established many young men as leaders in the New Age American Mafia. Charles Luciano, born in 1897 in Sicily, came to New York in 1906. He trained in the Five Points Gang, a Mafia crew, under John Torrio. In this gang, he became friends with Al Capone and other prominent gangsters. Luciano started his own prostitution racket in the early 1920's and was in total control of prostitution in Manhattan by 1925. In 1929 he was kidnapped, beaten and stabbed severally with an icepick. He miraculously survived but maintained "omerta", which is a vow never to reveal any Mafia secrets or members under penalty of death or torture. By 1935, Luciano was known as The Boss of Bosses. He had previously established Murder Inc. with Bugsy Siegel and Myer Lansky, two other well known gangsters. Luciano's wide spread criminal activities led to his being investigated by District Attorney Thomas E. Dewey. He was eventually sentenced to thirty to fifty years for extortion and prostitution. Luciano was considered to be a powerful Mafia member with strong ties to Sicily. After his conviction, the United States government approached him with a deal. In exchange for his assistance in the Allied invasion of Sicily, he was offered deportation to Rome. Luciano contacted his Mafia associates in Italy and the deal was made. Luciano died of a heart attack in 1962 while meeting an American movie producer to do his life story. Myer Lansky was never an initiated member of the Mafia since he was not Italian. Lansky became a close associate of Luciano after his rise to power and influence among the Jewish gangsters, known as Myer's mob. His speciality was gambling. He formed Murder Inc. which was a group of specialized contract killers which was hired out to other mobs. Lansky was instrumental in working out the deal with the government for Luciano in the Allied invasion. While Luciano was in jail and later deported to Italy, he entrusted the running of the crime syndicate to Lansky. By the 1960's, Lansky's gambling operations extended half way around the globe with departments all over South America and as far as Hong Kong. In 1970, the federal government was planning to charge Lansky with tax evasion , so he fled to Israel. In Tel Aviv, the Israeli government under pressure by the U.S. revoked his visa and Lansky was forced to stand trial. He avoided conviction because of his high level government contacts and retired to Miami, Florida and died in 1983. At the time of his death, his estate was valued at 4 million dollars. The third member of Murder Inc. was Benjamin (Bugsy) Siegel. He was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1906. While still a teenager, he met Myer Lansky and went on to form the Bug and Myer Mob which specialized in gambling and car theft. In the 1930's, this mob joined with Luciano and formed Murder Inc. Siegel eventually killed Joe. "The Boss", Masseria which ended the present mob wars at that time. Siegel continued to carry out murders for Luciano and by 1937 there was a large number of contracts out of Siegel's life since he had angered so many of the bosses. To protect him, Lansky and Luciano persuaded him to move out to California. In California, Siegel he was the main man in the Luciano and Lansky gang and extorted money from movie studio owners. He continued to do murders for Luciano. Siegel " borrowed" five million dollars of syndicate money to build the first super casino/hotel in Las Vegas. The Flamingo hotel turned out to be a fiasco and lost money. Luciano demanded repayment of the funds and Siegel refused, thinking he was as powerful as Luciano. Luciano ordered his death. Although Siegel was warned by Lansky of this plan, he continued to refuse to repay the money. On June 20, 1947 he was killed. Dutch Schultz, was another major player in organized crime He opened a saloon in the Bronx, New York during prohibition and organized a group of thugs to expand his bootlegging operations. His empire soon grew to large proportions with many illegal establishments in the Bronx and Manhattan. During his trial for tax evasion, many of his rackets were taken over by Luciano, who expected Schultz to be convicted. Although this prompted him to move his operation to New Jersey, Schultz was still considered so influential Luciano asked him to be a member of the Board of Directors of the crime syndicate. The District Attorney of New York, Thomas E. Dewey was not finished with Schultz though and continued investigating his activities. Schultz decided it was in his best interest to eliminate Dewey but the crime syndicate disagreed. They feared the killing of a District Attorney would only add to their problems but Schultz would not drop his plan. On the evening of October 23, 1935, while Schultz was informing his New Jersey associates of his plan, a Murder Inc. hit man assassinated all of them, Schultz included. He died later that evening in a Newark City hospital. Alphonse "Scarface" Capone was another organizer of the early American Mafia. He was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1899. His involvement with organized crime began when he was eleven years old. As he got older, he graduated to the more powerful "Five Pointers Gang" where he became acquainted with Luciano. When Johnny Torrio, the original leader of the "Five Pointers Gang" moved to Chicago, he invited Capone to be his sidekick. Torrio's uncle, "Big Jim" Colisimo was the crime boss in Chicago. Trouble between uncle and nephew started and Capone was hired to kill the uncle leaving Torrio in charge of all Chicago. In 1925 when Torrio was severally wounded in a shoot out, he gave Capone his vast business empire, valued at fifty million dollars a year. During this time, Capone fell out of favor with other Mafia gangsters and several attempts were made on his life. Capone took revenge by staging the infamous St. Valentine's Day massacre in which he killed several of his enemies ending resistance to his continuing business dealings. He was finally sentenced for tax evasion and spent most of his eleven-year sentence in Alcatraz. In 1939 he was released from prison because he was in the advanced stages of syphilis. He died of this disease in 1947. At the turn of the century, the American Mafia was different from the Sicilian Mafia in a number of ways. The European Mafia was founded on a sense of loyalty and respect for culture, family and the Sicilian heritage. The Mafia was to protect its' members interests and grant them freedom in business in exchange for absolute loyalty and submission to the "family". The Sicilian Mafia was based on the belief that justice, honor and vengeance are for a man to take care of, not for a government to take care of. The Sicilian Mafia valued the code of "omerta" , the code of honor and silence and strictly adhered to the ruling that this was a secret society, open only to those who shared Sicilian blood. In contrast to the noble Sicilian Mafia, the American Mafia has proved to be a conniving, cold hearted organization. The American Mafia consists of a large group of glorified thieves, pickpockets and murderers. Although it began with the adoption of much of the Sicilian heritage it has evolved into an organization that's sole purpose is to make money using any illegal means possible. The members of the American Mafia use extortion, bootlegging, prostitution, gambling, kidnapping, and murder to achieve their ends. The above research has shown that the Mafia has become a wide spread problem. The Mafia has continued to grow and infest our society from the early 1900's. It continues to exploit and destroy the honest citizens of our country. Now, these criminal organizations not only control the adults of our communities but also have begun, through the sale and distribution of narcotics, to control our children. Crime organizations must be stopped however this is a difficult task. They have infiltrated members of our government and law enforcement agencies with the lure of money. Unfortunately, crime does pay in many instances. It is up to each of us to not look the other way, but be aware that there are really no victimless crimes. One way or another, we all pay either by higher taxes or by a more violent society. Word Count: 1992 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\AncientMariners.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ancient Mariners John Maxwell Anthropology June 17, 1997 The Ancient Mariners of the Mediterranean and Ming Dynasty China: A Comparison of Seafaring in the Ancient World "Audaces fortuna iuvat!" This Roman motto which literally means "fortune favors the bold" has been cited as a common adage used by business men during the apogee of Roman Imperial domination. Most historians who have studied the Roman world of the first and second centuries AD would most likely agree that the seafarers under the protection of the Roman Empire would have held this motto dear to their own hearts. The Mediterranean Sea of this time has been referred to as a "Roman Lake" by many historians. But this was most definitely not always the case. In fact most of the knowledge of seafaring that the Romans acquired was first discovered by other great sailors such as the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Egyptians before them. The Chinese of the Ming Dynasty could equally claim that the Indian and Pacific Ocean later in the 15th Century AD were "Chinese Lakes." These Chinese voyages of Zheng He and his "treasure ships" left a lasting imprint upon the history of seafaring. These voyages were filled with great scribes, doctors, and scientists with great knowledge of seafaring and a desire to acquire tribute for their emperor, Zhu Di, the Son of Heaven. But how did these great ancient seafarers of the Mediterranean and those of the Ming Dynasty China emerge to become the great lords of the sea? This essay shall explore this question as well as these equally important ones: Who were these seafarers? Where did they sail? What did they do? How did the sail? How were their ventures organized? And why did they go to sea? But in order to fully understand how these questions apply to these two sea peoples, we must look at the cultures themselves to determine how each was called to the sea. It has been said that the study of world maritime history is really a study of different cultures. These various cultures determine not only why a particular civilization goes to sea, but also when, where, how, and who does so. Unlike Ming China, the Mediterranean is and does consist of many different cultures. Over the centuries, because of these varying cultures and the struggles that erupted over desired resources, the Mediterranean has also come under the domination of many different masters. This ever changing succession of various ruling states led to innumerable maritime developments as one power sought to outdo the other not only on land, but most importantly, on the Mediterranean Sea. "Bringing of forty ships filled with cedar logs." So wrote an ancient scribe in listing the accomplishments of Pharaoh Snefru, ruler of Egypt about 2600 BC. The Egyptians were, according to most academic records, among the very first civilizations along the Mediterranean to go to sea. The Egyptian desire to go to sea probably first began in view of the need to lower the cost of trade goods. Nearly all of these initial voyages to sea began in frail boats using mostly human propulsion. First with hands and later with oars, these voyages mostly stayed within sight of land. The use of these vessels to transport goods came in response to an economic desire to reduce the bottom line: lower costs and increase profits. Before the utilization of the sailing ship, these valuable goods were carried overland thousands of miles and thus the price of a good would increase with each mile and each middleman. This utilization of trade by sail ship eventually led to perhaps the first state sponsored sailing venture. Under the rule of Pharaoh Mentuhotep III the need for myrrh and frankincense for ceremonies increased. However, these products were derived from trees that grew in only two places; Ethiopia and Somalia. This and later pharaohs derived these trading enterprises by developing ports along the Red Sea to assist traders in moving these and other goods down into Somalia or Ethiopia and back again. They discovered that a sea route would offer an alternative to overland transport. This venture made it possible for the Egyptian sailors to bring in these goods more cheaply, quickly and efficiently. Though Egypt would be the first major trading nation, they were not the first true maritime power in the Mediterranean. This honor went to the Minoans who hailed from the island nation of Crete. The Minoans were the first to protect their trade with a powerful fleet. This utilization of a navy to protect commerce would signal the shape of things to come. Their trade goods were coveted by both Egyptian and Phoenician royalty and for several years Crete prospered. But by 1500 BC Minoan civilization had collapsed, possibly due to a volcanic eruption nearby and was replaced by a new maritime power: the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians had great ships and great sailors as well as the ports that were needed to support them. The Phonecians possessed the timber needed to build sturdy ships and they would eventually make it as far as the West Coast of Africa on their many trading explorations. Their two largest contributions to the later world would be the founding of Carthage and the use of writing. The installation of writing and its use by the Greeks in the future would create an atmosphere that encouraged a high level of efficient trading in the years to come. The next great power in the Mediterranean were the Greeks. The Greeks would make many innovations that revolved specifically around trade. Greeks developed large clay jars, called amporas, to not only carry goods but also to measure them once they arrived in a trading port. The Greek ships were also much stronger than previous ships. They used edge to edge construction technique which made them extremely seaworthy. They also placed lead sheathing over the entire hull in order to protect it even further. Once Alexander the Great came to power, the many Greek harbors were also expanded to adequately facilitate their prosperity as maritime trade reached an all time high. Like the Phonecians, the Greeks set up many colonies throughout the Mediterranean that aided in supporting the mother city. The first challenge to the Greeks came from the Persians, but their fleet was soundly defeated by the Greeks. The next antagonist would succeed beyond most anyone's expectations and would become the new dominant power in the Mediterranean for a thousand years; they were known as the Romans. How could a group of landlubbers from the north such as the Romans come to dominate the Mediterranean and become a great sea power in their own right in such a relatively short period of time? Though they were land people, the reason that Rome became so great, was because of their geographic location on the River Tiber. Here both land and sea trading routes converged to yield the Romans a glimpse unto what lied outside their city walls. One of Rome's main competitors in trade was Carthage. Over the years they would develop a bitter rivalry that would eventually end in three Punic Wars, complete destruction of Carthage, and the rise of Rome as the great sea power of the Mediterranean. This was done by adapting land based combat methods on the sea. After the destruction of Carthage, the Mediterranean would become a "Roman lake" for many centuries to come and the life blood that would keep the republic and then the empire strong for nearly a thousand years would be trade. Now that we have done a short overview of the important maritime civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean, lets move onto the Ming Dynasty China. Even though China was involved in the international aspects of trade, the biggest difference between them and other parts of the world is that China did not actively seek out trade partners. China did not send out trading vessels to different nations to trade goods, other nations came to China. The bulk of Chinese maritime trade during the Ming Dynasty was inter-coastal. This consisted of Chinese junks sailing the waters between different provinces and villages trading for food and luxury goods. Out of all the nations of the world, the goods that China possessed were some of the most coveted and most sought after. It was with the goods of China in mind that nations of the Mediterranean searched for a maritime route that would bring these much sought after goods to them more cheaply, quickly and efficiently. It could be successfully argued that China always was a maritime nation of great skill but it was not until the voyages of Zheng He that the true brilliance of their knowledge began to shine. In many ways, these voyages were the first true scientific voyages in history. Many Chinese scientists journeyed with the treasure fleets collecting data as they went forth. Many of the innovations that the Chinese had developed over the last few hundred years were also put to use on this voyage. One of the most important was the Chinese understanding of magnetism that came to their comprehension from their belief in chi which is an energy that runs through everything. This understanding of magnetism helped the Chinese develop a magnetic compass that significantly improved the distance that Chinese mariners could travel. All of this development and innovation was not inexpensive and the Chinese government knew that the best way to bring in more income was to establish more trade. This was only one of several goals that Zheng He possessed when he set out with the first great "treasure fleet" in 1405. Being that we have now looked briefly at both the civilizations of the Mediterranean and that of the Ming Dynasty China, we can address the specific question at hand. Who were the seafarers? The answer is totally different depending on which area of the world you are referring. In the Mediterranean the seafarers were usually simple traders with only a limited knowledge of navigation and the sailing of the sea. This would change somewhat as the Mediterranean became a battleground and more and more seafarers had to have not only a basic understanding of the sea but also knowledge of how it affected military tactics. There never was a centralized control of trade in the Mediterranean therefore the people who were involved in trade were seldom representative of a certain political ideology or nation. Basically the seafarers of the Mediterranean were simple traders who were born, raised and trained upon the sea. In comparison, Chinese seafarers that comprised the treasure fleets were made up of people from all over China. They made up a diverse group of not only sailors but scientists, shipwrights, physicians, and other professions that formed a group of not only devoted men eager to gain trading prospects but also men in search of tribute for the emperor and scientific discovery. This is not to say that this was the case for all of the seafarers in China. As stated before, China had a thriving coastal trade for thousands of years, long before the departure of the treasure fleets. These coastal traders were quite similar to their counterparts in the Mediterranean. They were also simple traders with limited knowledge of navigation in open water. The Chinese traders also were independent and did not trade for the glory of the government but for the their own sufficiency. This all began to change during the years of the treasure fleets as the seafarers of China turned into the diplomats and representatives of the emperor. Where did they sail? In the case of the Mediterranean the sailing geography was usually limited to that particular body of water. Of course there were some exceptions to this rule. The importance of the Red Sea to the development of Egyptian trade cannot be overstated. The Persian Gulf is where all of the goods coming from India and China were transferred to overland routes and eventually other overseas routes and this made the Persian Gulf very important in the link that kept the Mediterranean in the international trade theater. Also many of the seafarers of the Mediterranean would sail as far west as the coast of Africa and possibly the shores of England, while also journeying into the Western Indian Ocean and all through the many rivers and seas that constitute that territory. In China the situation was much more diverse. Though the "junk" traders seldom left sight of the Chinese coast (excluding Taiwan), the situation regarding the treasure fleet could not be more different. Under the guidance of Zheng He, the seven different treasure fleets that went forth between 1405 and 1433 sailed from as far east as Australia and Batavia to as far west as Africa. They also sailed to India and Arabia and numerous place in between. Because this was a journey to gather patronage for the new emperor, Zhu Di, the treasure fleets made as much landfall as possible and did so in the most peaceful of manners to avoid potential conflict. Without a doubt, it would have been completely possible for these Chinese treasure ships to sail around Africa and into Europe if so desired. What did they do? In the Mediterranean they were mostly traders. Of course, warfare was always a possibility when the time arose, but the main occupation of the maritime civilizations of the Mediterranean was trade and commerce. When there were no harbors to pull into they would trade on the beaches. In the case of the Phoenicians they seldom saw their trading partners, they left the goods on the beach and came back later to collect the payment. In the case of the treasure fleets of China, things were much different. Their voyages were not about trade as much as they were about receiving tribute for the emperor. When the fleet made landfall, Zheng He and other representatives would go ashore to inform the country that they were now a protectorate of China and that they must pay tribute. They would also set up trade to be carried out under the watchful eye of the Chinese government. In some cases, the treasure fleet would even intervene in local wars to maintain harmony throughout the empire of Zhu Di, the Sun of Heaven. How did they sail? The evolution of ship design was ever changing in the Mediterranean. From the keeless ships of the early Egyptians to the strong ships of the Greeks, ships in the Mediterranean were in a constant state of flux. Much of this had to do with the demands put on vessels as trade increased but a lot of this innovation that occurred also had to do with the constant threat of warfare in the Mediterranean and the need for stronger and better ships to meet this threat. The most popular method of ship construction in the Mediterranean was beginning with a lying the keel and ribs down first and then attaching the shell later using different methods such as the mortises and tenons style which was one of the most secure. Most of the navigation was done by using coastal landmarks but many of the seafarers were familiar with celestial navigation and used this during the nighttime hours when not obstructed by cloud cover. The technological innovations that were used in the building of the treasure fleets are were remarkable. The Chinese had dry-docks in which to build their ships. These ships also had watertight compartments which made them remarkably seaworthy. Even better than the development of these true ocean going vessels was the creation of the floating magnetic compass and a vast array of gunpowder weapons that made the fleet of Zheng He the most formidable on Earth for centuries to come. How were their sailing ventures organized? Why did they go to sea? These last two questions seem to be interwoven and can be addressed as more or less one question. As aforementioned, the civilizations of the Mediterranean went to sea for one of two purposes, trade or war. In the event of war, the sailing ventures were organized but in the case of trade they were not. This is a direct reflection of the geographic makeup of the Mediterranean. Because there are so many different cultures throughout the Mediterranean it seems logical that their sailing ventures would not be well organized and for the most part independent of other ventures. The people of the Mediterranean went to sea for trade in independent trading vessels that directly reflected their diverse civilizations and cultures. On the other hand, China would be a story quite of a different nature. The treasure fleets of Zheng He were extremely well organized and they went to sea not so much for the trade as for the greater glory of the Chinese emperor. This organization and dedication to country are a true reflection on the people of Southern China. Even though there were many different provinces the people were united by a common race and cultural heritage. This is the exact opposite of the situation in the Mediterranean. The treasure fleets were organized in a most managerial way and the ships themselves were filled with scientists and scholars whose sole reason for begin was to gain knowledge and promote their emperor. This is a direct reflection of the enlightened attitude that was prevalent at this particular time in Ming China. Comparing the ancient mariners of the Mediterranean and those of the Ming Dynasty has been a study of contrasts. The Ming Dynasty, even though separated by more than a thousand years from the ancient mariners of the Mediterranean, were far more technologically advanced than any other peoples at that time and had made more leaps in their overall seafaring than any other peoples up to that point. Despite this, not long after the last treasure fleet had made its last voyage and returned to China, it halted fast and turned its back on the sea. This decision would cost the Chinese very dearly in the years following the last voyage of the treasure fleet and the near complete destruction and conquest of their empire by western sea-power is a testament to the value of maintaining a seafaring culture. The civilizations of the Mediterranean on the other hand would never turn their back on the sea and would continue to advance and become a solid, well trained seafarers. To this very day they admire, persevere, and advance their nautical tradition. Word Count: 3075 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Articles of Confederation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Articles of Confederation The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation were first drafted by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia Pennsylvania in 1777. This first draft was prepared by a man named John Dickinson in 1776. The Articles were then ratified in 1781. The cause for the changes to be made was due to state jealousies and widespread distrust of the central authority. This jealousy then led to the emasculation of the document. As adopted, the articles provided only for a "firm league of friendship" in which each of the 13 states expressly held "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence." The People of each state were given equal privileges and rights, freedom of movement was guaranteed, and procedures for the trials of accused criminals were outlined. The articles established a national legislature called the Congress, consisting of two to seven delegates from each state; each state had one vote, according to its size or population. No executive or judicial branches were provided for. Congress was charged with responsibility for conducting foreign relations, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy, settling boundary disputes, establishing and maintaining a postal service, and various lesser functions. Some of these responsibilities were shared with the states, and in one way or another Congress was dependent upon the cooperation of the states for carrying out any of them. Four visible weaknesses of the articles, apart from those of organization, made it impossible for Congress to execute its constitutional duties. These were analyzed in numbers 15-22 of The FEDERALIST, the political essays in which Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay argued the case for the U.S. CONSTITUTION of 1787. The first weakness was that Congress could legislate only for states, not for individuals; because of this it could not enforce legislation. Second, Congress had no power to tax. Instead, it was to assess its expenses and divide those among the states on the basis of the value of land. States were then to tax their own citizens to raise the money for these expenses and turn the proceeds over to Congress. They could not be forced to do so, and in practice they rarely met their obligations. Third, Congress lacked the power to control commerce--without its power to conduct foreign relations was not necessary, since most treaties except those of peace were concerned mainly with trade. The fourth weakness ensured the demise of the Confederation by making it too difficult to correct the first three. Amendments could have corrected any of the weaknesses, but amendments required approval by all 13 state legislatures. None of the several amendments that were proposed met that requirement. On the days from September 11, 1786 to September 14, 1786, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia had a meeting of there delegates at the Annapolis Convention. Too few states were represented to carry out the original purpose of the meeting--to discuss the regulation of interstate commerce--but there was a larger topic at question, specifically, the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. Alexander Hamilton successfully proposed that the states be invited to send delegates to Philadelphia to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." As a result, the Constitutional Convention was held in May 1787. The Constitutional Convention, which wrote the Constitution of the United States, was held in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. It was called by the Continental Congress and several states in response to the expected bankruptcy of Congress and a sense of panic arising from an armed revolt--Shays's Rebellion--in New England. The convention's assigned job, following proposals made at the Annapolis Convention the previous September, was to create amendments to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates, however, immediately started writing a new constitution. Fifty-five delegates representing 12 states attended at least part of the sessions. Thirty-four of them were lawyers; most of the others were planters or merchants. Although George Washington, who presided, was 55, and John Dickinson was 54, Benjamin Franklin 81, and Roger Shermen 66, most of the delegates were young men in their 20s and 30s. Noticeable absent were the revolutionary leaders of the effort for independence in 1775-76, such as John Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. The delegates' knowledge concerning government, both ideal and practical, made the convention perhaps the most intelligent such gathering ever assembled. On September 17 the Constitution was signed by 39 of the 42 delegates present. A period of national argument followed, during which the case for support of the constitution was strongly presented in the FEDERALIST essays of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The last of the 13 states to ratify the Constitution was Rhode Island on May 29, 1790. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Athens.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Athens A "Golden Age" for Athens? The 5th century BCE was a period of great development in Ancient Greece, and specifically in Athens. The development of so many cultural achievements within Athens and the Athenian Empire has led scholars to deem this period a "Golden Age." It is true that his period had many achievements, but in the light of the Athenians treatment of women, metics (non-Athenians living in Athens), and slaves it is given to question whether or not the period can truly be called "Golden." The 5th century and the Athenian Empire gave birth to an amazing amount of accomplishments. One such accomplishment was the minting of standard Athenian coins that were used throughout the Athenian holdings as valid for trade. The use of standard Athenian-minted coins helped the Athenians establish and maintain control over their empire by helping to control trade and the economy of the area to the Athenians' benefit. Since Athens regularly received tribute from the states it controlled, Pericles, the leader of Athens, began a building project in Athens that was legendary. Athens had been sacked by the Persians during the Persian Wars and Pericles set out to rebuild the city. The city's walls had already been rebuilt right after the end of the second Persian War so Pericles rebuilt temples, public grounds, and other impressive structures. One of the most famous structures to result from Pericles' building project was the Parthenon. The Parthenon and other such structures re- established Athens's glory and while some Athenians criticized the projects as too lavish, most Athenians enjoyed the benefits of the program. A major benefit to the Athenian people was that there was an abundance of work in the polis. The 5th century BCE was also an important time for Athenian thought. "Sophists," paid teachers, taught rhetoric amongst other subjects to wealthy Athenian citizens. The Sophists were criticized by Athenians who thought that Sophists were destroying Greek tradition by emphasizing rationalism over a belief in superstition, however it was this rationalism that became so important to Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, both who belonged to the 5th century BCE. The Sophists high regard for rhetoric was later of great use to citizen addressing the Assembly in the developing Athenian democracy. Athenian democracy is perhaps considered the crowning achievement of the 5th century BCE. Democracy grew out of the status that poorer Athenians were gaining as rowers for the ships of the large Athenian fleet. Since these poorer Athenians now played a large part in the Athenian military, they ga8ined more say in the Athenian government. This led to a democratic government where "every male citizen over 18 years was eligible to attend and vote in the Assembly, which made all the important decisions of Athens in the 5th century BC_" (Demand 223). This democratic government is considered by some scholars to show the full enlightenment of the Athenians in the 5th century BCE. This glorious enlightenment seems somehow less enlightening, however, when one views this period from other than a male Athenian's eyes. Athenian enlightenment and democracy was by and for male citizens. The underprivileged of Athens included women, metics and slaves. The position of Athenian wives in Athenian society is clearly stated by Xenephon in his Oeconomicus. Ischomacus, a young husband, is conversing with Socrates about the duties of husband and wife. Ischomacus relates how he explained to his wife that the duties needed to support a household consisted of "indoor" and "outdoor" activities. He then explains to his wife, "And since labor and diligence are required both indoors and outdoors_it seems to me that the god prepared the woman's nature especially for indoor jobs and cares and the man's nature for outdoor jobs and concerns." (Spyridakis 206). This is the general attitude that Athenians held toward their wives. The Athenian wife was expected to marry and bring a dowry into her husband's house. Although this dowry was attached to the woman, she was in no way allowed to control the lands and moneys she might bring to her husband.. Similarly, women were not allowed to vote or take any part in the Assembly, being seen as unfit for this privilege. The primary function of a citizen's wife was to take care of domestic affairs and provide the citizen with an heir. Athenian wives were rarely seen outside of their houses, for respectable wives had at least one slave who would purchase needed items at market. Poorer Athenian women were seen at market because they lacked slaves to run their errands. Women were considered intellectual non-entities and were treated as such in the Athenian Empire. Metics also had a low status in Athenian society. Metics were not allowed voting privileges in the Athenian democracy, but were compulsed to serve a specified time in the Athenian military and were taxed by the Athenians. Metics usually were lower-class tradesmen or craftsmen. Although some metics families eventually gained wealth, the vast majority of the metics remained second-class inhabitants of Athens, even though they performed some of the polis' most activities, such as military service and trade. Slavery was also matter-of-fact in 5th century Athenian life. Slaves were the property of specific owners and subject to the wishes of their owners. Like women and metics, slaves had no citizenship rights. It was possible for a slave to save enough money to buy his freedom, but a freed slave had only as much status as a metic. Aristotle defended slavery as necessary and a law of nature, saying in his Politics, "That some should rule and others should be ruled is not only necessary but expedient; indeed, from the very moment of birth some are set apart to obey and others to command." (Spyridakis 62) and also stating that, "He is by nature a slave who is capable of belonging to another (and therefore does belong to another) and who has access to reason in that he senses it and understands it but does not possess it." (Spyridakis 63). Many Athenians viewed slavery as necessary to society in order to give a citizen more time to participate in government affairs and other matters that were viewed as more important than a slave's work. Although some lower-class Athenians may have been forced to share labor with slaves, most Athenians did not participate in slave's work. Male slaves did harder labor such as construction and agriculture. Female slaves ran their mistress' errands and generally took care of domestic affairs under the watchful eye of their mistress. Slaves also acted as State scribes. In short, slaves did much of the work that allowed Athens to prosper in a period of "enlightenment." In light of the unrecognized people who helped to build the foundations for the Athenian Empire, this "Golden Age" seem far less golden. However, many major accomplishments grew out of this period as well. Before one can or cannot place a "Golden Age" label on 5th century Athens, one must consider other times when the ends of man's accomplishments may not have justified the means. Athens could be compared to post- Revolutionary America, where a "democratic" government was only available to white male citizens. Yet Americans tend to view this time with much patriotism and pride. Likewise the Industrial Revolution is said to be a great accomplishment of mankind, but little recognition is given to the horrible factory conditions that employees, many women and children, endured. I would say that the 5th century BCE was as much a "Golden Age" for man as either of the above mentioned time periods. I think that most of our accomplishments as humans rest on the shoulders of invisible and overlooked peoples. Works Cited Demand, Nancy. A History of Ancient Greece. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. Spyridakis, Stylianos V. and Bradley P. Nystrom, eds., trans. Ancient Greece: Documantary Perspectives. Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt, 1985. Word Count: 1306 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\AtomicBomb.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Atomic Bomb August 6th, 1945, 70,000 lives were ended in a matter of seconds. The United States had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Today many argue over whether or not the US should have taken such a drastic measure. Was it entirelynecessary that we drop such a devastating weapon? Yes, it was.First, look at what was going on at the time the decision was made. The U.S had been fighting a massive war since 1941. Morale was most likely low, and resources were probably at the same level as morale. However, each side continued to fight, and both were determined to win. Obviously, the best thing that could have possibly have happened would have been to bring the war to a quick end, with a minimum of casualties. What would have happened had the A-bomb not been used? The most obvious thing is that the war would have continued. U.S forces; therefore, would have had to invade the home island of Japan. Imagine the number of casualties that could have occurred if this would have happened Also, our forces would not only have to fight off the Japanese military, but they would have to defend themselves against the civilians of Japan as well. It was also a fact that the Japanese government had been equipping the commoners with any kind of weapon they could get their hands on. It is true that this could mean a Japanese citizen could have anything from a gun to a spear, but many unsuspecting soldiers might have fallen victim to a surprise spear attack! The number of deaths that would have occurred would have been much greater, and an invasion would have taken a much longer period of time. The Japanese would have continued to fight the US with all of what they had; spears, guns, knives, whatever they could get their hands on, just as long as they continued to fight the enemy. As mentioned before, it is a fact that some civilians had been ready to fight our military with spears! What made it possible that the Japanese would resort to using spears? Why wouldn't they use guns or other weapons? Well, the truth was, the government just didn't have the resources to give out a gun to just any citizen. US naval blockades are one of the major reasons that Japan was so low on resources, and a main point opponents of the decision to drop the bomb constantly bring up. Japan obviously was very low on resources. Japanese civilians were ready to die with spears in their hands, surely the military would do the same. Besides, the Japanese military did still have some resources to go on. So again I must bring out the fact that Japan could have continued to fight, and they would have. And I'm sure anyone can realize what would happen if the war continued; more deaths. Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt and President Truman, wrote, "By the beginning of September 1944, Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade." If that was true, how could they have continued to fight and rack up enemy kills? If the Chief of Staff to the President figured they would soon surrender around September 1944; why were they still fighting almost a year later? And how can we be so sure that any other estimates on when the war would end would be correct? Basically, we can't. For all anyone knows, Japan would have kept fighting. It was the atomic bomb that forced Japan to surrender and in turn saved thousands if not millions of lives. How can anyone be so sure that Japan would continue to fight? No one can say exactly what would have happened, because let's face it, no one really knows. It's possible Japan was just about to surrender, but most evidence would not agree with that statement. I'm sure most have heard of a group of men called the Kamikaze. Kamikaze were "suicide" pilots. They would load an airplane up with explosives and try to nose-dive it into an enemy target. Think about what must be on this pilot's mind. Imagine the undying love he must have for his country. He would fight until the end, for his emperor and his country. The scary thing about this is the majority of the Japanese military thought this way. The fact that the enemy is ready to die so long as you die with him is not something a soldier wants to think about before going into battle. Once more I must bring into the picture the fact that a longer war means more deaths, and it appears that a longer war is exactly what Japan had in mind. Most opponents of the bomb say the it was immoral to drop the bomb on such targets as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you cannot deny the fact the major manufacturing of wartime products was being conducted here. Now, I'm going to be honest, I don't believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best places to bomb, due to the high civilian numbers; however, it is still my belief that the Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war. Also, leaflets and warnings had been issued to the people of those cities warning them of an attack. Some say that the United States should have warned what kind of attack it would have been. This however seems ridiculous to me. It shouldn't matter what kind of warning is given, a threat under such conditions should be taken seriously, and the citizens should have evacuated. One might also point out the fact, however brutal this may seem, that ever since Sherman's March to the Sea of the American Civil War, which was a turning point in modern warfare, civilian population centers are also considered fair game to the military. The moral issue of dropping an atomic bomb is very controversial. Especially since radiation is a major side effect of such a weapon. On the other hand though, fire-bombings of other Japanese cities had left other civilians equally scarred. If one wanted to argue the issue of radiation as a side effect of atomic bombing, they would have to find a way to argue the side effects of bombing altogether. Is it immoral to use a bomb? No; it's not very nice, but it's not immoral. These are the kinds of things that happen in war, however unfortunate they are. Despite other arguments, the Atomic Bomb was a necessity. Without it, the number of men that would have died on both sides far surpasses that of the number that were killed in the droppings of both Atomic Bombs. Let's face it, the goal of waging war is victory with minimum losses on one's own side, and if possible a minimum amount of losses on the enemy's side. The Atomic Bomb cut losses to a minimum and drew war to an end quickly. It was a military necessity. Word Count: 1171 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Aushwitz.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aushwitz : (1) INTRODUCTION The Holocaust is the most horrifying crime against humanity of all times. "Hitler, in an attempt to establish the pure Aryan race, decided that all mentally ill, gypsies, non supporters of Nazism, and Jews were to be eliminated from the German population. He proceeded to reach his goal in a systematic scheme." One of his main methods of "doing away" with these "undesirable" was through the use of concentration camps. "In January 1941, in a meeting with his top officials the 'final solution' was decided". Jews were to be eliminated from the population. Auschwitz was the concentration camp that carried out Hitler's "final solution" in greater numbers than any other. In this paper I will discuss concentration camps with a detailed description of the most well- known one, Auschwitz. (2) CONCENTRATION CAMPS The first concentration camps were set up in 1933. In the early days of Hitler, concentration camps were places that held people in protective custody. Victims for protective custody included those who were both physically and mentally ill, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews and anyone against the Nazi regime. "Gypsies were classified as people with atleast two gypsy great grandparents." By the end of 1933 there were atleast fifty concentration camps throughout occupied Europe. "At first, the camps were controlled by the Gestapo (police), but by 1934 the S.S. (Hitler's personal security force) were ordered, by Hitler, to control the camps." Camps were set up for different purposes. Some for forced labor, others for medical experiments and, later on, for death/ extermination. Transition camps were set up as holding places for death camps. "Henrick Himmler, chief of the German police, the Gestapo, thought that the camps would provide an economic base for the soldiers." This did not happen. The work force was poorly organized and working conditions were inhumane. Therefore, productivity was minimal. Camps were set up along railroad lines, so that the prisoners would be conveniently close to their destination. As they were being transported, the soldiers kept telling the Jews to have hope. (3) When the camps were finally opened, most of the families who were shipped out together ended up being separated. Often, the transports were a sampling of what went on in the camps, cruelty by the officers, near starvation of those being transported, fetid and unsanitary conditions on the trains. "On the trains, Jews were starved of food and water for days. Many people did not survive the ride to arrive at the camp." Jews were forced to obey the guard's orders from the moment they arrived at the camps. "If they didn't, they would be beaten, put into solitary confinement or shot." The prisoners usually had marks on their clothes or numbers on their arms to identify them. The sanitary conditions of the camps were horrible. "There was only one bathroom for four hundred people. They had to stand for hours in snow, rain, heat, or cold for role-call, which was twice a day." Within the first few days of being at the camps, thousands of people died of hunger, starvation and disease. Other people died from the cruel punishments of the guards; beatings and torture. "Typhus, a disease caused by germs carried by flies, was the main disease that spread throughout the camps. Even when people were sick, they still continued working because they did not see that sickness meant death." In 1937, 7,000 Jews were in camps. By 1938, 10,000 more Jews were sent to camps. "Jews were taken to camps if they expressed negative feelings about the government, if they married a non-Jew, if they were sick (mentally or physically), or if they had a police record." (4) When someone escaped from the camp, all the prisoners in that group were shot. Nazis, who claimed that they did not necessarily hate Jews, but wanted to preserve the Aryan race, seemed to enjoy making the Jews suffer. They also felt that slavery was better than killing their prisoners. "Gold fillings, wedding bands, jewelry, shoes and clothing were taken from the prisoners when they first entered the camps and were sold." Surrounding some of the camps in Poland was a forest, that the Jews who planned to escape would flee into. Before the escaped prisoners got very far, they were killed. "When the Germans caught a Jew planning a rebellion, and the Jew refused to name his/her associates, the Germans would bring everyone from his/her barracks out and force him/her to watch the Germans mutilate the others." The people who could not run away from the camps dreamt about revolt. Special areas of a camp were set aside for medical experiments. One doctor in a medical unit performed an experiment in sterilization. "He injected a substance into women's ovaries to sterilize them. The injection resulted in temperature and inflammation of the ovaries." Joseph Mengels, one of the most notorious Nazi doctors, hummed opera tunes when selecting among the new arrivals the victims for the gas chambers or medical experiments. His women victims for sterilization were usually 20-30 years of age. "Other experiments included putting inmates into high pressure chambers to test the effects of altitude on pilots. Some inmates were frozen to (5) determine the best way to revive frozen German soldiers." (6) DEATH CAMPS "The first death camp, Chelmno, was set up in Poland on December 8, 1941. This was five weeks before the Wannsee Conference at which time the 'final solution' was planned out." Usually, the death camps were part of existing camps, but some new ones were just set up for this purpose. When the prisoners first arrived at the camps, those sent to the left were transferred to death camps. When Jews entered the death camps, their suitcases, baby bottles, shawls, and eyeglasses were taken and were sold. Once in the death camps the prisoners were again divided. Women were sent to one side to have their hair shaven and the men to the other. "They were all sent to the showers, naked with a bar of soap, so as to deceive them into believing that they were truly going into a shower. Most people smelled the burning bodies and knew the truth. " There were six death camps; Chelmno, Treblinka, Auschwitz (Birkenau), Sobibor, Maidanek, and Belzec. These camps used gas from the shower heads to murder their victims. A seventh death camp, Mauthausen, used a method called "extermination through labor". (7) AUSCHWITZ Auschwitz, located in Poland, was Nazi Germany's largest concentration camp. It was established by order of Himmler on April 27, 1940. At first, it was small because it was a work camp for Polish and Soviet prisoners of war. It became a death camp in 1941. "Auschwitz was divided into three areas: Auschwitz 1 was the camp commander's headquarters and administrative offices. Auschwitz 2 was called Birkenau and it was the death camp with forty gas chambers. Auschwitz 3 was a slave labor camp." "On the gate of Auschwitz was a sign in German which read, 'Arbeit macht frei', which means work makes you free." Auschwitz included camp sites a few miles away from the main complex. At these sites, slave labor was used to kill the people. The working conditions were so poor that death was a sure result. " In March 26, 1942, Auschwitz took women prisoners, but after August 16, 1942 the women were housed in Birkenau." When the Jews arrived at Auschwitz, they were met with threats and promises. "If they didn't do exactly as they were told, they would be beaten, deprived of food, or shot. From time to time, they would be assured that things would get better." The daily meals in Auschwitz consisted of watery soup, distributed once a day, with a small piece of bread. In addition, they got extra allowance consisting of 3/4 ounce of margarine, a little piece of cheese or a spoonful of watered jam. Everyone in the camp was so malnourished that if a drop of soup spilled (8) prisoners would rush from all sides to see if they could get some of the soup. "Because of the bad sanitary conditions, the inadequate diet, the hard labor and other torturous conditions in Auschwitz, most people died after a few months of their arrival." The few people who managed to stay alive for longer were the ones who were assigned better jobs. "The prisoners slept on three shelves of wooden slabs with six of these units to each tier. They had to stand for hours in the wet and mud during role call, which was twice a day. Some people thought the reason hundreds of people died, daily, was because when it rained they lay with wet clothes in their bunks." In place of toilets, there were wooden boards with round holes and underneath them concretes troughs. Two or three hundred people could sit on them at once. While they were on these troughs they were watched in order to assure that they did not stay too long. "There was no toilet paper, so the prisoners used linings of jackets. If they didn't have they might steal from someone else." The smells were horrible because there wasn't enough water to clean the Latrine, the so called bathrooms. When people were loaded onto trains to be taken to the gas chambers, they were told that they were being "resettled" in labor camps. This was one of the many lies told. It was impossible for the Jews to make out which building was the gas chambers because they looked presentable from the outside, just like any other building. Over the gas chambers were well kept lawns with flowers bordering them. When the Jews were being taken to the gas chambers, (9) they thought they were being taken to the baths. "While people were waiting for them 'baths', a group of women prisoners, dressed in navy skirts and white shirts, played very delightful music." "In Auschwitz, Jews were killed by something called Lykon B. It was hydrogen cyanide which was poured through the ceiling of the gas chambers and turned into gas. The S.S. commanders of Auschwitz preferred Lykon B. because it worked fast." At first, there were five gas chambers in Auschwitz, the procedure for gassing was as follows : "About 900 people were gassed at a time. First they undressed in a nearby room. Then, they were told to go into another room to be deloused, They filled the gas chambers like packed like sardines. After a few minutes of horrible suffering, the victims died. The bodies were then transported to ovens where they were burned." The gas chambers were not large enough to execute great numbers at a time, so crematoria were built. The crematoria would burn 2,000 bodies in less than 24 hours. An elevator would take them from the dressing room to the crematoria. "It took 30 minutes to kill 2,500 victims, but close to 24 hours to burn the bodies." Many Jews and non - Jews tried to escape from Auschwitz. Some succeeded. Of course they wanted to inform the world of what was going on. Those who escaped wrote descriptions of the horrors they suffered. Information spread to many countries, yet no countries seemed to do anything to help the situation. In fact, as the war progressed, the number of prisoners increased. "In total, between 1.5 and 3.5 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz between the (10) years 1940 and 1945." Where were our brothers in America when millions of Jews died? (11) CONCLUSION The Nazis, under Hitler, organized the destruction of the Jews. Why they did it is unknown. Perhaps it was because of a history of tension between the Christians and Jews, or perhaps, because Hitler needed a scapegoat for Germany's problems. People throughout history have been murdered; but never as many people as during the Holocaust in such a short period of time. 1/3 of all the Jews in the world were eliminated. "The estimated total is somewhere around six million. This number included Jews from all over Europe. There were also 500,000 non- Jews murdered." Hitler's method of killing the jews and other undesirable people was first by torture and then by plain murder. In the early days of his leadership, he took away their rights as citizens and then as people. They were treated like slaves and lived like animals. After 1942, his goal was to exterminate all Jewish and "unpure" people. Many Jews were killed before that date, but they were a small number compared to the mass murdering of the Holocaust. " We Must Never Forget " are the words that every Jew must remember. By not forgetting, we are preventing another holocaust from occurring. We are also letting the entire world know and remember the millions of loved ones lost in the horrible killing that we call the holocaust. (12) BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauer, Yehuda. A History of the Holocaust. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982. Chartock, Roselle. The Holocaust Years: Society on Trial. New York: Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, 1978. Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust - A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War. New York: Holt, Reinhardt & Winston, 1985. Meltzer, Milton. Never to Forget the Jews of the Holocaust. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Rossel, Seymour. The Holocaust. New York: Franklin Watts, 1981. "Concentration Camps", Encyclopedia Judaica. 1972 ed., Keter Publishers. "Concentration Camp Conditions Reported Worse", New York Times, (March 7, 1940), page 8. "It Happened to Me", Sassy, (May 1991), page 24. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction page 1 Concentration Camps pages 2-5 Death Camps page 6 Auschwitz pages 7-10 Conclusion page 11 Bibliography page 12 Endnotes pages 13-14 AUSCHWITZ CONCENTRATION CAMP / DEATH CAMP CLASS 8-J . Milton Meltzer. Never to Forget the Jew of the Holocaust. (New York; Harper & Row, 1976) page 3 . Meltzer, page 5 . Yehuda Bauer. A History of the Holocaust. (New York; Franklin Watts, 1982) page 205 . Meltzer, page 28 . Bauer, page 208 . Seymour Rossel. The Holocaust. (New York; Franklin Watts, 1981) page 76 . Rossel, page 77 . Rossel, page 77 . Rossel, page 78 . Martin Gilbert. The Holocaust - A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War. (New York; Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1985) page 127 . Rossel, page 86 . Rossel, page 101 . Bauer, page 219 . Bauer, page 219 . Bauer, page 208 . Rossel, page 79 . Gilbert, page 210 . Bauer, page 214 . " It Happened to Me ". Sassy, New York. May, 1991, page 24 . "Auschwitz". Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 1, page 854 . Gilbert, page 376 . Roselle Chartock, The Holocaust Year; Society on Trial. (New York; Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, 1978) page 5 . Chartock, page 4 . Chartock, page 7 . Chartock, page 3 . Meltzer, page 130 . "Concentration Camp Conditions Reported Worse".The New York Times, New York, March 7, 1940, page 8 . Baker, page 215 . Baker , page 215 . Rossel, page 1 (1) INTRODUCTION The Holocaust is the most horrifying crime against humanity of all times. "Hitler, in an attempt to establish the pure Aryan race, decided that all mentally ill, gypsies, non supporters of Nazism, and Jews were to be eliminated from the German population. He proceeded to reach his goal in a systematic scheme." One of his main methods of "doing away" with these "undesirable" was through the use of concentration camps. "In January 1941, in a meeting with his top officials the 'final solution' was decided". Jews were to be eliminated from the population. Auschwitz was the concentration camp that carried out Hitler's "final solution" in greater numbers than any other. In this paper I will discuss concentration camps with a detailed description of the most well- known one, Auschwitz. (2) CONCENTRATION CAMPS The first concentration camps were set up in 1933. In the early days of Hitler, concentration camps were places that held people in protective custody. Victims for protective custody included those who were both physically and mentally ill, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews and anyone against the Nazi regime. "Gypsies were classified as people with atleast two gypsy great grandparents." By the end of 1933 there were atleast fifty concentration camps throughout occupied Europe. "At first, the camps were controlled by the Gestapo (police), but by 1934 the S.S. (Hitler's personal security force) were ordered, by Hitler, to control the camps." Camps were set up for different purposes. Some for forced labor, others for medical experiments and, later on, for death/ extermination. Transition camps were set up as holding places for death camps. "Henrick Himmler, chief of the German police, the Gestapo, thought that the camps would provide an economic base for the soldiers." This did not happen. The work force was poorly organized and working conditions were inhumane. Therefore, productivity was minimal. Camps were set up along railroad lines, so that the prisoners would be conveniently close to their destination. As they were being transported, the soldiers kept telling the Jews to have hope. (3) When the camps were finally opened, most of the families who were shipped out together ended up being separated. Often, the transports were a sampling of what went on in the camps, cruelty by the officers, near starvation of those being transported, fetid and unsanitary conditions on the trains. "On the trains, Jews were starved of food and water for days. Many people did not survive the ride to arrive at the camp." Jews were forced to obey the guard's orders from the moment they arrived at the camps. "If they didn't, they would be beaten, put into solitary confinement or shot." The prisoners usually had marks on their clothes or numbers on their arms to identify them. The sanitary conditions of the camps were horrible. "There was only one bathroom for four hundred people. They had to stand for hours in snow, rain, heat, or cold for role-call, which was twice a day." Within the first few days of being at the camps, thousands of people died of hunger, starvation and disease. Other people died from the cruel punishments of the guards; beatings and torture. "Typhus, a disease caused by germs carried by flies, was the main disease that spread throughout the camps. Even when people were sick, they still continued working because they did not see that sickness meant death." In 1937, 7,000 Jews were in camps. By 1938, 10,000 more Jews were sent to camps. "Jews were taken to camps if they expressed negative feelings about the government, if they married a non-Jew, if they were sick (mentally or physically), or if they had a police record." (4) When someone escaped from the camp, all the prisoners in that group were shot. Nazis, who claimed that they did not necessarily hate Jews, but wanted to preserve the Aryan race, seemed to enjoy making the Jews suffer. They also felt that slavery was better than killing their prisoners. "Gold fillings, wedding bands, jewelry, shoes and clothing were taken from the prisoners when they first entered the camps and were sold." Surrounding some of the camps in Poland was a forest, that the Jews who planned to escape would flee into. Before the escaped prisoners got very far, they were killed. "When the Germans caught a Jew planning a rebellion, and the Jew refused to name his/her associates, the Germans would bring everyone from his/her barracks out and force him/her to watch the Germans mutilate the others." The people who could not run away from the camps dreamt about revolt. Special areas of a camp were set aside for medical experiments. One doctor in a medical unit performed an experiment in sterilization. "He injected a substance into women's ovaries to sterilize them. The injection resulted in temperature and inflammation of the ovaries." Joseph Mengels, one of the most notorious Nazi doctors, hummed opera tunes when selecting among the new arrivals the victims for the gas chambers or medical experiments. His women victims for sterilization were usually 20-30 years of age. "Other experiments included putting inmates into high pressure chambers to test the effects of altitude on pilots. Some inmates were frozen to (5) determine the best way to revive frozen German soldiers." (6) DEATH CAMPS "The first death camp, Chelmno, was set up in Poland on December 8, 1941. This was five weeks before the Wannsee Conference at which time the 'final solution' was planned out." Usually, the death camps were part of existing camps, but some new ones were just set up for this purpose. When the prisoners first arrived at the camps, those sent to the left were transferred to death camps. When Jews entered the death camps, their suitcases, baby bottles, shawls, and eyeglasses were taken and were sold. Once in the death camps the prisoners were again divided. Women were sent to one side to have their hair shaven and the men to the other. "They were all sent to the showers, naked with a bar of soap, so as to deceive them into believing that they were truly going into a shower. Most people smelled the burning bodies and knew the truth. " There were six death camps; Chelmno, Treblinka, Auschwitz (Birkenau), Sobibor, Maidanek, and Belzec. These camps used gas from the shower heads to murder their victims. A seventh death camp, Mauthausen, used a method called "extermination through labor". (7) AUSCHWITZ Auschwitz, located in Poland, was Nazi Germany's largest concentration camp. It was established by order of Himmler on April 27, 1940. At first, it was small because it was a work camp for Polish and Soviet prisoners of war. It became a death camp in 1941. "Auschwitz was divided into three areas: Auschwitz 1 was the camp commander's headquarters and administrative offices. Auschwitz 2 was called Birkenau and it was the death camp with forty gas chambers. Auschwitz 3 was a slave labor camp." "On the gate of Auschwitz was a sign in German which read, 'Arbeit macht frei', which means work makes you free." Auschwitz included camp sites a few miles away from the main complex. At these sites, slave labor was used to kill the people. The working conditions were so poor that death was a sure result. " In March 26, 1942, Auschwitz took women prisoners, but after August 16, 1942 the women were housed in Birkenau." When the Jews arrived at Auschwitz, they were met with threats and promises. "If they didn't do exactly as they were told, they would be beaten, deprived of food, or shot. From time to time, they would be assured that things would get better." The daily meals in Auschwitz consisted of watery soup, distributed once a day, with a small piece of bread. In addition, they got extra allowance consisting of 3/4 ounce of margarine, a little piece of cheese or a spoonful of watered jam. Everyone in the camp was so malnourished that if a drop of soup spilled (8) prisoners would rush from all sides to see if they could get some of the soup. "Because of the bad sanitary conditions, the inadequate diet, the hard labor and other torturous conditions in Auschwitz, most people died after a few months of their arrival." The few people who managed to stay alive for longer were the ones who were assigned better jobs. "The prisoners slept on three shelves of wooden slabs with six of these units to each tier. They had to stand for hours in the wet and mud during role call, which was twice a day. Some people thought the reason hundreds of people died, daily, was because when it rained they lay with wet clothes in their bunks." In place of toilets, there were wooden boards with round holes and underneath them concretes troughs. Two or three hundred people could sit on them at once. While they were on these troughs they were watched in order to assure that they did not stay too long. "There was no toilet paper, so the prisoners used linings of jackets. If they didn't have they might steal from someone else." The smells were horrible because there wasn't enough water to clean the Latrine, the so called bathrooms. When people were loaded onto trains to be taken to the gas chambers, they were told that they were being "resettled" in labor camps. This was one of the many lies told. It was impossible for the Jews to make out which building was the gas chambers because they looked presentable from the outside, just like any other building. Over the gas chambers were well kept lawns with flowers bordering them. When the Jews were being taken to the gas chambers, (9) they thought they were being taken to the baths. "While people were waiting for them 'baths', a group of women prisoners, dressed in navy skirts and white shirts, played very delightful music." "In Auschwitz, Jews were killed by something called Lykon B. It was hydrogen cyanide which was poured through the ceiling of the gas chambers and turned into gas. The S.S. commanders of Auschwitz preferred Lykon B. because it worked fast." At first, there were five gas chambers in Auschwitz, the procedure for gassing was as follows : "About 900 people were gassed at a time. First they undressed in a nearby room. Then, they were told to go into another room to be deloused, They filled the gas chambers like packed like sardines. After a few minutes of horrible suffering, the victims died. The bodies were then transported to ovens where they were burned." The gas chambers were not large enough to execute great numbers at a time, so crematoria were built. The crematoria would burn 2,000 bodies in less than 24 hours. An elevator would take them from the dressing room to the crematoria. "It took 30 minutes to kill 2,500 victims, but close to 24 hours to burn the bodies." Many Jews and non - Jews tried to escape from Auschwitz. Some succeeded. Of course they wanted to inform the world of what was going on. Those who escaped wrote descriptions of the horrors they suffered. Information spread to many countries, yet no countries seemed to do anything to help the situation. In fact, as the war progressed, the number of prisoners increased. "In total, between 1.5 and 3.5 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz between the (10) years 1940 and 1945." Where were our brothers in America when millions of Jews died? (11) CONCLUSION The Nazis, under Hitler, organized the destruction of the Jews. Why they did it is unknown. Perhaps it was because of a history of tension between the Christians and Jews, or perhaps, because Hitler needed a scapegoat for Germany's problems. People throughout history have been murdered; but never as many people as during the Holocaust in such a short period of time. 1/3 of all the Jews in the world were eliminated. "The estimated total is somewhere around six million. This number included Jews from all over Europe. There were also 500,000 non- Jews murdered." Hitler's method of killing the jews and other undesirable people was first by torture and then by plain murder. In the early days of his leadership, he took away their rights as citizens and then as people. They were treated like slaves and lived like animals. After 1942, his goal was to exterminate all Jewish and "unpure" people. Many Jews were killed before that date, but they were a small number compared to the mass murdering of the Holocaust. " We Must Never Forget " are the words that every Jew must remember. By not forgetting, we are preventing another holocaust from occurring. We are also letting the entire world know and remember the millions of loved ones lost in the horrible killing that we call the holocaust. (12) BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauer, Yehuda. A History of the Holocaust. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982. Chartock, Roselle. The Holocaust Years: Society on Trial. New York: Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, 1978. Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust - A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War. New York: Holt, Reinhardt & Winston, 1985. Meltzer, Milton. Never to Forget the Jews of the Holocaust. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Rossel, Seymour. The Holocaust. New York Word Count: 4719 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Australian immigration and its effects on the environment.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Australian immigration and its effects Australia is an island continent which is geographically isolated from the rest of the world. This has resulted in the evolution of many unique plants and animals and the development of a very fragile ecosystem. This ecosystem has been influenced by human immigration for many thousands of years. The original immigrants were the Aborigines who are thought to have migrated to Australia from Asia between 50 and 100 thousand years ago. These primitive people learned to live in the inhospitable environment of Australia with very little effect. Their major environmental impact was from the use of controlled burning of the land. Over the years they had learned the benefit of periodic fires to control pests and to clear debris before it accumulated and led to large uncontrolled disastrous fires. This also returned nutrients to the soil which helped to grow back new vegetation. Unlike those who followed, the Aborigines had very little impact on the environment. Following the Aborigines, Asian seafarers are believed to have traveled to Australia to trade on the north shores. Experts are not sure, but they believe that these seafarers are the ones who first introduced the dingo into Australia almost 3,500 years ago. The dingo rapidly became the top predator and is probably the cause of the disappearance of the Tasmanian wolf and the Tasmanian devil from Australia. They will hunt down almost anything but they are not known to attack humans. They will attack kangaroos, wombats, rabbits, and even lizards. After the settlers arrived and the sheep were brought in, the dingo started to hunt the sheep. The sheep were much easier for them to get. As a result of this the sheep grazers built a 3,307 mile long fence to separate the sheep from the dingo. A $20 US bounty is now placed on the pelt of each dingo. European immigrants did not come to Australia until after April 29, 1770 when captain James Cook landed in Botany Bay and made the first claim for England on the eastern part of the island. He called it New South Wales. In 1787, England started their first colony in Australia which was a penal colony since England's prisons were very overcrowded. That year, on May 13, eleven ships carrying almost 1,500 people, 800 of them convicts, left England for the new colony. The ships first landed in Botany Bay on January 18, 1788 but found it unsuitable for a colony. They then moved north to Port Jackson, one of the world's best natural harbors. The settlement was started on January 26 which is now celebrated every year as Australia day. The settlement was later named Sydney after Britain's secretary, Lord Sydney. Lord Sydney was responsible for the entire colony. The first European immigrants brought with them their livestock, plants, and traditional ways. Much of this was not suitable for Australian conditions. They also brought with them cultural beliefs including the Christian belief that man was superior to the rest of creation and had the God given right to exploit nature. The Europeans believed that the Aborigines were inferior and refused to use the knowledge that they had acquired about the environment. They began a campaign of genocide with bullets, diseases, and even poison. With few Aborigine survivors the practice of periodic burning came to an end. This led to many of the plants and animals which had become dependent on this regular burning to die off. Sheep ranching quickly became a major agricultural practice in Australia. By 1860 over 20,000,000 sheep were grazing and by 1890 there were over 100,000,000 spread over the entire continent. Sheep graze in large herds and their hooves destroy the fragile soil by trampling it down so hard that roots and water can not easily get through it. Over grazing quickly led to soil erosion turning pastures into dust bowls. This also led to the overgrowth of tougher plants, some of which were poisonous. Destruction of the grazing land also effected many of the small native animals such as bandicoots which had depended on it for food and cover. The European rabbit has also been able to thrive in Australia at the expense of the environment. They were first introduced by a squatter named Thomas Austin who had 24 rabbits sent to him in 1859. He used them for breeding and also released some to hunt. The rabbits found that there was plenty of good food and liked the sandy soil for burrowing. They reproduced rapidly and quickly took over and replaced other native animal species. Large stretches of the country became scarred from the burrowing and barren from the rabbits eating the vegetation in sight. The water buffalo is another non-native animal which has caused several problems. They were introduced by the Australian Army in the far north during the early 1800's. Originally there were only about 100 in Australia but by 1981 there were nearly 300,000 roaming the wet-lands. When they were introduced into Australia they brought the blood sucking fly with them. When the fly sucks the blood from animals it releases a chemical that can kill them. These flies breed in the dung of the buffalo and have been able to breed freely because the Australian dung beetle cannot get rid of the large patties left by the buffalo. The Australian dung beetle is only use to the small pellets left by the sheep. The buffalo also tear up the ground which has led to severe soil erosion and their wallowing turns the wetlands into muddy bogs harming breeding grounds of many small water-living plants and animals. The unpredictable Australian weather, particularly the droughts led the immigrants to develop reservoirs and irrigation systems. Unfortunately, life along these rivers had adapted to the periodic floods and droughts. Many of these native plants, deprived of this natural cycle, have suffered and are in danger of extinction. The cooling effects of the dams, due to water drawn off the bottom, has made many rivers too cold for native fish to spawn. The European immigrants had specific ideas regarding the beauty of nature. The Australian landscape did not fit these standards of beauty. They therefore began to landscape by first clearing native plants and replacing them with imported ones. The list of these plants grew year after year. Some failed while others thrived and overcrowded the native plants. One of these plants is the Prickly pear. It was originally imported as a hedge plant but eventually took over 120,000 square miles of land. The effects of immigration on the Australian environment over the last few centuries has been devastating. The original European immigrants could not foresee the major impact their transplants and traditions would have on the environment. Even if they had, conquering the land was necessary for their survival. In many areas the environmental degradation may have past the point where it can be restored and is now beyond repair. However, with greater understanding and knowledge of the Australian ecosystem it is hoped that further degradation can be stopped or even reversed. What is needed now is the commitment of people and resources to make it happen. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\aztec.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Aztec Empire History The center of the Aztec civilization was the Valley of Mexico, a huge, oval basin about 7,500 feet above sea level. The Aztecs were formed after the Toltec civilization occurred when hundreds of civilians came towards Lake Texcoco. In the swamplands there was only one piece of land to farm on and it was totally surrounded by more marshes. The Aztec families somehow converted these disadvantages to a mighty empire known as the Aztec Empire. People say the empire was partially formed by a deeply believed legend. As the legend went, it said that Aztec people would create an empire in a swampy place where they would see an eagle eating a snake, while perched on a cactus, which was growing out of a rock in the swamplands. This is what priests claimed they saw when entering the new land. By the year 1325 their capital city was finished. They called it Tenochtitlan. In the capital city, aqueducts were constructed, bridges were built, and chinapas were made. Chinapas were little islands formed by pilled up mud. On these chinapas Aztecs grew their food. The Aztec Empire included many cities and towns, especially in the Valley of Mexico. The early settlers built log rafts, then covered them with mud and planted seeds to create roots and develop more solid land for building homes in this marshy land. Canals were also cut out through the marsh so that a typical Aztec home had its back to a canal with a canoe tied at the door. In the early 1400s, Tenochtitlan joined with Texcoco and Tlacopan, two other major cities in the Valley of Mexico. Tenochtitlan became the most powerful member of the alliance. Montezuma I ruled from 1440 to 1469 and conquered large areas to the east and to the south. Montezuma's successors expanded the empire until it extended between what is now Guatemala and the Mexican State of San Luis Potosi. Montezuma II became emperor in 1502 when the Aztec Empire was at the height of its power. In 1519, the Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes landed on the East Coast of Mexico and marched inland to Tenochtitlan. The Spaniards were joined by many of the Indians who were conquered and forced to pay high taxes to the emperor. Montezuma did not oppose Cortes because he thought that he was the God Quetzalcoatl. An Aztec legend said that Quetzalcoatl was driven away by another rival god and had sailed across the sea and would return some day. His return was predicted to come in the year Ce Acatl on the Aztec Calendar. This corresponded to the year 1519. Due to this prediction, Montezuma II thought Quetzalcoatl had returned when Cortes and his troops invaded. He did not resist and was taken prisoner by Cortes and his troops. In 1520, the Aztecs rebelled and drove the Spaniards from Tenochtitlan, but Montezuma II was killed in the battle. Cortes reorganized his troops and resurged into the city. Montezuma's successor, Cuauhtemoc, surrendered in August of 1520. The Spaniards, being strong Christians, felt it was their duty to wipe out the temples and all other traces of the Aztec religion. They destroyed Tenochtitlan and built Mexico City on the ruins. However, archaeologists have excavated a few sites and have uncovered many remnants of this society. Language: The Aztec spoke a language called Nahuatl (pronounced NAH waht l). It belongs to a large group of Indian languages, which also include the languages spoken by the Comanche, Pima, Shoshone and other tribes of western North America. The Aztec used pictographs to communicate through writing. Some of the pictures symbolized ideas and others represented the sounds of the syllables. Food: The principal food of the Aztec was a thin cornmeal pancake called a tlaxcalli. (In Spanish, it is called a tortilla.) They used the tlaxcallis to scoop up foods while they ate or they wrapped the foods in the tlaxcalli to form what is now known as a taco. They hunted for most of the meat in their diet and the chief game animals were deer, rabbits, ducks and geese. The only animals they raised for meat were turkeys, rabbits, and dogs. Arts and Crafts: The Aztec sculptures, which adorned their temples and other buildings, were among the most elaborate in all of the Americas. Their purpose was to please the gods and they attempted to do that in everything they did. Many of the sculptures reflected their perception of their gods and how they interacted in their lives. The most famous surviving Aztec sculpture is the large circular Calendar Stone, which represents the Aztec universe. Religion: Religion was extremely important in Aztec life. They worshipped hundreds of gods and goddesses, each of whom ruled one or more human activities or aspects of nature. The people had many agricultural gods because their culture was based heavily on farming. The Aztecs made many sacrifices to their gods. When victims reached the altar they were stretched across a sacrificial stone. A priest with an obsidian knife cut open the victim's chest and tore out his heart. The heart was placed in a bowl called a chacmool. This heart was used as an offer to the gods. If they were in dire need, a warrior would be sacrificed, but for any other sacrifice a normal person would be deemed sufficient. It was a great honor to be chosen for a sacrifice to the gods. The Aztec held many religious ceremonies to ensure good crops by winning the favor of the gods and then to thank them for the harvest. Every 52 years, the Aztec held a great celebration called the Binding up of the Years. Prior to the celebration, the people would let their hearth fires go out and then re-light them from the new fire of the celebration and feast. A partial list of the Aztec gods: CENTEOTL, The corn god. COATLICUE, She of the Serpent Skirt. EHECATL, The god of wind. HUEHUETEOTL, The fire god. HUITZILOPOCHTLI, The war/sun god and special guardian of Tenochtitlan. MICTLANTECUHTLE, The god of the dead. OMETECUHLTI and his wife OMECIHUATL, They created all life in the world. QUETZALCOATL, The god of civilization and learning. TEZCATLIPOCA, The god of Night and Sorcery. TLALOC, The rain god. TONATIUH, The sun god. TONANTZIN, The honored grandmother. XILONEN, "Young maize ear," Maize represents a chief staple of the Aztecs. XIPE TOTEC, The god of springtime and re-growth. Aztec dances: The Aztec Dance is known for its special way of expressing reverence and prayer to the supernatural gods of the sun, earth, sky, and water. Originally, the resources accessible to the native Indians were limited, yet they were able to create lively music with the howling of the sea conch, and with rhythms produced by drums and by dried seeds which were usually tied to the feet of the dancers. Summary: Overall, I feel that the Aztec civilization was very advanced. It had a very complex structure in which there were lower class, middle class and upper class peoples. They had a good system of transportation and irrigation through the use of canals. They had a strong warfare system, which was seen by their conquering of many lands. They also had their own language, and their own mathematical system. Their scholars were also very intelligent, they had developed their own system of time measurement and a calendar system that was very accurate. References: 1) Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia Version 7.0.5 CD-ROM Grolier Inc.1995 2) Microsoft Encarta 96 CD-ROM Microsoft, 1996 3) Internet Addresses: http://www.mexicana.com/english/community/29nf-aztec.shtml http://udgftp.cencar.udg.mx/ingles/Precolombina/Azteca/mexintro.html http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/wickham/topics/aztecs/aztecs.html f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\AZTECS CULTURE.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AZTECS CULTURE AZTEC CULTURE I. LIVED A. Tenochtitla'n B. Aztec meant (heron people) C. fertile basin about 50 miles long and as wide surrounded by mountain ranges and containing an abundant water supply and several volcanoes D. 8000 ft. above sea level, days are mild but nights are cold during much of the year E. Their name is derived from a mythical homeland to the north called Azatlan II. LANGUAGE A. Nahuatl this language belongs to the same linguistic family as Shoshonean, a tongue will represented among Indians of the United States. III. AZTEC LIFE A. Principal crops 1. maize, 2. beans 3. squash 4. tomatoes 5. cotton 6. spiny-leave maguey 7. agave 8. chilies b. the last two crops the spiny-leave maguey and agave were used as cord, sacks and sandals and a substitute for cotton in clothing c. the fermented juice of the maguey called "pulque" was the Aztec ceremonial drink. customarily, only old men were allowed to drink pulque freely d. drunkenness among young men, except at certain religious feasts, was a serious offense and might even be punished by death E. Floating gardens were an unusual feature of Aztec agriculture. 1. digging ditches around squares or rectangle in the marshes 2. pile up mud on the area which the ditches enclosed 3. the mud were held in position by front coverings of cane and branches of trees 4. This type of agriculture can still be seen today at Xochimilco, a few miles south of Mexico City IV. LAND A. clan like groups B. tribe was divided C. each family were allotted sufficient land for its maintenance, if no one else were alive to take care of the land then the land were reverted back to the group. D. other lands were worked in common for the support of the nobility and for the religious need of the community E. urban communities, land ownership was communal, each local group, called a (capulli) was composed of a few families that jointly owned a piece of land. Part of the yield of cultivated land was given to the state as a kind of tax I. farmers A. general field workers charge with 1. preparing the soil 2. breaking up clods 3. hoeing (with the coa digging sticks) 4. leveling 5. setting boundary markers 6. planting 7. irrigating 8. winnowing, and storing grain B. horticulturists 1. knowledge of the planting of trees and transplanting 2. crop sequences 3. rotations 4. supervisory role, for they were expected to read the tonalamatl almanacs to determine the best time for planting and harvesting V. ANIMALS A. Domestic 1. turkeys 2. ducks 3. dogs which were raised as food and considered a great delicacy 4. special treats may have included boiled grasshoppers, cactus worms, locusts and insect eggs B. wild animals eaten 1. rabbit 2. deer 3. gopher 4. 40 species of water birds were edible 5. Iguanas, snakes, turtles, salamanders, insects eggs and larvae, many species of frogs, grasshoppers, ants and worms 6. Corixid water beetles an abundant protein source, were netted from the lake, mashed together in balls, wrapped in corn husks, and boiled. 7. tadpoles were eaten with great relish VI. SPECIALIZED CRAFTSMEN A. gold, silver, coppersmiths B. lapidaries, workers in leather and craftsmen who made elaborate designs of feathers for capes, headdresses, and shield covers VII. VALUED POSSESSIONS A. jade, turquoise and feathers of the quetzal B. Aztec wealth 1. heavy payments of tribute imposed on conquered peoples C. tribute included 1. jade 2. turquoise 3. feathers from the quetzal 4. gold dust 5. cochineal dye 6. shell 7. cacao beans 8. produce such as beans and maize IX MONEY A. cocoa beans were used B. commodities such as quetzal feathers, gold, loads of maize or slaves were valued in terms of cacao beans C. prices were higher at tenochtitlan than in the lowlands because of its distance from the center of production D. inflation was in impossible because any drop in the value of the beans resulted in more being taken out of circulation to make chocolate X. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS A. the tribe consisted of twenty calpullis or clans like a precinct 1. each clan elected one officers and sent a representative to the tribal council 2. the tribal council elected four executive officers and from these four officers elect the supreme chief of the Aztec tribe 3. the chief must be chosen from a certain tribe 4. treated as almost a god, but can be deposed by the tribal council B. formed military alliances that extended central Mexico to the Guatemalan border C. Kingship remained in the other city-states, these became merely honorary titles XI. EDUCATION A. two types of schools according to their inclinations and social position 1. Calmecac a religious seminary ,long spells of duty in the temple a. meager rations b. continually drawing blood from their bodies to offer in sacrifice c. recite long religious and historical songs d. collect huge quantities of wood for the sacred fires e. long night pilgrimages for ceremonial bathing 2. telpochcalli (youth's house) a. trained as warriors and to take their place in civil life XII ARCHITECTURE AND ART A. their religious building were like the great pyramids of Egypt instead their cut off at the top broad stairways often with banisters shaped like giant serpents led to the summit on the summit stood the shrine b. The great square featured a skull rack, a row of pointed stakes on which were impaled the heads of the thousands of persons sacrificed there C. Within the square stood the priests houses and the ball court. A game resembling basketball was played except that the large rubber ball could be hit only with the knee or hip and the object was to drive it through a ring set vertically in each side wall D. Causeways and bridges were built to connect the city to the mainland, aqueducts were constructed, and canals were dug through out the city for easy transportation of goods and people XIII. WRITINGS A. hieroglyphs to represent history ,geography and tribute list b. most of the hieroglyphs represent names of towns and persons C. used pictographic writing that was recorded on paper or animal hides these writings were called codices still exist today XIV RULERS A. Montezuma II 1. 1502-1520 B. Ahuizotl 1. reigned 1486-1502 C. cuitlahuac 1520 D. cuauhtemoc1520-1525 E. In June 1520 the Aztecs grew restive under Spanish control, revolted Cortes called on Montezuma to quell the revolt, but the Aztec ruler was stoned while addressing his subject he later died three days later F. He was later succeeded by Cuitlahuac and 80 days later by his nephew, the last Aztec ruler XV SOCIETY A. divided into three classes 1. slaves 2. commoner 3. nobility B. slaves could buy their freedom, and those who escaped from their masters and reach the royal palace without being caught were immediately given their freedom C. commoners, or maceualtin were given lifetime ownership of a plot of land on which to build their houses D. the lowest group of commoners (tlalmaitl) however were not allowed to own property they were tenant farmers E. the nobility comprised nobles by birth, priests, and those (especially warriors who earned their rank XVI AZTEC PEOPLE TODAY A. live in the vicinity of Mexico city B. Number well over 1 million C. they are the largest aboriginal group in Mexico D. they retain the Aztec-Nahua language E. their religion is a blend of Aztec and roman Catholicism XVII CLOTHING A. feather workers achieved the highest honor and prestige B. lived in communities of their own C. techniques passed down generation to generation D. feathered garments were a specialty of weavers called amanteca 1. products were reserved for the nobility and the highest ranking officials XVIII HARPY EAGLE A. gray hood b. black C. gray crest six foot wingspan E. legs and talons roughly the size of a man's arms and hand F. long extinct G. and its habit of nesting in giant ceiba(silk-cotton)trees, the tree of life for most Mesoamerican cultures, gave the harpy mythical status H. need large tracts of forest 25,000 to 720,000 acres I. Need large prey like monkeys, sloths to feed their young J few tracts remain but their has been sighting within the past five years XIX BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD A. devoted to children B. inherit the profession and status of their children I. newborn child was a special occasion A. midwife shouted war cries to honor the mother for having fought a good battle B. the umbilical cord (male) was buried on a distant battle field C. the umbilical cord (female) was buried by the hearth D. Powerful families, celebrated 20 days after the birth bringing fabulous gifts E. rarely some of the most intelligent children of the lower classes were chosen for calmecac F. one calmecac for boys another for girls in each city II. Marriage A. Late teens or early twenties B. when the youth arrived at marrying age parents would looked about for a suitable partner C. a meal was prepared 1. school masters were invited to tell his school days were over D. another council was called and the assembled kinsmen decided which young woman was the most available E. matchmakers were sent to the women's house 1. for four days to win the women and on the fourth day then the parents decided who was the most suitable F. elaborate preparations then required G. at the wedding 1. four mouthfuls of tamales for both bride and groom 2. then they led to the bedroom, then four days of feasting followed 3. were counseled about diligence, duties and obligation by the midwife XX MARKETS 1. no one could sale anything on the way to the market A. penalty of law B. fear of angering the market god 2.held every fifth day 3. everything sold by counts and measure not by weight 4 . anybody caught stealing or selling stolen goods was punished by death F. the great market attracted about 60,000 people daily G. goods were brought into Aztec hands by tribute agreements with conquered territories and many goods were exported from the city to be traded in other parts of the Aztec empire and central America XXI LONG DISTANCE TRADERS A. pochteca B. a privileged position with the nobility 1. paid tribute in the form of merchandise but not to render personnel services C. seven merchants wards 1. pochtlan 2. tepetitlan 3. tzonmolco 4. atlauhco 5. amachtlan 6. itztotolco D. the term pochotl, from which pochteca and pochtlan derive, was the name for the bombax ceiba, the towering, sheltering tree of the tropical forests, which was traditionally regarded as a sacred " tree of life" E. in a figurative sense, pochotl means, father, mother, governor, chief, or protector F. this title suggests that pochteca occupied very high positions in mesoamerican societies before the Aztecs I four types of pochtecal A. pochtecatlatoque 1. commanders of the pochteca, selected from the oldest, most prestigious 2. stayed at home to serve , administrative capacity, advising, judgment on miscreant pochteca 3. administering the market place B. tlaltlani ( bather of slaves) 1. ritual bathing of slaves before their use as sacrificial victims 2 richest merchants 3. special privileges by rulers C. tencunenenque 1. carry out personal trade for the rulers 2. on occasion served has tribute-collectors D.naualoztomeca 1. disguised merchants 2. traders-spies in search of rare goods BIBLIOGRAPHY Colliers Encyclopedia, by Macmillan Educational Co. Volume three Page 412. Ella D. Sorensen and Charles E. Dibble, An Aztec Bestiary; Sirs 1993 Life Science, Article 42, Page numbers 50-55 Internet Addressees: Http://www.rmplc.co.uk...ics/aztecs/aztecs.html, http://www.mexicana.co...unity/29nf-aztec.shtml Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia, Funk& Wagnalls Corporation, Montezuma II. The Cambridge History of Latin America, Volume 1, edited by Leslie Bethell, pages 3-47 Historical Maps On File, Martin Greenwald Publisher, Facts On File Inc. 6.000 The Western Hemisphere(including the U.S.A.) The Aztecs, by Richard F. Townsend, published 1992, Thames and Hudson Ltd, London pages 156-208 The Aztecs lived in the city of Tenochtitlan, which is a fertile basin about 50 miles long and as wide. Surrounded by mountain ranges and several volcanoes the Aztecs has abundant supply of water. With being 8000ft above sea level the day were mild and the nights are cold during much of the year. The Aztecs name means "heron people" their name is derived from the mythical homeland to the north called Azatlan. This in mind their language(Nahuatl) also belong to the linguistic family as the Soshonean, a tongue will represented among the Indians of the Untied States. In the Aztecs culture their main principal crop was maize. Maize was usually cooked with lime then ground to make dough, then patted into tortillas, other principal crops were beans, squash, tomatoes, cotton, chilies. The two crops maguey and agave were used as cord, sacks and sandals and a substitute for cotton in clothing. From the juice of the maguey was use in a mild form of alcohol called pulque, which was the ceremonial drink. Only the old men of the committee was able to drink pulque freely, otherwise among the younger generation couldn't get drunk except at certain religious feast. Drunkenness was considered a serious offense even punishable by death. In the Aztecs culture there were clans, each clan there was tribes and each tribe was divided up. Then each family were allotted sufficient land for its maintenance, if no one else were alive in the family, then the land were reverted back to the tribe. Urban communities, the land were communal, each group called capulli was composed of a few families that jointly owned a piece of land. Then part of the yield was given to the state as a tax. Rest of yield would be either sold, traded or for their own use. There were two kinds of farmer, first there was the general field workers. They were in charge with preparing the soil, breaking up clods, hoeing(with the coa digging sticks), leveling, setting boundary markers, planting, irrigating, winnowing and storing grain. The second kind of farmer were the horticulturists their job was planting of trees, transplanting, crop sequences, rotations and a supervisory role, for they were expected to read the Tonalamatl almanacs to determine the time for planting and harvest. One of the unusual feature of the Aztec agriculture were the floating gardens. These gardens were built by digging ditches into squares or rectangle, then they would pile up mud on the area which the ditches enclosed. Once that was done the mud was held in position by cane and branches of trees. This type of agriculture can still be seen today at Xochimilco, a few miles south of Mexico City. In most culture there were domestic animals in the Aztecs culture there were turkeys, ducks, and dogs. The dogs were raised as food and were considered a great delicacy. The wild animals that were eaten were rabbit, deer, gopher, iguanas, snake, turtles, salamanders, insect eggs, many species of frogs, larva, grasshoppers, ants, worms, tadpoles and 40 species of water birds. The corixid water beetles an abundant protein source, were netted from the lake, mashed together in balls, wrapped in corn husks, and boiled. The metal specialized craftsmen were gold, silver and coppersmiths. In the leather department were the lapidaries who made elaborate designs of feathers for capes, headdresses and shield covers. The feather workers achieved the highest honor and prestige, living in communities of their own their techniques was passed down from generation to generation. These feather workers (Amanteca) were reserved for the nobility and the highest ranking officials. One of the prestige of Aztec wealth was jade, turquoise and feathers of the quetzal. With these prize possessions you were considered wealthy, but only the nobility or high ranking officials could get them. To get these prize possessions a heavy tribute was imposed on conquered people. Other tribute include gold dust, cochineal dye, shell, cocoa beans and produce such as beans and maize. In the Aztec culture cocoa beans were used as a currency, commodities such as quetzal feathers, gold, loads of maize or slaves were valued in terms of cacao beans. In Tenochtitlan the prices were higher then in the lowlands because of its distance from the center of production. Inflation was in possible because any drop in the value of the beans resulted in more being taken out of circulation to make chocolate. As the money always under control so was the political structure. The tribe consisting about twenty capullis and each capullis would elect one officer. That officer would go to the tribal council from there the tribal council would elect four officers to elect the supreme chief for the Aztec, but the chief must be from a certain tribe. Even though the chief was treated like a god he could be easily deposed by the tribal council. In the other conquer city-states that the Aztecs to over kingship remained as a honorary title to their people. One of the things I like was they were devoted to their children, but their children usually inherit the profession of their parents. When a newborn was about to come this would be a special occasion. In the birth process the midwife would shout war cries to honor the mother for having fought a good battle. Then the umbilical cord of the male would be buried on a distant battle field. In the female case her umbilical cord would be buried by the hearth. In the powerful families the families would bring fabulous gifts and celebrate 20 days after birth. Once in their teens or twenties the youth would be at marriage age then the parents would look about for a suitable partner. Once that is done a meal would be prepared and the youth schoolmaster were invited to tell him/her their school were over. Another council would be called and the kinsmen then would decide which young women is the most available. So for four days these young men would go over to the young lady's house and try to win her hand. Then on the fourth the parents would decide who was the most suitable unless the young lady already had fancy for one. Then the wedding was prepared, once at the wedding the bride and groom would have to take four mouthfuls of tamales then would be led to the bedroom by the midwife shouting prayers. Once led to bed the rest would feast for four days. Before marriage there was the education, there were two types of schools according to their inclination and social position. One of the schools were Calmecac a religious seminar which included long spells of duty in the temple. In the temple the youths would have meager rations, then they would draw their own blood to offer as a sacrifice, recite long religious and historical songs, collect huge quantities of wood for their sacred fires and long nights of pilgrimages for ceremonial bathing. Rarely some of the most intelligent children of the lower class would intend in Calmecac. The other school called the Telpochacalli (youth's house) would be for the warriors which they would take their place in civil life. The Aztec's society was divided into three classes. One class was the slaves, the slaves could buy their freedom or if they escape their masters and reach the royal palace without being caught they were granted their freedom. In the commoner group or maceualtin were given lifetime ownership of a plot of land to build their houses on. The lowest commoner(Tlalmaitl) were allowed to own property they were just tenant farmers. In the highest positions were the nobles born by birth, priests and warriors who earned their rank. The Aztecs architeculture especially the religious building were like the great pyramids of Egypt instead they were cut off at the top with broad stairways often with banisters shaped like giant serpents which led to the summit and at the summit there was a shrine. In the square around the pyramid featured a skull rack, a row of pointed stakes on which were impaled the heads of the thousands of persons sacrificed there. Within the square stood the priests houses and the ball court. A game resembling basketball except that the large rubber ball could be hit only with the knee or hip and the object was to drive it through a ring set vertically in each side wall. The writings of the Aztecs were called codices in which they were written on paper or animal hides and stones they mostly use hieroglyphs in their writing. Mostly what they wrote about was history geography and tribute lists but most of the writings consisted of people and towns. In the markets there were at least 60,000 people daily and these markets were held every fifth day. One of the things about the market that no one could sale anything on the way to the market because it was against the law and the fear of angering the market god. Each item sold was sold by counts and measures not by weight. If you were caught stealing or selling stolen goods you be punished by death. One thing about the markets were the long distance traders these traders were called Pochteca and these traders had privilege position with the nobility. These traders were to pay tribute in the form of merchandise but not in personnel service. The term pochotl, from which pochteca and pochtlan derive, was the name for the Bombax Ceiba, the towering, sheltering tree of the tropical forests, which was traditionally regarded as a sacred "tree of life. This title suggests that pochteca occupied very high positions in mesoamerican societies before the Aztecs. There are four types of pochtecal the first one is the pochtecatlatoque, these traders were the commanders of the pochteca. Selected from the oldest the most prestigious they stay at home to serve the administrative capacity and advising the younger traders. The other one is the tlaltlani(bather of slaves) they gave their slaves baths before the slave get sacrifice. these merchants were one of richest men plus the were given special privileges by the rulers. Tencuneneque were the rulers personnel traders and they also were the tribute collectors. The last one were naualoztomeca these merchants were traders-spies in search of rare goods. The Aztec people today live mostly in the vicinity of Mexico City, There number well over 1 million people, which is the largest aboriginal group in Mexico. They still retain the Aztec-Nahuatl language and their religion is a blend of Aztec and roman Catholicism. One thing about Mexico is the Harpy Eagle which long thought to be extinct. This eagle has a gray hood, black body with a gray crest its physical feature is a six foot wingspan and legs, talons that are roughly the sizes of a man's arm and hand. This eagle nests in the ceiba(silk cotton) trees, the tree of life for most Mesoamerican cultures, gave the harpy mythical status. These harpies need a range of 25000 to 720000 acres and few forest of that size exist down in Mexico, they feed on large prey like monkeys, sloths. There has been sightings within the past five years. THE AZTECS CULTURE WRITTEN BY LEROY HOLDEN DATE: 2/7/97 Word Count: 3881 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\aztecs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Aztecs The Aztec people ruled from the Gulf of Mexico to present day Guatemala. There capital city was Tenochititlan. The greatest controlling force was religion. It was shown in their architecture and sculpture. They also had writing, numbers and a calendar. They had recorded dates for religious holidays. The children were taught respect, courtesy, truthfulness and self control. Aztec boys learned practical tasks from their fathers at home. Then when they reached 15 they went to a youth house. There elders taught the boys religion, citizenship, history, traditions and art. They also learned war. Girls could also learn to be priestesses in temple schools. The Aztecs were divided into tribes that were dived into clans. Each clan had its own officials that represented them at tribal meetings. The land was dived up by the tribes. They controlled the land but the peasants farmed it having to give some of it to the chiefs and priests. The Aztecs worshipped a host of gods that represented nature. To win the gods aid they performed rituals and offered penance. Human sacrifice played an important role. Since life was a mans most valued possession it was the best thing to offer up to the gods. As the Aztec empire grew so did the human sacrifice. Sometimes the Aztecs performed cannibalism, believing they absorb the virtues of the slain. The sacrificed people were thought to be given a high place in heaven. The average Aztec was a farmer. He lived outside the city and grew crops for his tribe. Farming was the most important means of survival due to the warm, humid climate. They lived in small huts. The male was the head of the family. He would often arrange marriages for their children. The language they spoke was the Nahuan language that originated from the west coast of the united states. They wore elaborate colorful clothing made from animal skins that were traded from northern tribes. I personally like the cities they built. The did not have the wheel yet they built some of the most beautiful cities in the world. They were at their prime when the Spanish arrived. They saw their practices and considered them barbaric. They destroyed all but a few records of them and tried to convert them. even though they were almost destroyed the Aztec people live on in present day Mexicans today. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Bach.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Johann Sebastian Bach Johann Sebastian Bach was one of the greatest composers in Western musical history. More than 1,000 of his compositions survive. Some examples are the Art of Fugue, Brandenburg Concerti, the Goldberg Variations for Harpsichord, the Mass in B-Minor, the motets, the Easter and Christmas oratorios, Toccata in F Major, French Suite No 5, Fugue in G Major, Fugue in G Minor ("The Great"), St. Matthew Passion, and Jesu Der Du Meine Seele. He came from a family of musicians. There were over 53 musicians in his family over a period of 300 years. Johann Sebastian Bach was born in Eisenach, Germany on March 21, 1685. His father, Johann Ambrosius Bach, was a talented violinist, and taught his son the basic skills for string playing; another relation, the organist at Eisenach's most important church, instructed the young boy on the organ. In 1695 his parents died and he was only 10 years old. He went to go stay with his older brother, Johann Christoph, who was a professional organist at Ohrdruf. Johann Christoph was a professional organist, and continued his younger brother's education on that instrument, as well as on the harpsichord. After several years in this arrangement, Johann Sebastian won a scholarship to study in Luneberg, Northern Germany, and so left his brother's tutelage. A master of several instruments while still in his teens, Johann Sebastian first found employment at the age of 18 as a "lackey and violinist" in a court orchestra in Weimar; soon after, he took the job of organist at a church in Arnstadt. Here, as in later posts, his perfectionist tendencies and high expectations of other musicians - for example, the church choir - rubbed his colleagues the wrong way, and he was embroiled in a number of hot disputes during his short tenure. In 1707, at the age of 22, Bach became fed up with the lousy musical standards of Arnstadt (and the working conditions) and moved on to another organist job, this time at the St. Blasius Church in Muhlhausen. The same year, he married his cousin Maria Barbara Bach. Again caught up in a running conflict between factions of his church, Bach fled to Weimar after one year in Muhlhausen. In Weimar, he assumed the post of organist and concertmaster in the ducal chapel. He remained in Weimar for nine years, and there he composed his first wave of major works, including organ showpieces and cantatas. By this stage in his life, Bach had developed a reputation as a brilliant, if somewhat inflexible, musical talent. His proficiency on the organ was unequaled in Europe - in fact, he toured regularly as a solo virtuoso - and his growing mastery of compositional forms, like the fugue and the canon, was already attracting interest from the musical establishment - which, in his day, was the Lutheran church. But, like many individuals of uncommon talent, he was never very good at playing the political game, and therefore suffered periodic setbacks in his career. He was passed over for a major position - which was Kapellmeister (Chorus Master) of Weimar - in 1716; partly in reaction to this snub, he left Weimar the following year to take a job as court conductor in Anhalt-Cothen. There, he slowed his output of church cantatas, and instead concentrated on instrumental music - the Cothen period produced, among other masterpieces, the Brandenburg Concerti. While at Cothen, Bach's wife, Maria Barbara, died. Bach remarried soon after - to Anna Magdalena - and forged ahead with his work. He also forged ahead in the child-rearing department, producing 13 children with his new wife - six of whom survived childhood - to add to the four children he had raised with Maria Barbara. Several of these children would become fine composers in their own right - particularly three sons: Wilhelm Friedmann, Carl Philipp Emanuel and Johann Christian. After conducting and composing for the court orchestra at Cothen for seven years, Bach was offered the highly prestigious post of cantor (music director) of St. Thomas' Church in Leipzig - after it had been turned down by two other composers. The job was a demanding one; he had to compose cantatas for the St. Thomas and St. Nicholas churches, conduct the choirs, oversee the musical activities of numerous municipal churches, and teach Latin in the St. Thomas choir school. Accordingly, he had to get along with the Leipzig church authorities, which proved rocky going. But he persisted, polishing the musical component of church services in Leipzig and continuing to write music of various kinds with a level of craft and emotional profundity that was his alone. Bach remained at his post in Leipzig until his death in 1750. He was creatively active until the very end, even after cataract problems virtually blinded him in 1740. His last musical composition, a chorale prelude entitled "Before They Throne, My God, I Stand", was dictated to his son-in-law only days before his death. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Bacons Rebellion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bacon's Rebellion "...where we do well know that all our causes will be impartially heard and equally justice administered to all men," as stated by, Nathaniel Bacon. 1 In 1676 an uprising known as Bacon's Rebellion occurred in Virginia. The immediate cause of this revolt was the dissension between the planters and the Indians. Because Sir William Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia had willingly denied support to the farmers, Bacon assumed leadership of an unauthorized expedition against the Indians. When Bacon learned that Governor Berkeley was rising a force against him, he turned away from the Indians to fight with Berkley. This had now become a serious problem for the governor. When news of this revolt had reached King Charles II, it alarmed him so that he dispatched eleven hundred troops to Virginia, recalled his governor, and appointed a commission to determine the causes of the dissatisfaction. Bacon's Rebellion is considered to be the most important event in the establishment of democracy in colonial America because the right to vote and social equality were denied to the farmers by the local government. The right to vote is a small but crucial part of the democracy. During the first half of the 17th century the farmers on the plantations in Virginia were not able to exercise their right to vote. The only people that were able to vote during this time were the wealthy men who owned land. Overall the colonists had not been treated fairly. They had been over taxed and denied their voting rights. To them voting meant that the person they elected was the person they felt was responsible enough to motivate them and support them. Unfortunately Governor Sir William Berkeley was not living up to those standards. Berkeley did not care about the farmers. It was obvious that the only thing he cared about was making money. The event that sparked the rebellion occurred when the Indians attacked the farmers. Normally these farmers were expecting to receive help from the governor. They became irritated when the governor did not support them. Through the eyes of the freemen this was seen as a big mistake. Because the governor did not give them the support, they had to take matters into their own hands. After defeating the Indians, the unofficially elected Nathaniel Bacon took charge. When he led his men into town to form an assembly, it would be the first assembly in fifteen years. After the long struggle and hard fought battle these freemen received their gift. They were finally able to appeal a law that denied their right to vote. They were now considered legal voters. Another important aspect of democracy is social equality. During the 17th century in Virginia, people were either wealthy or poor. The proprietors held the wealth, while the plantation workers in Virginia were poor. In addition the farmers had no rights. The freemen had to be taxed and there was nothing they could do about it. It did not hurt the rich to be taxed because they could afford it. When the lower-class are taxed, technically you are taking away at least three-quarters of their earnings. 2 First, half the money they earn is going to the proprietor, then the King of England takes away the other quarter they are left with very little. The problems with a society that has a wide range of classes are certain classes have privileges that other classes do not. For example the rich people were able to communicate with Berkeley. The farmers accused the rich men of controlling the whole colony for their selfish purposes. Rumor had it that Berkeley and his wealthy friends were interested in trade with the Indians. The frontiers men could only take so much. Tired of being the poorest people in the colony, they ultimately rebelled. Bacon and his followers fought for their right to vote and denounced social inequality in Virginia, by taking matters into their own hands. Bacon's Rebellion has become the most significant episode leading towards democracy in colonial America. The consummations of this revolt were acknowledged by the English as well as the other colonies. Besides influencing governmental procedures in Virginia, recent research suggests it might have affected English domestic and foreign policies as well. One researcher claimed that the concern for representative institutions and the anti-imperialist feeling that existed in Virginia then was expressed not by the rebels, but by those suppressing the rebellion and that such democratic attitudes increased significantly after, rather that immediately before or during Bacon's Rebellion. 3 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Battle of Saratoga.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Battle of Saratoga The Battle of Saratoga is considered to be the major turning point of the American Revolution. This battle proved to the world that the fledgling American army was an effective fighting force capable of defeating the highly trained British forces in a major confrontation. As a result of this successful battle, the European powers took interest in the cause of the Americans and began to support them. In the British Campaign of 1777, Major General Burgoyne planned a concentric advance of three columns to meet in Albany, New York. He led the main column, which moved southward along the Hudson River. A second column under General Barry St. Leger would serve as a diversionary attack, moving eastward from Canada along the Mohawk River. General Howe would be expected to direct the third element of the attack. According to the plan, Howe would direct General Henry Clinton to move northward along the Hudson River and link up with Burgoyne in Albany. The goal of this plan was to isolate and destroy the Continental forces of New England. Initially, the British plan appeared to be working. Burgoyne's army continually pushed back the Americans southward along the Hudson River with only minor casualties. In an attempt to slow the British advances, the American General Philip Schuyler detached 1000 men under the command of Major General Benedict Arnold. This force moved west to thwart St. Leger's eastward advance along the Mohawk River. Arnold returned with his detachment after repelling St. Leger in time to serve in the Battle of Saratoga. First Battle of Saratoga: The Battle of Freeman's Farm The Battle of Freeman's Farm, the First Battle of Saratoga, was an indecisive battle fought 19 September 1777 in which Gates lost ground to the British Disagreements in tactics and personalities led to a heated argument between generals Gates and Arnold, and Gates relieved Arnold of command as a result. The Battle of Bemis Heights was the second battle of Saratoga, taking place October 7th when Burgoyne desperately attacked rebel defenses with his tired, demoralized army. At Bemis Heights, Gate's defensive tactics had insured a tactical victory for the Patriots. However, Arnold saw an opportunity to seize the offensive while Burgoyne was vulnerable and led a counterattack. This bold move so badly wounded the British forces that Burgoyne surrendered days later at Saratoga. Second Battle of Saratoga: The Battle of Bemis Heights After waiting several weeks for developments from General Henry Clinton's campaign along the Hudson River, British commander Lieutenant General John Burgoyne finally took the offensive on 7 October 1777. Like the First Battle of Saratoga, his plan focused upon a reconnaissance in force of three columns. The three British columns moved out from their Freeman's Farm fortifications in order to gain more information about the rebel positions at Bemis Heights. American General Horatio Gates, assumed to be acting upon the suggestion of Colonel Daniel Morgan, decided to assault the British forces in a three winged attack. With Morgan's Rifle Corps attacking from the west and Poor's Brigade from the east, Learned's Continental Brigade moved towards the center of the British line. The attack began at roughly 3 PM, and the Americans repeatedly broke through the British line and pushed the enemy back, only to be repelled once the British leaders rallied their scattered forces to stage a counter-offensive. British Brigadier General Simon Fraser was mortally wounded while attempting to cover the British withdrawal. Benedict Arnold, who had been removed from command by Gates, saw an opportunity to press the advantage of the weakened British line and rode forward on his horse to take charge of Learned's Continental Brigade. He led them towards the center of the British forces in an effort to separate the units and flank them, forcing a general withdrawal of the British forces into their fortified positions at Freeman's Farm. At that point, Arnold led Learned's men to attack the British fortified in Balcarres Redoubt. After several failed attempts to overcome the defenses there, Arnold urged his horse northwest across the battlefield to join an assault on Breymann Redoubt. With superior numbers on their side, the Americans were able to breach the breastworks of the redoubt and force the British forces f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\BayofPigs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Bay of Pigs Invasion. The story of the failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs is one of mismanagement, overconfidence, and lack of security. The blame for the failure of the operation falls directly in the lap of the Central Intelligence Agency and a young president and his advisors. The fall out from the invasion caused a rise in tension between the two great superpowers and ironically 34 years after the event, the person that the invasion meant to topple, Fidel Castro, is still in power. To understand the origins of the invasion and its ramifications for the future it is first necessary to look at the invasion and its origins. Part I: The Invasion and its Origins. The Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961, started a few days before on April 15th with the bombing of Cuba by what appeared to be defecting Cuban air force pilots. At 6 a.m. in the morning of that Saturday, three Cuban military bases were bombed by B-26 bombers. The airfields at Camp Libertad, San Antonio de los Ba€os and Antonio Maceo airport at Santiago de Cuba were fired upon. Seven people were killed at Libertad and forty-seven people were killed at other sites on the island. Two of the B-26s left Cuba and flew to Miami, apparently to defect to the United States. The Cuban Revolutionary Council, the government in exile, in New York City released a statement saying that the bombings in Cuba were ". . . carried out by 'Cubans inside Cuba' who were 'in contact with' the top command of the Revolutionary Council . . . ." The New York Times reporter covering the story alluded to something being wrong with the whole situation when he wondered how the council knew the pilots were coming if the pilots had only decided to leave Cuba on Thursday after " . . . a suspected betrayal by a fellow pilot had precipitated a plot to strike . . . ." Whatever the case, the planes came down in Miami later that morning, one landed at Key West Naval Air Station at 7:00 a.m. and the other at Miami International Airport at 8:20 a.m. Both planes were badly damaged and their tanks were nearly empty. On the front page of The New York Times the next day, a picture of one of the B-26s was shown along with a picture of one of the pilots cloaked in a baseball hat and hiding behind dark sunglasses, his name was withheld. A sense of conspiracy was even at this early stage beginning to envelope the events of that week. In the early hours of April 17th the assault on the Bay of Pigs began. In the true cloak and dagger spirit of a movie, the assault began at 2 a.m. with a team of frogmen going ashore with orders to set up landing lights to indicate to the main assault force the precise location of their objectives, as well as to clear the area of anything that may impede [Map of Cuba was here] the main landing teams [Link to Map to be added when when they arrived. At time permits] 2:30 a.m. and at 3:00 a.m. two battalions came ashore at Playa Gir¢n and one battalion at Playa Larga beaches. The troops at Playa Gir¢n had orders to move west, northwest, up the coast and meet with the troops at Playa Larga in the middle of the bay. A small group of men were then to be sent north to the town of Jaguey Grande to secure it as well. (See figure 1). When looking at a modern map of Cuba it is obvious that the troops would have problems in the area that was chosen for them to land at. The area around the Bay of Pigs is a swampy marsh land area which would be hard on the troops. The Cuban forces were quick to react and Castro ordered his T-33 trainer jets, two Sea Furies, and two B-26s into the air to stop the invading forces. Off the coast was the command and control ship and another vessel carrying supplies for the invading forces. The Cuban air force made quick work of the supply ships, sinking the command vessel the Marsopa and the supply ship the Houston, blasting them to pieces with five- inch rockets. In the end the 5th battalion was lost, which was on the Houston, as well as the supplies for the landing teams and eight other smaller vessels. With some of the invading forces' ships destroyed, and no command and control ship, the logistics of the operation soon broke down as the other supply ships were kept at bay by Casto's air force. As with many failed military adventures, one of the problems with this one was with supplying the troops. In the air, Castro had easily won superiority over the invading force. His fast moving T-33s, although unimpressive by today's standards, made short work of the slow moving B-26s of the invading force. On Tuesday, two were shot out of the sky and by Wednesday the invaders had lost 10 of their 12 aircraft. With air power firmly in control of Castro's forces, the end was near for the invading army. Over the 72 hours the invading force of about 1500 men were pounded by the Cubans. Casto fired 122mm. Howitzers, 22mm. cannon, and tank fire at them. By Wednesday the invaders were pushed back to their landing zone at Playa Gir¢n. Surrounded by Castro's forces some began to surrender while others fled into the hills. In total 114 men were killed in the slaughter while thirty-six died as prisoners in Cuban cells. Others were to live out twenty years or more in those cells as men plotting to topple the government of Castro. The 1500 men of the invading force never had a chance for success from almost the first days in the planning stage of the operation. Operation Pluto, as it came to be known as, has its origins in the last dying days of the Eisenhower administration and that murky time period during the transition of power to the newly elected president John F. Kennedy. The origins of American policy in Latin America in the late 1950s and early 1960s has its origins in American's economic interests and its anticommunist policies in the region. The same man who had helped formulate American containment policy towards the Soviet threat, George Kennan, in 1950 spoke to US Chiefs of Mission in Rio de Janeiro about Latin America. He said that American policy had several purposes in the region, . . . to protect the vital supplies of raw materials which Latin American countries export to the USA; to prevent the 'military exploitation of Latin America by the enemy' [The Soviet Union]; and to avert 'the psychological mobilization of Latin America against us.' . . . . By the 1950s trade with Latin America accounted for a quarter of American exports, and 80 per cent of the investment in Latin America was also American. The Americans had a vested interest in the region that it would remain pro-American. The Guatemalan adventure can be seen as another of the factors that lead the American government to believe that it could handle Casto. Before the Second World War ended, a coup in Guatemala saw the rise to power of Juan Jose Ar‚valo. He was not a communist in the traditional sense of the term, but he ". . . packed his government with Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers." In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz succeeded Ar‚valo after an election in March of that year. The party had been progressing with a series of reforms, and the newly elected leader continued with these reforms. During land reforms a major American company, the United Fruit Company, lost its land and other holdings without any compensation from the Guatemalan government. When the Guatemalans refused to go to the International Court of Law, United Fruit began to lobby the government of the United States to take action. In the government they had some very powerful supporters. Among them were Foster Dulles, Secretary of State who had once been their lawyer, his brother Allen the Director of Central Intelligence who was a share holder, and Robert Cutler head of the National Security Council. In what was a clear conflict of interest, the security apparatus of the United States decided to take action against the Guatemalans. From May 1st, 1954, to June 18th, the Central Intelligence Agency did everything in its power to overthrow the government of Arbenz. On June 17th to the 18th, it peaked with an invasion of 450 men lead by a Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. With the help of air support the men took control of the country and Arbenz fled to the Mexican Embassy. By June 27th, the country was firmly in control of the invading force. With its success in Guatemala, CIA had the confidence that it could now take on anyone who interfered with American interests. In late 1958 Castro was still fighting a guerilla war against the corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista. Before he came to power, there was an incident between his troops and some vacationing American troops from the nearby American naval base at Guantanamo Bay. During the incident some US Marines were held captive by Casto's forces but were later released after a ransom was secretly paid. This episode soured relations with the United States and the chief of U.S. Naval Operations, Admiral Burke, wanted to send in the Marines to destroy Castro's forces then but Secretary of State Foster Dulles disagreed with the measures suggested and stopped the plan. Castro overthrew Batista in 1959. Originally Castro was not a communist either and even had meetings with then Vice-President Richard Nixon. Fearful of Castro's revolution, people with money, like doctors, lawyers, and the mafia, left Cuba for the United States. To prevent the loss of more capital Castro's solution was to nationalize some of the businesses in Cuba. In the process of nationalizing some business he came into conflict with American interests just as Arbenz had in Guatemala. ". . . legitimate U.S. Businesses were taken over, and the process of socialization begun with little if any talk of compensation." There were also rumours of Cuban involvement in trying to invade Panama, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic and by this time Castro had been turn down by the United States for any economic aid. Being rejected by the Americans, he met with foreign minister Anasta Mikoyan to secure a $100 million loan from the Soviet Union. It was in this atmosphere that the American Intelligence and Foreign Relations communities decided that Castro was leaning towards communism and had to be dealt with. In the spring of 1960, President Eisenhower approved a plan to send small groups of American trained, Cuban exiles, to work in the underground as guerrillas to overthrow Castro. By the fall, the plan was changed to a full invasion with air support by exile Cubans in American supplied planes. The original group was to be trained in Panama, but with the growth of the operation and the quickening pace of events in Cuba, it was decided to move things to a base in Guatemala. The plan was becoming rushed and this would start to show, the man in charge of the operation, CIA Deputy Director Bissell said that, . . . There didn't seem to be time to keep to the original plan and have a large group trained by this initial cadre of young Cubans. So the larger group was formed and established at La finca, in Guatemala, and there the training was conducted entirely by Americans . . . . It was now fall and a new president had been elected. President Kennedy could have stopped the invasion if he wanted to, but he probably didn't do so for several reasons. Firstly, he had campaigned for some form of action against Cuba and it was also the height of the cold war, to back out now would mean having groups of Cuban exiles travelling around the globe saying how the Americans had backed down on the Cuba issue. In competition with the Soviet Union, backing out would make the Americans look like wimps on the international scene, and for domestic consumption the new president would be seen as backing away from one of his campaign promises. The second reason Kennedy probably didn't abort the operation is the main reason why the operation failed, problems with the CIA. Part II: Failure and Ramifications. The failure at the CIA led to Kennedy making poor decisions which would affect future relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union. The failure at CIA had three causes. First the wrong people were handling the operation, secondly the agency in charge of the operation was also the one providing all the intelligence for the operation, and thirdly for an organization supposedly obsessed with security the operation had security problems. In charge of the operation was the Director of Central Intelligence, Allan Dulles and main responsibility for the operation was left to one of his deputies, Richard Bissell. In an intelligence community geared mainly for European operations against the USSR, both men were lacking in experience in Latin American affairs. Those in charge of Operation Pluto, based this new operation on the success of the Guatemalan adventure, but the situation in Cuba was much different than that in Guatemala. In Guatemala the situation was still chaotic and Arbenz never had the same control over the country that Castro had on Cuba. The CIA had the United States Ambassador, John Puerifoy, working on the inside of Guatemala coordinating the effort, in Cuba they had none of this while Castro was being supplied by the Soviet block. In addition, after the overthrow of the government in Guatemala, Castro was aware that this may happen to him as well and probably had his guard up waiting for anything that my indicate that an invasion was imminent. The second problem was the nature of the bureaucracy itself. The CIA was a new kid on the block and still felt that it had to prove itself, it saw its opportunity in Cuba. Obsessed with secrecy, it kept the number of people involved to a minimum. The intelligence wing of CIA was kept out of it, their Board of National Estimates could have provided information on the situation in Cuba and the chances for an uprising against Castro once the invasion started. Also kept out of the loop were the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who could have provided help on the military side of the adventure. In the end, the CIA kept all the information for itself and passed on to the president only what it thought he should see. Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, in Political Science Quarterly of 1984, based his analysis of the Bay of Pigs failure on organizational behaviour theory. He says that the CIA ". . . supplied President Kennedy and his advisers with chosen reports on the unreliability of Castro's forces and the extent of Cuban dissent." Of the CIA's behaviour he concludes that, . . . By resorting to the typical organization strategy of defining the options and providing the information required to evaluate them, the CIA thus structured the problem in a way that maximized the likelihood the president would choose the agency's preferred option . . . . The CIA made sure the deck was stacked in their favour when the time came to decide whether a project they sponsored was sound or not. President Kennedy's Secretary of State at the time was Dean Rusk, in his autobiography he says that, . . . The CIA told us all sorts of things about the situation in Cuba and what would happen once the brigade got ashore. President Kennedy received information which simply was not correct. For example, we were told that elements of the Cuban armed forces would defect and join the brigade, that there would be popular uprisings throughout Cuba when the brigade hit the beach, and that if the exile force got into trouble, its members would simply melt into the countryside and become guerrillas, just as Castro had done . . . . As for senior White House aides, most of them disagreed with the plan as well, but Rusk says that Kennedy went with what the CIA had to say. As for himself, he said that he ". . . did not serve President Kennedy very well . . ." and that he should have voiced his opposition louder. He concluded that ". . . I should have made my opposition clear in the meetings themselves because he [Kennedy] was under pressure from those who wanted to proceed." When faced with biased information from the CIA and quiet advisors, it is no wonder that the president decided to go ahead with the operation. For an organization that deals with security issues, the CIA's lack of security in the Bay of Pigs operation is ironic. Security began to break down before the invasion when The New York Times reporter Tad Szulc ". . . learned of Operation Pluto from Cuban friends. . ." earlier that year while in Costa Rica covering an Organization of American States meeting. Another breakdown in security was at the training base in Florida, . . . Local residents near Homestead [air force base] had seen Cubans drilling and heard their loudspeakers at a farm. As a joke some firecrackers were thrown into the compound . . . . The ensuing incident saw the Cubans firing their guns and the federal authorities having to convince the local authorities not to press charges. Operation Pluto was beginning to get blown wide open, the advantage of surprise was lost even this early in the game. After the initial bombing raid of April 15th, and the landing of the B-26s in Florida, pictures of the planes were taken and published in newspapers. In the photo of one of the planes, the nose of it is opaque whereas the model of the B-26 the Cubans really used had a plexiglass nose, . . . The CIA had taken the pains to disguise the B-26 with "FAR" markings [Cuban Air Force], the agency overlooked a crucial detail that was spotted immediately by professional observers . . . . All Castro's people had to do was read the newspapers and they'd know that something was going to happen, that those planes that had bombed them were not their own but American. In The New York Times of the 21st of April, stories about the origins of the operation in the Eisenhower administration appeared along with headlines of "C.I.A. Had a Role In Exiles' Plans" revealing the CIA's involvement. By the 22nd, the story is fully known with headlines in The New York Times stating that "CIA is Accused by Bitter Rebels" and on the second page of that day's issue is a full article on the details of the operation from its beginnings. The conclusion one can draw from the articles in The New York Times is that if reporters knew the whole story by the 22nd, it can be expected that Castro's intelligence service and that of the Soviet Union knew about the planned invasion as well. Tad Szulc's report in the April 22nd edition of The New York Times says it all, . . . As has been an open secret in Florida and Central America for months, the C.I.A. planned, coordinated and directed the operations that ended in defeat on a beachhead in southern Cuba Wednesday . . . . It is clear then that part of the failure of the operation was caused by a lack of security and attention to detail on the part of the Central Intelligence Agency, and misinformation given to the president. On the international scene, the Bay of Pigs invasion lead directly to increased tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. During the invasion messages were exchanged between Kennedy and Khrushchev regarding the events in Cuba. Khrushchev accused the Americans of being involved in the invasion and stated in one of his messages that a, . . . so-called "small war" can produce a chain reaction in all parts of the world . . . we shall render the Cuban people and their Government all necessary assistance in beating back the armed attack on Cuba . . . . Kennedy replied giving American views on democracy and the containment of communism, he also warned against Soviet involvement in Cuba saying to Khrushchev, . . . In the event of any military intervention by outside force we will immediately honor our obligations under the inter-American system to protect this hemisphere against external aggression . . . . Even though this crisis passed, it set the stage for the next major crisis over Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and probably lead to the Soviets increasing their military support for Castro. In the administration itself, the Bay of Pigs crisis lead to a few changes. Firstly, someone had to take the blame for the affair and, as Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles was forced to resign and left CIA in November of 1961 Internally, the CIA was never the same, although it continued with covert operations against Castro, it was on a much reduced scale. According to a report of the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence, future operations were ". . . to nourish a spirit of resistance and disaffection which could lead to significant defections and other by-products of unrest." The CIA also now came under the supervision of the president's brother Bobby, the Attorney General. According to Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, the outcome of the Bay of Pigs failure also made the White House suspicious of an operation that everyone agreed to, made them less reluctant to question the experts, and made them play "devil's advocates" when questioning them. In the end, the lessons learned from the Bay of Pigs failure may have contributed to the successful handling of the Cuban missile crisis that followed. The long term ramifications of the Bay of Pigs invasion are a little harder to assess. The ultimate indication of the invasions failure is that thirty-four years later Castro is still in power. This not only indicates the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, but American policy towards Cuba in general. The American policy, rather than undermining Castro's support, has probably contributed to it. As with many wars, even a cold one, the leader is able to rally his people around him against an aggressor. When Castro came to power he instituted reforms to help the people and end corruption, no longer receiving help from the Soviet Union things are beginning to change. He has opened up the Cuban economy for some investment, mainly in telecommunications, oil exploration, and joint ventures. In an attempt to stay in power, he is trying to adapt his country to the new reality of the world. Rather than suppressing the educated elite, he is giving them a place in guiding Cuba. The question is, will they eventually want more power and a right to control Cuba's fate without Castro's guidance and support? If the collapse of past regimes is any indication, they will eventually want more power. When Castro came to power in 1959, the major opponents in America to him, as with Guatemala, were the business interests who were losing out as a result of his polices. The major pressure for the Americans to do something came, not only from the Cuban exiles in Florida, but from those businesses. Today, the tables are turned and businesses are loosing out because of the American embargo against Cuba. It is estimated that if the embargo were lifted, $1 billion of business would be generated for US companies that first year. Right now, 100 firms have gone to Cuba to talk about doing business there after the embargo is lifted. Will American policy change toward Cuba because of pressure from business interests and growing problems with refugees from Cuba? Given the reasons why the United States got involved in Latin American politics in the first place, it is very likely that their position will change if they can find a face saving way to do so. American policy at this time though is still stuck in the cold war, the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms said that, . . . Whether Castro leaves Cuba in a vertical or horizontal position is up to him and the Cuban people. But he must and will leave Cuba . . . . The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion was caused by misinformation and mismanagement, the consequences of that was egg in the face for the Americans and an increase in tension between the superpowers at the height of the cold war. We will only have to wait and see if the Americans have really learned their lesson and will not miss another opportunity to set things right in Cuba. Bibliography Fedarko, Kevin. "Bereft of Patrons, Desperate to Rescue his Economy, Fidel Turns to an Unusual Solution: Capitalism." Time Magazine, week of February 20th, 1995. Internet, http://www.timeinc.com, 1995. Meyer, Karl E. and Szulc, Tad. The Cuban Invasion: The Chronicle of a Disaster. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1962 and 1968. Mosley, Leonard. Dulles: A Biography of Eleanor, Allen, and John Foster Dulles and their Family Network. New York: The Dail Press/James Wade, 1978. Prados, John. Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1986. Ranelagh, John. CIA: A History. London: BBC Books, 1992. Rositzke, Harry, Ph.d. The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action. New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1977. Rusk, Dean and Richard. As I Saw It. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1990. The New York Times. 16 April to 22 April, 1961. New York: The New York Times, 1961. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. Cuba. Map, 22 by 52 cm, No. 502988 1-77. Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 1977. Vandenbroucke, Lucien S. "Anatomy of a Failure: The Decision to Land at the Bay of Pigs." Political Science Quarterly, Volume 99, Number 3, Fall 1984. Word Count: 4403 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Beethoven.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Beethoven BEETHOVEN, Ludwig van (1770-1827) The composer of some of the most influential pieces of music ever written, Ludwig van Beethoven created a bridge between the 18th-century classical period and the new beginnings of Romanticism. His greatest breakthroughs in composition came in his instrumental work, including his symphonies. Unlike his predecessor Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, for whom writing music seemed to come easily, Beethoven always struggled to perfect his work. Ludwig van Beethoven was born in Bonn, Germany, and was baptized on Dec. 17, 1770. (There is no record of his birth date.) His father and grandfather worked as court musicians in Bonn. Ludwig's father, a singer, gave him his early musical training. Although he had only meager academic schooling, he studied piano, violin, and French horn, and before he was 12 years old he became a court organist. Ludwig's first important teacher of composition was Christian Gottlob Neefe. In 1787 he studied briefly with Mozart, and five years later he left Bonn permanently and went to Vienna to study with Joseph Haydn and later with Antonio Salieri. Beethoven's first public appearance in Vienna was on March 29, 1795, as a soloist in one of his piano concerti. Even before he left Bonn, he had developed a reputation for fine improvisatory performances. In Vienna young Beethoven soon had a long list of aristocratic patrons who loved music and were eager to help him. Onset of Deafness In the late 1700s Beethoven began to suffer from early symptoms of deafness. The cause of his disability is still uncertain. By 1802 Beethoven was convinced that the condition not only was permanent, but was getting progressively worse. He spent that summer in the country and wrote what has become known as the "Heiligenstadt Testament." In the document, apparently intended for his two brothers, Beethoven expressed his humiliation and despair. For the rest of his life he searched for a cure, but by 1819 his deafness had become total. Afterward, in order to have conversations with his friends, Beethoven had them write down their questions and replied orally. Beethoven never married. Though he had many friends, he seemed to be a lonely man. He continued to appear in public but spent more and more of his time working on his compositions. He lived in various villages near Vienna and took long walks carrying sketchbooks in which he would write down his musical ideas. Scholars who have studied these sketchbooks have discovered the agonizingly long process that the composer went through in order to perfect his melodies, harmonies, and instrumentations. Three Periods of Work Most critics divide Beethoven's work into three general periods, omitting the earliest years of his apprenticeship in Bonn. Although some pieces do not fit exactly into the scheme, these divisions can be used to categorize the composer's work. The first period, from 1794 to about 1800, consists of music whose most salient features are typical of the classical era. The influence of such musicians as Mozart and Haydn is evident in Beethoven's early chamber music, as well as in his first two piano concerti and his first symphony. Beethoven added his own subtleties, including sudden changes of dynamics, but in general the music was well constructed and not far from the sensibilities of the classical period. The second period, from 1801 to 1814, includes much of Beethoven's improvisatory work. His Symphony No. 3, known as the "Eroica," and the 'Fourth Piano Concerto' are fine examples of this period. The final period, from 1814 to the end of his life, is characterized by even wider ranges of harmony and counterpoint. The last string quartets contain some of the composer's most vivid new ideas. Beethoven created longer and more complicated forms of music. In his symphonies and string quartets, he often replaced the minuet movement with a livelier scherzo. He also used improvisatory techniques, with surprise rhythmic accents and other unexpected elements. Many critics and listeners regard Beethoven as the finest composer who ever lived. His music was unique and emotional. Never before had instrumental music been brought to such heights. He also made great strides with chamber music for piano, as well as for string quartets, trios, and sonatas. His works include nine symphonies, 32 piano sonatas, five piano concerti, 17 string quartets, ten sonatas for violin and piano, one opera ('Fidelio'), the 'Mass in C Major', 'Missa Solemnis', and other chamber music. Beethoven died in Vienna on March 26, 1827. His funeral was attended by hundreds of mourners. The bicentennial of his birth and the sesquicentennial of his death were celebrated with new performances and recordings of all of the master's works. Word Count: 769 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Benito Mussolinis Rise and Fall to Power.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Benito Mussolini's Rise and Fall to Power Benito Mussolini had a large impact on World War II. He wasn't always a powerful dictator though. At first he was a school teacher and a socialist journalist. He later married Rachele Guide and had 5 children. He was the editor of the Avanti, which was a socialist party newspaper in Milan. Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci di Combattimento on March of 1919. "This was a nationalistic, anti liberal, and anti socialist movement. This movement attracted mainly the lower middle class."1 Fascism was spreading across Europe. Mussolini was winning sympathy from King Victor Emmanuel III. Mussolini then threatened to march on Rome. This persuaded King Victor Emmanuel III to invite Mussolini to join a coalition, which strongly helped him gain more power. Benito Mussolini brought Austria on Germany's side by a formal alliance. "In 1937, he accepted a German alliance. The name of this alliance was the Anti Comntern Pact. On April 13, 1937 Benito Mussolini annexed Albania. He then told the British ambassador that not even the bribe of France and North Africa would keep him neutral."2 The British ambassador was appalled and dismayed. On May 28, 1937, Mussolini strongly gave thought to declaring war. He then attacked the Riviera across the Maritime. "On September 13, 1937 he opened an offensive into British-garrisoned Egypt from Libya."3 On October 4, 1937, while the offensive still seemed to promise success, Benito Mussolini met Adolf Hitler at the Brenner Pass, on their joint frontier. "The two of them discussed how the war in the Mediterranean, Britain's principal foothold outside its island base, might be turned to her decisive disadvantage. Hitler suggested to Mussolini that Spain might be coaxed on the axis side, thus giving Germany free use of the British Rock of Gibraltar, by offering Franco part of French North Africa, and that France might be persuaded to accept that concession by compensation with parts of British West Africa".4 Mussolini seemed enthusiastic and very understandable why this was the case, since this scheme included the gaining of Tunis, Corsica, and Nice (annexed by Napoleon III in 1860) from France. Hitler then hurried home to his house in Berlin to arrange visits to Franco and Petan. "Back in the capital Hitler created a letter to Stalin inviting Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, to visit early, when Germany and the U.S.S.R. might then agree among themselves how to profit from Britain not having a defense. A week later, on October 20, he left in his command train, Amerika, to meet Petan and Franco. The meeting with Franco took place on October 23 at Hendaye on the Franco-Spanish frontier."5 It had become quite famous in the history of World War Two for Hitlers furious parting shot that he would "rather have three or four teeth extracted from than go through that again." Franco, who was greatly supported by his Prime Minister, Serrano Suner, stonewalled throughout the hours towards negotiation with Franco. When his train left at two in the morning, Hitler had not advanced an inch towards co-belligerency with Franco. Petan met Hitler on October 24, and proved to be equally unresponsive. Petan convinced Hitler that they had a meeting of minds. Petan had only agreed to a promise to consult his government, Hitler decided to make a bigger deal out of it and believed that they were united in a productive hostility to Britain. Hitler now had the outlines, despite Francos struggle, of a larger coalition war to present to Molotov at his next visit. "When Hitler was waiting for the Soviet Foreign minister to come, he was distracted by the weird behavior of Mussolini, who then chose to mount an attack from Albania (occupied by the Italian army in April 1939) into Greece."6 Mussolini said that he was motivated by the fear that the British would establish positions in Greece if he did not. "He had good strategic reasons for wishing to deny them naval and air bases any closer to his own along the Adriatic that those who already possessed in Egypt and Malta. He attacked Greece in October, 1937."7 Mussolini's participation in the Battle of France aroused the derision of neutrals and enemies. He was determined to win in Greece his share of the laurels which had fallen in a not proportionate number to the Wehrmacht. The failure of Mussolini's invasion of Greece greatly upset Hitler as he waited Molotov's arrival. This not only messed up his scheme to change the Balkans into a satellite zone by peaceful diplomacy; it was also upsetting the Soviet Union. "On October 31, Britain occupied Crete and the Aegean Island of Lemnos with troops sent from Egypt. In the next few days they transferred air units to southern Greece, putting Romania's Ploesti oil fields, his main source of supply, in danger of bombing attack."8 The Panzer units Mussolini wanted would instead be used for communicating in Greece from positions inside Bulgaria, Germany's First World War aly, which Hitler was now trying to coax into the tripartie Pact, while Mussolini's army was left to manage its desert campaign against British as best it could. On June 24, 1938 Petain signed terms with Mussolini. Benito Mussolini was Italy's dictator for 21 years. He had gone through a lot with the people of Italy. All in all they did not like Mussolini. During the mid summer of 1943 many many supporters turned on him with a great passion. Sicily was being overrun by Allied armies. Italys' economy went straight downhill from here. The Grand Council of Fascist party, a rubber-stamp assembly that had not met for 3 and a half years, met to decide Mussolini's fate. With unexpected anger, Dino Grandi, a much respected council member shouted: "In this war, we already have a hundred thousand dead, and we have a hundred thousand mothers who cry: 'Mussolini has assassinated my son!'...You have imposed a dictatorship on Italy that is historically immoral." After hours of heated debate, the party leaders in the early hours of July 25 voted 19-7 for a motion of no confidence in the aging dictator. On this very same day King Victor Emmanuel III diverted Mussolini of his powers and then later arrested him. "After his arrest, Mussolini was taken to a ski lodge on Gran Sasso d'Italia in the Apennine mountains about 75 miles north-west of Rome. The lodge was accessible only by a railroad and had been built so recently that it was not marked on military maps or on mountain climbers charts. But German intelligence agents under the direction of SS Captain Otto Skorzeny had learned of Mussolini's whereabouts, and at Hitler's direction a rescue mission was organized. To determine how safe the landing will be, Skorzeny flew over the Gran Sasso at 15,000 feet in a Heinkel-111. Leaning out the window in a numbing 200-mile-an-hour wind, he took pictures while his friend held tightly to his legs. These pictures showed a spot where they could land their planes. When Skorzeny and his 90 men swept silently down on the lodge in 12 gliders, they discovered to their great dismay that the meadow had a rapid drop-off at its end. "It was much like the platform for a ski jump," Skorzeny later said. He ordered his pilot to make a "vertical landing" which tore open his flimsy glider but brought it to a halt in less than 30 yards. Jumping from the plane, Skorzeny and his men swept past shocked guards and without firing a shot made their way to Mussolini. "I knew that my friend Adolf Hitler would not desert me," the old dictator said. Soon a small plane came into the meadow. When Skorzeny and Mussolini climbed in it, the pilot was shocked. With both men in it the plane would probably crash. Yet Skorzeny insisted that they go ahead. The plane bounced along the meadow, brushed off a rock and staggered over the edge of the plateau. It dropped through the thin air, but made it's way to Rome."9 From Rome, Mussolini was flown to Vienna and finally to Wolf's lair, Hitler's headquarters at Rastenburg in East Prussia. Hitler very much wanted to restore Mussolini's power. Yet Duce thought they should retire from the public life so as to avoid having Italy in the Civil War. Hitler was quite upset. He argued that only a strong fascist government in northern Italy could save the Italian people, and that Mussolini could lead such a regiment. Hitler was really upset because Mussolini showed no enthusiasm to wreak retaliation on the members of the Grand Council who had betrayed him-presumably because one of the traitors was his son-in-law, Count Galeazzo Ciano. After the meeting Hitler told his Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebels, of his frustration with Mussolini saying that the Duce, whom he had once greatly admired, seemed a far smaller man than before. Hitler and Mussolini discussed for three days, and the Fuhrer finally had his way. On September 15, Mussolini approached him and said, "I have come for my instructions." The instructions were very harsh: A new Fascist republic would be established in Northern Italy under Mussolini, but the Germans would assume control of its foreign policy and many of its economic resources and would govern part of the country. Also, all the members of the Grand Council that had voted against Mussolini would be tried and executed. On September 27, the Duce flew to Gargnano, north of Salo, to establish the headquarters of his new republic in German-occupied northern Italy. As Hitler's puppet, Mussolini came to be called "the prisoner of Gargnano." German guards tapped his phone lines and watched his every move. "They are always there, like the spots of the leopard," Mussolini once said. His key appointments had to be approved by the Germans, and each Italian official was assigned a German adviser. Mussolini tried to revitalize the army and to swell the ranks of his new social fascist party by promising better working and living conditions. But his time was running out: the people had deserted him, the Allies were penetrating deeper into Italy, and he was growing physically and mentally weaker. "The people turning on him, and the king arresting him and taking away his powers destroyed Mussolini leading him to a morphine addiction." 10 This caused him to become too weak to work long hours, although he kept a light on at night in his empty office for show. His moods changed daily between outbursts of anger and periods of deep despair. He compared himself to Jesus and Napoleon, and blamed his failure on others-especially the Italian people. He proclaimed that the people of Italy were a "mediocre race of good-for-nothings only capable of singing and eating ice cream," and he expressed sickly happiness when Naples was bombed by the Allies. He lived for almost two years after his arrest. He participated in a series of bizarre and humiliating experiences before finally coming to a gruesome end. Mussolini died on a clear spring day in April 1945. Allies had moved into the northern part of Italy during the same month. Mussolini attempted to flee to Austria. Near the town of Dongo his truck convoy was ambushed by partisans. The Duce was dressed as a German soldier, in a greatcoat and steel helmet, but his expensive leather boots gave him away. The partisans took him to a farmhouse. He was then joined by his mistress, Claretta Petacci. Claretta had begged to be reunited with Mussolini. The next day the communist partisan drove both Claretta Petacci and Benito Mussolini to a nearby villa. He ordered the both of them out of the car and stuck a machine gun in their guilty as sin faces. This gun jammed but he got another one and quickly shot at Claretta Petacci and killed her instantly. Mussolini holding back the lapels of his jacket, said "Shoot me in the chest." The partisan shot him twice in the chest and Mussolini was dead. The morning after Mussolini and his mistress were slain, the partisans dumped their bodies in front of a garage in Milan's Puzzle Laureate. A crowd gathered around; some people shouted foul language, others just stood there and laughed. One woman fired a pistol at Mussolini five times to "avenge her five dead sons." Eventually, the two mutilated bodies were strung upside down for everyone to see. For hours the crowd laughed and spit at Mussolini's body. On the following day he was buried in the family tomb in Predappo. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Bernini.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bernini The writer of history must combine several different kinds of statements in his account. First of all, there will be some statement upon which all research scholars will pretty well agree. Second, there will be statements that not all historians accept, but which the writer himself/herself has reason to believe are true. Third, there will be some statements that are needed to fill out the account and make a smooth story, even though they deal with matters about which nobody knows very much. Conscientious writers will label these guesses with words such as "probably," or "perhaps"; but to the reader they are all part of the story. There is no way to get out of putting in some of this information if the story is to be smooth. That is why three completely honest historians may give a very different picture of the same period or set of events. A historian is a human being. He/she loves and hates, just as other men/women do. He/she has his/her own beliefs, values, attitudes, opinions, fears, hopes, just as others do. The greatest historians try and keep their own prejudices and attitudes away from their writing. Of three authors that describe Bernini's magnificent works, Franco Borsi, Michael Kitson, and Robert Wallace, only Kitson conveys his own opinionated writings to the reader. Although Borsi and Wallace have a few areas where they let their opinions be known, they put their beliefs aside and write the accounts of Bernini unprejudicely. Now, the analyazation of the writers shall begin. Franco Borsi's book entitled BERNINI, has the most in depth and detailed coverage of Bernini's life, background, and sculpture. Borsi's book praises Bernini as the god of all sculpture and architectural works. The majority of the historian's text is in regard to Bernini' s work in Vatican City. Borsi's opinion is that the work Bernini did on restructuring the facade of St. Peter's Basilica had to have been the greatest of his works. He remarks that, "the immensity of the building is not at first apparent due to its balanced proportions and the monumental size of all the works of art it contains." Bernini designed a piazza in the form of an ellipse, bordered by a quadruple colonnade forming a portico wide enough to let carriages pass. The foci of the ellipse are indicated by marble disks on each side of the two fountains; standing on either of these disks you can see only one row of columns, instead of four. Two wings link the colonnades to the basilica: the one on the right ends at Scala Regia and the one on the left ends at the Arco delle Campane. Franco indicates that having this piazza allows the basilica to be even more ominous and capture all that enter through the gates into a state of total awe, before even entering the basilica. Borsi also remarks about the lavish decorations that Bernini provided within and the fact that the basilica owes much of its character to the contributions of Bernini. Here he provides concrete historical references to all the many sculptures Bernini created in the basilica, including the transept crossing, the ornate baldacchio above the site of St. Peter's tomb, Cathedra Petri, and many more. Franco Borsi wrote very factual non-opinionated view of Bernini's life and works. On the other hand, Wallace added a little more opinion to his writing, yet stayed within reasonable confines. In Wallace's The World of Bernini, the uses of the words "probably" and "perhaps" signify that the history that he does not know, he is filling in with his own educated opinion of what might have been so. Wallace uses background information about sculpture to help the reader understand just how complicated and advanced Bernini's techniques were. Wallace also devotes most of his book to one area of Bernini's time; his sculpture. His writing indicates that Wallace was deeply enthralled with the magnitude of Bernini's talent to portray emotion and movement. One example, as Wallace points out, is that of the sculpture of David. Wallace writes that, "for his epic statue of the Biblical hero David, which he conceived and executed in just seven months, Bernini carved a youthful warrior, standing poised over his castoff harp and armor and grimacing with determination. David's every muscle is tensed at the instant before he flings the fatal stone at an unseen Goliath, whose presence Bernini effectively suggests somewhere behind and above the viewer." Wallace states that Bernini's total production of portrait busts is still not definitely known whereas Borsi stated that there were forty two that he had created. Just as this minor conflicting account occurred, so did many others throughout the two books. Although this may seem insignificant, it would make the reader unsure of the true historical past of Bernini. To add to this, Michael Kitson wrote The Age of the Baroque, where he most definitely divulges his opinion unto the reader. Kitson devoted most of his writing to his opinion that, "without a doubt the most versatile master of illusionism was Bernini." Kitson remarked about the fact that Bernini described all his most prize details of how to make a statue more realistic, passionate, in depth, or appearing to be moving, in his journal. Bernini described how in order to represent the darkness around one's eye, it is necessary to deepen the marble in that place where it is dark in order to represent the effect of that color, and therefore make up by skill, as it were, the imperfection of the art of sculpture, which is unable to give color to objects. This effect can be seen on Bernini's David and many of his other statues. Kitson points out that another way illusionism was used to enhance the vividness of a work of art was through the devices designed to associate it with the real world of the spectator. For example, Bernini's David was one of the first true baroque statues, for its whole stance and gaze suggest movement beyond the limits of the sculpture itself. Wallace and Borsi also seem to agree with this point, and state it in their books. The popular view of the Baroque is right in this respect: that surprise and spectacle play an important part in its total effect. Although some points throughout their stories may differ, Borsi, Wallace, and Kitson, all agree that Bernini' s art was and is the most fantastical display of emotion and faith by means of sculpture, that exists in the world. Due to the fact that I have previously researched Bernini simply for enjoyment purposes, I feel that Robert Wallace wrote the most bona fide account (from a historical point of view)of Bernini's life. Although he did subtly incorporate some of his own conjectures towards Bernini's life, I believe that that is what made the story more interesting and realistic. If the story was straight facts and dates the reader would lose interest quickly. Wallace wrote the facts with a little extra, and that is what makes him a historian. He shows that he is a human being and rather than being mechanical, he has feelings and emotions about Bernini's sculpture. If I were to write an account of Bernini's life, I would do it exactly the same as Robert Wallace who wrote The World of Bernini . By correct definition, a historian is a writer of histories or an expert in history. But I tend to think there is more to the job. I think a historian has to be able to put feeling and emotion into the book to make the history come alive. Franco Borsi, Robert Wallace, and Michael Kitson, have all written detailed accounts of the life of the breath-taking Bernini. They all agree that Bernini was and is the true master of baroque art. To many historians, baroque marks a prolongation of Italian Renaissance realism and pictoralism, though classic calm and purity are not evident in Bernini's major works. Bernini's masterful way in being able to catch the moment just before his action definitely places him as the expert of the intense expression of what was the baroque period. Word Count: 1356 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Black Death.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Black Death THE BLACK DEATH BY XXXXXXXXXX A RESEARCH PAPER No one was exempt as it swept in off the shores and into the countryside laying its burden of death and pestilence. Europe had prospered readily for about 300 years prior to the beginning of the 1300s, but a series of natural disasters occurred. Poor harvests and famine were common and as the prosperous years came to a close, economies were in recession at the onset of the Black Death. Europe, on a whole, would take a step backward. There have been plagues throughout recorded history, but none were of the magnitude nor had the far reaching effects that the Black Plague had. Its namesake came from symptomatic hemorrhages that turned black. Though most people associate the Black Death with the middle ages, forms of the Bubonic Plague have been known in China as early as 224 BC. The Black Death embarked on a journey as an epidemic in the Gobi Desert in the 1320s. By 1400, China's population of 125 million had been reduced to 90 million. Southwest Asia and Europe followed suite with strikingly similar losses in their population base. In 1347, the Kipchaks who were nomads from the Euro-Asian Steppe, were thought to deliberately infect a European city with the disease. The Kipchaks had laid siege to a Genoese trading post in Crimea. Hoping to weaken the defenders, they used a catapult to lob infected corpses into the compound. Trading vessels from Crimea subsequently brought cargo infested with the disease burdened rodents and crew west. Starting in Sicily in 1347, it began a four year reign of terror traveling as far as Greenland. During this four year period it is believed Europe lost one full third of its population. The effects the Plague had on the economy and the laws governing the state were severe. England is a perfect example. By 1349, the population had been so severely decreased that the commoner had the upper-hand on the land-lords. This was significant in that they were able to demand a higher wage and the markedly increase in their mobility if one lord did not suit their needs. Without the manpower to cultivate and yield crops, the land-lords were in effect held without influence. The Parliament came to there rescue by imposing penalties and restricting the movement of the laborers and limit the wages. Although this was effective at the time and serf's services continued, it resulted in a revolt some 30 years later. The end economic result of the Plague was somewhat surprising. Prices dropped and wages increased. The latter not so surprising. Although not proven, the deflation of goods decreased because of a significant decrease in population. This gave rise to a new social relationship that would replace the status quo of centuries. A higher standard of living resulted for the lower class. Higher wages and a lower cost of living usually come with an opportunity of social advancement. By our standards, the advance was minimal, but considering the conditions of the time, it was considerable. The laws that the English Parliament had passed to govern the lower class were not only a sign of changing times, but proof that a new era and social class were emerging. Much of the Christian religion we see today was shaped from views developed by society at that time. Various forms of religious behavior developed, but were far from what we recognize today. One of the most gruesome replications were the resurgence of Flagellants. The Flagellants were convinced that the end of the world was at hand and the Plague was the wrath of God. They traveled in organized bands, bound by vows to abstain from all physical pleasures and to endure tortures and whippings for 33 days, in memory of the 33 years of the life of Christ. In truth most Christians did believe the cause of the Plague was God's wrath on a wicked Man. Many said they were doomed by their own wickedness. There were also others who believed themselves condemned and in today's wording "Partied Hard" with the thought, since tomorrow we die, let us eat, drink, and be merry. The Catholic Church was injured both physically and emotionally. In Avignon, which had been the home of the Papacy for nearly a century lost greater than half of its monks. Consequently, religious purity for the dying was hard to come by. This was not only a result of the priests trying to fulfill their duties and becoming infected, but also by those who sought to stay away. When recognizing what was happening around him, Pope Clement VI realized that nothing would be gained from his death and sought refuge in his chambers spending days sitting between two roaring fires on either side of him. One note of consolation to the medical field, was all this was done on the advice of the Papal physician. He survived as well as most of the upper class did by simply having the means to do so. People recognized the loss of the cleric alongside the peasant, lady of the court, and child. It did not distinguish evil from good, but took the lives of all. Overall there was a negative effect on the popularity of the church. A struggle between faith and reason developed giving rise to religious, social, and political unrest. Religious reformer John Wycliffe, in England and John Huss, in Bohemia were leaders of a couple of many sects that challenged Catholic Church's behavior and doctrine. Although decades later, these complaints eventually led to the formation of the Protestant Church. The state of medical knowledge had in truth, caused more harm than repair. The crucial role of rodents and fleas were never identified until centuries later. Wild theories ranged from the blaming of Jews who were thought to be ritually poisoning wells to the belief that the sickness was carried on the warm, moist southerly breezes. Treatments included the practice of bleeding patients to release evil spirits. The wound more often resulted in another viscous opening for the disease to enter. One physician maintained that the disruptiveness of malodorous places such as latrines would drive the sickness away, while others maintained it was the cause. Bottom line, the only cure or better stated, the only defense was isolation based on medical knowledge at the time. Monarchs, Lords, Kings and even the Papacy were spared only through the revelation that being alone was the key to survival. Surprisingly, in all the references there was little to be found referring to the Arts and the beginning of the Renaissance Period. One volume of recommended reading titled Plague and Pestilence in Literature and Art, Raymond Crawfurd, Clarendon Press, 1914 was referenced, but was not available. Undoubtedly, there were effects that were negative and positive. Negative in meaning that the depiction of death became more morbid after the Plague. A fair example can be found on a wall of the cemetery close to Camposanto (Pisa Cathedral) in Pisa. Like Pieter Bruegel, The Elder's painting, "Triumph of Death", 1562 (attached), this fresco by Francesco Traini, is also called "Triumph of Death", 1350 (Roy T. Matthew and F. DeWitt Platt, The Western Humanities, Second Edition, Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994). Death relinquished its identity as an intangible skeleton, to become a vision of the macabre. A black flowing shroud with a scythe for gathering souls. Death no longer took on the stately representation of regalia worn by knights and ladies of the court. Post-Black Death art during the Renaissance also depicts a higher moral standard. For example, Giovanni del Biondo's vision of John the Evangelist, renders him overwhelming Avarice, Pride, and Vain-glory. The direct effect the Plague had was to clear away the blurring veils where Gothic Art had taken a foothold. Humanity was brought back to earth by their own mortality. The Renaissance was a reawakening, resurrection, or renewal of reality showing life in a more pragmatic nature. The Plague still maintains its identity today. Cases are still reported throughout the world. Thankfully, rarely in North America. Mortality has dropped from the 70 to 90% experienced in the 14th century to 3 to 5 % today. The loss of life in those four short years of history was immense. A plague of the proportions that struck Europe would be compared to the effects of a nuclear war today. A thought that chills my bones to the core. Just imagine how a government of today's society would react to a disease with no cure that spread with the same rapidity and executed with the same effectiveness. The answer lies just one unknown virus away in our own evolution cycle. Will humanity survive? BIBLIOGRAPHY Zeigler, Philip, The Black Death, John Day Company, New York, 1969 McNeill, William H., Plagues and Peoples, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1976 Mee, Charles L, How a Mysterious Disease Laid Low Europe's Masses , Smithsonian,. 1990 Canning, John, 100 Great Events That Changed the World, Hawthorn Books, 1966 Strayer, Joseph I., Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Reese, 1904 Magill, Frank N., Great Events From History: Ancient and Medieval Series, Salem Press, 1972 Microsoft Encarta 95, Microsoft Corporation, 1994 Roy T. Matthew and F. DeWitt Platt, The Western Humanities, Second Edition, Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994 Word Count: 1540 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Bombing of Dresdon.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bombing of Dresdon On February 13-14, 1945 the British Royal Air Force gave the final clearance to commence what would later become known as one of the greatest atrocities that has ever been commited against a civilian population. That night the RAF launched 796 bombers and 9 Mosquitoes which carried 1,478 tons of explosives in addition to 1,182 tons of incendiary bombs (Dear 311) which turned the city of Dresden, Germany into a virtual inferno. This attack included another strike by the US Air Force the following morning. The attack on Dresden was never a legitimate act of war, and its result was the terroristic mass murder of over 135,000 people. Bombing civilian targets in enemy territory became an open issue on March 30, 1942 when the Prime Minister.s science advisor, Professor F.A. Lindemann (who later was recognized as Lord Cherwell) delivered to Winston Churchill a report which contained a strong argument in favor of striking civilian targets. .Cherwell.s report contained the final rationalization for the program Bomber Command was undertaking., and it would henceforth be paper-clipped to the plans of the bomber offensive. (Hastings). In his report, Lindemann estimated that forty tons of explosives detonated in heavily populated areas would destroy the homes of 4,000-8,000 people. The report also stated that there was a population of 22 million people in fifty-eight of the major cities in Germany. Lindemann claimed that a nation of refugees could be the result of strategic air attacks. It is wildly believed among scholars that the information cont.ained in this report was the basis of the attack on Dresden. LindemannŠs figures were correct, but his thinking was immoral and inhumane. The people to whom his statistics referred so objectively were innocent civilians, more than half of them women and children. The assault upon them was nothing more that out-right murder. Any benefit gained by destroying these civilians. lives, families, and homes was countered ten-fold by the moral reprehensibility of such a clearly criminal act. The city of Dresden was a historic center of Europe, and was known world wide for its splendid architecture. It was the capital of Saxony, and located along the banks of the Elbe river. Dresden had very little industrial activity, and it was a target only once before in a small raid by the US Air Force in October of 1944. It was a city that was also known for its production of fine China, and its glorious museums (Dear 311). The city was not at all suspected to be a target for attack because of the population influx that had occurred in result of refugees running from allied forces. Due to this situation, the Germans moved most of their air defense stations to other cities that were more likly targets. The city had become a hub for not only refugees, but also for POW camps, and hospitals. Of the 19 hospitals in the city, three were totally demolished, and the rest were partially damaged. Many of these hospitals housed wounded allied soldiers. (Barnes Review 10) The attack resulted in the incineration of over 135,000 civilians. The motive behind the attack was to destroy the city, and in effect weaken enemy morale both militarily, and on the home front. The Allied forces did not take into account the political harm that this tremendous loss of of civilian lives would bring upon them. In January, 1943, at the Roosevelt-Churchill Casablanca Conference this directive read "Your primary aim will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German Military, industrial and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to the point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened..(Barnes Review). The method comprised to strip the Germans of their morale was the destruction of their cities. Several weeks after the fact, rescue teams found bunkers where Šthe heat had been so intense that nothing remained of their occupants: only a soft undulating layer of grey ash was left in one bunker, from which the number of victims could only be estimated as between ŠŠ250 and 300Š (Irving ???) This layer of ash the was the remains of hundreds of people was the result of the firestorm that the incendiary bombs created. The explosions required oxygen, and as a result it created gust moving toward the center. These gusts became intense fireballs, and scorched everything in the city. One eye witness said ŠHowling gusts of hurricane force whipped flames in all directions. Nothing seemed to be spared. I watched little trains of flame race alone garden paths and ignite a tree of even stone ornament. (tunley???)_ Very little survived the path of this burning storm. Most of the city was destroyed, and the death toll was enormous. Even Churchill himself went on record to admit that this had not been a positive military procedure. He was quoted in saying Šwe...see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than...to the enemyŠs war effort. (Parrish 164)_) Even though it was later admitted a mistake by the allies, it is possible that they had valid military intentions, but did not carefully weigh all of the cause and effects the would result. The idea that lowering the morale of an enemy nation was a key strategy, and was taken very seriously by the commanders of the allied forces. There was a major train station in the city of Dresden, and and even though it was one of few sites not greatly damaged, the use of the city as a transportation hub was terminated by the Germans. It is very true that destroying homes results in refugees which cause problems inside the country, but blowing the homes up and killing the people was the only to acomplish this goal. The idea of lowering morale probably should have been investigated a little more thoroughly, but the allies did what they felt they had to do in order to terminate HitlerŠs Reign. The bombing of Dresden was not a legitimite act of war, it was a horrible mass murder of a civilian community, but it may have have aided the allied cause in some ways. Even though the allies lots respect on their home front, and subjected themselves to the criticism of the media, in some ways the result helped the cause. It is only logical that this Holocaust in Dresden lowered morale throughout GermanyŠs civilians. Germany had to have realized at this point how terrible the war had become, and what its results could be. This is a terrible way to get that point across, but the point was made quite successfully, at the expence of 135,000 lives, mostly of women,children, and elders. The bombing of Dresden was a terrible mistake on the part of the allied forces. They failed to properly predict the consequences of their actions, and as a result destroyed a beautiful city, and a large percentage of its inhabitants. Even if the death numbers were not intended to be so high, negligence is no excuse. The results of any aggression are responsibility of the aggressor, and in this case the aggressors actions resulted in mass murder. Word Count: 1215 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\BosniaHercegovina.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bosnia-Hercegovina The origin of the arms with the argent between 6 fleur-de- lys, which is now on the flag of the republic of Bosnia- Hercegovina, has long puzzled me, but they are in fact the arms of the Kotromanic family, which ruled Bosnia in the 14th and 1 5th centuries. Other arms have also been attributed to Bosnia in the 19th century. I finally thought of a way to get at this question of the origin of the current Bosnian flag: numismatics, of course. I found a book by one Ivan Rengjeo, Corpus der mittel-alterlichen Mnnzen von Kroatien, Slavonien, Dalmatien und Bosnien, Graz, 1959, which is as exhaustive as you can get on the topic (coins from those regions, that is). I have also consulted an article by Pavao Andelic on Medieval Seals of Bosnia-Hercegovina, in the monograph series of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia- Hercegovina (Sarajevo, 1970),but it is in Serbo-Croat, so I can only look at the (numerous) illustra tions. What follows is a historical/heraldic account, pieced together from these sources, and a few encyclopedias. Bosnia was dominated alternatively by Serbia and, from the 12th c. onward, by Croatia (in personal union with Hungary) until the early 14th c. Typically, the king of Hungary and Croatia appointed bans, or local governors; and, in typical medieval fashion, these bans took advantage of any weakness of the central monarchy to carve out territories for themselves. In the early 14th c., the ban of Croatia was Pavao (Paul) Subic of Brebir or Breberio (a town in Dalmatia which was given to the family in 1222): his father and grandfather were counts or Trau or Trogir, his cousins were counts of Spalato or Split. This p owerful man titles himself ban of Croatia and dominus Bosniae, and appoints his brother Mladen I Subic (1302-04) and later his eldest son Mladen II (1312-14) as ban of Bosnia. His second son Georg was count of Trau and Split, his third son Pavao was count of Trau. By the third generation, however, the family had lost its power. This first dynasty of bans issued byzantine-style coins, with no heraldry. Their seals, however, show the Subic arms: an eagle wing displayed, and 5 flowers with stems as crest (mi sread by Siebmacher as ostrich-feathers). The style of the arms is very German, with the shield tilted to the left, a German helm, lambrequins, and a crest. There are no tinctures, but a junior branch issued from Pavao count of Trau, the Subic de Zrin, bo re Gules, two wings sable (an interesting violation of the so- called tincture rule). Pavao Subic was forced to cede control of Southern Bosnia to Stjepan otromanic (died 1353); and, in 1314, Mladen II ceded the banate of Bosnia to him. This established the Kotromanic dynasty in Bosnia. Stjepan styles himself dei gratia Bosniae banus, which asserts a fair measure of independence. Stjepan's brother married Helena, daughter of Mladen II Subic, and his son Stjepan Tvrtko 1353-91) succeeded Stjepan. In 1377, Tvrtko assumed the title of King of Racia and Bosnia. His seals show the following a rms: a bend between six fleurs-de-lys, the helm is a hop-flower on a long stem issuant from an open crown of fleurs-de-lys. The Kotromanic were close to the Hungarian kings, and Stjepan's daughter Elisabeth married Louis I of Hungary (reigned 1342-82). Trvtko I was succeeded by Stjepan Dabisa (1391-98) and Stjepan Ostoja (1398-1404, 1409-18). The latter's seal shoes different arms, namely an open crown of fleurs-de-lys and the same helm and crest as before. Tvrtko's son Tvrtko II (1404-09, 1421-43) used a seal similar to his father's, with the arms of the Kotromanic family itself, which are the bend between 6 fleur-de-lys, a crowned helm with thesame crest. New coins are issued starting in 1436, markedly Western in style, which display a full-blown achievement: an escutcheon bearing the letter T, crowned with an open crown of fleur-de-lys. The helm is crowned and the crest is a hop-flower on a long stem. The letter T seems to stand for the name of the king. Later, around 1450, impressive new gold coins show the Kotromanic arms. The last kings are Stjepan Tomas Kotromanic (1444-61) and Stjepan Tomasevic Kotrmomanic (1461-63). The kingdom disappears in 1463 when he is killed by the Turks. In the southern region called Hum or Chelm, a local ban called Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca (died 14 66) had proclaimed himself duke or herceg in 1448, and is recognized by the Holy Roman Empire as duke of Saint-Abbas or Saint-Sava in some texts (whence the name Hercegovina for that area). Siebmacher says that the family was descended from the Byzantine Comneno. The Vukcic family arms appear on the seal of Stjepan Vukcic, and his successors Vladislav Hercegovic (died 1489), Vlatko Hercegovic (died 1489) and Stjepan Hercegovic (died 1517). namely Gules, three bends argent, crest: a lion issuant holding in its two paws a banner gules with a double cross argent (the Hungarian state banne, according to Siebmacher). The same arms appear on coins issued by a self-proclaimed duke of Split in the early 15th c., namely on a bend between two crosses, three fleur-de-lys ben dwise. The remaining question is: where did the fleur-de-lys in the Kotromanic (and the Vukcic) arms come from? One distinct possibility is Byzantium, whose style the first Bosnian coins imitate closely. Byzantine emperors started using the fleur-de-lys on their coinage soon after the creation of the empire of Nicaea, after the fall of Constantinople in 1204. But more realistically, the connection would be with the Hungarian dynastic struggle which broke out in 1302 with the end of the Arpad dynasty. The kings of Naples claimed the throne, and it was during the struggle that, by pledging alliegance to one side and to the other, the Bosnian bans managed to carve out their independent fief. The Bosnian dynasty became quite close to the Angevins, and the daughter of Stjepan, king of Bosnia, married Louis I, king of Hungary. The kings of Naples were the Anjou fami ly, a junior branch of the French royal family, and bore France differenced with a label gules. I can well imagine the Kotromanic adopting, or being granted, fleur-de-lys on their coat of arms as reward for taking the Angevin side. For the moment, Bosnian history books are hard to come by, so I can't easily confirm my hunch. For some reason, these arms were forgotten after the 16th century. A 18th c. French genealogy of the Angevin kings of Hungary blazons the arms of Louis' wife as: Or, issuing from the sinister flank an arm embowed proper, vested Gules, holding a sabre Arge nt. These are also the arms attributed by the Austrians to Bosnia-Hercegovina after it was annexed from Turkey in 1908. However, a number of 19th century encyclopedias give yet another coat of arms (for example, the French Larousse), namely: Gules, a cres cent Argent beneath an 8-pointed star of the same. The crown over the shield is an Eastern crown, i.e. with "spikes". These arms recall the old symbol of Croatia on its early coinage. They are also the arms attributed to the old kingdoms of Illyria and Bo snia in Siebmacher. There is some evidence for a medieval use of the shield with the arm holding a saber. William Miller, in Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, 1921, p.510) describes the arms displayed in Rome on the tomb of Catherine (died 1478), da ughter of Stjepan Vukcic duke of Saint-Abbas, and married in 1446 to Stjepan Tomas Kotromanic, last king of Bosnia (d. 1461): his description is unfortunately imprecise, but he mentions two horsemen (which he says is the Kotromanic emblem) and a "mailed arm with a sword in the center" (which he says represents Primorje, or the Coastland). Word Count: 1249 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\BostonMassacre.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Boston Massacre In my report I will be discussing the Boston Massacre. I will be looking at the Boston Massacre from three different perspectives. These perspectives are the Boston colonists and Samuel Adams, Tom Hutchinson, Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor in 1770, and Captain Preston and his troops. I will also hold some depositions from people who were actually close or at the massacre. I will be show the differences on how all three felt about the situation. Due to great burden from the different acts that brought many unwanted taxes from the British government, the minds of the Boston citizens were greatly irritated. Some individuals were so irritated that they were abusive in their language towards the military. The colonists felt like they were in a prison. Everywhere they turned they saw guards. These guards would frequently question and harass people just passing by. Parents were even getting worried for their daughters, because the soldiers would make sexual remarks towards them. Many red-coats were in search of different off-duty jobs, which meant they would be taking away jobs from the Boston laborers. Many times when the soldiers left their barracks and were walking about the town, carried large clubs, for the purpose of assaulting the people. Many would say that the colonists had every right to be mad and irritated. But what about the soldiers. They were just taking commands from the country that they are defending and fighting for. To them they were just doing the right thing. But we all know that they went to extremes by the frequent wounding of persons by their bayonets and cutlasses, and the numerous instances of bad behavior in the soldiery. This also led the colonists to figure out the England did not send those troops over for their well-being, but were there just for the benefit of England. But once again, they were only taking orders from England. Early on the evening of March 5, 1770, a crowd of laborers began throwing hard packed snowballs at soldiers guarding the Customs House. Goaded beyond endurance the sentries acted against express orders and fired on the crowd, killing four and wounding eight, one of whom dies a few days later.1 Here are the names of the people who were wounded or killed. Mr. Samuel Gray, killed on the spot by a ball entering his head. Crispus Attucks, a mulatto, killed on the spot, by two balls entering his breast. Mr. James Caldwell, killed on the spot, by two balls entering his back. Mr. Samuel Maverick, a 17 year old, mortally wounded, he died the next morning. Mr. Patrick Carr mortally wounded; he died the 14th instant. Chris Monk and John Clark, youths about 17, dangerously wounded. Apprehended they would die. Mr. Edward Payne, merchant, standing at his door, wounded. Messrs. John Green, Robert Paterson, and David Parker; all dangerously wounded.2 There were depositions in this affair which mention that several guns were fired at the same time from the Custom House: Benjamin Frizell, on the evening if the 5th of March, having taken his station near the west corner of the Custom House in King St., before and at the time of the soldiers firing their guns, declares that the first discharge was only of one gun, the next of two guns, upon which he the deponent thinks he saw a man stumble. The third discharge was of three guns, upon which he saw two men fall. Immediately afterward five guns were discharged from the balcony, or the chamber window on the balcony. 3 Gillam Bass, being on King St. at the same time declares that the posted themselves between the Custom house door and the west corner of it. In a few minutes started to fire upon the people. 2 or 3 were really high which he believes must of came from the balcony windows. 4 A few more men also declared the same thing. The most important factor there is that they all testified that the y saw some of the shots coming from the higher balcony windows. This proves that those soldiers were at no danger, but still took it upon themselves to shoot at the citizens who were not harming them in any way. The morning after the massacre, a town meeting was held; at which attended a very great number of freeholders and inhabitants of the town. It was now time for the town to speak up. They were deeply impressed and affected by the tragedy of the preceding night, and were unanimously of opinion, it was incompatible with their safety that the troops should remain any longer in the town. In consequence thereof they chose a committee of fifteen gentlemen to wait upon his Honor the Lieutenant-Governor on Council, to request of him to issue his orders for the immediate removal of the troops. The message was in these words: "That it is the unanimous opinion of the meeting that inhabitants and soldiery can no longer live together in safety; that nothing can rationally be expected to restore the peace of the town and prevent further blood carnage, but the immediate removal of the troops; and that we therefore most fervently pray his Honor, that his Honor, that his power and influences may be exerted for the instant removal."5 His Honors reply, which was laid before the town then adjourned the old south meting house, was as follows: "Gentlemen , "I am extremely sorry for the unhappy differences between the inhabitants and the troops, and especially for the action of last evening, and I have exerted myself upon the occasion, that a due inquiry may be made, and that the law may have its course. I have in council consulted with the commanding officers of the two regiments who are now in town. They have their orders from the General at New York. It is not in my power to countermand those orders. The Council have desired that the two regiments may be removed to the Castle. From the particular concern which the 29th regiment has had in your differences, Col. Dalrymple, who is the commanding officer of the troops, has signified that the regiment shall without delay be placed in the barracks at the castle, until he can send the General and receive his further orders concerning both the regiments, and the main-guard shall be removed, and the 14th regiment so disposed, and laid under such restraint that all occasions of future disturbances may be prevented"6 The committee took everything that he had said into consideration but was not to sure if it was satisfactory. They voted and it came out that no it wasn't satisfactory, so they made a new committee to tell the Governor that it was unanimous and that they thought what he said was not good enough and that they wanted all of the troops out. His Honor laid before the Board a vote of the town of Boston, passed this afternoon, and then addressed the Board as follows: "Gentlemen of the Council, "I lay before you a vote of the town of Boston, which I have just now received from them, and now I ask your advice what you judge necessary to be done upon it." The Council then expressed themselves to be unanimously of opinion, "that was absolutely necessary for his Majesty's service, the good order of the town, and the peace of the province, that the troops should be immediately removed out of the town of Boston, and thereupon advised his Honor to communicate this advice of the Council to Col. Dalrymple, and to pray that he would order troops down to Castle William."7 Samuel Adams was the strongest antagonist Thomas Hutchinson had to face. He was a complete democrat with great democratic will. He was a great "watchdog" of the rights and privileges granted to the colonies. Samuel Adams observed that the removal of the troops was in the slowest order, taking eleven days, when it had taken only forty-eight hours to land them. Adams certainly believed the soldiers guilty of murder without and extenuation, as his letters to the newspapers and other public activities showed. Captain Preston was the first of the accused to be placed on trial. He was acquitted. He was questioned to see if he had told his troops to fire. He was seized with panic. Many articles were being printed about him and his credibility to if he had said to fire or not. After trying to find favor with the people of Boston , which did not go to well, Preston tried to persuade the Britons at home that he was not responsible for the tragedy. Preston said that he didn't tell the soldiers to fire and ask them why they did. They answered by saying they heard someone say fire and figured it was him. He also said that he sent them there with unloaded pieces, and he gave no order of loading them. Someone swore that they heard him say it, and yelled at them for not firing on the first command. Preston responded with saying that people are so bitter that hey will say anything to condemn him and his men so they will die. Preston was out in jail , awaiting trial. according to testimony in the second trial, the first shot was fired by Montgomery after he had his gun knocked out of his hands; he retrieved it and fired point blank. The other shots followed erratically, and one gun flashed in the pan. Many believed Preston to be a man of integrity , which later got him dismissed for the charge of murder.8. The soldiers were also put on trial. Here was there great defense, "Instead of that hospitality that the soldier thought himself entitled to, scorn, contempt, and silent murmurs were his reception. Almost every countable lowered with a discontented gloom, and scarce and eye but flashed with indignant fire. How stinging was it to be stigmatized as the instrument of tyranny and oppression! How exasperating to be viewed as aiding to enthrall his country! Could that spirit which had braved the shafts of foreign battle endure the keener wounds of civic battle?"9 Quincy did a great job at trying to defend the soldiers and trying to get them acquitted. Quincy made the colonists out to be like the bad people. That they started everything and were responsible for the consequences. That the colonists had stolen some guns and were ready to take the upper hand on them. They were just reacting to it. 3 soldiers were found guilty and the rest were acquitted. As you can see different people perceived the Boston Massacre in different ways. We had Sam Adams and the colonists, who believe that the troops shouldn't of been harassing them, and that they had no right to shoot and kill any of those peoples. Then we had the Lieutenant Governor, who represented Britain and with great persuation came to means with the colonists and agreed with them and went in their favor of getting rid of the troops. Then we have Preston and his troops, who testified that they were truly not responsible for the killings of those people. Everyone had different views on the event, but then again, doesn't everyone???? Word Count: 1879 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\BostonTeaParty.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Boston Tea Party The importance of the event The Boston Tea Party was the key-event for the Revolutionary War. With this act, the colonists started the violent part of the revolution. It was the first try of the colonists, to rebel with violence against their own government. The following events were created by the snowball effect. There, all the colonists realized the first time, that they were treated wrong by the British government. It was an important step towards the independence dream, which was resting in the head of each colonist. They all flew from their mother country to start a new life in a new world, but the British government didn't gine them the possibility by controlling them. The causes for the Boston Tea Party The events leading to the Boston Tea Party began already ten years before ( 1763 ), when the English won the French-and-Indian War. The king of Britain passed taxes on the colonies to make up for the loss of money because of the war. He did it in a line of acts, called the Sugar Act ( tax to protect and secure the colonists ) and the Stamp Act ( tax on all licences, newspapers and business papers ). The colonists reacted with protests against those acts, what made the British Parliament to repeal the taxes within 5 months. Then they (the government ) passed taxes on lead, paint, paper and tea. These acts were called the Townshed Duties, but the colonists called them the "Insidious Acts". Mass meetings were held and people tried to influence others not to buy English imported goods anymore. In the end the parliament removed all the taxes except for tea. Actually the colonists easily didn't want to accept, to pay taxes to a government, they don't really belong to anymore. Although this tax on the tea cost a colonial family just pennies a year. Sam Adams, a kind of leader of the colonists, figured out, that the tax could be raised or lowered by the parliament at will. ( Sam Adams: "The power to tax is the power to destroy!" ).He also pointed out, that the colonists had no representation in the Parliament, and that they can't be taxed without having a representation in there, to care for their interests and wills. However, most people drank tea smuggled in from the Netherlands, so they didn't care very much whether the parliament raises or lowers the taxes. When the East India Tea company realized, that the colonists were drinking cheap, smuggled tea, the Parliament gave them ( the company ) the monopoly to export tea without paying duties. That way the tea could be much cheaper than the holland tea, even with the taxes. This act was called the Tea Act, which was of great importance for the following Boston Tea Party. The colonists reacted to this act by holding meetings to discuss it. Supporter of the revolution ( just to name some of them: John Adams, John Hancock, Dr. Joseph Warren ) wrote letters of protest to the government's officials, but they didn't achieve anything. The tea ships arriving in Boston still had to pay the full British tax. The event ( its getting exciting ) In September, 1773, a radical group of colonists found out, that three East India tea cargo ships, laden full with tea, were heading for Boston under full sail. They knew, that if the ships got unloaded and the tax would be paid, it would be a crushing defeat. The same radical group wanted to make the agents of the East India Company resign from their job in front of a big crowd, but this part didn't work. Over the following weeks speeches in form of propaganda were made, to get all colonists informed about the events. People even quitted drinking tea ( what they did for their whole life ) and started drinking coffee. The actual event On November 18th, 1773, the ships arrived. Pamphlets were posted to arrange a meeting between the citizens and the governor ( Hutchison ), called the "Committee of Correspondence". They wanted him to call the ships back to Britain. When he didn't agree, a bunch of men, disguised as Indians, went and stormed towards the harbor, planning to throw the tea into the bay. They divided in three groups, each of them with one leader. After they made the captain and his crew getting down below, they grabbed all the boxes of tea, opened them and threw them overboard. Even some members of the crew helped them to destroy the tea. A big crowed was created in the harbor, some of them even tried to steal some tea. Altogether they destroyed 340 chests. At 10:00 pm the event was over, and the streets of Boston were empty again. The next day everybody was happy, and plans were made, to public the important event in all colonies of America. The reaction of the British Government The reactions of the British Government were called the "Intolerable Acts". The Boston Harbor was closed by 4000 British soldiers, so that Boston couldn't get any food or other important goods. But this act failed it's mission, because the other colonists sent the Boston citizens food and other life important goods. They also created a militia to protct themselves of the British army. They also weren't allowed to held any meetings in Boston anymore. These tries to get the colonies under their control again were the last ones with a view of success. The connection between Britain and the new world Word Count: 930 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Bram Stoker.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Bram Stoker Abraham (Bram) Stoker was born November 8, 1847 at 15 The Crescent, Clontarf, North of Dublin, the third of seven children. For the first 7 years of his life Stoker was bedridden with a myriad of childhood diseases which afforded him much time to reading. By the time he went to college, Stoker had somehow overcome his childhood maladies and while at Trinity College, Dublin, the honor student was involved in soccer and was a marathon running champion. He was also involved in various literary and dramatic activities, a precursor to his later interests in the theater and his involvement with the rising action Henry Irving, whose performance he had critiqued as a student at Trinity. After graduation from college, and in his father's footsteps, he became a civil servant, holding the position of junior clerk in the Dublin Castle. His literary career began as early as 1871 and in that year he took up a post as the unpaid drama critic for the "Evening Mail," while at the same time writing short stories. His first literary "success" came a year later when, in 1872, The London Society published his short story "The Crystal Cup." As early as 1875 Stoker's unique brand of fiction had come to the forefront. In a four part serial called the "Chain of Destiny," were themes that would become Stoker's trademark: horror mixed with romance, nightmares and curses. Stoker encountered Henry Irving again, this time in the role of Hamlet, 10 years after Stoker's Trinity days. Stoker, still very much the critic (and still holding his civil service position), gave Irving's performance a favorable review. Impressed with Stoker's review, Irving invited Stoker back stage and the resultant friendship lasted until Irving's death in 1905. The Stoker/Irving partnership solidified around the year 1878. During this time Henry Irving had taken over his own theater company called the London Lyceum, but he didn't like the management, and therefore approached Stoker to handle business, at which point Stoker gave up his government job and became the acting manager of the theater. A short time after Stoker began his new career, the publishing house of Sampson, Lowe contacted him expressing interest in a collection of Stoker's stories. "Under the Sunset" was published in 1891 and was well received by some of the critics, but others thought the book too terrifying for children. Stoker was already fascinated with the notion of the "boundaries of life and death" (Leatherdale, p.63) which made this book too terrifying for children at least in some of the reviewer's minds. By the time Stoker had received favorable reviews for his romance novel "The Snake's Pass" (1890), he was already making notes for a novel with a vampire theme, and by 1894 he was back to macabre themes. It seemed only a natural consequence that "Dracula" would follow and was published in June 1897. Reviews on "Dracula" were mixed, and the book never yielded much money for Stoker. In a favorable review the "Daily Mail" compared it with "Frankenstein" and Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher." "The Bookman" found it likeable in spots but commented that the "descriptions were hideous and repulsive." (Leatherdale, p.68) For the next few years after "Dracula's" publication, events took a downward spiral for both Irving and Stoker. There were troubles with Irving's establishment and a fire destroyed part of the theater (including some important scenery) and Irving eventually sold it. Stoker did manage however to publish "The Jewel of the 7 Stars" in 1903, and it was a novel based on the information given to Stoker by an Egyptologist. In 1905 Henry Irving died, leaving the aging Stoker without a steady jot for the first time in his life. A year after Irving's death Stoker wrote "Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving." Stoker managed to write other novels after this point until the time of his death in 1912 at the age of 64. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Breakdown of Rome.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Breakdown of Rome Essay on the breakdown of the early Ancient roman republic. For men who had easily endured hardship, danger and difficult uncertainty, leisure and riches, though in some ways desirable, proved burdensome and a source of grief. Sallust The causes for the breakdown of the early Roman Republic cannot be attributed to a single event, trend or individual, rather it was due to a combination of all three in varying degrees. The principal and fundamental cause was the breakdown of the political checks and balances, particularly the Cursus Honorum from 133 BC onwards. This subversion occurred both accidentally and through the subversive behavior of individuals, unconsciously and consciously undermining the fabric of the republic in their quest for power and glory. One substantial outcome of this incapacitation was the emergence of violence as a political means. Once this had occurred the end of the old republic was heralded an autocratic dictatorship was born. The republic was born out of a collapsed monarchy and was specifically geared to prevent a centralization of power. The mechanisms to this end were contained in the Cursus Honorum, a document that outlined the ladder of offices. It demanded, among other things, 10 years of military or legal service before any magistracy could be held, annual election and two years between consecutive offices (Plutarch, 1974. p.140). This system was designed to ensure that no individual could become too powerful by dividing jurisdiction between several groups and allowing for veto. The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius are often blamed for causing divisions and antagonizing the aristocracy and particularly the senate by introducing laws and legislation that, although promoting egalitarianism for the poor, were catalysts to later breaches of the Cursus Honorum. Both Tiberius and Gaius had laws enacted without consulting the senate. This weakened the senate's power and started a trend of ignoring the senate that remained until the breakdown (Plutarch, 1986. p 176). These Graccian reforms included the implementation of a welfare system whereby Romans citizens would be given free corn and the Lex Agraria or land reforms that broke down the latafundia and increased the number of small-scale farms. The welfare corn system not only aroused violent anger from the nobility but also created an urban mob (Suetonius, 1979. p.42) that relied on handouts and later participated in violence. Tiberius Gracchus ran for election to the tribunate for two years consecutively (123 and 122 BC). This was in direct contradiction to the Cursus honorum. The senate, when they heard of Tiberius' plan, killed him. This action was significant, due to it being the first time that violence had been used for a political end, it was not to be the last. Marius and Sulla, great leaders of Rome from 119 to 78 BC, can be attributed part of the blame for the breakdown of the republic. Their constant quarreling led to factional fighting amongst the people and eventually to civil war. Marius came into power before Sulla and, like the Gracchi, showed a tendency towards disturbing the status quo and antagonized the nobility. Marius' reforms centered on military change, the most controversial of which was the extension of military service for the landless class. This seemingly insignificant reform had wide repercussions since it created semi-professional soldiers rather than a citizen militia (Bradley, 1990. p 270). Since no pension scheme was organized, the soldiers were largely dependent on their commanders for payment and pensions of land. This dependence led to the soldiers being "tied" to their commanders, allowing for the later development of armies that were loyal to individuals rather than to the state. Marius' contempt for the Cursus Honorum is illustrated by his standing in the consular elections while not in Rome, a post that he gained and held for six years. This action was in direct contradiction to the rule of one-year consulships in the Cursus Honorum and allowed Marius to establish a power base that he used for his own political designs. Both Marius and Sulla used violence openly as a political means. The first such incident was during the tribunal election where Marius killed Nonnius, a political opponent to his friend Saturnius. This was not the only example of violence from Marius. When returned from exile, he killed everyone who had ever offended him and took their land for himself. Sulla was not much better, having a similar proscription list and sometimes adding names to the list simply to acquire property. Legions of Roman soldiers, who had effectualy turned into private armies, carried out these executions. This practice of obtaining soldiers for personal means led eventually to the widespread use of violence and eventually to civil war. Close to the end of the republic, a triumvirate arose, combining the three most powerful men in Rome-Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. Caesar engineered the union, using the military and political skill of Pompey and the Financial and political power of Crassus for his own benefit. He manipulated both men to pass legislation and reforms that would spell the end of the republic and catapult him into an autocratic Dictatorship. Caesar, upon election to his first consulship in 59 BC, was faced not only with a hostile senate, but also a large proportion of the tribunes, acting on behalf of the nobles, that seemed determined to oppose his amendments. A relatively moderate bill to provide pensions for Pompey's veterans was met with prolonged and systematic obstruction (Bradley, 1990. p336) by the senate. Caesar chose then to bypass the senate and took the bill directly to the assembly where it was vetoed by a tribune named Bibulus. Upon knowledge of this, he presented the assembly with Pompey, who vowed to use violence if necessary to defend the people's rights. The bill was subsequently passed. Caesar, according to Suetonius, governed alone, and did very much as he pleased. (Suetonius, 1979. p.110) Each of the men was greedy for glory and power, demanding triumphs and ovations for military and political victories. Their earlier quarrels over such things had been damaging for the republic but their eventual union was to be its downfall. It is interesting to note however that, in the words of Plutarch. All of these men "came to an inglorious and ineffectual end". (Plutarch, 1974. p.213) Close to the breakdown, violence was used almost as a matter of course in political activities. From 133 BC mob violence became commonplace. Many politicians were dragged away and butchered by angry mobs, not the least of whom was Caesar himself. This trend towards violent resolution of political issues is well documented. Pompey used this element to his advantage, stirring up the crowd to the point that people were afraid to speak out against him since if they did, they were liable to be beaten to death by his supporters or murdered by his army. The culmination of these events and trends was the breakdown of the Republic and the regression into a dictatorship, a system that survived until the fall of the Empire hundreds of years later. The seeds for the fall were planted very early in the form of social and political problems that continued for the Romans long after the breakdown of the republic. Although brilliant in their military and the development of physical infrastructure, the Romans made the mistake of letting the carefully and meticulously placed system of checks and balances fall asunder, taking with it the stability and potential for political egalitarianism that had made the Roman empire great. Rome shall perish - write that word In the blood that she has spilt. William Cowper Joseph Clark apter@up.net.au Word Count: 1261 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Brief History of the NRA.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brief History of the NRA The National Rifle Association in its simplest form is the largest gun club in the world. The organization was founded in 1871 by former Union Army officers to encourage sport shooting in order to have a fine tuned militia in case of emergency. The Union officers believed that a well regulated militia was integral for the security of a free state. It is an organization that opposes gun control, it believes in the individual defense of the uses of firearms, and it is interested in all aspects of shooting sports.1 Today, the organization stands with approximately 3.4 million members. Within the NRA, there are four major organs. The Institute for Legislative Action (is the lobbying arm), the political Victory Fund (which is a political action committee), the Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund (deals with scholarly research and legal developments), and the Grass Roots Division (which specializes in raising support through grass roots methods). As a membership organization, the NRA's directions is set by voting members. The direction of the policies are carried out by a 75 member board that is geographically distributed. The Board of Directors are elected by secret ballot.2 Brady Act The Brady Act was approved by Congress in November of 1993 and was then signed into law by President Clinton later in the month. The act was originally named for anti gun lobbyist Sarah Brady, and not for former press secretary Jim Brady. It was through Jim Brady's support and the media coverage that linked his name to the act. The act requires that there be a waiting period of five state government business days at the time an individual applies to purchase a handgun from a federal firearm license. During the five day wait, the local sheriff or police chief must "make a reasonable effort" to see if the purchaser is prohibited from owning a handgun. The police official may approve the sale before the five day period only if the record check has been completed or if he believes the purchaser needs a handgun immediately to protect himself or his family.3 Presently, the Clinton administration isn't complying with the Brady Act. The act requires that within 60 months of enactment, the Attorney General must establish a national instant criminal background check system that allows federal firearms licensees to have access through some type of electronic method. The reason for the delay lies with the fact that U.S. Circuit Courts have split on whether the Brady Act violates the 10th amendment of the Constitution by allowing law enforcement agencies to conduct criminal records checks in association with the purchase of a handgun.4 It also may involve the access of medical records since some states require that hospitals report mental patients to the state, which may put them in the same database along with felons.5 Why Brady Fails The Brady Bill is a failure and does not prevent criminals from obtaining handguns. After the enactment of the law for a period of 17 months, only 7 individuals were convicted of illegal attempts to purchase a handgun. By comparison, according to the Virginia State Police during the period between November 1989 and June 1996, the state's instant check system facilitated the arrest of 2,479 persons. Both the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of Justice have done studies that only show 7% of armed career criminals obtain firearms from legally licensed shops. The FBI reported in 1993 and 1994 that homicide rates had dropped 5%. Attorney General Janet Reno credited the reduction to community policing, while criminologists attributed the trend to maturing gang members who are now less willing to reside turf disputes violently. Neither attributed the decline to the Brady Bill.6 A National Association of Chiefs of Police Poll was released in May of this year that stated 85% of the police chiefs believe that the Brady Bill hasn't stopped criminals from obtaining firearms.7 The General Accounting Office reported that during the act's first year, 95.2% of firearms applications went through the system without a hitch.8 When President Clinton signed the bill into law, he was already provided with information that said the bill would have no effect on the states with the highest crime rates. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia were exempt from the 5 day wait since they already had gun delaying measures in place. These states and D.C. account for 63% of all violent crimes; including 58% of all murders.9 California which is exempt because it has a 15 day waiting period, has more murders and violent crimes than any other state. New York which is also exempt due to a licensing law has the second greatest number of murders and other violent crimes.10 Since the bill was enacted, only 22 states are subject to the 5 day wait. The Brady bill serves to be irrelevant in most violent crimes anyway. Seven out of ten violent crimes are not committed with firearms. 90% of rapes, 59% of robberies, and 76% of assaults are committed with knives, clubs, feet, or a person's fists. According to the FBI, approximately 10,000 murders are committed each year without firearms.11 Gun Control is Not the Answer With the evidence that has just been documented, gun control is not the answer to stopping crime, it only serves to delay one's constitutional right to possess a handgun. The Brady Act infringes one's right to own a firearm according to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It says that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in the case of U.S. vs. Cruinshank. A militia is defined under federal law to include all able bodied persons of age.12 States with right to carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates than other states. The homicide rate is 28% lower. Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck shows that there are at least 2.5 million cases of protective firearms. "The U.S. Department of Justice victimization survey shows that the protective use of a firearm lessens the chance that a rape, robbery, or assault attempt will be successfully completed."13 For those who believe that firearms are the greatest danger to police officers, they are wrong. It comes from the criminal justice system that fails to adequately punish the criminals. 73% of law enforcement officer killers have prior arrests, 56% have prior convictions, and 23% are on either parole or probation. Gun control supporters claim that the Brady Act prevents thousands of felons from buying handguns. The truth is that honest people are being delayed by the waiting period. There's no point in Brady since in 1968, it has been illegal for felons to possess firearms. Furthermore, 93% of career criminals obtain their firearms mostly through theft or by the black market.14 There are some problems that come along with the enactment of the Brady Act. A good portion of police resources are now diverted from investigation and street patrol to desk work. A background check consumes about $140,000 in police salary for every arrest that is produced. Police resources devoted to investigating and street patrol would save more lives than conducting background checks that could take up to five days to conduct. There are over 7.5 million firearm transactions per year, wouldn't all those millions of hours be better spent on street patrols?15 Lawsuits against police departments could also become a problem. An example would be from a woman in Philadelphia who won $350,000 because the police did not conduct a thorough enough background check of a man who killed her husband.16 Conclusion Gun control laws do now work. Actions that are initiated to curtail the supply of firearms only hurts one's freedom to privately own a firearm. It is simple, if a criminal knows that a large number of civilians carry weapons, then he/she will think twice before committing a crime. If a state enacts laws to delay or curtail the sale of firearms, the criminal will simply cross state lines to attain a firearm. In the U.S., people and cargoes travel state to state without inspection or hindrance, if there is a shortage of goods, you simply move and find it. "Firearms are nowhere near the root of the problem of violence. As long as people come in unlike sizes, shapes, ages, and temperaments, as long as they diverge in their taste for risk and their willingness and capacity to prey on other people or to defend themselves from predation, and above all as long as some people have little or nothing to lose by spending their lives in crime, dispositions to violence will persist."17 As long as crime continues to pay, people most choose between being victims or to defend themselves and not be hindered by ineffective gun control laws. Bibliography 1. Blackman, Paul H, Richard E. Gardner, and Institute for Legislative Action. The N.R.A. and Criminal Justice Policy. Reston: NRA, 1986: 2. 2. Blackman, 3. 3. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action. The "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," Does it live up to it's name? Reston: NRA, 1996: 3. 4. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, 9. 5. Kopel, David B. "Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety." Independence Issue Paper, No. 4091. Golden, Co 1991: 25. 6. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, 1. 7. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, 1. 8. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, 3. 9. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, 5. 10. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, 2. 11. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, 11. 12. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action. NRA Firearms Fact Card. Reston: NRA 1996: 1-2. 13. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action. NRA Firearms Fact Card 3. 14. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action. NRA Firearms Fact Card 4-5. 15. Kopel, 23-4 16. Kopel, 24. 17. Polsby, Daniel D. "The False Promise of Gun Control" Atlantic Monthly, March 1994. Publisher unknown: 8. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Buddhism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brief history of Buddhism Buddhism is one of the major religions of the world. It was founded by Siddhartha Guatama (Buddha) in Northeastern India. It arose as a monastic movement during a time of Brahman tradition. Buddhism rejected important views of Hinduism. It did not recognize the validity of the Vedic Scriptures, nor the sacrificial cult which arose from it. It also questioned the authority of the priesthood. Also, the Buddhist movement was open to people of all castes, denying that a person's worth could be judged by their blood. The religion of Buddhism has 150 to 350 million followers around the world. The wide range is due to two reasons. The tendency for religious affiliation to be nonexclusive is one. The other is the difficulty in getting information from Communist countries such as China. It's followers have divided into two main branches: Theravada and Mahayana. Theravada, the way of the elders, is dominant in India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia. Mahayana, the greater vehicle, refers to the Theravada as Hinayana, the lesser vehicle. It is dominant in India, Tibet, Japan, Nepal, Taiwan, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia. Siddhartha Guatama was born in Kapilivastu. His father was the ruler of the small kingdom near the Indian/Nepal border. As a child, his future was foretold by sages. They believed that he would someday be a fellow sage or leader of a great empire. He led a very pampered and sheltered life until the age of twenty-nine. It was at that time that he realized that he had led an empty life. He renounced his wealth and embarked on a journey to seek truth, enlightenment, and the cycle of rebirths. In the first years of his journey, Siddhartha Guatama practiced yoga and became involved in radical asceticism. After a short time, he gave up that life for one of a middle path between indulgence and self-denial. He meditated under a bo tree until he reached true enlightenment by rising through a series of higher states of consciousness. After realizing this religious inner truth, he went through a time of inner struggle. Renaming himself Buddha (meaning enlightened one), he wandered from place to place, preaching, spreading his teachings by word of mouth. He also gained disciples, who were grouped into a monastic community known as a sangha. As he neared his death, Buddha refused a successor. He told his followers to work hard to find their salvation. After his death, it was decided that a new way to keep the community's unity and purity was needed, since the teachings of Buddha were spoken only. To maintain peace, the monastic order met to decide on matters of Buddhist doctrines and practice. Four of these meetings are considered to be the Four Major Councils. The first major council was presided over by Mahakasyapa, a Buddhist monk. The purpose of the first council was to preach and agree on Buddha's teachings and monastic discipline. The second major council supposedly met at Vaisali, one hundred years after the first. The purpose of this council was to answer the ten questionable acts of the monks of the Vajjian Confederacy. The use of money, drinking wine, and other irregularities were among the acts. It was decided that the practices were unlawful. This decision has been found to be the cause of the division of the Buddhists. The accounts of the meeting describe a quarrel between the Mahasanghikas (Great Assembly) and the Sthaviras (Elders). Tensions had grown within the sangha over discipline, the role of laity, and the nature of arhat. Pataliputra, now Patna, was the sight of the third council. It was called by King Asoka in the 3rd century BC, and was convened by Moggaliptta. The purpose was the purify the sangha of the false monks and heretics who had joined the order because of its royal associations. During the council, the compilations of the Buddhist scriptures (Tipitaka) and the body of subtle philosophy (abhidharma) to the dharma and monastic discipline were completed. Missionaries were sent forth to many countries as a result of the council. King Kanishka patronized the fourth council in 100 AD. Historians are not sure if it was held at either Kasmir or Jalanhar. Both divisions of Buddhism are said to have participated in the council. The council tried to establish peace between them. However, neither side was willing to give in. Because of this, the religion divided into many sects, including the traditional eighteen schools. The traditional eighteen schools of Buddhism were a result of different interpretations of Buddhist teachings. Together, these divisions were seen as too conservative and literal towards the teachings of Buddha. Theravada was considered too individualistic and unconcerned with the needs of the laity. It caused a liberal wing of the sangha to break away from the rest of the monks during the second council. Original group of monks continued their honoring of Buddha as a perfectly enlightened human teacher. However, the liberal Mahasanghikas developed a new interpretation. They began to think of Buddha as an eternal, all powerful being. Believing the human Buddha was an apparition sent down for human benefit, the Mahasanghikas began Mahayana. Not even the names of Mahayana's founders are known. Historians argue whether or not the new sect began in southern or northwestern India. However, they have narrowed the date to in between the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. Beliefs in a godlike Buddha continued well past the era of Christianity and came together in the Mahayana doctrine of threefold nature. Buddhism spread throughout Asia after the two divisions came about. King Asoka's children, Mahinda and Sanghamitta, are responsible for the Buddhist conversion of Sri Lanka. During the reign of Asoka, it is said that Theravada was introduced to Burma by Sri Lanka, around 5th century AD. Burma spread Theravada to Thailand in the 6th century. Cambodia was influenced by Mahayana and Hinduism at the end of the 2nd century. Nearly one-thousand two- hundred years later, Theravada became the primary religion. At the beginning of the Christian era, Buddhism was introduced to Central Asia. From there, it entered China through trade routes. It influenced and adapted to Chinese culture. It was opposed by many, though, and its followers were persecuted at times. Buddhism's major Chinese influence ended after a great persecution in 845 AD. However, the meditative Zen sect and the Pure Land sect continued to thrive. Despite disagreement from Confucian authorities, Mahayana's influence was seen in Vietnam by 189. China introduced Buddhism to Korea in 372 AD. From that point on, it was gradually converted through Chinese influence for many centuries. Korea introduced Buddhism to Japan in 552 AD. Prince Shotoku made it the official state religion of Japan forty-one years later. Tibet was introduced to Buddhism by foreign wives of the king starting in the 7th century AD. By the next century, it had become an important aspect of Tibetan culture. It was spread by the Indian monk, Padmasambhava, who had arrived there in 747 AD to spread Tantric Buddhism. Several centuries later, Tibetan Buddhists began to believed that the abbots of its great monastaries were reincarnated bodhisattvas, individuals who have attained perfect enlightenment but delay entry into final nirvana in order to make possible the salvation of others who had not reached enlightenment. The chief abbots became known as the Dalai Lama, the ruler of Tibet. They ruled as a theocracy from the 17th century until the Chinese takeover in 1950. One of Buddhism's greatest strengths is its ability to adapt to many conditions under a variety of cultures. It is opposed to materialism. It does not recognize a conflict between itself and modern science. On the contrary, it holds that the Buddha applied the experimental approach to the questions of ultimate truth. Growing interest in Asian culture and spiritual values in the West has led to the development of a number of studies and practice of Buddhism. Zen has grown in the United States to create more than a dozen meditation centers and a number of monastaries. Interest in Vajrayana has also increased. As its influence in the west slowly grows, Buddhism is once again changing and adapting to the new environment. Although its influence in the United States is still small, it seems that if Buddhism repeats its history, new forms and sects of Buddhism may develop. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Burial Practices of the Ancients.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Burial Practices of the Ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman Cultures Ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman practices of preparing the dead for the next cradle of humanity are very intriguing. These two cultures differ in a multitude of ways yet similarities can be noted in the domain of funerary services. In the realm of Egyptian afterlife, The Book of the Dead can provide one with vital information concerning ritual entombment practices and myths of the afterlife. The additional handouts I received from Timothy Stoker also proved to be useful in trying uncover vital information regarding the transition into another life. Regarding the burial practices of Greece and Rome, parts of Homer's Odyssey are useful in the analysis of proper interment methods. One particular method used by the Egyptians was an intricate process known as mummification. It was undoubtedly a very involved process spanning seventy days in some cases. First, all the internal organs were removed with one exception, the heart. If the body was not already West of the Nile it was transported across it, but not before the drying process was initiated. Natron (a special salt) was extracted from the banks of the Nile and was placed under the corpse, on the sides, on top, and bags of the substance were placed inside the body cavity to facilitate the process of dehydration. After thirty-five days the ancient embalmers would anoint the body with oil and wrap it in fine linen. If the deceased was wealthy enough a priest donning a mask of Anubis would preside over the ceremonies to ensure proper passage into the next realm. One of the practices overseen by the priest was the placing of a special funerary amulet over the heart. This was done in behest to secure a successful union with Osiris and their kas. The amulet made sure the heart did not speak out against the individual at the scale of the goddess of justice and divine order, Maat. The priest also made use of a "peculiar ritual instrument, a sort of chisel, with which he literally opened the mouth of the deceased." This was done to ensure that the deceased was able to speak during their journeys in Duat. Another practice used by the Egyptians to aid the departed soul involved mass human sacrifice. Many times if a prominent person passed away the family and servants would willfully ingest poison to continue their servitude in the next world. The family members and religious figureheads of the community did just about everything in their power to aid the deceased in the transition to a new life. The community made sure the chamber was furnished with "everything necessary for the comfort and well-being of the occupants." It was believed that the individual would be able of accessing these items in the next world. Some of the most important things that the deceased would need to have at his side were certain spells and incantations. A conglomeration of reading material ensured a successful passage; The Pyramid Texts, The Book of the Dead, and the Coffin Texts all aided the lost soul in their journey through Duat into the Fields of the Blessed. "Besides all these spells, charms, and magical tomb texts, the ancient practice of depositing in the tomb small wooden figures of servants was employed." These "Ushabi statuettes" as they are called, were essentially slaves of the deceased. If the deceased was called to work in the Elysian fields he would call upon one of the statues to take his place and perform the task for him. It was not unheard of for an individual to have a figure for every day of the year to ensure an afterlife devoid of physical exertion. Just about every thing the embalmers and burial practitioners did during the process was done for particular reasons. Many of the funerary practices of the ancient Greco-Romans were also done with a specific purpose in mind. Unlike the Egyptian's the Greco-Roman cultures did not employ elaborate tombs but focused on the use of a simple pit in the ground. Right after death, not too dissimilar from the practices of the Egyptians, it was necessary for the persons to carefully wash and prepare the corpse for his journey. It was vital for all persons to receive a proper burial and if they did not they were dammed to hover in a quasi-world, somewhat of a "limbo" between life and death. One Greco-Roman myth that illustrates this point is The Odyssey by Homer. There is a part in Book eleven of the work in which Homer specifically addresses proper burial rites. When Odysseus wishes to contact Tiresias, he comes across Elpenor, one of his soldiers. This particular man fell (in a haphazard fashion) to his death on the island of the Kimmerians, but did not receive a proper burial and was stuck in limbo. Elpenor begged Odysseus and his men to return to the island and care for his body. Consequently, they did return and Elpenor passed into the next world. Most likely he was buried in the same fashion other members of his society were; a pyre was probably constructed and the body placed upon it. Also placed on the pyre were items that the deceased held dear in life with the hope that they would follow him into the next world. In order to survive in the afterlife, the deceased "is also presented with a small coin which came to be known as the ferrying fee for Charon." This can be likened to the Egyptian practice of introducing coinage into the tomb in some cases. Homer also speaks of the psyche, which slips out of man "at the moment of death and enters the house of Ais, also known as Aides, Aidoneus, and in Attic as Hades." This idea can be compared to the concept of an individual's ba in ancient Egypt. When someone died, an eternal part of them (their ba) would also slip out and seek out the individuals spiritual twin (their ka) in order to unite with it and facilitate a successful passage. Many times in myth, the living desired to speak with the departed. When Odysseus wishes to speak with the Nekyia in Book eleven, goats must be sacrificed and their blood was recognized as inspiring the deceased to speak. The Egyptians also were concerned with the ability of the deceased to speak in the next realm; this is exemplified in one of the most important spells in The Book of the Dead, the opening of the mouth. When all the funerary rites had been done, the next step was to mark the spot of the deceased. "The grave is marked with a stone, the sign, sema." This grave stone would have the name of the soul, and often some type of epigram in verse form. Invariably near the grave, some type of guardian of the soul would be located. Lion and sphinx were found as grave markers and this idea is paralleled in the practices of the natives of Egypt. A certain "cult image" was buried with the deceased in Egypt in order to look after and more importantly protect one's ba from being disturbed. It also acted as a type of "purge valve" for any ba which may have been unjustly disturbed in the tomb. Burial practices aside one can note an interesting difference between these two ancient civilizations. Differences can be observed concerning how amicable the afterlife was. The Egyptians had a positive outlook. They believed that after one became Osirus, They would move into a new world, which was nice, no one had to work, and everything was very clean. One could compare their lives in the next world with the children's classic board game, Candyland. In this game all was fine and dandy, the "don't worry be happy" attitude flourished, not distant from the life in the Fields of the Blessed. On the other hand, Greco-Roman afterlife was a rather dismal place. The dead Achilles summed everything up by saying to Odysseus, "Do not try to make light of death to me, I would sooner be bound to the soil in the hire of another man, a man without lot and without much to live on, than rule over all the perished dead." Needless to say, the Homeric afterlife was no Candyland. Candyland or not, both cultures went to extremes in order to guarantee a successful voyage into the next world. The two ancient civilizations hoped that through their intricate actions the individual would be protected and prepared for their many experiences on "the other side." By looking at selections of Homer's Odyssey and The Book of the Dead, one can draw many similarities between the two cultures; however, differences are also apparent due to cultural differences concerning what would happen to the departed soul. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Canada.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thesis Life in the 1900's was depressing and was an era filled with extremely hard and strenous work that didn't offer any future for the average canadian in doing better. If you were an average wage earner you would be virtually stuck in the same job for the rest of your life, while rich maintained their wealth mainly caused by the low taxes. Living conditions were poor for average canadians and even worse for the arriving immigrants. At this time some of the modern convienences were just being invented and even if it were for sale only the extremely rich had the option of purchasing the items. Sports being very new, in the aspect of it being organized was small time compared to present day. Travelling required time and was uncomfortable. Only the rich could have the luxurious accomadations for those long journeys. Many jobs were available to most people but you were under constant scrutiny while working and would have to be willing to do any thing the boss wanted. I believe my friends and I would most likely resent and despise it if we had to live in the 1900's. During the 1900's horses played a significant role in the everyday life. A horse drawn carriage would bring a docter to the house of where a baby would be born. A hearse was pulled by horses to the cemetery when somebody died. Farmers used them to pull their ploughs while town dwellers kept them for transportation around town. Horses puled delivery wagons for businesses such as bakery, dairy, and coal company. Horses pulled fire engines through the streets in a fire emergency. The bicycle was widely accepted by canadians because of its easy maintence compared to a horse. The bike allowed an option of transportation. The bicycle also gave a sense of freedom to virtually anybody willing to learn. Henry Ford revolutionized the world we live in by inventing the "horseless carriage", if it had not been for him, instead of taking the GO bus in the morning we'd be riding a horse named Wanda. Not only did his invention offer a method of transportation to the public, but it helped with our emergency services such as fire engines, police cars, and ambulances. Now we have a large variety of cars to choose from varying in size and price. He also brought a large profitable industry to North America...The car industry. Back then there weren't many problems that they created. Today, we have our deteriorating ozone layer, poisonous chemicals that come from exhaust fumes (CO2)(Carbon Monoxide). Not to mention the traffic accidents, parking problems and traffic jams in downtown Toronto. 11 years previous to WW I Orville and Wilbur Wright made a successful flight in the first airplane at the beach of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Although the flight only lasted 12 seconds it would change the way we see the world. The telephone allowed the houseneeds to be satisfied without leaving they're homes. Women received an oppurtunity to work as a a switch board operator. I don't know if I can stress the importance of Marconi's invention enough. But I can say, that without it not only would there be no T.V. or radio there would be a lot of unemployed people right now(even more unemployed than now!!!). The reason for that is radio provides people with jobs such as DJ's, musical programmers etc. Also, radio is a major form of advertising, without it there would not be as many advertising agencies or as many positions in this field. Without T.V., advertising agencies would also face the same consequences. T.V. provides millions of people with employment in commercials, T.V. shows, and movies. Baseball was the most popular sport in the United States where the World Series began in 1903. Tom Longboat was born in Brantford, Ontario and was known for outrunning a horse over a 19 km coarse. He set a record of 2 hours, 24 min and 24 seconds when he ran the Boston Marathon. Jan 22/1901 Queen Victoria died at the age of 63 years. The Queens reign stretched across the globe. With her death came modernization. In the early 1900's horses were being used extensivley for all transportating duties and some manual labor jobs. A few years later the bicycle hit Canada and presented the Canadians with a better option of transportation mainly because of the simplicity of maintence. During these other discoveries the automobile was being perfected for use by the general public. By the 1920's the automobile was no longer a rich man's toy and was being used by many people. 1903 saw the first succesful flight fo the airplane bh Orville and Wilbur Wright at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. At about the same time Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in Nova Scotia. By the turn of the century telephones had uses increased from ordering household goods to supplying jobs for women and men. 1901, Signal Hill in St.John's Newfoundland Guglielmo Marcone received the first radio signal sent across th e Atlantic Ocean. 20 years would elasped before radio broadcasting becomes mass entertainment. First movies were seen in the 19th century. 20 years will pass till speaking films arrive. 1903 the United States had their first World Series. In Canada, Tom Longboat was a famous runner who was famous for running faster than a horse on a 19 km course. Later to be proclaimed the worlds best marathoner. In the early 1900's modern covienences were just being available like bathrooms, electric washing machines, sewing machines, electric hearing aids, vacuum cleaners. The very fortuanate who could afford these items would order them from the Eaton's Catologue. All types of goods could be ordered in the Eaton's Catologue from fence posts to fashionable hats. The time period between 1901 and 1911 almost 2 million people immigrated to Canada from Europe, Britain and the United States. Due to the population growth, in 1905 Alberta and Saskatchewan became apart of the Confederation. The railway boom in 1903-1904 helped elevate the employment. Materials needed to build the railways and the transporting of the materials started the industrialization. Urbanization led to a serious problem of overcrowding. The three economic classes were the rich, average, and the immigrants. With low taxes this allowed the rich to spend on frivalous items such as horse and carriages. In contrast the average would only use their money for the neccessities in survival. At the bottom were the immigrants that were forced to live in unsanitary conditions and dank, damp basements. Not only were there differences of wealth or lack of but there was a difference in women and men's treatment. For example women did not have the freedom to enter pool room's, taverns and even bowling allies. Choices for women were working in stores and factories. Even if you came from a rich family your choices would have been nursing or teaching. Coming from a poor family women tended to just become a domestic servent. Women didn't have the right to vote like the men. In 1876 Dr Emily Stowe formed Toronto Women's Literary Club(TWLC). The purpose of this club was to inform women of their rights and to help secure women's rights. This group persuaded U of T to admit women in 1866. Also improved wages and working conditions. Womens Christian Temperence Union(WCTU) their goal was to combat problems created by alcohol in the society. A great social speaker Nellie Mclung received her start in WCTU to lead in the fight for equal freedom and for womens rights. Conclusion After discovering information about the 1900's I have come to the conclusion that in the 1900's was both good and bad. It was good because of the rising industries thus raising the economy. The main industries working for Canada were the railways, and road building. These industries provided needed jobs and the materials needed to complete these projects helped Canada grow even more. Low taxes meant you could pay for more important expenditures than paying to the government. The bad part of the 1900's was the three living standards in how most people were the poor and very little were rich. The modern convienences were not available to everyone in the early 1900's because these devices would have been very expensive caused by the newness of the products. Even though were guys I can see how women would have despised the fact that you were not able to vote or enter any buildings without checking it if it's not a tavern, pool room, and a bowling alley. Due to these outsanding points that stuck first in my mind I have changed my mind and believe it was both good and bad. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\causes of the civil war.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Causes Of Civil War As members of the Futurist of America Association, we have been assigned to look specifically at the cause of the American Civil #War. There are five aspects that could of led to the Civil War and they are Westward Movement, Social Change, Froeign Policy Development, Government/Politics Development, and Economic Development. Out of the five aspects, Economic Development is the best reason for the eventual Civil War. First, Westward Movement could of led to American Civil War because of the Louisiana Purchase, Wilmont Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Popular Sovereignity, Compromise of 1850, Missouri Compromise, "Bleeding Kansas", California Gold Rush, Manifest Destiny, and the Mistreatment of Native Americans. The Louisiana Purchase was done by President Jefferson because he wanted to doubled the size of the United States and to get control of New Orleans. Wilmont Proviso was to ban slaves from territories that might gbe aquired from Mexico. Kansas- Nebraska Act was the result of Douglas wanting to build railroads from Chicago to San Franciso. Douglas was a big believer in popular sovereignity, where the people have the right to decide if they want to be free of slave state, and he completely ignore the Missoure Compromise. The Compromise of 1850 stated that should be equal number of free and slave states. The Missouri Compromise said that any state above the latitude of 36 30' can not be a slave state. "Bleeding Kansas" was where people were fighting over the issue of slavery and cost many American Lives. The California Gold Rust occurred when gold was discovered in California and people rushed out to California.When California apply for statehood, it cause huge problems because North and the South wanted control of the gold in the state. Manifest Destiny was where Americans believe that they had the right to expand westward. The Treatment of Native Americans was hoorible because Americans believe they were superior to the Native Americans. All these issues seperated the North form the South because each side a different view on each issue. Westward Movement could of led to the Civil War, but did not because of Henry Clay. When the Westward Movemet occurred new states started to enter the union. This is where the promblems begins. Missouri was the first state, other than Louisiana, to enter the union from the Louisiana Purchase and will give impications on the status of slavery west of the Mississippi. If Missouri enter the union as a free state, then the North will get control of the House of Representatives because they would have more representatives. If Missouri enter the union as slave, the South will get control over the House. Henry Clay saw this issue cause a huge tension between the North and South, so he came up with the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise stated that any states above the latitude of 36 30' must be free states. Missoure enter as slave state and to even the number of slave and free, Maine also entered the union as a free state. Both North and South agreed to this and by doing so Henry Clay helped the United States from a civil war. Second, Social Change could led to the Civil War because of Educational Changes, Women's Rights Movement, Prohibiton, and the Abolitionist Movement. The Educational Movement was led by Horace Mann of Massachusetts. Mann worked for the establishment of a state board of education and for taxes to local schools. Women's Rights Movement stood for equality among the two sexes. Seneca Falls Convention was held by women for men to see that women should have equal rights. Women in the South felt the same way, but they knew the men in the South did not feel the same way as they did. Sojourner Truth, who was a Women's Rights activist and ex-slave, became famous when sh delievered a speech entitled "Ain't I a Women". The powerful speech rally women to fight for their rights. Dorthea Dix a woman her time to publicizing the inhumane treatment prevailing in prisons, almshouses, and unsane houses. As a result, 15 states opened new hospitals for the insane and others improved their supervision of penitentiaries, asylums, and poorhouses. Prohibiton deals with the banning of alcohol . Religious groups consider drinking alcohol is a sin and women being abuse rosed. Poverity and crime rose, so the Anti-Saloon League was formed. It was organize in Ohio by women, who marched to saloons to make them give up their businesses. Abolitionist Movement stated with the Quarkers, who thought it was a sin to own slaves. Frederick Douglass, who a runaway slave, became one of the most effective voices aganist slavery. He started the Nortstar, which brought the cruelities of slavery to the attention of the North. William Lloyd Garrison published the Liberator, which started the antislavery moverment, in Boston. The Dred Scot Case was where a slave from Missouri went to Wisconsin and got married. The court had to decide if was Scott was a slave or free man. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" written by Harriet Breecher tells about the mistreatment of slaves in the South. Social Change could of led to the Civil War by the Women's Rights Movement, Prohibition, and Abolitionists' Movemnt, but did not because the ideas were consider too radical at the time. The Women's Rights Movemet did nothing to separate the Norh from the South. Men in the North and the South belived it was too extreme for women to have equal rights because they thought women as nothing more than child barriers and housekeepers. Prohibition was an idea that alcohol should be illegal because it ruin many home lives of Americans. Women were abuse by their drunk husbands and as result battered women spoke out. Prohibiton did no separate the North and South because the majority of the men from both sides loved alcohol too much to listen. Abolitionists' Movement not gain any support from big cities up North. So how can the issue of slavery suppose to separate the North from the South when they can not even gain support from the North? Garrison, who wrote the Liberator, was mobbed in the streets of Boston and almost lynched. In New York City, the Tappan brothers often recieved threats because they supported a massive effort to print and distribute antislavery pamphets through the U.S. mails. Citizens of New York Ciy consider them as dangerous radicals. These ideas did not separate the North from the South, but as least the ideas were out for the people to know about. Third, Foreign Policy dealt with U.S. policies over foreign countries. After the American Revolution, the Americans were still allies with France. In 1793, France declared on Great Britain and wanted aid from the United States, considering the French helped the Americans defeat the British. Americans stayed neutral, but the British closed French ports to neutral ships. As a result, the Americans signed a treaty with Britain called Jay's Treaty to remain neutral. The French was digusted by the Americans, so in 1797 French privateers seized more than 300 American vessals. Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry were sent to get compensation for the seized ships and to get out of being allies with France. Talleyrand, the foreign minister, wanted 250,000 if they wanted to negotiated. Americans did not want pay and the Americans left France. American's commerical relationship with France were suspended and Americans strengthens military and naval forces. In 1799, French agreed to end being allies and removed the commerical suspension. The Embargo of 1807 was the result of Britain and France not respecting the United States being neutral. United States declared war on the Barbory Pirates from Northern Africa from 1801 to 1805 because of the robbings of American trade ships. The War of 1812 was between the United States and Britain. New Englanders did not cooperate with the war effort. The Tariff of 1828 put haeavy taxsion on manufactured goods. The tariff hurted the South more than the North. Foreign Policy could led to the Civil War but did not becaused at the time United States was still a young and wanted to stay as one nation.The incident between the United States and France in 1797-1799 greatly divided the leaders of the United States. Jefferson, who was in favor of the French, and Hamilton, who was not , disagreed on to support during war between Britain and France, but both did not want to see the nation they fought for so hard to be destroy in twenty years. The bad relationship between the United States and France only separated the politicals leaders and the entire country. Also Government/Politics could of led to the America Civil war because of court cases such as Marbury vs. Madison, Dartmouth vs. Woodward, McCulloch vs. Maryland, and Worester vs. Georgia. Then there were the Midnight Judges, Alien and Sedation Act of 1798, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, and Political Parties all could of led to the American Civil War. Marbury vs. Madison was about Adams wanting Marbury to get the job of Secretary of State, but James Madison did not allow it. It was then taken to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Marshall said the Supreme Court do not have control over such matters. Dartmounth College vs. Woodward case was about New Hampshire wanting to turn Dartmounth College from a private to a state unversity. The case was thrown into the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the state did not have the right to change the school from private to state university. McCulloch vs. Maryland centered around the State of Maryland taxing the Bank of the United States. Worester vs. Georgia was where Georgia wanted to extend their jurisdiction into the tribal lands of the Native Americans. The "Midnight Judges" was where John Adams, who was the President of the United States, appointed many of his party members into high powered positions just before midnight of his last term as President. The Alien and Seditions Acts was o change the school from private to state university. McCulloch vs. Maryland centered around the State of Maryland taxing the Bank of the United States. Worester vs. Georgia was where Georgia wanted to extend their jurisdiction into the tribal lands of the Native Americans. The "Midnight Judges" was where John Adams, who was the President of the United States, appointed many of his party members into high powered positions just before midnight of his last term as President. The Alien and Seditions Acts was o change the school from private to state university. McCulloch v Government/Politics could of led to the Civil War, but did not because of strong leaders such as Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. The Tariff of 1828 alone wouldof led to the Civil War, but John C Calhoun came up with Nullification, which said that states have the right to set aside federal laws. In 1832, because of Calhoun Congress lowered the tariff. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Causes of the Rise of Japanese Militarism in the 1930s.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Factors that Gave Rise To Japanese Militarism Japan's political journey from its quasi-democratic government in the 1920's to its radical nationalism of the mid 1930's, the collapse of democratic institutions, and the eventual military state was not an overnight transformation. There was no coup d'etat, no march on Rome, no storming of the Bastille. Instead, it was a political journey that allowed a semi-democratic nation to transform itself into a military dictatorship. The forces that aided in this transformation were the failed promises of the Meiji Restoration that were represented in the stagnation of the Japanese economy, the perceived capitulation of the Japanese parliamentary leaders to the western powers, a compliant public, and an independent military. The ground work for Japanese militarism was a compliant Japanese public. This pliant public was created through a variety of factors. Beginning in the 1890's the public education system indoctrinated students in the ideas of nationalism, loyalty to the emperor and traditionalist ideas of self-sacrifice and obedience. Thus ideas that were originally propagated to mobilize support for the Meiji government were easily diverted to form broad support for foreign militarism. Japanese society also still held many of the remnants of feudal culture such as strong confusion beliefs that stressed support for social order and lack of emphasis on individualist values. These values taught obedience not to a democratic but to the emperor; so the fact that the militaristic government of the 1930's ruled under the emperor meant that the Japanese were loyal to this government just as they had been to the government of the 1920's. So when Japan's militaristic government implemented programs characteristic of totalitarian governments such as strong media control, a thought police, and community organizations the public did little to protest. Shintoism provided a religious justification for nationalism and support for the militaristic government. Shintoism before the 1930's was primarily a nativistic religion which stressed nature and harmony. But during the 1930's it became a ideological weapon teaching Japanese that they were a superior country that had a right to expand and that its government was divinely lead by a descendent of the sun god. The independence and decentralization of the military allowed it to act largely on its own will as characterized in the Manchurian incident in 1931 and the Marco Polo bridge explosion in Shanghai. Because these incidents went unpunished and the Japanese public rallied around them the military was able to push for greater militarism and an increasingly active role in government till the entire government was run by the military. The London Treaty and Japan's rejection by large European powers at the Versailles conference angered many in the military who felt that Japan was being denied its place at the table with the great powers. This lead to a disenfranchisement with the parliamentary government who the military felt had capitulated to the western powers in treaties and by stopping its colonial expansion during the nineteen twenties. Once Japan commenced on the path of militarism it found that because of its technological edge it could defeat other Asian powers this increased Japan's sense of superiority and feed the fires of nationalism. These fires grew as following the 1931 Manchurian incident Japan invaded Manchuria then most China. In South East Asia Japan quickly expanded breaking up British, Portuguese, and Dutch colonialism. Japanese militarism occurred not by an organized plan but rather through passive acceptance by the Japanese public. A compliant Japanese public coupled with a independent army were two factors that pushed Japan toward militarism in the 1930's. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Charle magne.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Charlemagne History 101 - Fast Forward Fall 1996 PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED: September 30, 1996 Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, King of the Franks (742-814), was a strong leader who unified Western Europe through military power and the blessing of the Church. His belief in the need for education among the Frankish people was to bring about religious, political, and educational reforms that would change the history of Europe. Charlemagne was born in 742 at Aachen, the son of Pepin(or Pippin) the Short and grandson of Charles Martel. His grandfather, Charles, had begun the process of unifying western Europe, in the belief that all people should be Christian. Charlemagne's father, Pepin, continued this process throughout his rule and passed his beliefs on to Charlemagne. All three, in addition to the political unification, believed that the church should be reformed and reorganized under the Pope, which helped their rise to power as the Carolingian Dynasty. (Holmes 74) Upon Pepin's death in 768, Charlemagne and his brother, Carloman, each inherited half of the Frankish kingdom. Pepin, in the Merovingian tradition of the time, split his kingdom between his two sons. Three years later Carloman died and Charlemagne took control of the entire kingdom. He inherited great wealth and a powerful army, built by his father and grandfather. Charlemagne used the army and his own skillful planning to more than double the size of the Frankish Kingdom. (Halsall 15) The world of Charlemagne was a heathen one, with many warring tribes or kingdoms. Many of these tribes were conquered by Charlemagne, among them the Aquitanians, the Lombards, the Saxons, the Bretons, the Bavarians, the Huns, and the Danes. The longest of these battles was against the Saxons, lasting thirty-three years. Charlemagne actually defeated them many times, but due to their faithlessness and their propensity to return to their pagan lifestyle, the Saxons lost many lives in the prolonged battles with the Franks. With each conquest the Frankish kingdom grew, and with growth came additional power and responsibility for Charlemagne. In each area of Europe that was taken over by Charlemagne, he removed the leaders if they would not convert to Christianity and appointed new ones, usually someone with high position in the Church. Those people who refused to convert or be baptized in the church were put to death. (Holmes 75) The Church played a vital role in the kingdom of Charlemagne. It gave a sense of stability to Charlemagne's rule, and he in turn provided stability in the Church. The people conquered by Charlemagne, after being converted to Christianity, were taught through the Bible a unified code of right and wrong. It was necessary for the Church to play a role in this education of the people, because only the clergy were educated. (Boussard 92) The Church also guided Charlemagne's hand as a ruler, for he took on many conquests as a necessity to spread the Christian religion throughout Europe. (Ganshoff 19) Indeed, it appears that Charlemagne's desire to spread his kingdom and government was intertwined with his desire to spread the Christian religion and have the people live according to the Word of God. (Ganshoff 25) At the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty the Church was suffering from many problems. Paganistic peoples, a degradation of the Latin language, and the decline of power of the Pope or Papacy all contributed to the need for a leader to bring about reformation. Charles Martel, Pepin, and ultimately Charlemagne all took as their personal responsibility the reorganization of the Church. Each one, as king of the Franks, saw it his duty to better the state of his churches. (Ganshoff 205) Charlemagne, through the monasteries and ultimately the "Palace School", required all priests to learn classic Latin. His purpose was to insure that church services were always conducted in the proper form, with correct pronunciation and grammar. The education of the priests also served to provide Charlemagne with a growing number of educated people for his administration, and gave his kingdom a unified written language that could be passed on throughout all of Western Europe. (Holmes 97) The Papacy had been reduced to controlling only a small portion of land around Rome, and was under constant aggression from the Lombards. Pope Hadrian I in 773 appealed to Charlemagne to help rebuff the Lombards, and in the winter of that year in a short and decisive campaign, the Lombards were defeated. Charlemagne then added "King of the Lombards" to his title, and gave control of the northern part of Italy to the Pope. The creation of the "Papal States" indebted the Pope to Charlemagne, and Pope Leo III eventually crowned Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans" on Christmas day in 800AD. (Ganshoff 41) Power in Carolingian society was based on land ownership, also known as Feudalism. Charlemagne knew that he must have the allegiance of the people to himself, the King. To accomplish this, he looked back to the seventh century, and instituted an oath of fidelity - a promise to do nothing that would endanger the king or his sons or the royal power. The feudal monarchy created by Charlemagne had two definite characteristics: absolute power limited only by advice given by nobles and the Church and power based on a contract - the oath of fidelity pledging allegiance by the king's subjects. (Boussard 42) "The oath brought two immediate advantages. It created a direct, personal link between the subject and the king. But more important still, anyone who broke it became guilty not only of infidelitas but also of perjury; if his infidelity was not great enough to attract the death penalty, he could still be condemned to lose his right hand as a perjurer, and what was more, in religious terms he had placed himself in a state of mortal sin." (Ganshoff 113) The oath was a combination of action for the public good, combined with the practice of Christian virtues. Once again, an example of the minimal separation of Church and State. Charlemagne recognized the importance of education, not only of spreading it throughout his kingdom, but also of learning for himself the ability to read and write Latin and Greek. His desire for personal knowledge, and to educate the people, lead him to found the "Palace School" at his home, Aix-La-Chapelle. To staff his school, Charlemagne turned to the monasteries. During the Dark Ages preceding the Carolingian dynasty, only the monks had maintained the ability to read and write. They had over the years, however, misprinted many of the books of the Bible. Charlemagne asked the monk, Alcuin, to head the school, and commissioned him to correct the texts that had been copied incorrectly. (Ganshof 30) The schools begun by Charlemagne were primarily for the education of the priests, but were open to all people. Charlemagne's Admonitio generalis stressed the importance of education for everyone. Many of the scholars brought to the Palace School were foreigners: Italians, Spaniards, and Irish, but there were also some Franks. (Holmes 96-97) Charlemagne saw it his duty to create a center for science, art and literature, and to spearhead a cultural revolution in Western Europe. Charlemagne himself joined the school, attended classes, and fulfilled his scholarly duties. (Bulfinch) He was known to be fluent in speech, and able to eloquently express himself. He mastered Latin and Greek, but he could not speak Greek as well as he could understand it. Charlemagne studied grammar, rhetoric, dialects and astronomy as well. He tried to write, but since he began late in life he was not very successful. (Halsall 25) He also saw that his sons and daughters attended classes, as well as learning traditional Frankish traditions of riding and hunting for the boys, and cloth-making for the girls. The education system used by Charlemagne's scholars was suprisingly like that of Classic Greek and Roman scholars. A text would be read by a student or teacher, accompanied by an explanation. Then there would be discussion of the material following the proper analytical reasoning of the time. This method of teaching was responsible for generations of students learning to discipline their thoughts, and formed the minds of several leaders who lived in Charlemagne's day, and under the kings who followed. As King or Emperor, one of Charlemagne's primary responsibilities was to regulate laws and trade within the boundaries of the Franks. He accomplished many goals that would set the stage for the growth of Medieval Europe. Charlemagne took measures aimed at stabilizing the coinage of the day, regulating the amounts of silver and gold to be contained in each. (Boussard 24) After the fifth century, coins had been minted by any number of coiners, and the value of each varied greatly. The reforms of Pepin and Charlemagne saw to the regulation of the amount of precious metals in each coin, as well as the monogram of the king to be embossed on each. These actions gave the idea that money was publicly guaranteed and controlled by one source, instead of many. (Boussard 32) Charlemagne also unified the laws of his kingdom based on the laws of the church. He set standards for administering justice, codified marriage and divorce laws, and gave rights to all men founded in the word of God. There were exceptions, however. People of privilege: ranking officials in the political, juridical, or religious communities were accorded special protection by the king, and had the ability to have their court cases heard in the palace court. (Ganshof 93) Outside of the palace, Counts, or the individual heads of states, conducted court to settle civil differences. Interpretation of the law was varied, as each man was able to read his own version of truth. Also, the adage "power corrupts" was prevalent in the days of Charlemagne. To combat corruption or the misinterpretation of laws, Charlemagne created the missi dominici, or royal commissioners to inspect and inquire into the judgments of the local courts. (Ganshof 93) Charlemagne had a profound effect on the art and architecture of Western Europe. His effect was not new thought, but merely a resurgence of ancient Roman tradition. He commissioned great chapels for the monasteries, providing space to worship for many people at one time. The early constructions were mostly of wood; a material familiar to the nomadic people of the time. The need for security and longevity necessitated a return to stone construction, so the Roman style of temples, monuments, gardens and arches was resurrected. (Boussard 160) Aesthetic decoration also played an important part of architecture during the Carolingian empire. Mosaics, gilding, marble, carvings of ivory, and paintings adorned these new, marvelous structures. Precious gems, gold, and silver were used throughout the churches. Frescos, terra-cotta, and plaster were used to provide background for the walls and pillars of churches and monuments. (Boussard 169) All of these arts were not, however, original. The people of Charlemagne's time were merely adapting Germanic habits and tradition with the rediscovery of Roman tradition, Byzantine art and oriental innovation. (Boussard 157) Charlemagne was a enlightened leader who restored the roots of education and order Medieval Europe. His reconstruction of the power of the Pope, the growth of the monasteries - in particular those given to the education of priests and general population, and revival of art and architecture was to set the stage for the development of Western Civilization as we know it today. Laws, traditions, and teachings were carried on by the descendants of the Carolingians in their words and actions, leaving a precedent for the actions of civilization for hundreds of years to come. Charlemagne, a king wiser than any other of his time, was a determined and forceful leader who let nothing stop him once he had begun a task. (Halsall 8) *note - One reference not cited in this text portrayed Charlemagne as a gluttonous and superstitious semiliterate with a propensity for brutality. As there were no other documentations to this effect, these opinions were not brought to light in the text. Due to the source (Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia), however, I thought it insightful to include this information at the end of the piece. WORKS CITED Boussard, Jacques, The Civilisation of Charlemagne. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1968 Bulfinch, Thomas, Bulfinch's Mythology: Legends of Charlemagne Or Romance Of The Middle Ages. 1863 [gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/53/1] Ganshof, Francis L., The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy, Studies in Carolingian History. New York, Cornell University Press 1971 Halsall, Paul, Internet Medieval Sourcebook . [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html]. August 1996 Holmes, George, The Oxford History of Medieval Europe. New York, Oxford University Press 1988 Charlemagne I. Rise to power A. Charles Martel B. Pepin the Short C. Carloman II. Changes in Political and Social order A. Shift from many Kings to Counts 1. Ownership by lineage changes to appointment by Charlemagne 2. The Oath of Fidelity p. 113 Carol. And Frank. Monarchy B. Affiliation of the church(diocese) to newly conquered lands p. 205 Carol. And Frank. Monarchy C. Changes from Christian/pagan adaptations to true Christian religion III. Education A. The need for education p.8 Carol. And Frank. monarchy B. Alcuin p. 134 civ. Of Char. C. Palace School / monastery D. Importation of foreign scholars p.126 civ. of Char. 1. Methods of instruction p.130 Civ. Of Char. 2. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Charlemagne By the sword and the cross.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Charlemagne By the sword and the cross "By the sword and the cross," Charlemagne became master of Western Europe. It was falling into decay when Charlemagne became joint king of the Franks in 768. Except in the monasteries, people had all but forgotten education and the arts. Boldly Charlemagne conquered barbarians and kings alike. By restoring the roots of learning and order, he preserved many political rights and revived culture. Charlemagne's grandfather was Charles Martel, the warrior who crushed the Saracens. Charlemagne was the elder son of Bertrade and Pepin the Short, first "mayor of the palace" to become king of the Franks. Although schools had almost disappeared in the 8th century, historians believe that Bertrade gave young Charles some education and that he learned to read. His devotion to the church became the great driving force of his remarkable life. Charlemagne was tall, powerful, and tireless. His secretary, Eginhard, wrote that Charlemagne had fair hair and a "face laughing and merry . . . his appearance was always stately, regal and dignified." He had a ready wit, but could be stern. His tastes were simple and moderate. He delighted in hunting, riding, and swimming. He wore the Frankish dress: linen shirt and breeches, a silk-fringed tunic, hose wrapped with bands, and, in winter, a tight coat of otter or marten skins. Over all these garments "he flung a blue cloak, and he always had a majestic sword about him." Charlemagne's character was contradictory. In an age when the usual penalty for defeat was death, Charlemagne several times spared the lives of his defeated foes; yet in 782 at Verden, after a Saxon uprising, he ordered 4,500 Saxons beheaded. He compelled the clergy and nobles to reform, but he divorced two of his four wives without any cause. He forced kings and princes to kneel at his feet, yet his mother and his two favorite wives often overruled him in his own household. Charlemagne Begins His Reign In 768, when Charlemagne was 26, he and his brother Carloman inherited the kingdom of the Franks. In 771 Carloman died, and Charlemagne became sole ruler of the kingdom. At that time the northern half of Europe was still pagan and lawless. In the south, the Roman Catholic church was striving to assert its power against the Lombard kingdom in Italy. In Charlemagne's own realm, the Franks were falling back into barbarian ways, neglecting their education and religion. Charlemagne was determined to strengthen his realm and to bring order to Europe. In 772 he launched a 30-year campaign that conquered and Christianized the powerful pagan Saxons in the north. He subdued the Avars, a huge Tatar tribe on the Danube. He compelled the rebellious Bavarian dukes to submit to him. When possible he preferred to settle matters peacefully, however. For example, Charlemagne offered to pay the Lombard king Desiderius for return of lands to the pope, but, when Desiderius refused, Charlemagne seized his kingdom in 773 to 774 and restored the Papal States. The key to Charlemagne's amazing conquests was his ability to organize. During his reign he sent out more than 50 military expeditions. He rode as commander at the head of at least half of them. He moved his armies over wide reaches of country with unbelievable speed, but every move was planned in advance. Before a campaign he told the counts, princes, and bishops throughout his realm how many men they should bring, what arms they were to carry, and even what to load in the supply wagons. These feats of organization and the swift marches later led Napoleon to study his tactics. One of Charlemagne's minor campaigns has become the most famous. In 778 he led his army into Spain to battle the infidel Saracens. On its return, Basques ambushed the rear guard at Roncesvalles, in northern Spain, and killed "Count Roland." Roland became a great hero of medieval songs and romances. By 800 Charlemagne was the undisputed ruler of Western Europe. His vast realm covered what are now France, Switzerland, Belgium, and The Netherlands. It included half of present-day Italy and Germany, part of Austria, and the Spanish March. The broad March reached to the Ebro River. By thus establishing a central government over Western Europe, Charlemagne restored much of the unity of the old Roman Empire and paved the way for the development of modern Europe. Crowned Emperor On Christmas Day in 800, while Charlemagne knelt in prayer in Saint Peter's in Rome, Pope Leo III seized a golden crown from the altar and placed it on the bowed head of the king. The throng in the church shouted, "To Charles the August, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, long life and victory!" Charlemagne is said to have been surprised by the coronation, declaring that he would not have come into the church had he known the pope's plan. However, some historians say the pope would not have dared to act without Charlemagne's knowledge. The coronation was the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. Though Charlemagne did not use the title, he is considered the first Holy Roman emperor. Reform and Renaissance Charlemagne had deep sympathy for the peasants and believed that government should be for the benefit of the governed. When he came to the throne, various local governors, called "counts," had become lax and oppressive. To reform them, he expanded the work of investigators, called missi dominici. He prescribed their duties in documents called capitularies and sent them out in teams of twoÄÄa churchman and a noble. They rode to all parts of the realm, inspecting government, administering justice, and reawakening all citizens to their civil and religious duties. Twice a year Charlemagne summoned the chief men of the empire to discuss its affairs. In all problems he was the final arbiter, even in church issues, and he largely unified church and state. Charlemagne was a tireless reformer who tried to improve his people's lot in many ways. He set up money standards to encourage commerce, tried to build a Rhine-Danube canal, and urged better farming methods. He especially worked to spread education and Christianity in every class of people. He revived the Palace School at Aachen, his capital. He set up other schools, opening them to peasant boys as well as nobles. Charlemagne never stopped studying. He brought an English monk, Alcuin, and other scholars to his court. He learned to read Latin and some Greek but apparently did not master writing. At meals, instead of having jesters perform, he listened to men reading from learned works. To revive church music, Charlemagne had monks sent from Rome to train his Frankish singers. To restore some appreciation of art, he brought valuable pieces from Italy. An impressive monument to his religious devotion is the cathedral at Aachen, which he built and where he was buried. At Charlemagne's death in 814 only one of his three sons, Louis, was living. Louis's weak rule brought on the rise of civil wars and revolts. After his death his three quarreling sons split the empire between them by the Partition of Verdun in 843. Word Count: 1179 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Charlemagne.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Charlemagne History 101 - Fast Forward Fall 1996 PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED: September 30, 1996 Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, King of the Franks (742-814), was a strong leader who unified Western Europe through military power and the blessing of the Church. His belief in the need for education among the Frankish people was to bring about religious, political, and educational reforms that would change the history of Europe. Charlemagne was born in 742 at Aachen, the son of Pepin(or Pippin) the Short and grandson of Charles Martel. His grandfather, Charles, had begun the process of unifying western Europe, in the belief that all people should be Christian. Charlemagne's father, Pepin, continued this process throughout his rule and passed his beliefs on to Charlemagne. All three, in addition to the political unification, believed that the church should be reformed and reorganized under the Pope, which helped their rise to power as the Carolingian Dynasty. (Holmes 74) Upon Pepin's death in 768, Charlemagne and his brother, Carloman, each inherited half of the Frankish kingdom. Pepin, in the Merovingian tradition of the time, split his kingdom between his two sons. Three years later Carloman died and Charlemagne took control of the entire kingdom. He inherited great wealth and a powerful army, built by his father and grandfather. Charlemagne used the army and his own skillful planning to more than double the size of the Frankish Kingdom. (Halsall 15) The world of Charlemagne was a heathen one, with many warring tribes or kingdoms. Many of these tribes were conquered by Charlemagne, among them the Aquitanians, the Lombards, the Saxons, the Bretons, the Bavarians, the Huns, and the Danes. The longest of these battles was against the Saxons, lasting thirty-three years. Charlemagne actually defeated them many times, but due to their faithlessness and their propensity to return to their pagan lifestyle, the Saxons lost many lives in the prolonged battles with the Franks. With each conquest the Frankish kingdom grew, and with growth came additional power and responsibility for Charlemagne. In each area of Europe that was taken over by Charlemagne, he removed the leaders if they would not convert to Christianity and appointed new ones, usually someone with high position in the Church. Those people who refused to convert or be baptized in the church were put to death. (Holmes 75) The Church played a vital role in the kingdom of Charlemagne. It gave a sense of stability to Charlemagne's rule, and he in turn provided stability in the Church. The people conquered by Charlemagne, after being converted to Christianity, were taught through the Bible a unified code of right and wrong. It was necessary for the Church to play a role in this education of the people, because only the clergy were educated. (Boussard 92) The Church also guided Charlemagne's hand as a ruler, for he took on many conquests as a necessity to spread the Christian religion throughout Europe. (Ganshoff 19) Indeed, it appears that Charlemagne's desire to spread his kingdom and government was intertwined with his desire to spread the Christian religion and have the people live according to the Word of God. (Ganshoff 25) At the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty the Church was suffering from many problems. Paganistic peoples, a degradation of the Latin language, and the decline of power of the Pope or Papacy all contributed to the need for a leader to bring about reformation. Charles Martel, Pepin, and ultimately Charlemagne all took as their personal responsibility the reorganization of the Church. Each one, as king of the Franks, saw it his duty to better the state of his churches. (Ganshoff 205) Charlemagne, through the monasteries and ultimately the "Palace School", required all priests to learn classic Latin. His purpose was to insure that church services were always conducted in the proper form, with correct pronunciation and grammar. The education of the priests also served to provide Charlemagne with a growing number of educated people for his administration, and gave his kingdom a unified written language that could be passed on throughout all of Western Europe. (Holmes 97) The Papacy had been reduced to controlling only a small portion of land around Rome, and was under constant aggression from the Lombards. Pope Hadrian I in 773 appealed to Charlemagne to help rebuff the Lombards, and in the winter of that year in a short and decisive campaign, the Lombards were defeated. Charlemagne then added "King of the Lombards" to his title, and gave control of the northern part of Italy to the Pope. The creation of the "Papal States" indebted the Pope to Charlemagne, and Pope Leo III eventually crowned Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans" on Christmas day in 800AD. (Ganshoff 41) Power in Carolingian society was based on land ownership, also known as Feudalism. Charlemagne knew that he must have the allegiance of the people to himself, the King. To accomplish this, he looked back to the seventh century, and instituted an oath of fidelity - a promise to do nothing that would endanger the king or his sons or the royal power. The feudal monarchy created by Charlemagne had two definite characteristics: absolute power limited only by advice given by nobles and the Church and power based on a contract - the oath of fidelity pledging allegiance by the king's subjects. (Boussard 42) "The oath brought two immediate advantages. It created a direct, personal link between the subject and the king. But more important still, anyone who broke it became guilty not only of infidelitas but also of perjury; if his infidelity was not great enough to attract the death penalty, he could still be condemned to lose his right hand as a perjurer, and what was more, in religious terms he had placed himself in a state of mortal sin." (Ganshoff 113) The oath was a combination of action for the public good, combined with the practice of Christian virtues. Once again, an example of the minimal separation of Church and State. Charlemagne recognized the importance of education, not only of spreading it throughout his kingdom, but also of learning for himself the ability to read and write Latin and Greek. His desire for personal knowledge, and to educate the people, lead him to found the "Palace School" at his home, Aix-La-Chapelle. To staff his school, Charlemagne turned to the monasteries. During the Dark Ages preceding the Carolingian dynasty, only the monks had maintained the ability to read and write. They had over the years, however, misprinted many of the books of the Bible. Charlemagne asked the monk, Alcuin, to head the school, and commissioned him to correct the texts that had been copied incorrectly. (Ganshof 30) The schools begun by Charlemagne were primarily for the education of the priests, but were open to all people. Charlemagne's Admonitio generalis stressed the importance of education for everyone. Many of the scholars brought to the Palace School were foreigners: Italians, Spaniards, and Irish, but there were also some Franks. (Holmes 96-97) Charlemagne saw it his duty to create a center for science, art and literature, and to spearhead a cultural revolution in Western Europe. Charlemagne himself joined the school, attended classes, and fulfilled his scholarly duties. (Bulfinch) He was known to be fluent in speech, and able to eloquently express himself. He mastered Latin and Greek, but he could not speak Greek as well as he could understand it. Charlemagne studied grammar, rhetoric, dialects and astronomy as well. He tried to write, but since he began late in life he was not very successful. (Halsall 25) He also saw that his sons and daughters attended classes, as well as learning traditional Frankish traditions of riding and hunting for the boys, and cloth-making for the girls. The education system used by Charlemagne's scholars was suprisingly like that of Classic Greek and Roman scholars. A text would be read by a student or teacher, accompanied by an explanation. Then there would be discussion of the material following the proper analytical reasoning of the time. This method of teaching was responsible for generations of students learning to discipline their thoughts, and formed the minds of several leaders who lived in Charlemagne's day, and under the kings who followed. As King or Emperor, one of Charlemagne's primary responsibilities was to regulate laws and trade within the boundaries of the Franks. He accomplished many goals that would set the stage for the growth of Medieval Europe. Charlemagne took measures aimed at stabilizing the coinage of the day, regulating the amounts of silver and gold to be contained in each. (Boussard 24) After the fifth century, coins had been minted by any number of coiners, and the value of each varied greatly. The reforms of Pepin and Charlemagne saw to the regulation of the amount of precious metals in each coin, as well as the monogram of the king to be embossed on each. These actions gave the idea that money was publicly guaranteed and controlled by one source, instead of many. (Boussard 32) Charlemagne also unified the laws of his kingdom based on the laws of the church. He set standards for administering justice, codified marriage and divorce laws, and gave rights to all men founded in the word of God. There were exceptions, however. People of privilege: ranking officials in the political, juridical, or religious communities were accorded special protection by the king, and had the ability to have their court cases heard in the palace court. (Ganshof 93) Outside of the palace, Counts, or the individual heads of states, conducted court to settle civil differences. Interpretation of the law was varied, as each man was able to read his own version of truth. Also, the adage "power corrupts" was prevalent in the days of Charlemagne. To combat corruption or the misinterpretation of laws, Charlemagne created the missi dominici, or royal commissioners to inspect and inquire into the judgments of the local courts. (Ganshof 93) Charlemagne had a profound effect on the art and architecture of Western Europe. His effect was not new thought, but merely a resurgence of ancient Roman tradition. He commissioned great chapels for the monasteries, providing space to worship for many people at one time. The early constructions were mostly of wood; a material familiar to the nomadic people of the time. The need for security and longevity necessitated a return to stone construction, so the Roman style of temples, monuments, gardens and arches was resurrected. (Boussard 160) Aesthetic decoration also played an important part of architecture during the Carolingian empire. Mosaics, gilding, marble, carvings of ivory, and paintings adorned these new, marvelous structures. Precious gems, gold, and silver were used throughout the churches. Frescos, terra-cotta, and plaster were used to provide background for the walls and pillars of churches and monuments. (Boussard 169) All of these arts were not, however, original. The people of Charlemagne's time were merely adapting Germanic habits and tradition with the rediscovery of Roman tradition, Byzantine art and oriental innovation. (Boussard 157) Charlemagne was a enlightened leader who restored the roots of education and order Medieval Europe. His reconstruction of the power of the Pope, the growth of the monasteries - in particular those given to the education of priests and general population, and revival of art and architecture was to set the stage for the development of Western Civilization as we know it today. Laws, traditions, and teachings were carried on by the descendants of the Carolingians in their words and actions, leaving a precedent for the actions of civilization for hundreds of years to come. Charlemagne, a king wiser than any other of his time, was a determined and forceful leader who let nothing stop him once he had begun a task. (Halsall 8) *note - One reference not cited in this text portrayed Charlemagne as a gluttonous and superstitious semiliterate with a propensity for brutality. As there were no other documentations to this effect, these opinions were not brought to light in the text. Due to the source (Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia), however, I thought it insightful to include this information at the end of the piece. WORKS CITED Boussard, Jacques, The Civilisation of Charlemagne. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1968 Bulfinch, Thomas, Bulfinch's Mythology: Legends of Charlemagne Or Romance Of The Middle Ages. 1863 [gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/53/1] Ganshof, Francis L., The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy, Studies in Carolingian History. New York, Cornell University Press 1971 Halsall, Paul, Internet Medieval Sourcebook . [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html]. August 1996 Holmes, George, The Oxford History of Medieval Europe. New York, Oxford University Press 1988 Charlemagne I. Rise to power A. Charles Martel B. Pepin the Short C. Carloman II. Changes in Political and Social order A. Shift from many Kings to Counts 1. Ownership by lineage changes to appointment by Charlemagne 2. The Oath of Fidelity p. 113 Carol. And Frank. Monarchy B. Affiliation of the church(diocese) to newly conquered lands p. 205 Carol. And Frank. Monarchy C. Changes from Christian/pagan adaptations to true Christian religion III. Education A. The need for education p.8 Carol. And Frank. monarchy B. Alcuin p. 134 civ. Of Char. C. Palace School / monastery D. Importation of foreign scholars p.126 civ. of Char. 1. Methods of instruction p.130 Civ. Of Char. 2. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Charles Darwin And Imperialism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Charles Darwin And Imperialism England went through dramatic changes in the 19th century. English culture, socio-economic structure and politics where largely influenced by the principles of science. Many social expressions occurred due to these changes. Transformations which categorized this time period could be observed in social institutions; for instance: the switch from popular Evangelicalism to atheism, emergence of feminism and the creation of new political ideologies (Liberalism, Conservatism and Radicalism). These are just a few of the changes that took place. All of this social alteration can be attributed to the importance of science. The English people began to trust more in empiricism and logical thought than in faith and glory of the empire . One who contributed greatly to this transformation was Charles Darwin. In his two most famous works, The Origin of Species and The Decent of Man, Darwin introduces the concept of "the survival of the fittest" and "natural selection". The Darwinian ideas introduced into English society justified a great number of political policies and social movements. England at the turn of the century was still a largest power in the international system. The English perceived, through the justification of Darwinism, they were fit to be the imperial hegemon in the world. The issue this essay will deal with is Imperialism and how Darwinism justified its practice. Darwin argued in his work, The Decent of Man, "When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race. . . the grade of civilisation seems to be a most important element in success in competing nations."(Darwin, Decent of Man, p. 297). In this observation, Darwin connotated superiority to civilized nations. In this same work, he referred to the indigenous people as "savages, barbarians and tribal men". This immediately transfers a condescending attitude toward the "uncivilised people". Darwin classified them as tribes while the English and other Aryan cultures were a race. These claims of basic inequality gave the English the "jurisdiction" philosophically, to exploit the colonies to a greater level than previously attained. The drive to "Christianize" the colonies was abandoned, politically. The view shifted from "owing the primitive world" education and Christianity, to a more self-interested "we English are naturally better". Therefore, the we should be exploiting you, because, that is why you are here. Charles Darwin had a tremendous amount of influence on the scientific community and the English population. It can be seen that Darwinism played a large part in justifying the imperial behavior of England. Darwin's studies on nature and the behavior of animals had unlocked "Pandora's Box" in a manner of speaking. He studies reveal how close to nature humanity really is. The English empire quickly saw themselves as a dominant predatorial species of the world. In conclusion, the English empire used Darwinian concept to justify the on-going process of imperialism. Charles Darwin's ideas elevated the ego's of the English people to over-estimate themselves socially and globally. The affects of Darwinism can be seen throughout the spectrum of social interaction both in the animal kingdom and human society. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Chernobyl.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chernobyl : The Chernobyl disaster on April 26, 1986 is described as one of the most frightening environmental disasters in the world. The plant was made up of four graphite reactors, which were the most modern Soviet reactors of the RBMK-type. Two more of these reactors were still under construction at the station. Chernobyl was an obscure town in north central Ukraine (former Soviet Union) on the Pripyiat River near the Belarus border. Immediately its name was joined to the Nuclear Power Plant located twenty-five kilometers upstream. The plant is actually located fifteen kilometers northwest of the city. It is not only the radioactive mess left that strikes fear. Nineteen similar stations are still running, because neither the former Soviet Union nor its republics can afford to shut them down. The world first learned of this accident from Sweden, where unusually high radiation levels were noticed at one of their own nuclear facilities. At 1:23 am technicians at the Chernobyl Plant took some erroneous actions that will impact the course of Soviet events without exaggeration. Human error is what basically caused the disaster. These operators of the fourth unit slowly allowed power in the reactor to fall to low levels as part of a controlled experiment gone wrong. The purpose of the test was to observe the dynamics of the RMBK reactor with limited power flow. Twelve hours after power reduction was initiated, power reached 50 percent. Only one turbine was needed to take in the decreased amount of steam, so no. 2 was turned off. Power was then reduced to 30 percent. One of the operators made a mistake. Instead of keeping power at 30 percent, he forgot to reset a controller, which caused the power to plummet to 1 percent. Now water was filling the core, and xenon (a neutron absorbing gas) built up in the reactor. The power was too low for the test. The water added to the reactor is heated by the nuclear reaction and turned into steam to turn the turbines of the generator. The operator forced the reactor up to 7% power by removing all but 6 of the control rods. This was a violation of procedure and the reactor was never built to operate at such low power. This type of reactor is very unstable when filled with water. The operator was not successful in getting the flow of water corrected and the reactor was getting increasingly unstable. The operator disabled emergency shutdown procedures because a shutdown would abort the test. By 01:22 AM, when the operators thought they had stable conditions, they decided to start the test. The operator blocked automatic shutdown because of a fear that a shutdown would abort the test and they would have to repeat it. The test began and the remaining turbine was shut down. Power in the reactor began to gradually rise because of the reduction in water flow caused by the turbine shutdown, which lead to an increase in boiling. The operator initiated manual shut down, which lead to a quick power increase due to the control rod design. The reactor reached 120 times its full power. All the radioactive fuel disintegrated, and pressure from all excess steam broke every one of the pressure tubes and blew the entire top shield of the reactor. All of these factors including serious violations of safety operations, dangerous design flaws, and imperfect control systems is what led to the virtually instantaneous catastrophic increase of thermal power which led to core meltdown. The steam explosion also destroyed part of the building. Radioactive material was then thrown out into the atmosphere for over 10 days. Multiple fires were formed both inside and out of the reactor. By five o'clock the firemen had smothered the flames. In later days, about 5000 tons of materials were thrown into the reactor well from helicopters of the air force to extinguish burning graphite and suppress radiation release. The flow of different substances continued until the beginning of June 1986. It is still not clear if the dumping of these materials actually achieved their goal. Recent data has shown only a small part of the materials actually got into the well. Due to the accident, the people of Chernobyl were exposed to radioactivity 100 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. The people of the world and Northern Europe were greeted with clouds of radioactive material being blown northward through the sky. Seventy percent of the radiation is estimated to have fallen on Belarus and 10 years later babies are sill being born with no arms, no eyes, or only stumps for limbs. No one can predict the exact number of human victims. It is estimated that over 15 million people have been victimized by the disaster in some way. It has also estimated that ultimately the accident will claim more victims than World War II. It will cost over 60 Billion dollars to make these people healthy. Thirty-one lives were lost immediately, and more than 600,000 people were involved with the cleanup. Many are now dead or sick. Hundreds of thousands had to abandon entire cities and settlements within the thirty-kilometer zone of highest contamination. Possibly as many as three million still live in contaminated areas. Ten thousand of these are still living in the city of Chernobyl today. Huge sums of many have been spent, and will continue to be spent to relocate settlements and decontaminate the once rich farmlands. Chernobyl has developed as an icon for the terror of uncontrolled nuclear power and abilities, and for Soviet deception and inability to provide safe conditions for workers and basic services such as transportation and health care, especially in times of greatest need. The catastrophe also halted a highly potential nuclear program. The impact of the Chernobyl Accident on a Nuclear Energy Policy is tremendous. Some countries stopped national nuclear energy programs. Construction of new plants in the Soviet republics were frozen. Public opinion was directed against nuclear power plants. Some plants were even shut down, but have now been reactivated. The accident has also initiated an international activity in the area of nuclear safety and nuclear emergency planning. Many countries started a development of decision support systems for nuclear accident cases. The way in which Soviet leaders have dealt with the situation is very unsettling. In the aftermath of the catastrophe several designs to encase the damaged reactor were reviewed. The option that was selected included the construction of a massive structure in concrete and steel that used what remained of the reactor walls as support. Its construction is considered one of the most complicated building works in the world. In charge of building the tomb was Construction Department No. 605. They ran into many problems while constructing the massive concrete and steel shell. Concrete blocks for the tomb were pieced together far from the reactor itself, and the roads entering the facilities were not accommodated for such loads, which made it difficult for the drivers. Once the blocks were delivered, the workers needed to put them in place. Each weighed several dozen tons so eventually crane operators had to perform this task. This outer protective wall, 28 stories high, is placed around the perimeter and other walls connected to the Unit 3 reactor. A steel roof then completed the structure. The destroyed reactor was entombed in a 300,000-ton concrete structure known as the "shelter" or "envelope." In conditions of high radioactivity the mammoth task was completed in seven months, in November 1986. The site around the plant had then been announced safe for about the next thirty years. However today the sarcophagus is cracked and crumbling. Some of these cracks are as large as a garage door. Multiple sensors were placed to monitor levels of gamma radiation, neutron flux, temperature, heat flux, as well as the concentrations of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and water vapor in the air. Other sensors monl On the whole, there are some different points and aspects from the authors to explain the effects of immigration on labor market. They are the demand and supply, investment, expenditure form government, skilled immigrants, mobility and the empirical findings. Although there are both advantages and disadvantages from immigration, most authors believed that there is no causal link between immigration and unemployment. However, it is possible that they emphasized the benefits and gave insufficient attention to the costs of immigration on the labor market. In my view, government should consider more aspects from the effect of immigration on labor market for making the policy well. Also, government should not put most responsibilities of unemployment on immigration in order to escape the blame from high unemployment because it is not fair to the contribution from immigration and make an unreal image of immigration to society. Word Count: 1460 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Chester Wilmot.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chester Wilmot Though this student looked in Who's Who and Contemporary Authors, no information on Chester Wilmot could be found. One considered searching the Directory of American Scholars, but that would not be helpful since he is from Australia. In The Struggle for Europe, Wilmot seeks to explain several points. First, he explores and explains how the western allies succeeded militarily but failed politically during World War II. He then elaborates on how and why the western allies crushed the Nazi regime; yet, they allowed the Soviet Union to overtake Eastern Europe and block the Atlantic Charter from taking effect in those nations. Third, the author discusses Hitler's defeat and Stalin's victory. Fourthly, he endeavors on a mission to explain how the Soviet Union replaced Germany as the dominant European power. Beginning with the Battle of Britain, the book takes the reader through the war up to the surrender of Germany. In this process Wilmot touches on Hitler's alliance with Mussolini, Hitler's conquest of France, the Lowlands, and the Balkans, and the Nazi dictator's collapse in the expansion of the Soviet Union. The author strategically builds the Allied alliance, through the book's course, and he uses the Normandy invasion to illustrate its full effectiveness. Also included are discussions on the concessions granted to Stalin by the Allies in general, and Franklin D. Roosevelt in particular. President Roosevelt believed that Stalin wanted security for his country with no territorial acquisitions in mind. In order to give the Soviet leader his second front in Europe, FDR also put the Japanese problem in the Pacific aside. By providing the reader with first-hand quotes and writings from the Nazi war machine's hierarchy, Wilmot looks at the external and internal workings of the German Wehrmacht in meticulous detail. The U-boat campaign, the inadequacies of the Luftwaffe, and the shortcomings of the Panzer divisions are discussed. The war, from April 1940 to May 1945, is expertly covered. He details various meetings of Allied and Axis partners, various battles, and various strategies. In this study, the author used very readable and easily accessible language. Events are described in good detail and his ideas are well related. The emphasis of The Struggle for Europe seems to be on two major topics that are stated in the preface. The first topic deals exclusively with the defeat of Germany. The second topic deals with the alliance between the United States and Great Britain. By covering the defeat of the German armed forces on the western, eastern, and Mediterranean fronts, he gives reasons for their every failure. Throughout the book, statistics are given representing German war production in terms of tanks, planes, guns, vehicles, soldiers, and ships. The second topic is probed in almost as much detail as the first. Wilmot describes the western alliance from very near the book's beginning. He details Churchill and Roosevelt's close friendship and partnership during the war. He skillfully deals with the United States being the number two man in the alliance's beginning and how the U.S. slowly emerges as the premier partner toward the end of the hostilities. The reason these two topics come to the forefront is due to the fact that the struggle in the west engrossed the defeat of Germany by the western alliance along with the Soviet Union. The Struggle for Europe is very well organized. The book's organization develops along chronological lines beginning with the Battle of Britain. The author proceeds through the work hitting on all the key quotes, speeches, conferences, battles, and decisions that occurred during the war. Each chapter is organized along the same line as the course of events happened during the war. Background information is insightfully given before and during most events described, so that even one with very little WWII knowledge can understand the event being discussed. The extra background also helps expand the knowledge of the most avid WWII followers. The Struggle for Europe deals fairly with both the Allied and Axis situations and decisions. Wilmot gives equal discussion time to both sides in regards to strategy, view point, and military standing. The book's overall organization exemplifies itself in terms of its thoroughness and readability. He touches on almost every aspect of the European theater in 717 pages using many sources gathered from various locations. The sources used include diaries, primary and secondary books, speeches, German and Russian archive material, U.S. Government records, and interviews. His sources were far more than adequate. The author definitely proves all of his points to some degree with some ideas being more justified than others. He proves that the western allies did win the war militarily while losing Eastern Europe to the Soviets, politically. Wilmot also shows how the Soviets skillfully maneuvered into the top position on the European continent after the fall of the Nazis. With tremendous skill, he also describes the demise of the German armed forces from its height of power in 1941 to its destruction in April 1945. His points are satisfactorily proven with only two flaws. In this reviewer's opinion, the first flaw pertains to the book's length of discussion. Unless one is deeply interested in detailed facts and events of the European theater, The Struggle for Europe might be excessive. In this regard then, the book fails for someone seeking a brief overview of the European theater. This is so because it contains so very much. However, for those knowledge of WWII in great depth, this book is ideal. For example, this student could really use the book. The second flaw pertains to the beginning of the book. The author totally disregards the Poland campaign and he only briefly mentions the fall of France. With only a few comments about Poland, he jumps almost right into the Battle of Britain with just slight comment about France. The struggle in Poland is essential to any discussion of the European theater. Outside of those two flaws, with the length of the book not being a problem, The Struggle for Europe magnificently covers the war. Wilmot succeeds in delivering a thorough history of the war in Europe by all accounts. In conclusion, the book provides a very fine and accurate description of the intricacies of WWII in Europe. For anyone seeking in-depth knowledge on the European theater, this book is almost a must. The book is further useful because not only does it serve a history of WWII, but as a history of warfare in general. He gives great insight to political alliances and agreements. For this student, the book stands as one of the most informative books written on WWII in Europe. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Chinese Medicine.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chinese Medicine Traditional medicine of China has a long historical and cultural background dating back about 2500 years. The ancient Chinese people were able to reach a level of social stability that included the ability to treat disease of emotional, physical, and spiritual origins. Although a belief in spirits as the cause of disease has remained in China even to the present day, the view that the body obeyed a natural order struck a chord in the intellectual elite of ancient China. It was this elite class that refined and developed these ideas over many centuries.(1) The ideas that the ancient Chinese had about the organs of the body, and their functions, as well as the causes and development of disease, show large differences when compared with Western medicine.(2) The Chinese do not think of theory, as we do in the West, as needing to be proven to reach the highest degree of truth. A Chinese doctor can look at the kidney as a machine and think of it as a reflection of universe.(2) He can apply two different disease classification systems, cold damage or warm damage where he feels it is appropriate, without being deterred by contradictions between the two.(3) One (Western) method of gaining knowledge is analysis. It is the method of breaking things into component parts to understand the whole. This method has been applied in China, but not to the same level as in the West. Analysis is one of the important features of all western modern science and technology. In fact, the analytical approach is the basis of western medicine, and it is part of the Western mindset.(4) Analysis is not as important to Chinese medicine as in the West. The ancient Chinese did use analysis in their investigation of the human body, but to a lesser degree. Analysis provided some important insights into the workings of the human body. The ancient Chinese knew, for example, that the stomach and intestines were organs of digestion, and that the lung drew air from the environment.(5) The origins of China's medical knowledge is not certain. They observed phenomenon, and identified relationships and patterns. They compared whole phenomena in the body, and watched how they related to each other.(6) This is shown by "qi,'' an entity that Westerners find hard to conceptualize, since it does not fit any known scientific category.(7) Qi is thought to be the universal energy that runs everything, right down to the smallest molecule. Pain is often thought of as blocked Qi.(8) An example of qi would be that the ancient Chinese could see that when we are healthy, food is carried down the alimentary canal. They also saw that throwing up involves a rising movement that ejects food from the stomach along with heaving.(9) They saw this activity in terms of two movements: a normal descending force and an abnormal ascending force. What we call a movement, the Chinese call qi.(10) Stomach qi goes down, carrying food in the digestive tract to the small intestine. The concept of stomach qi was inferred directly from visible events. Qi does not coincide with the Western notion of energy. Western medicine explains the normal downward movement of qi in terms of peristalsis (wave like contractions that pass along the alimentary canal, pushing the contents downward). Energy is consumed in the contraction of the muscles. It is not ascending or descending energy. (11) The Chinese developed a medicine of systematic correspondences in which yin-yang and five-phase theory provided a good foundation for understanding the body. These have been the key elements of Chinese medicine to the present day.(12) The five phases: wood, fire, earth, metal, and water are the main factors in human life: wood for construction; fire for warmth; metal for tools; the earth that produces the crops necessary to our survival; and water on which all life depends.(13) The ancient Chinese observed that these entities, all-important for the support of human life, reflected important aspects of nature as a whole. Wood has the qualities of plants; fire has heat qualities and so so on. The five phases also correspond to organs in the body. These five entities also relate to each other in specific ways such as anything that burns is derived from plants, wood was said to engender fire; fire by reducing what it consumed to ashes, is said to engender earth, etc.(14) Yin and yang constitute a binary system of correspondence that is logically matching to the five phases. All yin phenomena are the same in nature and relate to their yang opposites in like fashion. Examples of this would be day is to night as heat is to cold, as summer is to winter, as high is to low, as activity is to rest.(15) The ideas of yin and yang became universally applicable categories of quality and relationship. Cold and dark has something qualitative in common, and their relationship is counterpart to yin and yang. Each pole of a yin-yang pair is dependent on the other and each complements the other. There is no light without darkness; cold cannot be known without heat. When cold increases, heat lowers, and when dawn breaks, darkness fades.(16) In medicine, yin and yang are used to explain relationships between parts of the body, organs, and disease patterns.(17) Making a correspondence between dark-light and interior-exterior, medical theoreticians were able to see that the interior of the body corresponds to dark as the exterior corresponds to light; so, interior would be yin and the exterior is yang. By the principle of divisibility, they determined that within the interior of the body, some aspects were yin, while others were yang. The organs having greatest contact with the outside (the digestive tract, for example) are seen to be yang within yin, whereas the organs that dealt with things produced by the body (blood, qi, and essence) were seen as yin within yang.(18) There are four major treatments within these two key elements of Chinese medicine. The first that will be covered is Tui Na or massage. It contains elements and techniques that are very different from the common (western) ideas of massage. In these massage techniques the practitioner tries to affect the physiology and energetics of the body and the mind of the patient.(19) Tui Na is practiced slowly with an emphasis on the practitioner and the client being in a meditative state. Stretching and extending the range of motion of the body is an important part of Chinese massage. (19) A central part of Chinese medicine is the importance of the abdominal region. According to Chinese medicine, all the major energy pathways of the body have their origin around the navel. The abdominal massage is crucial to the healing benefit of this medicine.(19) The second treatment is Herbology or minerals and animal parts. Herbs are a variety of naturally found products that have medicinal properties. Herbal formulas can be taken in many ways. A doctor of Chinese herbal medicine could prescribe raw herbs which would be taken home and made into a "tea". It is believed that certain animal parts, when ingested, will contribute to the health of the same part in the patient. Many practitioners offer herbs in pill or capsule form. Herbal treatments are created for specific patients and their specific disharmony.(20) The third treatment is nutrition therapy. The only difference between nutrition and herbal therapy is that nutrition tends to be more appetizing than the herbal tea formulas.(21) The fourth treatment is Acupuncture. It is the gentle insertion of hair-fine needles into specific points on the body to stimulate the flow of Qi or the natural healing energy.(22) Chinese medicine views human health and disease in terms of functional entities and disease-causing influences that are observed with just the senses. Its sophistication lies in its observation of correspondences between whole phenomena, and its organization of these observations through the holistic systems of yin-yang and five phases.(23) In view of the somewhat barbaric treatments in western medicine - cancer therapy, for example - many people in western society are becoming interested in Chinese medicine as an alternative form of treatment for certain ailments. This is an encouraging trend. Endnotes 1 Nigel Boss,The Introduction To Chinese Medicine (Brookline, 1988)., p2-15. 2 Ibid., p17. 3 Ibid., p18. 4 Ibid., p37. 5 Ibid., p38. 6 Ibid., p40. 7 Ibid., p56. 8 (Class lecture on Chinese Medicine) 9 Nigel Boss,The Introduction To Chinese Medicine.(Brookline,1988).,p57. 10 Ibid., p58. 11 Ibid., p58. 12 Ibid., p102. 13 Ibid., p103. 14 Ibid., p105. 15 Ibid., p150. 16 Ibid., p151. 17 Ibid., p159. 18 Ibid., p160. 19 John J. Chan,Conditions Successfully Treated with Oriental Medicine. (Chicago, 1984)., p20. (Class notes) 20 Ibid., p27. (Class notes) 21 Ibid., p34. (Class notes) 22 Ibid., p42. (Class notes) 23 Nigel Boss,The Introduction to Chinese Medicine.(Brookline, 1988)., p92. Bibliography Boss, Nigel. The Introduction To Chinese Medicine. Brookline, Massachusetts:Paradigm Publications, 1988. Chan, John J. Conditions Successfully Treated with Oriental Medicine. Chicago, Illinois: Lynne Reiner Publishers,1984. Chinese Medicine f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\CHRISTIANITY IN THE NEW WORLD.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CHRISTIANITY IN THE NEW WORLD The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages played an all encompassing role over the lives of the people and the government. As the Dark Ages came to a close the ideas of the Renaissance started to take hold, and the church's power gradually began to wain. The monarchies of Europe also began to grow replacing the church's power. Monarchies, at the close of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, did not so much seek the guidance of the church as much as it sought their approval. However, the Church during the Age of Discovery was still a major influence. The discovery of the New World and its previously unknown inhabitants presented new problems in the Catholic Church in the late 14th and early 15th century. When Spain's rulers and emissaries decided to physically conquer and populate the New World, and not just trade with it, the transplantation of Christian institutions followed. The church established contact with the New World, and made it a goal to establish the Catholic doctrines among the native population there. The Catholic Church and the Spanish monarch, however, looked upon the native population in the New World as souls to be saved. They did not consider or treat the Indians as equals. The implanting of Christianity in the New World, and the treatment of the native population by the missionaries and christian conquerors was detrimental to New World. Through men such as Cortez and Las Casas accounts of the conversions have been recorded. One of the reasons for this was the alliance of the Catholic Church with the Spanish monarchy. The status of the Indians was disregarded as the Christian conquers and missionaries who wanted to convert them subjected them to violence and reduced them to a laboring population. The Indians, however did not always respond in a negative way to the work of the church. The Catholic Church arrived in the New World immediately after Christopher Columbus laid claim to it for Spain. After Columbus's discovery of the new lands he wrote a series of treatise as to what the European purpose there was. Columbus, in his writings, said that the purpose of the New World was two fold. He said that the gospel message of the church should be spread globally beginning with his discoveries in the New World. Second, he stated that the riches discovered in the New World should be dedicated to the recapture of Jerusalem from the Moslems. Columbus saw the discovery of the New World as a prophesy coming true. He saw the Indians that lived there as a labor source that should be christianized and used for the greater good of the church. Two papal bulls were issued in the year of 1493 that established the Spanish position in the New World. They also established the role that the church was going to play in the New World. The first bull was issued on May 3 and it was called Inter Caetera. It said that the lands discovered by Spanish envoys not previously under a christian owner could be claimed by Spain. The bull also gave the Spanish monarch the power to send men to convert the natives to the Catholic faith and instruct them in Catholic morals. The second papal bull issued that year expanded on the meaning of the first. The bull fixed a boundary for Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence in the New World. This boundary heavily favored Spain futher showing the alliance between Spain and the Church. The history of the Catholic Church in the New World began in the year after Columbus' first voyage. The Spanish monarchy sent the first missionaries to establish Christianity there. The number of missions sent to the New World accelerated in tempo until the final decade of the 16th century. The crown paid for the sending of missionaries, and its officials kept track of the many "shiploads" of religious personnel sent and of the expenses they incurred. The records show that the Spanish dispatched missionaries to more than 65 destinations, ranging from Florida and California to Chile and the Strait of Magellan. (Van Oss 5) Between 1493, when the first mission left for Espanola, and Spanish American independence (roughly 1821) more than 15 thousand missionaries crossed the Atlantic under royal auspices. (Van Oss 4) The Spanish, when choosing who to send as their principle emissaries of the Catholic Church, went over the heads of the Spanish bishops and clergy, and called up friars belonging to several monastic orders. There were three monastic orders of friars that came to the New World. These were the Franciscans, the Dominicans, and the Augustianians. (Ricard 3) While secular priests were not discouraged from going to the New World, the Crown did not sent them as missionaries. "By sending friars instead of secular priests to convert the Indians, Spain took advantage of an old evangelical strain in European monasticism". (Van Oss 3) In the times before the Christianity of Europe wandering monks roamed the countryside converting the rural populations. The monarchy put this old idea back at work. The Spanish monarch also picked the monastic orders to fulfill this task because they were among those who possessed an education. Spain at this time lacked seminaries. The local priests were uneducated and were seen as largely ignorant. Once in the New World the missionaries played an indispensable role in subduing the Indian population, concentrating it in towns and villages and taking charge of administration. Some times these settlements were largely left in the hands of church officials because they were unreachable by colony administrators. "Rural churchmen, in the frontier settings of the 16th century acted in an atmosphere of independence which bordered on impunity". (Van Oss 9) These missions were not always run in the best intrest of the Indians. The natives were often subject to harsh conditions, and they were not protected by the missions. The missions instituted by the government were described this way, "The church, with few exceptions, accompanied and legitimized the genocide, slavery, ecocide, and explitation of the wealth of the land. The mission left a bitter fruit inheritied by the descendants of the survivors of the invasion". (Terrar 1) No country at this time conceived of setting up anything but a Christian empire. "The monarch of Castile not only exercised supreme secular authority, but he was also the head of the colonial church. Indeed, his laws of the Indies began with the words, 'On the Holy Catholic Faith' ". (Vas Oss 2) The Church because it was under the Spanish monarchy participated in the wrongs incurred in the New World. The Church went along with the government in instituting the unfair practices against the native population. Las Casas writings about the treatment and conversion of the Indians are some of the best that survive today. Las Casas was a Spanish bishop who late in life became a renowned champion of the Indians. He was born in Seville in August 1474, and he first went to the New World in 1502. He became a priest and participated in the acquiring of Cuba. He received land and slaves as a reward for his contribution. In 1514 he experienced a radical change of heart and came to feel that the native population had been unjustly treated by his countrymen. He then became determined to dedicate the remainder of his life to their defense. Las Casas was one of the notable authorities on the Indians, and was remarkable because he realized the indians should not be measured by the Spanish yardstick, but must rather be understood with in the framework of their own culture. He saw the indians not as heathens and savages, but in a different stage of development from Europe. Las Casas contended that the indians had many skills and accomplishments, and in fact possessed a culture worthy of respect. Las Casas writes about the treatment of the Indians upon being subjected to the Spanish Christians. He accompanied the Spanish entourage on the occupation of Cuba. In this venture he accompanied the expedition in the office of clerico. He stated that one of the chief cares of this office was when they halted in any town or village, it was his job to assign separate quarters to the Spanish and the Indians. This was to prevent violence from erupting between the two peoples. His principle job; however was to assemble the children in order to baptize them. This was a sad task for Las Casas because scarcely any of the children remained alive a few months afterward. This was due to violence or the disease that the Spanish brought with them. Las Casas on his travels also saw the violence and horrors which the Indians were subject to. Las Casas describes this scene upon entering the Indian village of Caonao: "The Clerico was preparing for the division of the rations amongst the men, when suddenly a Spaniard, prompted, as was thought, by the Devil, drew his sword: the rest drew theirs; and immediately they all began to hack and hew the poor Indians, who were sitting quietly near them, and offering not more resistance than so many sheep". (Liburn 10 & 11) Las Casas then goes on to describe the scene as "heaps of bodies . . . strewn about, like sheaves of corn, waiting to be gathered up". (Liburn 10) The Spaniard's job was to convert the native population to Christianity, not use them to test the sharpness of their swords which they had done in this case. In Mexico, Hernan Cortez, the conqueror, recognized the need for religious instruction among Indians. His instructions he received from the Spanish monarchy and the Pope for his venture included the order to, "spread the knowledge of the true faith and the Church of God among those people who dwell in darkness," (Ricard 14). Cortez followed these instructions very diligently. When he encountered the Indians on the mainland of Central America, he undertook their religious conversions. He explained the Christian religion to them, and wanted the natives to renounce their idols and embrace the Christian religion. He and the religious men with him preached against sodomy and human sacrifice to the tribes that they encountered. In Mexico, like other Spanish colonies, numerous Friars and priests came and worked to Christianize the native population. However, this was largely ineffectual because the various Holy men could only sow a few grains here or there. Cortez realized the need for order in the Catholic Church in the New World to convert the native population. Cortez wrote to the king of Spain, Charles V, about the need for missionaries to convert the Indians. He asked for friars of the St. Francis or St. Dominic order who would set up monasteries to instruct and convert the native population. There, presently arrived in Mexico at San Juan de Ulua on May 13 or 14, 1524 the famous mission of Twelve, who began the methodical conversion of the Indians. Cortez's envisions of monastic communities, where the native population could be converted to Christianity, came true especially in Mexico. Huge monasteries were built for the purpose of the conversion of the native population. These monasteries built were of enormous size and decorated ostentatiously. The monasteries included pomp and circumstance in their ceremonies. The reason claimed for doing this was to keep the Indians interested in Catholicism and away from their native religions. "On February 8, 1537, Zumarraga wrote the Council of the Indies that beautiful churches helped in the conversion of the Indians and strengthened their devotion. Twenty years later, on February 1, 1558, Viceroy Luis de Velasco make the same observation to Philip II". (Ricard 168) These churches, supposedly built for the benefit of the native population, were built or supported by the native population. For them this was a heavy burden, whether they built the churches themselves or had to pay workmen to the labor. They had to do this at the cost of neglecting their fields or trades. There were also accounts of the friars physically punishing the Indians for their work or lack of it, "But one must accept with reserve the testimony of the Indians who complained of abuses by the Dominicans during the construction of the convent at Puebla, claiming they were exhausted from work, and that one of the religious had loaded them with large stones and them beaten them over the head with a stick". (Ricard 170) The missions set up by the church were also guilty of abusing the native population. The Indians were supposed to benefit from these missions, but all they recieved from them was more misery. The Indians in having to support these new edifices and having to convert to Christianity suffered from a double edged sword. The native americans had three responses to the thrusting of the Christian religion upon them. One response was the incorporation of elements of Christianity into their own religion, creating a new religious system. They took the beliefs out of the Christian religion that agreed or make sense with their religion and combined the two. "Ancient rituals attached to Christian ones included a sweeping ceremony that accompanied the bringing of the Eucharist to the sick, the lighting of fires on the eve of the nativity, the extreme use of self-flagellation, the burning of a traditional incense before images of saint, dedicating strings of ears or corn to the Virgin". (Luenfeld 304) Some Indians outright rejected Christianity. An example of this written by Thomas Giles was, "among the Incas of Peru, baptism was considered subjection to the invader; some Incan chiefs killed those who accepted the rite". (Giles 2) The Indians largely could not accept Christian beliefs because of the actions of the Christians themselves. The brutality and the lack of concern or remorse that the Spanish showed to the Indians played a large role for the rejection of the Spanish religion. The Indians did not want any part of a religion that preached rape, slaughter, and cruel subjugation. The explanation of a Mayan who objected to the behaviors of the Spanish was the following, "The true God, the true Dios came, but this was the origin too of affliction for us: the origin of tax, of out giving them alms; of trial through the grabbing of cacao money, of trial by blowgun; stomping the people; violent removal; forced debt, debt created by false testimony; petty litigation, harassment, violent removal; the collaboration with the Spaniards on the part of the priests, . . .and all the while the mistreated were further maltreated...but it will happen that tears will come to the eyes of God the Father. The justica of God the Father will settle on the whole world." (Giles 2) Not all the Indians rejected the Christian religion. Many of them accepted it. They desired Christian friendships and to change their habits to the ones of the Spanish. The reasons for the acceptance of Christianity vary, but one of these is fear. Some Christian conquerors threatened lives if the Indians were not baptized and did not actively participate in the Church. Another reason for the conversion is that the Indians were in awe of the conquers. The Spanish represented power and the Indians were in reverence of their great amount of power they represented. Some accepted the religion because the missionaries demonstrated boundless zeal, high morals, and great courage. Not all of the missionaries sent by the Church were violent or corrupt. There were some who worked for the benefit of the native population. The Indians saw this and respected it. The Catholic Church helped the Spanish monarchy administer to the native population in the New World. The Church, by being subject to the Spanish monarchy, is also to be held accountable to the numerous evils inflicted upon the Indians in the Spainish colonies. In many cases they were forced to convert to Christianity, and their views about god and religion were not taken into account. The Catholic Church incurred a great injustice to the native population in the New World. They were reduced to second class citizens, and forced to work toward goals that they did not fully understand. Through the writings of Las Casas, it is seen how the Indians were slaughtered needlessly, and how they were baptised without regard to their feelings. Cortez paved the way for missions to be founded in the New World supposedly for the good of the Indian population. This, however, also turned against them. The Catholic Church role in the lives of the native population was a negative one due to its alliance with the Spanish monarchy and its forced conversion of the Indians. BIBLIOGRAPHY Terrar, Toby. "Catholic Mission History and the 500th Anniversary of Christopher Columbus's Arrival," Giles, Thomas S. "How Did Native Americans Respond to Christianity?" Christian Histoy Issue 35 Vol. XI, No. 3. Ricard, Robert. The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Christopher Marlowe.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christopher Marlowe Christopher Marlowe: what did he contribute to English literature and how is his writing reflective of the style of the times? Christopher Marlowe contributed greatly to English literature. He developed a new metre which has become one of the most popular in English literary history, and he revitalised a dying form of English drama. His short life was apparently violent and the man himself was supposedly of a volatile temperament, yet he managed to write some of the most delicate and beautiful works on record. His writing is representative of the spirit of the Elizabethan literature in his attitude towards religion, his choice of writing style and in the metre that he used. Christopher Marlowe was born in 1564 the son of a Canterbury shoemaker and was an exact contemporary of Shakespeare. He was educated at the King's School, Canterbury, and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He became a BA in 1584 and a MA in 1587. He seems to have been of a violent nature and was often in trouble with the law. He made many trips to the continent during his short lifetime and it has been suggested that these visits were related to espionage. In 1589 he was involved in a street brawl which resulted in a man's death. An injunction was brought against him three years later by the constable of Shoreditch in relation to that death. In 1592 he was deported from the Netherlands after attempting to issue forged gold coins. On the 30th of May 1593 he was killed by Ingram Frizer in a Deptford tavern after a quarrel over the bill. He was only 29 years old. During the middle ages, culture and government were influenced greatly by the Church of Rome. The Reformation of Henry VIII (1529-39), and the break of ties with that church meant that the monarch was now supreme governor. This altered the whole balance of political and religious life, and, consequently, was the balance of literature, art and thought. The literature of Elizabethan England was based on the crown. This period of literature (1558-1625) is outstanding because of its range of interests and vitality of language. Drama was the chief form of Elizabethan art because there was an influx of writers trying to emulate speech in their writing, and because of the suddenly expanded vocabulary writers were using (most of these new words came from foreign languages). Marlowe's plays comprise The Tragedy of Dido, Queen of Carthage (possibly with some collaboration from Nashe), Tamburlaine parts one and two, The Jew of Malta, Edward II, Dr. Faustus and The Massacre at Paris. Up to the time of Tamburlaine, written in 15 87-8, there had been a few so-called tragedies. Of these, the best known is Gorboduc, first played in 1561, and apparently popular enough to justify its printing a few years later, although the play was "a lifeless performance, with no character of enough vitality to stand out from the ruck of the rest of the pasteboards." With Tamburlaine, Marlowe swept the Elizabethan audiences off their feet. The Jew of Malta, written after Tamburlaine, begins very strongly, with the main character a commanding figure of the same calibre as Tamburlaine, and the characterisation is better rounded than Tamburlaine's. Sadly the play comes to pieces after the second act, and it has been speculated that another less talented author revised the ending. Edward II is unexpected in that the main character is a neurotic weakling, instead of a dominant figure like Henry V. Even though the characterisation is clumsy, it is yet a dramatist's treatment, and one can see that Marlowe has moved towards creating a more developed character. Marlowe thus breathed new life into English tragedy, and paved the way for the greatest English dramatist, Shakespeare. It is quite possible that without Marlowe's contribution to English tragedy, Shakespeare would never have at tempted such an unpopular style and he would not be canonised as he is today. The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus is surely the pinnacle of Marlowe's achievement. The subject no doubt appealed to Marlowe. In no other play of his, nor in the majority of English literature, is there a scene to match the passionate and tragic intensity of Faustus' last hour on earth. Faustus used to be placed as the play immediately following Tamburlaine, yet a discovery by Dr. F. S. Boas led to the conclusion that the play cannot be dated before 1592. This was because the English translation of the German Faustbuch was not published until 1592, and though it is possible that Marlowe saw the manuscript before publication, the evidence suggests that Dr. Faustus was written after Edward II. This would mean that instead of making a massive jump in quality from Tamburlaine and The Jew of Malta to Dr. Faustus, and then reverting back to Edward II, Marlowe wrote Tamburlaine and The Jew and felt that he had not really set his genius and so casts back to the type of these earlier plays and far surpasses them in dramatic poetry. Faustus tells of a man who sells his soul to Satan in return for twenty-four years of knowledge and power. The protagonist, Dr. John Faustus, instead of sharing his gift with others, fritters his years away until the in last scene he realises the grave mistakes he has made. The scenes where Faustus uses his power for practical jokes are in stark contrast to those where something meaningful happens to him. There are three places in the play where Marlowe's genius can be seen illuminated by perfection of metre and rhetoric; the scene where Faustus conjures up Mephistopheles, the scene in which he speaks to Helen of Troy and Faustus' last hour on Earth. It has been suggested by some that Marlowe only wrote these three scenes and the rest was added by someone else. However these are probably the same people who think Marlowe and Shakespeare are the same man. Even so, these scenes were unmatched in their word play and metre until Shakespeare. This play is timeless because its subject matter is still interesting today and because the force of Marlowe's conviction cannot help but invoke emotions in even the most soulless of critics. Possibly Marlowe's greatest gift to English literature was his metre. Marlowe was the real creator of the most famous, most versatile and noblest of English measure, the unrhymed decasyllabic (ten syllables) line called blank verse. Blank verse or iambic pentameter as it is known was first used twenty or so years before Marlowe, however it was intolerably monotonous. The metre comes from the Greek Iambic trimeter, which was a twelve- syllable line with six feet. The experimenters were perceptive enough to see that the more slowly moving English language would require five feet instead of six. The result was such lifeless pieces as this from Gorboduc: Your lasting age shall be their longer stay, For cares of kings, that rule as you have ruled, For public wealth and not for private joy, Do waste man's life, and hasten crooked age, With furrowed face and with enfeebled limbs, To draw on creeping death a swifter pace. They two yet young shall bear the parted reign With greater ease, than one, now old, alone, Can wield the whole, for whom much harder is With lessened strength the double weight to bear. This piece is unbelievably tedious, and without a sensitive ear like Marlowe's, blank verse would never have been the great measure that it is. What Marlowe did was to revise the internal structure of the single line. In some lines he substituted an iamb (- / ) for a spondee (- - ), a tribrach (/ / / ) or a dactyl (- / / ) in certain feet, which made each line more interesting and versatile. Also, while having a few lines strictly conform to the norm, he created lines with four, three even two groups of sounds. By using these devices, Marlowe transformed blank verse from a stiff and monotonous to a varied and flexible metre, as can be seen in Faustus' invocation to Helen: Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships? And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?- Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.- The first line is regular, with five feet and five stresses. The second has the same number of stresses, but the grouping of the words is irregular. Whereas the third is completely irregular. It is Marlowe's greatest gift to English literature that he ma naged to develop a metre which gave the author more creative freedom than any other before or since. Marlowe's writing is reflective of the spirit of the Elizabethan age in a number of ways. His subject matter and characters in his plays often question the validity of the church. He has been criticised for being an atheist, for example he was accused of blasphemy in his portrayal of Helen in Dr. Faustus She is seen as a goddess who has the power to cleanse Faustus' soul, even though God cannot. She is more powerful than the virgin Mary, and the fact that Marlowe presents the proposition that God is incapable of redeeming Faustus' soul farther aggravated the church. This new thinking about the church is part of the spirit of the Elizabethan age due to King Henry VIII's reformation. In many Elizabethan plays, the main character is a merchant of some sort, due to the rise in power of these middle class businessmen. This can be seen in many plays of Shakespeare, as well as Marlowe's The Rich Jew of Malta. Also the protagonists in Marlowe's plays are often similar to Everyman, particularly Dr. Faustus, except that these characters are individuals, and not mankind in general, in that the character learns something which is important to the audience as well. The Everyman plays were written shortly before Marlowe's birth, and again this re- characterisation by Marlowe is a reflection of the spirit of the times in his works. Lastly, the fact that Marlowe used iambic pentameter, as well as having drama as his writing style is representative of the Elizabethan age. Although these were contributions to English literature, Marlowe really set the trend for this age, and many contemporaries of his used these techniques. In that sense, one of Marlowe's contributions to English literature was that he defined a lot of the aspects of Elizabethan literature. Marlowe's revolutionary use of literature is both representative of the age, as well as a contribution to English literature. Marlowe contributed greatly to English literature. His works are excellent on their own; though he also revitalised the tragedy as well as developing blank verse, one of the most beautiful, flexible and versatile of metres. His work is representative of the spirit of the Elizabethan age in that Marlowe used drama as his chief form of writing, his subject matters were demonstrative of this age, for example the loss of belief in the church, and he wrote in iambic pentameter which became very popular before the end of this age. Word Count: 1875 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Citizen Participation in the Governments of Singapore and Hon.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Role of Citizen Political Participation in Hong Kong and Singapore Both Hong Kong and Singapore are city states that traditionally have lacked broad political participation, instead political decisions were left up to a small group of leaders. Historical factors were critical in determining the role of political participation in both city states. Hong Kong's history of colonial rule and the strength of the People's Action Party (PAP) in Singapore acted to keep broad citizen participation in government to a minimum. Hong Kong after World War Two remained a colony of England and it's government remained under colonial rule. Unlike in other Asian nations such as Singapore their existed no major anti-colonial movement and the Colonial government was insulated from political pressure because many residents and immigrants from China appreciated the commercial opportunities that Hong Kong had to offer and were afraid that if England gave up control of Hong Kong the small state would be over run by the newly established and expansionist communist China to the north. During the years immediately after 1949 China was expanding, taking over Tibet and Mongolia; Hong Kong's feeling of insecurity was very real. The Colonial government did in subsequent years establish Hong Kong's Legislative Council and Executive council, and the Colonial government appointed prominent and respected local Chinese citizens to serve on these bodies. These councils although far from democratic did ensure that the Chinese citizenry would at least have representatives to express their pleasure or displeasure with the colonial administration. But these representatives lacked any real power and served only at the pleasure of the Colonial administration. The government of Hong Kong was administered and run by the English Foreign service officers that flocked to Hong Kong, the last vestige of English Empire. In Hong Kong it really was the English that ruled not the Chinese public. In Singapore following the end of World War Two a single political party came into power in Singapore, the People's Action Party which was a strongly anti-colonial left wing party was a made up of communists and more moderate socialists. After independence Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his allies were able to steer the party away from communism and toward a more moderate stance. The People's Action Party tolerated dissent and other political parties because Lee Kuan Yew felt he had a solid political base. The PAP so dominated politics that no other political party emerged in Singapore as a strong force. In the democratically held elections in Singapore the PAP always won by large majorities. The greatest blow came to the PAP in 1984 when the opposition won two seats in the 79 seat legislature in Singapore. This was largely due to a recession during the period and dissatisfaction with the governments economic policies. The public although given the right to vote had little say in the government of Lee Kuan Yew because it was nearly guaranteed that he would win. Because of this in Singapore, politics disappeared and was replaced by an administrative state run by meritocratic system of bureaucrats. Only recently has the public been granted more say in government affairs. Following the election of 1984 the PAP implemented new policies to broaden its base of support. First, the party steeped up its recruitment of young members. Second, the administration agreed to discuss the National Agenda and formulation of the PAP party manifesto with the people of Singapore starting in 1987. Third, the government of Singapore started televising deliberations of the national legislative council. These three initiatives stimulated a new interest in government that had been absent from Singapore for years. The public finally felt that it could have a say in the governments decisions. What is ironic is it was the ruling elite's that brought about wider public participation government not mass demonstrations or citizen outrage. The elite's did this because they felt that if the public expressed its concerns to the PAP it would be able to govern more effectively. Both Hong Kong and Singapore do not have histories of wide spread citizen participation government. Although Singapore was a democracy for many years the supremacy and dominance of the PAP party in national affairs had the effect of eliminating political culture and creating an administrative state. But recent trends in Singapore have signaled a shift away from its pliant public of the past. In contrast Hong Kong has showed no such trends toward a democratization of the political system and the turnover of Hong Kong to China in 1997 makes the emergence of strong citizen participation in government even less likely. In both Hong Kong and Singapore democracy and rights have not been a major issue to the populace who have been far more concerned with stability and industrial progress; but these trends could change with the changing dynamics of Asia in the coming years as Singapore's populace becomes more educated and affluent and Hong Kong comes under the control of China. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\civil war.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Civil War During both the civil war and civil war reconstruction time periods, there were many changes going on in the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation, as well as legislation such as the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, was causing a new awakening of democracy; while the renouncing of secession by the South marked a definite triumph for Nationalism. As well, the government was involved in altercations of its own. During reconstruction, the legislative and executive branches eventually came to blows over the use of power. The nation was being altered by forces which caused, and later repaired, a broken Union. The first of these "forces", was the expansion of democracy. As early as 1862, Lincoln was taking a major step in that direction. On September 22, Lincoln announced the freeing of all slaves in areas not in Union control. Although the proclamation did not free all slaves everywhere, it was the action that would push Congress to pass the thirteenth amendment in 1865. The amendment, ratified later in 1865, stated that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." It seemed democracy had triumphed by giving freedom to slaves, but the amendment was not complete. It only stopped slavery, and made no provisions for citizenship; therefore, blacks were still not considered United States citizens. The fourteenth amendment was the democratic expansion that fixed that problem. Originally passed to "put a number of matters beyond the control or discretion of the president," the amendment also made "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . citizens of the United States." It also provided that, "No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This not only gave new meaning to black men's freedom, but it also gave a new and broader meaning to citizenship. Those drafting the amendment hoped that the broadness of would cover "unanticipated abuses", yet, the general phrasing was only an advantage to abusers. There is no listing of the "privileges or immunities" offered to U.S. citizens. In fact, there is not even a clarification of what rights a "citizen" has. These generalities, and the abuses that went with them, prompted the adoption of the fifteenth amendment in 1870. The final major step towards democratic expansion during reconstruction, the fifteenth amendment granted " The right of citizens of the United States to vote," and that right, "shall not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This amendment finally took out loopholes existent in the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. The government of the United States was coming closer to being a government by all of the people, and not just whites. Civil war reconstruction offered more than just extended democracy, however. It was also a time of national unification. One of the major boosts to United States nationalism, began with the simple Union victory over the confederacy. Secession was unconstitutional according to those who supported the Union. By defeating the confederacy, the Union had only confirmed that fact. As well, the radical Republican reconstruction plan called for an official renunciation of secession, before states could be readmitted to the Union. If secession from the Union was now illegal, then Daniel Webster's theory of the Constitution being a people's government, and not a compact of states had to be true. "The Constitution . . . [begins] with the words 'We the people,' and it was the people, not the states, who . . . created it," Webster claimed in his nationalist theory of the Constitution. The Union became more united than ever before, because now it truly was a Union, ". . . now and forever, one and inseparable." There were changes, though, that were occurring in the reconstruction time period that were not as helpful to the Union as democracy and nationalism. While the nation was reveling in these more encouraging developments, the Union government was having internal conflicts. Congress and the president began dueling over power distribution starting at about the time of Andrew Johnson's presidency. Johnson became president after Lincoln's death and immediately set the tone for the rest of his dealings with Congress. His plan for reconstruction was much to relaxed for radical Republicans in Congress, and Johnson lacked the diplomatic abilities of Lincoln. Johnson did prescribe loyalty oaths for southern whites if they were to receive pardon and amnesty, he did exclude high confederate officials from that allowance, and he did require a state convention of state leaders loyal to the Union to elect new congressional delegates. Johnson did not, however include some provisions being called for by Congress. His plan recommended, but did not require, the repeal of secession ordinances and repudiation of secession, repudiation of the Confederate debt, and the ratification of the thirteenth amendment. These points absent from the Johnson program were the instigation congress needed to take charge of reconstruction. The first step by Congress, against Johnson, was taken in December 1865. Under Johnson's program, southern representatives had been elected to Congress. A majority of congress voted to refuse accepting the delegates, and appointed a committee to begin work on reconstruction. In 1866, Congress overrode a presidential veto for the first time in history, when Johnson vetoed a civil rights bill. The bill would have given blacks a considerable new amount of freedom from discriminatory southern actions. Johnson took his stand against the radical Republicans in congress when the fourteenth amendment was first passed. While Congress required ratification of the amendment as part of reconstruction, Johnson denounced the amendment and advised states not to ratify it. "the battle between the executive and legislative branches settled into a predictable rhythm: Congress would pass a bill, the president would veto it, Congress would override it." This "rhythm" continued until Johnson violated the Tenure of office act, which required senate approval to remove presidential cabinet members. Johnson violated the act by removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment and in May 1868, Johnson was impeached by the House. The senate, by one vote, did not remove him from the office of president. Neither side had won that battle for power; Johnson had lost his ability to be an effective president, yet it had been established that impeachment could not be used as a congressional political weapon. The Civil war time period, as well as that of reconstruction, was filled with political changes in the United States. The war had aroused the democratic spirit of the nation, and had so aroused a good deal of legislation to improve the equality of all people. Post-war times brought forth the nationalistic spirit of the nation, proving once and for all that this Union was indeed, "indivisible under God." The lust for power and justice during reconstruction caused the fight between the executive and legislative branches, a fight that was not completely resolved. These changes, both good and bad, made the Union the United States once again. "a . . . nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." It has been the United States ever since. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Civil_War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Civil War For minorities, as for other Americans, the Civil War was an opportunity to prove their valor and loyalty. Among the first mustered into the Union Army were a De Kalb regiment of German American clerks, the Garibakdi Guards made up of Italian Americans, a "Polish Legion," and hundreds of Irish American youths form Boston and New York. But in Ohio and Washington, D.C., African American volunteers were turned away from recruiting stations and told, "This is a white man's war." Some citizens questioned the loyalty of immigrants who lived in crowded city tenements until an Italian American from Brooklyn turned that around. In the New York Senate, Democrat Francis Spinola had been a vigorous foe of Republican policies and Lincoln. But now he swore his loyalty with stirring words, "This is my flag, which I will follow and defend." This speech gave great assurance that the masses in the great cities were devoted to the Union and ready to enlist for its defense. More than 400,000 European immigrants fought for the Union, including more than 170,00 Germans and more than 150,00 Irish. Many saw their services as a proud sacrifice. The first officer to die for the Union was Captain Constatin Blandowski, one of many immigrants who earlier had fought for freedom in Europe and then joined Lincoln's army. Born in Upper Silesia and trained at Dresden, Germany, he was a veteran of democratic struggles - a Polish revolt at Krakow, the Polish Legion's battles against Austria, and the Hungarian fight for independence. Some nationalities contributed more than their share of Union soldiers. Some immigrants earned the Congressional Medal of Honor. Italian American officer Louis di Cesnola, was the Colonel of the 4th Cavalry Regiment. At Aldie, Virginia, in 1863, he earned the Medal of Honor and was appointed a general. He charged unarmed at the foe, read his citation, "rallied his men ...until desperately wounded and taken prisoner in action." In 1879 Cesnola became director of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. The museum then became, wrote a critic, "a monument to his energy, enterprise, and rare executive skill." Italian American privates also won the Medal of Honor. Joseph Sova of the 8th Cavalry earned it for capturing the Confederate flag at Appomattox. Private Orlando Caruana of the 51st Infantry won it at Newburn, North Carolina. With bullets whizzing past him, he saved wounded men and rescued the U.S. flag. As 1865 came on, the feel of victory was in the Northern air. And so the Civil War was over. Yet even the ending of the war did not bring real peace. On Good Friday, April 14, 11 days after Union troops had entered Richmond, an actor named John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln as the President watched a play from his box in Ford's Theater, Washington, D.C. The one man who might have brought about a just peace was dead. The Civil War had solved some old problems for the United States. But it created some new problems as well. But many of the problems created by the Civil War have been solved. Towns have been rebuilt, new industries flourish, and new schools have been erected. Most of the damage of war has been long repaired. North and South both enjoy prosperity. But many of the human problems still remain. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\CivilWar.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Civil War IN THIS meeting of the Southern Historical Association great emphasis has been placed upon a re-examination of numerous phases of our history relating to the Civil War. While several papers have dealt with certain forces which helped bring about the Civil War, none has attempted a general synthesis of causes. This synthesis has been the task assumed by the retiring president of the Association. Before attempting to say what were the causes of the American Civil War, first let me say what were not the causes of this war. Perhaps the most beautiful, the most poetic, the most eloquent statement of what the Civil War was not fought for is Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. That address will live as long as Americans retain their love of free government and personal liberty; and yet in reassessing the causes of the Civil War, the address whose essence was that the war was being fought so "that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth" is irrelevant. Indeed, this masterpiece of eloquence has little if any value as a statement of the basic principles underlying the war. The Civil War was not a struggle on the part of the South to destroy free government and personal liberty nor on the part of the North to preserve them. Looked at from the present perspective of the world-wide attempt of the totalitarians to erase free governments and nations living under such governments from the face of the earth, the timeworn stereotype that the South was attempting the destruction of free government and the North was fighting to preserve it seems very unrealistic and downright silly. In the light of the present-day death struggle between freedom and the most brutal form of despotism, the Civil War, as far as the issue of free government was involved, was a sham battle. Indeed, both northern and southern people in 1861 were alike profoundly attached to the principles of free government. A systematic study of both northern and southern opinion as expressed in their newspapers, speeches, diaries, and private letters, gives irrefutable evidence in support of this assertion. Their ideology was democratic and identical. However, theoretical adherence to the democratic principles, as veil we know all too well in these days of plutocratic influences in our political life, is not sufficient evidence that democratic government exists. I believe that I shall not be challenged in the assertion that the economic structure of a section or a nation is the foundation upon which its political structure must rest. For this reason, therefore, it will be necessary to know what the economic foundations of these sections were. Was the economic structure of the North such as to support a political democracy in fact as well as in form? And was the economic structure of the South such as to permit the existence of free government? Time does not permit an extended treatment of this subject; it will be possible only to point out certain conclusions based upon recent research. By utilizing the county tax books and the unpublished census reports a group of us conducting a cooperative undertaking have been able to obtain a reasonably accurate and specific picture of wealth structure of the antebellum South, and to some extent that of the other sections. We have paid particular attention to the distribution of capital wealth and the ownership of the means of production. As has been generally known the Northwest was agricultural and its population predominantly small farmers, though a considerable minority were large farmers comparable with the southern planters. It seems that in 1860 about 80 percent of the farmers in the Old Northwest were landowners. A fairly large fraction of the remaining farm population in that area were either squatters upon public lands or were the members of landowning families. Only a small per cent were renters. In those areas farther west the ownership of land was not as widespread because the farmers had not yet made good their titles to the lands that they had engrossed. Taken as a whole the people of the Northwest were economically self-sufficient. They could not be subjected to economic coercion and, hence, they were politically free. Their support of free government-as they understood it-was effective. The northeastern section of the United States had already assumed its modem outlines of a capitalistic-industrial society where the means of production were either owned or controlled by relatively few. That is to say, New England and the middle states were fast becoming in essence a plutocracy whose political ideology was still strongly democratic; but the application of this democratic ideology was being seriously hampered by the economic dependence of the middle and lower classes upon those who owned the tools of production. The employee unprotected by government supervision or by strong labor organizations was subject in exercising his political rights to the undue influence of the employer. To sum up: the economic structure of the Northwest was an adequate foundation for free government; but that of the East, though still supporting democratic ideals, was often too weak to sustain these ideals in actual government. Turning to the South which was primarily agricultural we find the situation completely contradictory to what has usually been assumed. While the plutocracy of the East owned or controlled the means of production in industry and commerce, the so-called slave oligarchy of the South owned scarcely any of the land outside the black belt and only about 25 per cent of the land in the black belt. Actually, the basic means of production in the black belt and in the South as a whole was well distributed among all classes of the population. The overwhelming majority of southern families in 1860 owned their farms and livestock. About 90 per cent of the slaveholders and about 70 per cent of the non-slaveholders owned the land which they farmed. The bulk of slave holders were small farmers and not oligarchs. While taken together they owned more slaves and more land than the big planters, taken individually the majority of slaveholders owned from one to four slaves and less than three hundred acres of land. The non-slaveholders, 70 percent of whom, as we have noted, were landowners, were not far removed economically from the small slaveholders to whom we have just referred. While the majority of slaveholders owned from one to three hundred acres of land, 80 per cent of the landowning non-slaveholders owned from one to two hundred acres of land and 20 per cent owned from two hundred to a thousand. Let me repeat: the basic fact disclosed in an analysis of the economic structure of the South, based upon the unpublished census reports and tax books, is that the overwhelming majority of white families in the South, slaveholders and non-slaveholders, unlike the industrial population of the East, owned the means of production. In other words, the average southerner like the average westerner possessed economic independence; and the only kind of influence that could be exercised over his political franchise by the slave oligarchy was a strictly persuasive kind. The South then, like the Northwest, not only held strongly to the democratic ideology but also had a sound economic foundation for a free government. If the destruction of democratic government by the South and its preservation by the North were not the causes of the Civil War, what then were the causes? The surface answer to this question is that in 1861 the southern people desired and attempted to establish their independence and thereby to disrupt the old Union; and that the North took up arms to prevent the South from establishing this independence and to preserve the Union. Looking immediately behind this attempt of the South to establish a separate government, and of the North to prevent it, we discover a state of mind in both sections which explains their conduct. This state of mind may be summed up thus: by the spring of 1861 the southern people felt it both abhorrent and dangerous to continue to live under the same government with the people of the North. So profound was this feeling among the bulk of the southern population that they were prepared to fight a long and devastating war to accomplish a separation. On the other hand, the North was willing to fight a war to retain their reluctant fellow citizens under the same government with themselves. The cause of that state of mind which we may well call war psychosis lay in the sectional character of the United States. In other words, the Civil War had one basic cause: sectionalism. But to conclude that sectionalism was the cause of the Civil War, and at the same time insist -as has usually been done-that the Civil War was the climax of an irrepressible conflict, is to seem to accept a pessimistic view of the future of the United States. For if the antebellum conflict was irrepressible and the Civil War unavoidable, we are faced with future irrepressible conflicts, future civil wars, and ultimate disintegration of the nation into its component sections. I say this because I do not see anyway save some cosmic cataclysm by which sectionalism can be erased from the political, economic, racial, and cultural maps of the United States. Our national state was built, not upon the foundations of a homogeneous land and people, but upon geographical sections inhabited severally by provincial, self-conscious, self-righteous, aggressive, and ambitious populations of varying origins and diverse social and economic systems; and the passage of time and the cumulative effects of history have accentuated these sectional patterns. Before accepting the possibility of future wars and national disintegration as inevitable because of the irrepressible conflict between permanent sections, let me hasten to say that there are two types of sectionalism: there is that egocentric, destructive sectionalism where conflict is always irrepressible; and there is that constructive sectionalism where good will prevails-two types as opposite from one another as good is opposite from evil, as the benign is from the malignant. It was the egocentric, the destructive, the evil, the malignant type of sectionalism that destroyed the Union in 1861, and that would do so again if it existed over a long period of time. Before discussing that destructive sectionalism which caused the Civil War, some observations should be made of the constructive type, since, as I have suggested, the very nature of the American state makes one or the other type of sectionalism inevitable. The idea of either good or bad sectionalism as an enduring factor in American national life has received scant consideration by historians as a rule, either because they, who have usually been of the North, have desired to justify the conduct of their section on occasion as being the manifestation of nationalism when in truth it was sectionalism writ large; or because, and more important, they have apparently been unable to reconcile sectionalism with nationalism. Since sectionalism from the very nature of our country must remain a permanent and basic factor in our national life, we should look it in the face and discriminate between the good and the bad features. Above all else, we should recognize the fact that sectionalism when properly dealt with, far from being irreconcilable with nationalism, is its strongest support. It is only the malignant, destructive type that conflicts with nationalism or loyalty to the national state or empire. Great Britain once failed to make this distinction and to grasp the fact that the American colonials could be good Americans and good British at the same time, and the result was the loss of the American colonies. After the lesson learned from the American Revolution, the British mind grasped the fact that good Canadians or good Australians are all the better British because of their provincial or-may I say?-sectional loyalty. Provincialism, dominionism, and, in the case of the United States, sectionalism, far from excluding nationalism, when properly recognized and not constantly frowned upon, and the interests of sections ignored and their ambitions frustrated, are powerful supports of nationalism. Such provincialism or sectionalism becomes a national asset. It is a brake upon political centralization and possible despotism. It has proven and will prove to be, if properly directed, a powerful force in preserving free institutions. It gives color, variety, and vitality to all segments of the national state. Because of this vitality in all its parts, the United States, unlike France whose lifeblood seems to flow entirely through Paris, would prove a difficult country to subjugate by a foreign enemy, and its government and society more difficult, if not impossible, to Overthrow by violent revolution. It is because Great Britain has, as the result of her lesson learned from the American Revolution, fostered a good sectionalism within her empire, that she has baffled the orderly mind of the Germans and defied conquest. By loosening the ties that bind the component parts of this straggling union of colonies and dominions, Great Britain has made these bonds all the stronger. She and her commonwealth of nations thus live in all their parts. Tragically' the American people failed to learn adequately the very lesson that they so thoroughly taught Great Britain: that local differences and attachments were natural, desirable, and formed the very rootbed of patriotism; indeed, that such differences, when given decent recognition, greatly strengthened nationalism and the national state. It was this failure to recognize or respect local differences and interests, in other words, the failure to recognize sectionalism as a fundamental fact of American life, that contributed most to the development of that kind of sectionalism which destroyed national unity and divided the nation. There were three basic manifestations of that egocentric sectionalism which disrupted the Union in 1861. First, was the habit of the dominant section-that is, the section which had the larger share in the control of the Federal government-of considering itself the nation, its people the American people, its interests the national interests; in other words, the habit of considering itself the sole possessor of nationalism, when, indeed, it was thinking strictly in terms of one section; and conversely the habit of the dominant section of regarding the minority group as factional, its interests and institutions and way of life as un-American, unworthy of friendly consideration, and even the object of attack. The second manifestation of this egocentric sectionalism that led to the Civil War was the perennial attempt of a section to gain or maintain its political ascendancy over the Federal government by destroying the sectional balance of power which, both New England and the South maintained, had been established by the three-fifths ratio clause in the Federal Constitution. The third and most dangerous phase of this sectionalism, perhaps the sine qua non of the Civil War, was the failure to observe what in international law is termed the comity of nations, and what we may by analogy designate as the comity of sections. That is, the people in one section failed in their language and conduct to respect the dignity and self-respect of the people in the other section. These three manifestations of sectionalism were so closely related that at times they can be segregated only in theory and for the sake of logical discussion. Indeed, as I have suggested, all were manifestations of that egocentric sectionalism that caused a section to regard itself as the nation. Let me call to your mind some familiar facts of American history that illustrate each of these phases of sectionalism. During the first twelve years of the government under the Federal Constitution, the old commercial-financial aristocracy of New England, with the aid of the same classes of people scattered throughout the urban centers of the seaboard, controlled the national government through the instrumentality of the Federalist party. An analysis of the chief measures of the Federalist regime and of the mental processes behind their enactments-as disclosed in speeches and letters and newspaper editorials -reveals the dominant section, New England, with its compact, homogeneous population, its provincial outlook, thinking, talking, and acting as if it were the United States; its way of life, its economic system, and its people the only truly American; while the remainder of the country, the people, and their interests and ways of life were alien and un-American. Most of the laws enacted during the control of the New England Federalists were considered by the South and much of the middle states as being for the sole benefit of the commercial and banking interests of the East, and as injurious, even ruinous, to the agricultural sections. In order to give constitutional sanction to these centralizing, sectional laws, the Federalist party under the brilliant leadership of Alexander Hamilton evolved the doctrine of implied powers, which seemed to the agricultural sections, now under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, to be pulling the foundations from under constitutional government. This sectional and centralizing policy of the New England-dominated Federalist party culminated in the Alien and Sedition Laws which were met by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. These resolutions may be regarded as a campaign document to be used in ousting the Federalists and New England from power. They were also a threat of the minority section to withdraw from the Union should Federalist New England continue in power and continue its policy of ignoring the agricultural sections of the country or of running roughshod over their interests. The overthrow of New England's control of the national government by the Jeffersonian party in 1800 resulted in a twenty-four-year regime of the Virginia dynasty, during fifteen years of which-that is, until after the War of 1812-the government was distinctly dominated by the South and Southwest. If Hamilton had been positive that the welfare of the nation depended upon reinforcing and maintaining by special government favor the capitalistic system of the East, Jefferson was more positive that democratic and constitutional government and the welfare of the American people depended upon maintaining the supremacy in government and society of a landowning farmer-people whose center of gravity was in the South and middle states. To Jefferson, commerce, finance, and industry were only necessary evils to be maintained purely as conveniences and handmaidens of agriculture. Such doctrinaire conception of government and society boded it for New England; and the period from 1801 until the end of the War of 1812 was filled with laws, decrees, and executive acts that seemed to threaten the economic and social existence of that section. One measure in particular seemed to be destined to end forever in favor of the South the sectional balance of power, namely, the purchase of Louisiana. During all this time New England's standing committee on secession, the Essex Junto, was maneuvering to bring about the withdrawal of New England from the Federal Union; nor is there any sufficient reason to suppose that it would not have eventually succeeded in the disruption of the Union had not the ending of the war with Great Britain brought a termination of the policies that seemed so detrimental to the social and economic interests of the East; and had not the outburst of genuine nationalism at the victorious ending of the war actually resulted in the adoption of measures distinctly favorable to New England. The point that I wish to emphasize is that the rise to power of the South and middle states was marked by the same egocentric sectionalism as characterized the dominance of Federalist New England: the agricultural sections thought of themselves as the United States, thought of the American farmers as the only simon-pure Americans, and looked upon the interests of the agricultural population as the national interests. It is not the ambition of this paper to attempt a summary of the antebellum history of the United States; but simply to use the twelve year sectional regime of the Federalists and about the same length of rule by the Jeffersonian party to illustrate that tendency of the dominant section to consider itself the United States and its people the American people, and by the same token ignore or treat with contempt the peculiar needs of the minority sections. The second manifestation of that egocentric sectionalism which led to the American Civil War was, as you will recall, the attempt of one section to gain a permanent ascendancy by destroying the sectional balance of power or permanently undermining the prestige of the other section. Let me pause for a moment, in discussing the overthrow of the balance of power, and review for you very briefly just how and why there had been an approximate balance of power established between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states during the constitutional convention. The delegates to the convention, from both the northern and southern sections of the country, were unanimously in favor of a constitution that would establish a much stronger and more effective government than that which had so signally broken down under the Articles of Confederation. There was a fundamental difference, however, as to what specific powers should be granted to this new government. New England and the capitalistic segments of the middle states were above all else determined that the new government should be able to control foreign and interstate commerce and to make commercial treaties that could be enforced. The agricultural sections of the country looked with considerable disfavor upon such a grant of powers. The South was so much opposed that it quietly passed out the word that it would never enter a Union where commerce was so thoroughly controlled by the national government unless it were assured a position of approximate political equality in that government. Otherwise, the power over commerce would be used by the North, dominated by the East, for its sole benefit and to the detriment of agriculture and the South. Finally, the balance of power was worked out by the technique of counting three-fifths of the slaves in apportioning representation in Congress and in the electoral college. This was called the three-fifths compromise between the North, which wanted to count all the slaves in apportioning direct taxes and none in apportioning representatives, and the South, which wanted to count all the slaves in making up representation and none in making up taxation. But an examination of the speeches and correspondence of the delegates indicates that it was also, and more important, a means of giving the South approximate equality in the Federal government in return for granting New England's profound desire to have the Federal government control interstate and international commerce. That the sectional balance of power should be obtained by the process of counting three-fifths of the slaves in determining representation was a natural but unfortunate arrangement. It was natural inasmuch as the Southerner regarded his slave as a human being and as part of the population; it was unfortunate in that it quickly identified the political influence of the South with the institution of slavery, and in doing so it went far toward engendering or increasing hostility in New England and finally in the whole North toward both slavery and the South. As long as New England was able to dominate the Federal government there was no important opposition to the theoretical balance of power obtained by the three-fifths ratio; but when New England lost her status with the collapse of the Federalist party her leaders immediately seized upon the three-fifths ratio as the explanation. During the period that ended with the Hartford convention and the treaty of peace the New England leaders were unceasing in their attack upon "slave representation," as they called it. At the Hartford convention it formed the leading grievance. The convention demanded an unconditional repeal. During this same time Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory, not for the purpose of destroying the sectional balance of power, but complacent in the belief that it would do so. We thus behold, during the earlier Jeffersonian period, the spectacle of the agricultural South and the commercial East tampering with the sectional balance of power. Of course, permanent balance of power was impossible in a rapidly expanding country, and both sections must have realized that eventually the forces of nature would tip the balance in favor of one section or the other or in favor of a section not yet born. Such eventualities were regarded as remote and were not permitted to disturb the peace of mind. It was the overthrow of the sectional balance by artificial, political methods which caused uneasiness and wrath, for it indicated inter-sectional ill will or gross selfishness. The Missouri controversy, 1819-20, marked the decline of the agitation by the Northeast to repeal the three-fifths ratio clause as a means of weakening the political power of the South and inaugurated the second and final phase of the struggle of the North to destroy by artificial methods the sectional balance of power. This second phase was to prevent the formation and admission into the Union of any more slave states, which meant, from the political and social point of view, the exclusion of southern states. While the demand for exclusion was based partly upon what we may call moral reasons, Rufus King and the other northern leaders in this debate were quite frank in asserting that the Missouri debate was a struggle between the slave and free states for political power. The two phases of that sectionalism which led to the Civil War, while causing a slow accumulation of sectional grievances, were not marked during the thirty years prior to the Missouri debates by excessive ill will or serious disregard for the comity of sections. Indeed, up until the time of the Missouri debates, despite the rivalry of sections which almost disrupted the Union, there was maintained a certain urbanity and self-restraint on the part of the leaders of the rival sections; for as long as the founding fathers lived and exercised influence over public affairs, there seems to have been a common realization-indeed, a common recollection-that the nation had been founded upon the principle of mutual tolerance of sectional differences and mutual concessions; that the nation had been constructed upon the respect of each section for the institutions, opinions, and ways of life of the other sections. But the years laid the founding fathers low and their places were taken by a new and impatient generation who had no such understanding of the essence of national unity. The result was that urbanity, self-restraint, and courtesy-the ordinary amenities of civilized intercourse-were cast aside; and in their gracious place were substituted the crude, discourteous, and insulting language and conduct in inter sectional relations now so familiar in the relations between the totalitarian nations and the so-called democracies. It was the Missouri debates in which intersectional comity was first violated; and it was the political leaders of the East, particularly the New Englanders and those of New England origin, who did it when they denounced in unmeasured terms slavery, the slaveholder, and southern society in general. It is noteworthy that the southern leaders, with the exception of one or two, including John Randolph, ignored this first violent, denunciatory, insulting language of the northerners during and immediately after the Missouri controversy; ignored them at least in that no reply in kind was made with the possible exception of two or three, including John Randolph, who demanded that the South withdraw from the Union before it was too late. The private correspondence of the southerners, however, reveals them as resentful and apprehensive of future bad relations with the North. Ten years after the Missouri Compromise debates, the moral and intellectual leaders of the North, and notably those of New England origin, took up the language of abuse and vilification which the political leaders of that section had first employed in the Missouri debates. Quickly the political leaders resumed the tone of the Missouri controversy: and thus was launched the so-called antislavery crusade, but what in fact was a crusade against the southern people. For over three decades this attack upon slavery and the entire structure of southern society down to the custom of eating corn bread and turnip greens grew in volume and in violence. (A discussion of the motives behind this crusade would lead us far afield and into bitterly controversial questions. It does seem clear, however, that political and economic considerations were thoroughly mingled with the moral and religious objection to slavery.) One has to seek in the unrestrained and furious invective of the present totalitarians to find a near parallel to the language that the abolitionists and their political fellow travelers used in denouncing the South and its way of life. Indeed, as far as I have been able to ascertain, neither Dr. Goebbels nor Virginio Gayda nor Stalin's propaganda agents have as yet been able to plumb the depths of vulgarity and obscenity reached and maintained by George Bourne, Stephen Foster, Wendell Phillips, Charles Sumner, and other abolitionists of note. Let me use a few of these-mo Word Count: 4827 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\CivilWar1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Civil War The American Civil War The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the events surrounding the end of the American Civil War. This war was a war of epic proportion. Never before and not since have so many Americans died in battle. The American Civil War was truly tragic in terms of human life. In this document, I will speak mainly around those involved on the battlefield in the closing days of the conflict. Also, reference will be made to the leading men behind the Union and Confederate forces. The war was beginning to end by January of 1865. By then, Federal (Federal was another name given to the Union Army) armies were spread throughout the Confederacy and the Confederate Army had shrunk extremely in size. In the year before, the North had lost an enormous amount of lives, but had more than enough to lose in comparison to the South. General Grant became known as the "Butcher" (Grant, Ulysses S., Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, New York: Charles L. Webster & Co.,1894) and many wanted to see him removed. But Lincoln stood firm with his General, and the war continued. This paper will follow the happenings and events between the winter of 1864-65 and the surrender of The Confederate States of America. All of this will most certainly illustrate that April 9, 1865 was indeed the end of a tragedy. CUTTING OFF THE SOUTH In September of 1864, General William T. Sherman and his army cleared the city of Atlanta of its civilian population then rested ever so briefly. It was from there that General Sherman and his army began its famous "march to the sea". The march covered a distance of 400 miles and was 60 miles wide on the way. For 32 days no news of him reached the North. He had cut himself off from his base of supplies, and his men lived on what ever they could get from the country through which they passed. On their route, the army destroyed anything and everything that they could not use but was presumed usable to the enemy. In view of this destruction, it is understandable that Sherman quoted "war is hell" (Sherman, William T., Memoirs of General William T. Sherman. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1972). Finally, on December 20, Sherman's men reached the city of Savannah and from there Sherman telegraphed to President Lincoln: "I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah, with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition, and also about 25,000 bales of cotton" (Sherman, William T., Memoirs of General William T. Sherman. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1972). Grant had decided that the only way to win and finish the war would be to crunch with numbers. He knew that the Federal forces held more than a modest advantage in terms of men and supplies. This in mind, Grant directed Sherman to turn around now and start heading back toward Virginia. He immediately started making preparations to provide assistance to Sherman on the journey. General John M. Schofield and his men were to detach from the Army of the Cumberland, which had just embarrassingly defeated the Confederates at Nashville, and proceed toward North Carolina. His final destination was to be Goldsboro, which was roughly half the distance between Savannah and Richmond. This is where he and his 20,000 troops would meet Sherman and his 50,000 troops. Sherman began the move north in mid-January of 1865. The only hope of Confederate resistance would be supplied by General P.G.T. Beauregard. He was scraping together an army with every resource he could lay his hands on, but at best would only be able to muster about 30,000 men. This by obvious mathematics would be no challenge to the combined forces of Schofield and Sherman, let alone Sherman. Sherman's plan was to march through South Carolina all the while confusing the enemy. His men would march in two ranks: One would travel northwest to give the impression of a press against Augusta and the other would march northeast toward Charleston. However the one true objective would be Columbia. Sherman's force arrived in Columbia on February 16. The city was burned to the ground and great controversy was to arise. The Confederates claimed that Sherman's men set the fires "deliberately, systematically, and atrociously". However, Sherman claimed that the fires were burning when they arrived. The fires had been set to cotton bales by Confederate Calvary to prevent the Federal Army from getting them and the high winds quickly spread the fire. The controversy would be short lived as no proof would ever be presented. So with Columbia, Charleston, and Augusta all fallen, Sherman would continue his drive north toward Goldsboro. On the way, his progress would be stalled not by the Confederate army but by runaway slaves. The slaves were attaching themselves to the Union columns and by the time the force entered North Carolina, they numbered in the thousands (Barrett, John G., Sherman's March through the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956). But Sherman's force pushed on and finally met up with Schofield in Goldsboro on March 23rd. THE END IS PLANNED Sherman immediately left Goldsboro to travel up to City Point and meet Grant to discuss plans of attack. When he arrived there, he found not only Grant, but also Admiral David Porter waiting to meet with President Lincoln. So on the morning of the March 28th, General Grant, General Sherman, and Admiral Porter all met with Lincoln on the river boat "River Queen" to discuss a strategy against General Lee and General Johnston of the Confederate Army. Several times Lincoln asked "can't this last battle be avoided?" (Angle and Miers, Tragic Years, II) but both Generals expected the Rebels (Rebs or Rebels were a name given to Confederate soldiers) to put up at least one more fight. It had to be decided how to handle the Rebels in regard to the upcoming surrender (all were sure of a surrender). Lincoln made his intentions very clear: "I am full of the bloodshed. You need to defeat the opposing armies and get the men composing those armies back to their homes to work on their farms and in their shops." (Sherman, William T., Memoirs of General William T. Sherman. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1972) The meeting lasted for a number of hours and near its end, Lincoln made his orders clear: "Let them once surrender and reach their homes, they won't take up arms again. They will at once be guaranteed all their rights as citizens of a common country. I want no one punished, treat them liberally all around. We want those people to return to their allegiance to the Union and submit to the laws." (Porter, David D., Campaigning with Grant. New York: The Century Co., 1897) Well with all of the formalities outlined, the Generals and Admiral knew what needed to be done. Sherman returned to Goldsboro by steamer; Grant and Porter left by train back north. Sherman's course would be to continue north with Schofield's men and meet Grant in Richmond. However, this would never happen as Lee would surrender to Grant before Sherman could ever get there. THE PUSH FOR THE END General Grant returned back to his troops who were in the process of besieging Petersburg and Richmond. These battles had been going on for months. On March 24, before the meeting with President Lincoln, Grant drew up a new plan for a flanking movement against the Confederates right below Petersburg. It would be the first large scale operation to take place this year and would begin five days later. Two days after Grant made preparations to move again, Lee had already assessed the situation and informed President Davis that Richmond and Petersburg were doomed. Lee's only chance would be to move his troops out of Richmond and down a southwestern path toward a meeting with fellow General Johnston's (Johnston had been dispatched to Virginia after being ordered not to resist the advance of Sherman's Army) forces. Lee chose a small town to the west named Amelia Court House as a meeting point. His escape was narrow; they (the soldiers) could see Richmond burn as they made their way across the James River and to the west. Grant had finally broke through and Richmond and Petersburg were finished on the second day of April. LINCOLN VISITS FALLEN RICHMOND On April 4th, after visiting Petersburg briefly, President Lincoln decided to visit the fallen city of Richmond. He arrived by boat with his son, Tad, and was led ashore by no more than 12 armed sailors. The city had not yet been secured by Federal forces. Lincoln had no more than taken his first step when former slaves started forming around him singing praises. Lincoln proceeded to join with General Godfrey Weitzel who had been place in charge of the occupation of Richmond and taken his headquarters in Jefferson Davis' old residence. When he arrived there, he and Tad took an extensive tour of the house after discovering Weitzel was out and some of the soldiers remarked that Lincoln seemed to have a boyish expression as he did so. No one can be sure what Lincoln was thinking as he sat in Davis' office. When Weitzel arrived, he asked the President what to do with the conquered people. Lincoln replied that he no longer gave direction in military manners but went on to say: "If I were in your place, I'd let 'em up easy, let 'em up easy" (Johnson, Robert Underwood, and Clarence Clough Buel, eds., Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol 4. New York: The Century Co., 1887). THE CHASE BEGINS Lee's forces were pushing west toward Amelia and the Federals would be hot on their tails. Before leaving Richmond, Lee had asked the Commissary Department of the Confederacy to store food in Amelia and the troops rushed there in anticipation. What they found when they got there however was very disappointing. While there was an abundance of ammunition and ordinance, there was not a single morsel of food. Lee could not afford to give up his lead over the advancing Federals so he had to move his nearly starving troops out immediately in search of food. They continued westward, still hoping to join with Johnston eventually, and headed for Farmville, where Lee had been informed, there was an abundance of bacon and cornmeal. Several skirmishes took place along the way as some Federal regiments would catch up and attack, but the Confederate force reached Farmville. However, the men had no more that started to eat their bacon and cornmeal when Union General Sheridan arrived and started a fight. Luckily, it was nearly night, and the Confederate force snuck out under cover of the dark. But not before General Lee received General Grants first request for surrender. NOWHERE TO RUN The Confederates, in their rush to leave Farmville in the night of April 7th, did not get the rations they so desperately needed, so they were forced to forage for food. Many chose to desert and leave for home. General Lee saw two men leaving for home and said "Stop young men, and get together you are straggling" and one of the soldiers replied "General, we are just going over here to get some water" and Lee replied "Strike for your home and fireside" (Freeman, Douglas Southall, R.E. Lee: A Biography, Vol 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935): they did. Rebel forces reached their objective, Appomattox Court House, around 3pm on April 8th. Lee received word that to the south, at Appomattox Station, supplies had arrived by train and were waiting there. However, the pursuing Union forces knew this also and took a faster southern route to the station. By 8pm that evening the Federals had taken the supplies and would wait there for the evening, preparing to attack the Confederates at Appomattox Court House in the morning. Meanwhile, Lee scribbled out a brave response to Grant's inquiry simply asking for explanation of the terms to be involved in the surrender. THE FINAL BATTLE At daybreak the Confederate battle line was formed to the west of Appomattox. The Union soldiers were in position in front of the line with cannons. When the Federal cannons started to fire, the Confederate signal for attack was sounded and the troops charged. One soldier later remarked: "It was my fortune to witness several charges during the war, but never one so magnificently executed as this one." (McCarthy, Carlton, Detailed Minutiae of Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia 1861-1865. Richmond: Carlton McCarthy, 1882) This Confederate advance only lasted from about 7am to 9am, at which time the Rebels were forced back. The Confederates could no longer hold their lines and Lee sent word to Grant to meet at 1pm to discuss surrender. The two men met at the now famous McLean House and a surrender was agreed upon. It was 2pm on April 9, 1865. Johnston's army surrendered to General Sherman on April 26 in North Carolina; General Taylor of Mississippi-Alabama and General Smith of the trans Mississippi-Texas surrendered in May ending the war completely. SUMMARY The Civil War was a completely tragic event. Just think, a war in which thousands of Americans died in their home country over nothing more than a difference in opinion. Yes, slavery was the cause of the Civil War: half of the country thought it was wrong and the other half just couldn't let them go. The war was fought overall in probably 10,000 different places and the monetary and property loss cannot be calculated. The Union dead numbered 360,222 and only 110,000 of them died in battle. Confederate dead were estimated at 258,000 including 94,000 who actually died on the field of battle. The Civil War was a great waste in terms of human life and possible accomplishment and should be considered shameful. Before its first centennial, tragedy struck a new country and stained it for eternity. It will never be forgotten but adversity builds strength and the United States of America is now a much stronger nation. --- BIBLIOGRAPHY "The Civil War", Groliers Encyclopedia, 1995 Catton, Bruce., A Stillness at Appomattox. New York: Doubleday, 1963 Foote, Shelby., The Civil War, Vol. 3. New York: Random, 1974 Garraty, John Arthur, The American Nation: A History of the United states to 1877, Vol. 1, Eighth Edition. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995 Miers, Earl Schenck, The Last Campaign. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1972 Korn, Jerry, Pursuit to Appomattox, The Last Battles. Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1987 Word Count: 2436 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\CivilWar2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Naval Battles Civil War - Monitor vs. Merrimack The battle on March 9, 1862, between the USS Monitor and the CSS Merrimack, officially the CSS Virginia, is one of the most revolutionary naval battles in world history. Up until that point, all battles had been waged between wooden ships. This was the first battle in maritime history that two ironclad ships waged war. The USS Merrimack was a Union frigate throughout most of its existence, up until the Union Navy abandoned the Norfolk Naval Yard. To prevent the Confederate Navy from using her against them, the Union Navy scuttled her. The Confederates, however, raised the ship from the shallow floor of the ocean and began making some major modifications. Confederate engineers cut the hull down to the water line and built a slanted top on it. Then, they bolted four layers of iron sheets, each two inches thick, to the entire structure. Also added was a huge battering ram to the bow of the ship to be used in ramming maneuvers. The ship was then fitted with ten twelve-pound cannons. There were four guns placed on the starboard and port sides, and one on the bow and stern sides. Due to its massive nature the ship's draft was enormous, it stretched twenty-two feet to the bottom. The ship was so slow and long, that it required a turning radius of about one mile. Likened to a "floating barn roof (DesJardien 2)" and not predicted to float, the only individual willing to take command of the ship was Captain Franklin Buchanan. After all the modifications were complete, the ship was rechristened the CSS Virginia, but the original name the CSS Merrimack is the preferred name. The USS Monitor was the creation of Swedish-American engineer, John Ericsson. The ship was considered small for a warship, only 172 feet long and 42 feet wide. Confederate sailors were baffled by the ship. One was quoted describing her as ". . . a craft such as the eyes of a seaman never looked upon before, an immense shingle floating on the water with a giant cheese box rising from its center" (Ward 101). The "cheese box" was a nine by twenty foot revolving turret with two massive guns inside. "The USS Monitor used two of the eleven inch Dahlgran guns . . ." (Lavy 2). These Dahlgran guns were massive rifled cannons that were capable of firing a variety of shot. The armor of this ship was a two inch thick layer of steel that shielded the ship. The deck was so low to the water line, about one foot, that waves frequently washed over the deck causing the ship to lose its balance in the water. Due to the low profile, the entire crew was located below the water line, so one armor piercing hit would kill the entire crew. Like the CSS Merrimack, the USS Monitor was expected to sink, it was referred to as "Ericsson's Folly" (DesJardien 2). The only individual willing to take command of the ship was Lieutenant John Worden. The battle at Hampton Roads was part of the Peninsula Campaign that lasted from March to August of 1862. There was a total of five ships engaged in the battle. From the US Navy, there were four ships, the USS Congress, USS Minnesota, USS Cumberland, and the USS Monitor. The CS Navy had one ship, the CSS Merrimack. On March 8, 1862, the CSS Merrimack steamed into Hampton Roads. She proceeded to sink the USS Cumberland and then ran the USS Congress aground. Captain Buchanan then set his sights on the already handicapped USS Minnesota. The USS Minnesota was run aground on one of the shores. Capt. Buchanan did not know, but the USS Monitor was lying in wait, ordered to protect the wounded USS Minnesota. Lt. Worden steamed out into the middle of the bay to meet the CSS Merrimack. The USS Monitor fired first in a drawn out battle that lasted about four and a half hours. "They fired shot, shell, grape, canister, musket and rifle balls doing no damage to each other" (Lavy 3). After four and a half hours, the CSS Merrimack withdrew due to falling tides. The USS Monitor did not make chase because of a crack in the turret. The results of the battle were inconclusive, neither side could claim victory. The estimated casualties resulting from the battle were extensive. The Union lost about 409 sailors and the Confederacy lost about 24 sailors. The battle was so impressive to the leaders of both the Union and the Confederacy, that they contracted their Naval yards to have more ironclad ships built. Additions to the Confederate fleet included the CSS Tennessee, a 209 foot long blockade runner with four broadside cannons and pivoted cannons at the bow and stern. Additions to the Union Navy included the USS Carondelet. Armed with thirteen guns and stationed on the Mississippi, she was a formidable opponent. Prior to the building of the USS Monitor, the USS New Ironsides was built. "It was the strongest ship ever built by the Northern Navy" (Lavy 4). Wooden ships were now obsolete. Ironclad ships began to roll out of ship yards more often than their wooden counterparts. "The invention of ironclads in the Civil War set examples for the future of ship building in the United States" (Lavy 5). The ironclads were at an advantage over the wooden ships of the two Navies because of their superior technology. Ironclads could withstand hours of battering by artillery, and they could be used to cut traffic lanes through mine fields. Their armor could resist the blast from a mine considerably better than any wooden ship could. They could also carry more powerful guns. Due to their increased stability in the water these massive ships could easily endure the recoil of a huge cannon. Another useful characteristic of the ironclads was their ability to be used in ramming missions. The hull of the ship would not be compromised by a hit associated with ramming a wooden vessel. Because of Civil War technology, the United States has never built another wooden battleship since the introduction of the ironclads. Every armed conflict since then has seen more and more improvements in the way ironclad ships were built. The introduction of multiple massive turrets in the late 1800s improved the firepower dramatically. Later renovations included improved power plants and more devastating weapons. Perhaps the greatest renovation came in the pre-World War I era with the introduction of the aircraft carrier. Today, ironclad ships are so advanced that they are scarcely bigger than the ironclads used in the Civil War, but they are hundreds if not thousands times more powerful. Although the wooden ship has proved extremely effective in naval battles throughout history, the advent of the ironclad totally revolutionized the way in which naval forces around the world approach warfare. "From the moment the two ships opened fire that Sunday morning, every other navy on earth was obsolete" (Ward 102). --- Works Cited DesJardien, Matt. "The Ironclads." www.shorelin.wednet.edu/Echo Lake/Civil War/Matt D*Ironclads.html. Lavy, Gabe. "A Comparison of the Role and Importance of the Northern and Southern Navies to the Fighting of the Civil War." www.geocities.com/Athens/2391/Final.htm. "Monitor v. Merrimack," Microsoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia. Microsoft Corp., Funk and Wagnalls Corp. 1993-95. Ward, Geoffrey C. The Civil War: An Illustrated History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1990. Word Count: 1232 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Colonial Exchange during the Age of Discovery.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Colonial Exchange during the Age of Discovery The voyages of the Iberians marked history. The discovery of the new world meant the unification of two old worlds. These old worlds had different beliefs, attitudes, language, and values. The culture of these two worlds would never be the same. The native peoples of America at the end of the fifteenth century ranged from the simplest hunting-fishing-gathering societies to highly developed civilizations with urban and peasant components. In spite of these notable differences, they were alike in that they had all developed from the level of pre-bow-arrow hunters without significant contact with other regions. There high civilizations were based on agricultural and trading economies, with craft specialization, large cities, monumental architechture, elaborate politico-religious organizations, and dense populations. Soft metal was worked, writing was being developed, and the idea of the wheel was present in toys. Until the end of the fifteenth century, the peoples of the Iberian Peninsula were grouped in several politically autonomous units, resulting in significant cultural and social differences. These people shared the same basic cultural history through several millenia, during which time they were exposed to the basic innovations of Western Eurasia and North Africa. Phoenicians and Greeks brought civilization from the Eastern Mediterranean, and Neolithic farmers from Africa had been followed by Hallstat iron workers from Europe. Six centuries of Roman domination gave the peninsula a common language, unified political control, widespread urbanization, and other forms and values of Rome. Agriculture, medicine, mathematics, and other forms of science was brought in by the Graeco-Roman learning of antiquity during the Moorish invasion. The first natives Columbus encountered were the Taino branch of the Arawak language on Guanahani. These people grew corn, yams, and other roots for food; they knew how to make cassava bread, to spin and weave cotton, and make pottery. Columbus wrote, "They invite you to share anything that they posess, and show as much love as their hearts were in it". The impression to the European scholars was that the ignorance to money and iron, and their nudity was due to the fact that these people were "holdovers from the golden age". The Indians were organized into class societies (with few possible exceptions among the more rudementary societies) and the poor were ground under the heel of the rich. This system was sanctioned by the Indian laws and customs, and based on the inequalities of land ownership. The poor lived in miserable huts, did all the labour, and enjoyed none of the amenities of life, except indulgence in the forms of escape from misery and relief from oppression that characterized many other peoples in Europe and Asia. The peoples inhabiting America in 1492 were divided into many hundreds of language groups. The following main groups may be distinguished: 1.The Nahua-speaking peoples from Central Mexico to Nicaragua. 2.The Maya: Yucatan and Guatemala. 3.The Chibchas: Central America, western Columbia, and northwestern Ecuador. 4.The Quechuas: the Andean mountains from southern Ecuador to northern Chile. 5.The Aymaras: Highlands of Bolivia. 6.The Araucanian-Patagonians: southern Chile and the plains of sounthern Argentina. a. The Machupe: Chile, central valley. b. The Pinchue: North of the Mancupe, now extinct. 7.The Guarani and Tupi Indians: the forested portions of northern La Plata basin, and Brazil. a.Tupi: Kamaraiura; Awiti. 8.The Caribs and Arawaks: Venezuela, part of the Guinanas, Brazil, and the west Indies. a.Carib: Kuikura; Kalapalo; Migiyapei(formerly members of the Jagami and the Wagifiti village groups). b.Arawaks: Waura; Mehinaku; Yawalipit. 9.The Trumai: an isolated language once lived in several villages of their own. Today they are represented by a few survivors living at Posta Leonardo, Brazil While the Indians in several parts of America had made great progress in developing plants, fertilization of soils, and terracing of lands, their food-producing capacity was less than that of the invading Europeans, and their agricultural techniques less advanced. The natives did not use plows or other technical devices. The ending of the Indian Nations, and the start of the Latin American traditions and customs resulted from hardtimes for the Indians. The Spaniards came to the conclusion that the Arawaks, their first guides, were lazy, barbarian, and perhaps even subhuman because trhey did not want to work hard gathering gold, "that good for nothing stuff". European raiders made devestating use of their superiority: The horse gave them mobility, speed, and a wide operating range; the shepard's dog made it possible to avoid ambushes and track down and terrorize Indians; and their traditional steel weapons, mainly swords and shields, were far more effective than firearms, which were scarce, expensive, and easily ruined by rust in the tropics. Finally the virulent spread of European diseases was the final blow to the Arawaks, as well as other tribes. Practically all thew Arawaks were wiped out before the Caribs could eat them all. The State's dealing with Indians was both complicated and simplified by the enormous losses in numbers that they suffered during the century after contact with the Europeans. The Native population of the Bahamas and the Greater Antilles disappeared completely during the sixteenth century. The modern boundaries of Peru held as many as nine million people in the early 1520s; by 1620 the number had fallen to about 600,000. Mexico suffered an equal loss. The population of central and southern Mexico was probably over ten million in the early years of the sixteenth century. Around 1620 to 1625, the numbers were about 730,000. Because the American peoples, long isolated themselves from the rest of humanity and its germs, had no resistance to them. Such disease included smallpox, plague, measles, and many more, even the common cold. Bibliography Basso, Ellen B. THE KALAPALO INDIANS OF CENTRAL BRAZIL. New York: Holt 1973 Cespedes, Guillermo. LATIN AMERICA, THE EARLY YEARS. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1974 Diffie, Bailey W. LATIN AMERICAN CIVILIZATION. New york: Octagon 1967 Elliott, J.H. THE SPANISH WORLD. New York: Abrams 1991 Faron, Louis C. THE MAPUCHE INDIANS OF CHILE. Illinois: Waveland 1986 Foster, George M. CULTURE AND CONQUEST. Chicago: Quadrangle 1960 Morrison, Samuel Eliot. THE EUROPEAN DISCOVERY OF AMERICA. New York: Oxford University 1967 Parry, J.H. THE DISCOVERY OF SOUTH AMERICA. New York: Taplinger 1979 Reindrop, Reginald C. SPANISH AMERICAN CUSTOMS, CULTURE AND PERSONALITY. END OF A NEW WORLD. Films for the Humanities. A NEW WORLD IS BORN. Films for the Humanities. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Communism East Europe.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Communism East Europe TITLE: Why did communism collapse in Eastern Europe? SUBJECT: European Studies B EDUCATION: First year university GRADE: first honour AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: I liked it. Interested to hear other people's comments. TUTOR'S COMMENTS: Well done!! Extremely informative. Well researched. Good Layout. Stress Gorbachev's role more. Communism is like Prohibition - itÆs a good idea but it wonÆt work (Will Rogers, 1927) (1) This essay will give a brief introduction to communism. It will then discuss the various factors which combined to bring about the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. It will examine each of these factors and evaluate the effect of each. Finally it will attempt to assertain whether RogersÆ opinion (see above quotation) on Communism is true, that is, whether communism was truly doomed to fail from the start, or whether its collapse was a result of external influences. Communism is based on the ideas and teachings of Karl Marx as modified by Lenin. At its most basic, the ideal of communism is a system in which everyone is seen as equal and wealth is distributed equally among the people. There is no private ownership. The state owns and controls all enterprises and property. The state is run by one leading elite. The Soviet model of communism was based on these ideals. All opposition parties were banned although parties who were sympathetic to communism and who shared the communist ideals were allowed. All power was concentrated into the hands of the Communist party. Free press and civil liberties were suppressed. Censorship and propaganda were widely used. There was state ownership of the economy. No private enterprise was allowed. There was a collectivisation of agriculture. The Communist Party invaded and controlled every aspect of political, social, cultural and economic life. It was a totalitarian state with complete Communist control over all facets of life. In the early years, and up until GorbachevÆs ônew regimeö, the use of force and terror as a means of maintaining control was widespread. The first factor which contributed to the failure and eventual collapse of communism was the fact that the Communist partyÆs domination was illegitimate from the beginning. Lenin came to power after a bloody Civil War between those who supported Lenin and those who opposed the Soviet regime. To Lenin, defeat was unthinkable and he was prepared to make any and every sacrifice to win the war and save the revolution. The forcible requisitioning of food and supplies was approved by Lenin. This could only be achieved by enforcing strict and absolute discipline at every level of society. Terror was to become the chief instrument of power and Lenin was to assume the role of dictator. This was a phenomenon which was to become a symbol of communist regimes throughout their lifetime. This trend was followed when Stalin came to power as leader of the Communist party and the Russian government in 1929. (2) He had achieved this through plotting and trickery and by shifting alliances. This had begun in 1924 when Stalin systematically began to remove all opposition to his claim to power. His main rival was Trotsky and he used a number of underhand measures to discredit him. For example Stalin lied to Trotsky about the date of LeninÆs funeral, thus ensuring that Trotsky could not attend and thereby blackening his name in the public eye. This Stalin versus Trotsky conflict led to Trotsky being eventually exiled from Russia and, ten years later in 1940, being assassinated by one of StalinÆs agents. (3) Under Stalin any opposition was swiftly and brutally crushed. In no Eastern European country did the revolution have the support of more than a minority of people, yet this minority retained absolute control. The communist take-over and subsequent regime was achieved by undemocratic methods, that is, rigged elections, terror, totalitarian state, harassment and threats. In 1932 a two-hundred page document by a fellow member of the Politburo condemning the Stalinist regime and calling for change was published. (4) In response to this Stalin wreaked a terrible revenge. In 1936 Stalin began what became known as the ôpurgesö whose function it was to try members of the communist party who had acted treasonously. (5) The result of these was that five thousand party members were arrested and stripped of their membership. The sixteen defendants in the three Showtrials of 1936, 1937 and 1938 were found guilty and executed. In 1939 those who had conducted the purges were also executed. By 1939 the only member of LeninÆs original Politburo who remained, was Stalin himself. (6) In relation to foreign policy, Stalin exerted his influence to ensure that all Eastern European countries (except Yugoslavia) had Soviet-imposed puppet regimes. StalinÆs domination was now total. After the war Stalin succeeded in establishing a communist buffer zone between Russia and Western Europe. Any resistance he met in establishing communist states was quickly suppressed by intimidation and terror. For example Stalin engineered a communist coup in May 1948 in Czechoslovakia in which a government minister Masaryk was killed and the president was forced to resign. (7) This served a warning to other countries against resisting the communist regime. Therefore it can clearly be seen that from the establishment of the state that communism never had popular public support. It cannot be denied that there was a significant minority who supported communism, but these were a minority. Can an ideal and a leadership really be built on such a shallow and flimsy basis? This essay would argue that the answer to this question is no. For a leadership to lead, it must have strong support and confidence. It must be seen to work for the good of the people and not merely a vociferous minority. This, therefore, can be argued to be one of the contributing factors in the downfall of communism. A second related factor, which had a hand in bringing about the end of communism in Eastern Europe was the fact that communism never really had the support of the people. There was constant societal opposition to communist rule in Eastern Europe. Although this was mainly in the form of a passive rumbling dissent, there were occasional violent and active shows of opposition to communist rule. The states of Eastern Europe in the post-war period had been forced to adhere to the Moscow line. After 1956 however, with KhrushchevÆs new approach to Socialism and his denunciation of Stalin, there were increasing calls for independence among the communist bloc countries who had never been truly supportive of the communist regime. In East Germany in 1953 there were a series of strikes and protests. (8) The Russians, under Stalin, used their armed forces to put down the revolt and to protect East GermanyÆs communist government. This shows the importance of Soviet military force in maintaining communismÆs tenuous grip on power. It also shows how weak communist rule in East Germany really was, It was this event that sealed East GermanyÆs fate as the USSR realised that in a united Germany, the Communists would lose control. Events eventually culminated with the building of the Berlin Wall which was the ultimate expression of Soviet and communist force and coercion in maintaining the communist regime. Under Khrushchev, who had succeeded Stalin after his death in 1953, Poland was the first to revolt against the communist regime. Polish workers rioted and went on strike in 1956 and the Polish communist party also revolted by refusing to accept the Russian general Rokossovsky as the Polish Minister for Defence. (9) The situation was diffused by a compromise which was made on both sides, with Poland agreeing to remain in the communist Eastern bloc if the nationalist communist leader Gomulka, who had been imprisoned by Stalin, was reinstated. The fact that Khrushchev was willing to compromise illustrates again the precarious position of communist rule. The Hungarian revolution of 1956 was borne out of the relative success of the Poles in achieving concessions for the Moscow leadership. (10) The Hungarians decided to overthrow the Stalinist regime in their country. The situation quickly deteriorated and on the 23rd of October the Hungarian troops, who had been dispatched to end the riots, joined the civilians in revolution. Soviet troops were called in and the Hungarian communist party lost the little support which they had. Again Khrushchev tried to diffuse the situation by offering a compromise, that is, the reinstatement of the moderate communist leader Nagy. When it became clear, however, that Nagy had every intention of pulling out of the Soviet communist bloc, Khrushchev resorted to force and violence to maintain the communist grip on Hungary. He ordered the return of Soviet tanks and troops to Budapest on November 4th 1956. (11) Thousands were killed in a bloody street battle until the Soviets had re- established their control. Nagy was arrested and was executed two years later. A Soviet imposed communist regime under Janos Kadar was set up. (12) The tenuous communist grip on control is again illustrated here. Khrushchev was willing to barter, and eventually use force, to maintain Soviet control. Without this force and coercion, however, Hungary would have established its own brand of communist rule. Khrushchev could not risk the domino effect that this action would have had on the Eastern bloc. This societal opposition can, therefore, be taken to be another contributing factor in the downfall of communist rule in the Eastern bloc. If those in the alliance cannot cooperate and work together, the alliance and the ideal cannot hope to survive. Another important factor which this essay will discuss is that of the influence of the West on the Eastern bloc. The Eastern bloc was already aware of Western capitalist success as they were allies during the war. Many of the Eastern countries, for example Hungary under Nagy or Czechoslovakia under Dubcek, were in favour of a communist system with some elements of capitalism, that is, a mixed economy or market socialism and more elements of democracy. There had been a breakdown in relations between the East and West due to tensions after WWII. After the war Russia wanted to create a sphere of influence in the East over which the West would have no say or control. This was not acceptable to the West who wanted to see democracy installed in the East and who wanted to have a continued input into the doings of the East. This conflict ventually led to the Cold War. Until Khrushchev became leader of the Soviet bloc, there had been no significant contact between the two blocs. Those inside of the Soviet bloc were completely cut off from the Western ideals. When Khrushchev came to power, however, there as renewed hope in the West that there might be a ôthawö in relations between the two blocs. Relations between the two blocs did improve with Khrushchev attending a number of conferences and meetings. For example a twelve-day visit to the US in 1959, a UN General Assembly, also in 1959 and a later UN General Assembly meeting in 1960 in the US. (13) Although then relations began to break down again due to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and the Eastern bloc became cut off once more, western ideas had already managed to penetrate the East. (14) The information that the capitalist West was thriving while the Communist Eastern bloc was stagnating and underdeveloped, made communism and Soviet control even more unpopular. In 1963 there again was an easing of tensions between the two blocs when Russia and the US signed a test ban treaty which allowed the WestÆs influence to again creep into the East. (15) In 1964 Khrushchev was ousted from power and Brezhnev with Kosygin took over from him. (16) In 1966 the US and USSR agreed to a direct air service between Moscow and New York. In 1967 they, along with 60 other countries, signed the first international treaty providing for the peaceful exploration of outer space. (17) In the 1970Æs a period of D_tente began. In 1970 West Germany and Poland signed a treaty rejecting the use of force. West Germany and Russia ratified a similar treaty in 1972. (18) In 1972 Nixon and Brezhnev signed the SALT I treaty which was to limit the production of US and Russian nuclear weapons. In 1973 East and West Germany joined the UN. (19) Throughout this period the West had more and more access to the Eastern bloc and the people of the communist countries were influenced by these ideas. This was a further blow to communist rule and another factor in the downfall of communism. The next contributing factor to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe was that of its economic failure. During the years of war communism from 1918-1921, Soviet labourers worked for pittance wages. At the same time the Bolshevik confiscated virtually all harvests. This brought the country to the brink of economic collapse. The net result of war communism under Lenin was that from 1914 the countryside was neglected and destroyed and in 1920 there was a severe drought. (20) In 1921 the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced. This was in effect a limited capitalism. Peasants were allowed to keep their surpluses after taxes were paid. Bonuses, extra rations and better housing were offered as incentives. Still there was widespread opposition to the communist policy with the beginnings of a ôpeasant warö against StalinÆsÆ proposed collectivisation policy in 1928. (21) Although agricultural production increased, the standard of living was lowered and hardship was widespread. Forcible collectivisation was pursued until 1935. This again shows the peopleÆs general opposition to communist policies. Collectivisation failed to meet agricultural requirements during WWII. The human cost of the policy was staggering. If the people are suffering under a particular regime they will not support it, how then can this regime hope to survive? When Khrushchev came to power, he too failed to salvage the economy. Although some of the policies which he introduced in the 1950Æs had an initial success, they soon collapsed with disastrous effects. Figures for meat in 1958 were artificially high but collapsed soon after. In 1962 there were sharp increases in the prices of butter and meat. (22) Food riots were forcibly quelled by the shooting of seventy unarmed demonstrators in 1962. (23) Industry was not faring any better and by 1963 production levels had declined sharply in every branch of industry. As Khrushchev himself said of communism in 1958:- ôIf, after forty years of communism, a person cannot have a glass of milk and a pair of shoes, he will not believe that communism is a good thingö (24) Under Brezhnev the economic state of the USSR continued to decline. Support for communism was falling and due to improved relations with the West, the people could see how disadvantaged they were. Under Andropov who succeeded Brezhnev in 1982 the situation did not improve. Change began only when Gorbachev came to power in 1985. (25) The major problems in the economy which Gorbachev had to deal with were, the wasteful use of resources, the lack of innovation, a poor division of labour, too many costly products being produced, ineffective use of resources and low productivity. There was a resistance to technological innovation due to a lack of incentives. Wages were low and the mechanisms involved in introducing a new idea or practice were time-consuming and complicated. There was a general inflexibility in the enterprise network which also stifled innovation. There was also a lack of investment in new ideas and industry. GorbachevÆs solution to these problems was a ôPerestroikaö of the economy. The challenge of Perestroika was to move to more intensive methods of production and more effective use of inputs. His economic polices began with the promise of a revival of some of the practices of NEP. His aim was to cause output to double by the year 2000 and for production and productivity to rise substantially. It was not until 1987, however, that these ideas were put into a concrete plan. (26) A vigorous anti-alcohol campaign was initiated. Vineyards were destroyed and beer production was cut-back. By 1988, however, they had to admit that this policy was a complete failure and it was abandoned in 1990. (27) By 1985 the USSR had a budget deficit of R37 billion. (28) Due to miscalculations in relation to the extent of the budget deficit, Gorbachev authorised spending in social and investment sectors while maintaining the spending in the military sector. This was a gross mistake which resulted in the budget deficit in 1989 having increased to R100 billion or 11% of the Gross National Product (GNP) and was predicted to rise to R120 billion. Therefore, under Gorbachev, the budget deficit rose from 3% in 1985 to 14% in 1989. (29) Inflation increased to over 5%. (30) Prices failed to reflect the high cost of production and many companies were working at a loss. This economic failure of communism meant that support for the system fell and that it was becoming increasingly more difficult for the communist party to convince the people that this indeed was the way forward, and a better solution than capitalism. Gorbachev therefore aimed to tie salaries into achieved results and to remove subsidies on some goods and services. He did not act immediately, however, with his price reform package as he hoped to first achieve a balance between supply and demand. This merely worsened matters and wages continued to rise faster than output and productivity. The main failure of Perestroika is that it didnÆt remove the old price system. Instead, it allowed the old price system, which was based on scarcity, to continue, and this merely exacerbated shortages. Ironically, it was the mass organisations of people, who had emerged to defend living standards, who actually hampered the struggle against inflation and the budget deficit. This situation was partly created by the fact that the governing party had no popular support and hadnÆt been popularly elected. The economic situation continued to decline. There was a zero growth rate. Shops were calculated to be lacking 243 out 276 basic consumer items and there was a chronic shortage of 1000 items out of 1200 which would be on a model shopping list. There was a static farm output and high levels of inflation. (31) Therefore it can be seen that communism was an economic disaster. KhrushchevÆs remark again can be used to illustrate the effect which this had on the support for communism. (see ref 24). As previously mentioned, communism never had majority support or a legitimate political basis. Force and coercion were regularly used to ensure that the communist party remained in power. Therefore one can maintain that the fact that communism was a political failure was also a contributing factor to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. If a party has not got the support of a majority, then it has a weak political basis. The fact that undemocratic means were used to ensure that the communists came to, and then maintained, power shows that communism was a political failure. Throughout the history of communism in Russia, never once did the party gain a majority support or truly succeed in suppressing public demonstrations of antipathy towards communism. It can therefore be argued that a political leadership with no political basis or support could ever hope to survive. Another important factor to note is communismÆs utter failure in relation to society and culture. Soviet society under Communist rule was socially and culturally underdeveloped. The state had a say in every aspect of societal life. In response to low birth rates, large numbers of orphans and the failure of 37/100 marriages in 1934 alone, the communist leadership compelled the media to promote stable family life. (32) Propaganda was used to coerce the people into believing in the positive virtues of marriage and children. Divorce was made more difficult and abortion was prohibited. Thus the peopleÆs right to choose and exert control over their own personal and familial decisions was removed. In schools, the teaching of the social sciences was curtailed and Marxist and Leninist theories were expounded. In the late thirties fees were reintroduced for the three upper forms of secondary school. This effectively meant that only those who could afford to pay these fees could send their children on to further academic training as these were the forms which prepared children for higher education. (33) Under Stalin topographical, economic and political information and affairs were a state secret. Maps were inaccurate and details about past disasters and history were omitted or embellished. Propaganda and brainwashing was used to ensure that the virtues of communism were extolled and a cult following was created around Lenin and Stalin. ôA Short Course on the History of the CPSUö became the staple intellectual diet of all schoolchildren. (34) This was a propagandistic book based on an idealistic view of communism and its leaders. The mass arrests, the truth of the purges and the labour camps were not allowed to be discussed in the media. State monopoly of information and mass communications deployed in this way, and backed by the use of coercion and force and the military, degraded the nationÆs intellectual and cultural life. People were simply not allowed to form an opinion contrary to that of the communist state. People were also not allowed to choose their own religion or follow their own personal religious beliefs. The state outlawed and censored religious ôpropagandaö and publications. The Soviet state actively and brutally persecuted the churches. A large number of these were desecrated or destroyed. More than half of all monasteries were forced to close and in 1921 twenty-eight bishops were arrested or died in violent clashes with the Soviet military. (35) Attempts were also made to split the church from the inside. By 1939 only 12 bishops, out of the 163 who had been active in 1930, remained. (36) These repressive measures, as a whole, meant that the growth of Soviet culture and society was stunted and stagnating. The secrecy and lies undermined efficiency, isolated individuals and eroded the morale of society. This was compounded by the fact that, due to Western influences, the public in the communist countries were beginning to realise their predicament and their backwardness. These measures continued until Gorbachev came to power. This point leads onto the most important factor which contributed to the eventual collapse of communism in the East, that is, Gorbachev. Without Gorbachev it is doubtful that the disintegration of the communist regime would have occurred so soon. Gorbachev can be seen as a reform communist. He introduced a number of revolutionary reforms like Perestroika and Glasnost. The combined effect of these policies, and his general attitude to reform, communism and the USSR, had the effect of causing the culmination of all opposition to communism and collapsing the system. Glasnost proved to be a great relief valve which allowed the people to voice their long-standing discontent about communism and the communist regime as a whole. The positive elements of Glasnost had the effect of bringing national tensions to the surface of political and social life and, in a sense, exacerbating the national problem. Liberalisation made people less afraid of retribution when they spoke out against the injustices of the system and the atrocities which had occurred. The ripple effect of GorbachevÆs radical Perestroika and Glasnost weakened the authority of thecommunist governments - economically, socially and ideologically. Above all the failure of communism lay in the failure of GorbachevÆs Perestroika. If the economy had improved then so too would the peopleÆs well- being and they may have considered maintaining the communist regime. The fundamental problem with Perestroika was how to change a system which had been built to withstand change. It was increasingly fractured. It had originally been based on inaccurate figures about the well-being of the economy and the national debt. Life under Perestroika became even harder for the majority of Soviet people. There were no state-employed social groups or skilled workers who stood to gain from Perestroika in the short term. Economic reform involved hard work and higher prices and therefore Perestroika was short on support. As the economic situation worsened, sotoo did the peopleÆs support for communism fall. This time there was a difference however. Due to Glasnost the people and the media were now free to criticise the policy. Glasnost had the effect of ensuring that the previous reign of terror which the communist leadership had held, was brought to an end. Gorbachev employed a policy of ôGlasnostö, that is, openness and the right to criticise and express an opinion. Up until then Soviet society was closed. No criticism or freedom of speech was allowed. The major feature of Glasnost is that of the lifting of most of the restrictions which had beenimposed on the circulation of information since communism began. The blank pages in history were about to be filled in. Gorbachev realised that the former policy of absolute secrecy was a major force holding back the development of society. Censorship was relaxed. This had the adverse effect of allowing the public criticism of a regime which previously could not be criticised. Gorbachev also allowed increasing independence to the Eastern bloc states. He had come to the conclusion that compelling an unwilling population to live under a system they detested was not ensuring the USSRÆs security, but on the contrary, jeopardising it. He indicated by omission, rather than by direct statement, that he would not obstruct a change which would result in these states achieving a measure of independence. In Czechoslovakia on the 18th of January 1989 there was a decision taken to legalise Solidarity. (37) On the 10th of February the Hungarian communists agreed to a multi-party system and there was no opposition to this on the part of the Soviets. On 29th March Moscow told the Hungarians that they would not interfere in East European affairs. (38) In Poland on January 18th, Solidarity had been legalised after a string of protests and riots in Hungary. (39) This led to an agreement between the communist government and Solidarity, the main focus of which was the holding of the first relatively free elections since the 1940Æs in Poland. The elections were devastating to the communists. They were swept out of the Senate and did not have any representatives elected to the Sejm until the second round of counting. (40) This had a domino effect and hastened events elsewhere. Far from GorbachevÆs original hope that allowing the Eastern states more freedom would bring the union closer together, it was tearing the union apart. Kadar was ousted from Hungary and the communists were swept aside by the Hungarian Democratic Forum. On September 11th Hungary opened its borders with Austria and allowed thousands of East Germans to cross to the west. (41) The people of East Germany were demanding Glasnost and Perestroika. On October 9th a mass demonstration of 70,000 people occurred in Leipzig. (42) Thousands of Germans were escaping to the west through Hungary and the GDR was powerless to stop them. Honecker, the East German leader, buckled under the pressure and resigned. The net effect of which was that his successors allowed the opening of the Berlin Wall on 8th November 1989 after the East German government and communist leadership resigned. (43) On the 24th of November the Czechoslovak Communist Party resigned after mass demonstrations in Prague of up to 800,000 people. On the 7th of December the communist government in Czechoslovakia collapsed entirely and a new non-communist government was formed. (44) GorbachevsÆs reforms were wreaking havoc on the communist system. Its base, already weak and fragile, began to crumble away under the massive wave of anti-communist feeling which had finally come to the fore after years of suppression. On the 11th of December Bulgarian communists were forced to agree to a multi-party system and on the 25th, the Rumanian leader Ceausescu and his wife were tried and executed. (45) All of this was borne out of GorbachevÆs reforms. The communist regime had been built on force and coercion, terror and undemocratic methods. This regime could therefore not be expected to survive under such an onslaught. In refusing the Eastern bloc communist parties aid to suppress the revolts within, Gorbachev effectively sealed their fate. The communist parties in those countries had always relied on Soviet force for support in maintaining control of the countries, now that his support had been removed the regimes crumbled. Therefore the significance of the Gorbachev factor cannot be denied when discussing the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe. If Gorbachev had not introduced his reforms or had not refused aid to the other Eastern bloc communist parties, the communist regime may have still stood today. Gorbachev may not have been the cause of the downfall, but he was certainly the trigger. The situation was like a fuse, Gorbachev merely provided the matches and refused to stop the fire. The final factor which this essay will examine, is that of the loss of elite party confidence. With his reforms Gorbachev had undermined the morale and confidence of the party elite. It had become clear that the communist cause had exhausted itself and was a failure. Their utopian hopes had been torn apart one by one throughout the years and Gorbachev had made them face this fact. This had a paralysing effect on them and led to their apathy about the ending of communism. If they had believed that there was something left to fight for they may have used physical force to overthrow Gorbachev and suppress the revolts, but they did not. Gorbachev had launched a step-by-step dismantling of the party and the nomenklatura under Perestroika. He separated and neutralised his most militant opponents among the conservative members of the party elite. At the 28th Congress the party elite was divided between those who would monitor the development of Glasnost and perestroika, and the Presidency who would champion the fight against the unreformable members of the nomenklatura. (46) Until the 28th Congress membership of the nomenklatura had been a ticket to wealth and power, after the conference it became a mere shell. Membership fell off and loyalties faded. A form of local government control was implemented by Gorbachev to further diminish the role of the Politburo. Piece by piece Gorbachev was chipping away at the old eliteÆs confidence and beliefs. The fact that Gorbachev was gaining support both from the public at home and abroad, further eroded their confidence. When the USSR began to collapse, however, certain voices in the party refused to allow Gorbachev dismantle more of their dreams. Yelstin was emerging at this time as an opponent to GorbachevÆs rule. In response Gorbachev banned a pro-Yelstin rally in Moscow in 1991. (47) Alarmed at a series of political strikes and a growing support for Yelstin, Gorbachev negotiated a compromise which stipulated that in return for an end to political strikes, Gorbachev would negotiate a new Union treaty which would give power to the republics. The day before this treaty was to be signed, however, its opponents moved to forestall it. Pugo announced that he was assuming presidential control as Gorbachev was ill and declared a state of emergency. (48) Gorbachev refused to concur with this announcement. Yelstin called for a general strike and said that the emergency government was ôunconstitutionalö. (49) Some workers went on strike, more did not. Battle lines were being drawn and the complete collapse of communism was not far behind. The leaders of the coup were arrested by GorbachevÆs men and Gorbachev returned to Moscow. The failed coup ironically however, had precipitated the process it had been trying to prevent, that is, the break up of the USSR and the demise of the communist party. In the Russian parliament Yelstin signed a decree suspending the communist party pending an investigation of the coup. Gorbachev had triumphed over the plotters but now had to capitulate to Yelstin. After a vain attempt at protest, Gorbachev resigned as General Secretary of the CPSU and recommended that the General Committee should disband itself. In June 1991 Yelstin was elected president of Russia. (50) After the failure of the coup most of the Soviet republics declared their independence and sovereignty. Gorbachev tried unsuccessfully to revive the Union treaty for several months afterwards, but to no avail. The chain of events had been set in motion and could not be stopped now. On the 8th of December 1991 Yelstin, along with the Beloruissian and Ukraine leaders issued a statement which declared the end of the USSR. They offered a ôCommonwealth of Independent Statesö in return and invited other countries to join. (51) Gorbachev protested at first but then bowed to the inevitable. Communism in Eastern Europe had collapsed. On the 25th of December 1991, he tendered his resignation as president of the USSR and the communist flag was lowered from the Kremlin dome to be replaced by the Russian tricolour. (52) Communism in Eastern Europe, therefore, collapsed for a number of reasons. It had no political basis or popular support. It was riddled with economic problems and, in comparison to capitalism, was a complete failure. Finally the Gorbachev factor and the loss of elitist party confidence fanned the flames and destroyed communism. Communism broke down because of fatal weaknesses built into the system from its inception. It is in a humanÆs nature to aim for success and prosperity. Communism denies the competitive trait which is inherent in all humans. Communism was rejected because it is not as good as alternative systems of satisfying humans material wants. Communism also is at odds with the other most basic instinct which a human has, that is, the desire for freedom. Communism, in practice, denied the expression of civil liberties, opinions and thought. It was also a forced rule which was only enforced by terror, not acceptance or majority ruling. Such a regime could only hope to last for a certain period, never indefinitely. GorbachevÆs reforms were merely the catalyst for this failure. Gorbachev wished to reform the system, not destroy it, but the situation rapidly went out of control as years of pent-up frustration and antipathy toward the communist regime was finally given expression. Can we therefore validate the quotation by Rogers which was made at the start of this essay? This essay would argue yes. A regime which is inherently against human nature can never hope to succeed. It is human to want what we cannot have and to be denied it, as with prohibition, makes us all the more determined and curious to achieve that which is forbidden. The same can be said to be true for communism. Therefore this essay would conclude that although there were a number of external contributory influence to the collapse of communism, communism as an ideal cannot hope to survive for long in anything more than a theoretical sense, as it is inherently contrary to the basic drives of human nature. FOOTNOTES (1) Various Inputs, Chronicle of the 20th Century Quotations (Guinness Publishing Ltd., 1996) page 36 (2) Various Inputs, World Book Encyclopaedias (World Book Inc., 1984) page 727 (3) Kehoe, A.M, Makers of 20th Century Europe (Mentor Publications Ltd., 1988) page 25 (4) Ibid., page 32 (5) Ibid. (6) Ibid., page 33 (7) Ibid., page 40 (8) OÆ Brien, Eileen, Modern Europe 1870-1966 (Mentor Publications Ltd., 1995) page 231 (9) Kehoe, A.M, op cit., page 50 (10) Ibid. (11) Ibid. (12) Ibid. (13) Ibid., page 52 (14) Ibid. (15) Various Inputs, op cit. (1984) page 618b (16) Ibid., page 618a (17) Ibid., page 618b (18) Ibid. (19) Ibid. (20) Kehoe, A.M, op cit. page 13 (21) Ibid. (22) Ibid., page 55 (23) Ibid. (24) Various Inputs, op cit. (1996) page 142 (25) Sakwa, Richard,Gorbachev and his Reforms 1985-1990 (Philip Allan, 1990) page 271 (26) Ibid. (27) Ibid., page 272 (28) Ibid. (29) Ibid. (30) Ibid. (31) Ibid., page 281 (32) Hosking, Geoffrey, A History of the Soviet Union (Fontana Press, 1992) page 213 (33) Ibid., page 215 (34) Ibid., page 218 (35) Ibid., page 228 (36) Ibid., page 235 (37) Ibid., page 245 (38) Ibid. (39) Ibid. (40) Ibid. (41) Ibid., page 466 (42) Ibid. (43) Ibid. (44) Ibid. (45) Ibid., page 468 (46) Novikov, Euvgeny & Bascio, Patrick, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Communist Party (Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 1994) page 68 (47) Hosking, Geoffrey, op cit. page 494 (48) Ibid., page 495 (49) Ibid. (50) Ibid., page 497 (51) Ibid., page 498 (52) Ibid. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, Archie, The Gorbachev Factor (Oxford University Press, 1996) Hosking, Geoffrey, A History of the Soviet Union (Fontana Press, 1992) Kehoe, A.M, Makers of 20th Century Europe (Mentor Publications Ltd., 1988) Miller, R.F & Miller, J.H & Rigby, T.H, Gorbachev at the Helm (Croom Helm, 1987) Novikov, Euvgeny & Bascio, Patrick, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Communist Party (Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 1994) OÆ Brien, Eileen, Modern Europe 1870-1966 (Mentor Publications Ltd., 1995) Sakwa, Richard, Gorbachev and his Reforms 1985-1990 (Philip Allan, 1990) Swain, Geoffrey & Swain, Nigel, Eastern Europe Since 1945 (St. MartinÆs Press Inc., 1993) Various Inputs, Chronicle of the 20th Century Quotations (Guinness Publishing Ltd., 1996) Various Inputs, World Book Encyclopaedias (World Book Inc., 1984) Word Count: 5774 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Communist China and Mao Tsetung.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Communist China and Mao Tse-tung "A look into it's introduction to Communism and the Man who led them" The Roots of Communist China To say that the Chinese Communist revolution is a non-Western revolution is more than a clich‚. That revolution has been primarily directed, not like the French Revolution but against alien Western influences that approached the level of domination and drastically altered China's traditional relationship with the world. Hence the Chinese Communist attitude toward China's traditional past is selectively critical, but by no means totally hostile. The Chinese Communist revolution, and the foreign policy of the regime to which it has given rise, have several roots, each of which is embedded in the past more deeply than one would tend to expect of a movement seemingly so convulsive. The Chinese superiority complex institutionalized in their tributary system was justified by any standards less advanced or efficient than those of the modern West. China developed an elaborate and effective political system resting on a remarkable cultural unity, the latter in turn being due mainly to the general acceptance of a common, although difficult, written language and a common set of ethical and social values, known as Confucianism. Traditional china had neither the knowledge nor the power that would have been necessary to cope with the superior science, technology, economic organization, and military force that expanding West brought to bear on it. The general sense of national weakness and humiliation was rendered still keener by a unique phenomenon, the modernization of Japan and its rise to great power status. Japan's success threw China's failure into sharp remission. The Japanese performance contributed to the discrediting and collapse of China's imperial system, but it did little to make things easier for the subsequent successor. The Republic was never able to achieve territorial and national unity in the face of bad communications and the widespread diffusion of modern arms throughout the country. Lacking internal authority, it did not carry much weight in its foreign relations. As it struggled awkwardly, there arose two more radical political forces, the relatively powerful Kuomintang of Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek, and the younger and weaker Communist Party of China (CPC ). With indispensable support from the CPC and the Third International, the Kuomintang achieved sufficient success so it felt justified in proclaiming a new government, controlled by itself, for the whole of China. For a time the Kuomintang made a valiant effort to tackle China's numerous and colossal problems, including those that had ruined its predecessor : poor communications and the wide distribution of arms. It also took a strongly anti-Western course in its foreign relations, with some success. It is impossible to say whether the Kuomintang's regime would ultimately have proven viable and successful if it had not been ruined by an external enemy, as the Republic had been by its internal opponents. The more the Japanese exerted preemptive pressures on China, the more the people tended to look on the Kuomintang as the only force that prevent china from being dominated by Japan. During the Sino- Japanese war of 1937, the Kuomintang immediately suffered major military defeats and lost control of eastern China. It was only saved from total hopelessness or defeat by Japan's suicidal decision to attack the United States and invasion of Southeastern Asia. But military rescue from Japan brought no significant improvement in the Kuomintang's domestic performance in the political and economic fields, which if anything to get worse. Clearly the pre-Communist history of Modern China has been essentially one of weakness, humiliation, and failure. This is the atmosphere in which the CPC developed its leadership and growth in. The result has been a strong determination on the part of that leadership to eliminate foreign influence within China, to modernize their country, and to eliminate Western influence from eastern Asia, which included the Soviet Union. China was changing and even developing, but its overwhelming marks were still poverty and weakness. During their rise to power the Chinese Communists, like most politically conscious Chinese, were aware of these conditions and anxious to eliminate them. Mao Tse-tung envisioned a mixed economy under Communist control, such as had existed in the Soviet Union during the period of the New Economic Policy. The stress was more upon social justice, and public ownership of the "commanding heights" of the economy than upon development. In 1945, Mao was talking more candidly about development, still within the framework of a mixed economy under Communist control, and stressing the need for more heavy industry; I believe because he had been impressed by the role of heavy industry in determine the outcome of World War II. In his selected works he said "that the necessary capital would come mainly from the accumulated wealth of the Chinese people" but latter added "that China would appreciate foreign aid and even private foreign investment, under non exploitative conditions." After Chiang Kai-shek broke away from the CPC they found themselves in a condition that they were not accustom to, they had no armed forces or territorial bases of its own. It had no program of strategy other than the one that Stalin had compromised, who from the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern in 1928 to the Seventh in 1935 insisted, largely because the disaster he had suffered in China that Communist Parties everywhere must promote world revolution in a time of depression. The CPC was ridden with factionalism; the successful effort to replace this situation with one of relative "bolshevization" or in layman's term this means imposed unity, which was ultimately made by Mao Tse-tung, and not by Stalin. Parallel with the Comintern-dominated central apparatus of the CPC in Shanghai, there arose a half dozen Communist-led base areas, each with a guerrilla army, in Central and South China. These bases existed mainly by virtue of the efforts of the local Communist leadership to satisfy the serious economic and social grievances of the local civilians, often violently, through such means as redistribution of land at the expense of landlords and the reduction of interest rates at the expense of moneylenders. Of these base areas, or soviets, the most important was the one led by Mao Tse-tung and centered in the southeastern city of Kiangsi. Correspondingly, in return for such service Mao was elected chairman of a Central Soviet Government, who supposedly controlled all the Communist base areas in 1931. Before I tell about Mao Tse-tung, I will tell you about Maoism. By Maoism or "the thought of Mao Tse-tung" as the CPC would put it is the entire evolving complex of patterns of official thought and behavior that CPC has developed while under Mao's leadership. It was very difficult to unscramble Mao's individual contribution while not confusing it with other thinkers of this time period as many have done and are still doing to this date. It is also difficult to separate the pre-1949 and the post-1949 aspects and the domestic from the international aspects. The first basic and most important characteristic that I believe is a deep and sincere nationalism that has been merged with the strictly Communist elements. Then closely resembling nationalism was his populism approach so full of strain that the CPC saw itself not merely as the Vanguard of the common people, plus as the progressive side of the middle class, but as representative of the people. This was important as it played the opposite position of the " three big mountains" (imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism) and still yet accept the passively the leadership CPC. Maoism still possessed two other points that are significant in understanding this ideology, it recognizes the decisive importance in history of conscious, voluntary activity and of subjective forces in more detail than the sometimes compared Leninism which was opposed to deterministic, objective forces. The last point it brings out is that Maoism stresses contradictions and struggle, or what might be called the power of negative thinking, to the point where it invents enemies of all types and comments on their size and calls them "paper tiger" as he did in a speech in 1950. Mao Tse-tung On December 26th 1893 in a small village about twenty-eight miles to the west of Hsiangt'an, Hunan in Shaoshanch'ung, Mao Tse-tung was born. He was born during a time of widespread suffrage, his father Mao Shun-sheng had left his family to join the army hoping to return and be able to take care of his family. He soon returned with ample funds to purchase land and livestock, so was the background of his childhood and one of the reasons why he cared so much about the agricultural growth of his people and the need to end their suffering..His mother was a modest individual who cared about the less fortunate and believed heavily in prayer to gods for guidance and best wishes to the needy. Since he started working at the early age of five he learned and developed his tendency for thoroughness, paying close attention to what and how his father operated the farmland. His father eventually brought him a tutor to teach the business side of life and learned to read and write also. Learning to read opened his mind to books such as, The Water Margin, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and The Monkey, but the first book was his most favorite. Because it told of a rebels desire and the spirit of rebellion, what a symbolic meaning that would play in his future. He would eventually go to school in Ch'angsha the Capital city where his life took a path he would never be able to leave from again. The Empire was full of discontent with the leaders role in the political realm. China was in political chaos and the leaders new of nothing that could save them. During these times many disasters would take place such as the Russo-Japanese war, and the Boxer Rebellion which directed the Chinese government to construct a shaky, but authoritative constitution to hope these problems would not destroy their monarchy. At this time Mao had been in school learning as much as he could about the political agenda and about the revolution that was going on. He read many books about the causes of the revolution and the many theories that authors portrayed that could end this revolt. He himself started to write his feelings down into what would be his "life works" on what he believed could halt the problem or really give the Republic back to the people. This is one of the reasons why China is now called THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA. From this point of his educational advance, he would be in close contact with future leaders of the revolution, his classmates. He helped them take papers and documents around the city that told of plans of attacking the government. With the help of his classmates the formed a student society that was a front for the revolution to reach the students, where they read works and newspapers such as Hsiang River Weekly, this paper would subsequently print some of his beliefs. This paper was eventually snubbed by the present leader Chang Ching- yao. This is when his name became familiar with the government and they wanted him stopped and suppressed. He would soon leave to go Peking where he started to issue his views statements about the current government. This is where he started to learn more about Marxism and read the book the Communist Manifesto. When he returned he learned of the Hunan Armies seizures of citizens who they believed where threats to the society. From this point on, Mao new it would be his job and role in life to take charge and assert the necessary precautions to see that his people were treated the way that they needed to be treated. Bibliography 1. Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Manchuria Publishing House, 1948, Translated By Stuart Gelder. 2. Jerome Chen, Mao and the Chinese Revolution, Oxford University Press, 1965. 3. Stuart & Schram, Mao Tse- tung, Simon and Shuster - New York, 1966. Cf. Conrad Brandt, Stalin's Failure in China, 1924-1927, Harvard University Press, 1958. Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Manchuria Publishing House, 1948, p. 336. Translated by Stuart Gelder. Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Manchuria Publishing House, 1948, p. 428. Translated by Stuart Gelder. Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Manchuria Publishing House, 1948, p. 104. Translated by Stuart Gelder. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Comparison of Gulf War and Vietnam.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Comparison of Gulf War and Vietnam "No new taxes." This is a quote that most all of us remember from the 1992 presidential election. Along with it we remember that there were new taxes during that presidents term in office. There are a myriad of promises made and things done in a presidential election year that have questionable motives as to whether they are done in the best interest of the people or in the interests of the presidential candidate. These hidden interests are one of the biggest problems with the political aspects of government in modern society. One of the prime examples of this is the Vietnam War. Although South Vietnam asked for our help, which we had previously promised, the entire conflict was managed in order to meet personal political agendas and to remain politically correct in the world's eyes rather than to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. This can be seen in the selective bombing of Hanoi throughout the course of the Vietnam War. Politically this strategy looked very good. However, militarily it was ludicrous. War is the one arena in which politicians have no place. War is the military's sole purpose. Therefore, the U. S. Military should be allowed to conduct any war, conflict, or police action that it has been committed to without political interference or control because of the problems and hidden interests which are always present when dealing with polit United States involvement in the Vietnam War actually began in 1950 when the U. S. began to subsidize the French Army in South Vietnam. This involvement continued to escalate throughout the 1950's and into the early 1960's. On August 4, 1964 the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in which American Naval Vessels in South Vietnamese waters were fired upon by North Vietnam. On August 5, 1964 President Johnson requested a resolution expressing the determination of the United Sates in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia ( Johnson ). On August 7, 1964, in response to the presidential request, Congress authorized President Johnson to take all necessary measures to repel any attack and to prevent aggression against the U. S. in southeast Asia ( United States ). The selective bombing of North Vietnam began immediately in response to this resolution. In March of the following year U. S. troops began to arrive. Although the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution specifically stated that we had no military, political, or territorial ambitions in southeast Asia, the interests back home were quite a different story ( Johnson ). The political involvement in Vietnam was about much more than just promised aid to a weak country in order to prevent the spread of communism. It was about money. After all, wars require equipment, guns, tools and machinery. Most of which was produced in the United States. It was about proving America's commitment to stop communism. Or rather to confine communism in its present boundaries But most of all it was about politics. The presidential political involvement in Vietnam had little to do with Vietnam at all. It was about China for Eisenhower, about Russia for Kennedy, about Washington D.C. for Johnson, and about himself for Nixon ( Post ). The last two of which were the major players in America's involvement in regards to U. S. Troops being used ( Wittman ). The military involvement in Vietnam is directly related to the political management of the military throughout the war. The military controlled by the politicians. The micro management of the military by the White House for political gain is the primary reason for both the length and cost, both monetary and human, of the Vietnam War ( Pelland ). One of the largest problems was the lack of a clear objective in the war and the support to accomplish it. The predominant military opinion of the military's role in Vietnam in respect to the political involvement is seen in the following quote by General Colin Powell, "If you're going to put into something then you owe the armed forces, you owe the American People, you owe just you're own desire to succeed, a clear statement of what political objective you're trying to achieve and then you put the sufficient force to that objective so that you know when you've accomplished it." The politicians dictated the war in Vietnam, it was a limited war, the military was never allowed to fight the war in the manner that they thought that they needed to in order to win it ( Baker ). To conclude on the Vietnam War, the political management of the war made it unwinnable. The military was at the mercy of politicians who knew very little about what needed to be done militarily in order to win the war. There is an enormous difference between political judgment and military judgment. This difference is the primary reason for the outcome of the Vietnam War ( Schwarzkopf ). The Gulf War in the Middle East was almost the exact opposite in respect to the political influence on the war. In respect to the military objective of the war the two are relatively similar. The objective was to liberate a weaker country from their aggressor. The United Nation's resolution was explicit in its wording regarding military force in the Persian Gulf. The resolution specifically stated "by all means necessary."( Schwarzkopf ). The President was very aware of the problems with political management of warfare throughout the war. He was very determined to let the military call the shots about how the war was conducted. He made a specific effort to prevent the suggestion that civilians were going to try to run the war ( Baker ). Painful lessons had been learned in the Vietnam War, which was still fresh on the minds of many of those involved in this war ( Baker ). The military was given full control to use force as they saw fit. Many of the top military leaders had also been involved in the Vietnam War. These men exhibited a very strong never again attitude throughout the planning stages of this war. General Schwarzkopf made the following statement about the proposed bombing of Iraq in regards to the limited bombing in Vietnam, "I had no doubt we would bomb Iraq if I was going to be the Military Commander." He went on to say that it would be absolutely stupid to go into a military campaign against his, Iraq's, forces who had a tremendous advantage on us on the ground, numbers wise. It would be ludicrous not to fight the war in the air as much, if not more, than on the ground ( Schwarzkopf ). The result of the Gulf War in which the military was given control, as we know, was a quick, decisive victory. There were many other factors involved in this than just the military being given control, particularly in contrast to Vietnam, but the military having control played a major part in this victory. In conclusion, although there are some major differences between the two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is the fact that the military is best suited for conducting wars. Politicians are not. It is not the place of a politicians to be involved in the decision making process in regards to war or military strategy. The White House has significant control in military matters. That control should be used to help the military in achieving its goals as it was in the Gulf War where George Bush said specifically to let the military do its job. The only alternative to this is to use political influence in the same way that it was used in Vietnam. If we do not learn from these lessons that are so obvious in the differences between these two conflicts then we are condemned to repeat the same mistakes. Lets just pray that it does not take the death of another 58,000 of America's men to learn that the politicians place is not in war but in peace ( Roush ). Works Cited "Interview with General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander-in-Chief, Central Command." Frontline WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS, College Station. 9-10 Jan. 1996. "Interview with Secretary of State, James Baker." Frontline WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS, College Station. 9-10 Jan. 1996. Johnson, Lyndon B. "The Tonkin Gulf Incident." Message to Congress. Aug. 5, 1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1964: n.p. Leyden, Andrew P. "The Operation Desert Storm Debriefing Book" Internet Page. University of Notre Dame Law School. 15 Feb. 1995. Pelland, Paul. E-mail to the author. 25 June 1996. Post, James N. E-mail to the author. 26 June 1996 Roush, Gary. Statistics about the Vietnam War Internet Page. Nov. 1993. United States, Joint Resolution of Congress H. J. RES 1145. Aug. 7, 1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1965. Wittman, Sandra M. "Chronology of the Vietnam War." Vietnam: Yesterday and Today Oakton Community College. Skokie, Illinois. 16 May 1996: n.p. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Confucianism and the Rise of Industrialism in East Asia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Confucian Values and Japan's Industrialization Many factors helped aid in the dynamic growth that occurred in Japan and the four little dragons during the post-World War 2 period. Some of these factors were situational factors unique to the time but some of the factors were cultural. The legacy of Confucianism in Japan and the four little dragons helped to further the goals of industrialization that these nations had. The traditions of Confucianism provided for Japan and the four little dragons both a pliant public and a model for choosing competent leaders. Confucian traditions placed an emphasis on the values of the group over the individual. This helped industrialism by creating a pliant populace who were willing to accept long hours and low wages and not question government policies. The traditions of Confucianism taught workers not to question authority. These traditions carried over into the post war period and allowed authoritarian regimes in the four little dragons to go unquestioned by the public. This lack of dissent allowed the four little dragons to have stable governments which were critical to investment and industrialization. The stability of these nations was a direct result of Confucian values being indoctrinated into the population. Confucian placement of the group over the individual and strong belief in filial piety also caused families and local communities to accept social responsibility for members of their community. This safety net that was provided by communities and families allowed the government to limit it's spending on social welfare programs and thus channel more funds into infrastructure and industry. Confucianism also placed an emphasis on self-cultivation which has helped East Asian Countries to have a skilled and ambitious work force. The tradition of self-cultivation like the work ethic that Max Weber credited Protestantism of producing lead people to strive to acquire new skills, speak foreign languages, and in the offices and businesses of Japan, drive workers to strive with in their firms to improve group performance. Confucian traditions also placed emphasis on the creation of a meritocratic elite and the use of entrance exams. These traditions were in place before World War 2 in the East Asian countries but they helped aid in the carrying out of the industrial policies of the post-war government of Japan and the little Dragons. The traditional system of a meritocratic elite was adopted in the post war years in the form of meritocraticly chosen bureaucracy that made and carried out many government policies. This elite was free from many of the strains of politics and thus was able to carry out policies that democratically elected leaders might not be able to pursue do to the changing feelings of the electorate. Also these bureaucrats because they were meritocraticly chosen were the most able members of society and thus very skilled at handling industrial policies. The system of entrance exams in Asia countries helped to create skilled and proficient workers for industry. The entrance exams were able to target the most able young people and channel them into higher learning, and the entrance exam system was also able to create intense competition among young people spurring students to both acquire knowledge and disciplined work habits. These disciplined and knowledgeable workers were critical in providing the workers that made East Asian Industries successful. Confucian traditions were not the sole cause of industrialization in Japan and the four little dragons. An analysis of other Asian nations such as Thailand, China, Vietnam, Burma, and Laos show that many nations with the same shared history of a Confucian values have not yet industrialized. Confucianism along with other circumstances such as situational factors, timing, domestic industrial policy and luck played key roles in allowing Japan and the four little dragons to industrialize. Some of the situational factors were the presence of U.S. aid and leadership which gave many nations such as Japan a jump start on industrialism, the feeling of urgency among countries such as Taiwan and South Korea who felt that if they were not able to build up their economies they would be over ridden by the communists, the presence of the Japanese model of industrialization which aided Taiwan and South Korea in what types of economic policies to follow. But these factors alone also do not account for the rapid rates of growth in East Asia. A large role was played by the traditions of Confucianism which created a pliant and stable populace, skilled and eager workers, and a meritocratic bureaucracy that were skilled at formulating and carrying out economic policy. Confucianism's traditions are manifested not only in the temples of East Asia but also in the rapid rates of growth this region has experienced. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Consolidation of Democracy in PostSov~109.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Russian History - Consolidation of Democracy in Post-Soviet Russia Introduction The fall of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union was more than a political event. The powerful interaction and fusion between politics and economics that characterized the state socialist system created a situation that was unique for the successor states of the Soviet Union. The penetration of the Communist regime into every facet of life left the Russian people with little democratic traditions. Russia faces the seemingly impracticable task of economic liberalization and democratization. This is combined with a necessity to answer nationalist and ethnic questions that have plagued Russia for centuries. This paper addresses the problems of creating a stable democracy in Russia. The prospects for a stable democracy in Russia are limited at best. I will outline some of the concerns that academics have in the consolidation of Russian democracy. What is paramount to note is that a stable democracy must adequately address what Ken Jowitt calls the "developmental trinity": nation-building; capitalism and democracy. The dilemma that is especially relevant to Russia it that these conditions are often contradictory. The often messy business of politically reconstructing a nation defies traditional democratic ideals. The establishment of democratic institutions can hinder the development of a market economy and, conversely, programs that are designed to enhance capitalist expansion often are antagonistic towards democratic goals (Jowitt 7). These seemingly endless Catch-22's are at the heart of difficulties facing Russia in its attempt to create a stable democracy. The Process of Creating A Nation-State The question of who is the playing the game and what makes the playing field is an important one for the Russian Federation. Ethnic and nationalist questions plagued the Soviet Union and continue to stress the Russia Federation during its nascent period. The dynamics of center-periphery relations provides Moscow with some of the greatest challenges in establishing a stable democracy. Phillipe Smitter writes, "There is no simply democratic way of deciding what a nation and its corresponding political unit should be" (Smitter 66). Later in his article, he writes "those that have not yet resolved the dilemma of defining their national and territorial boundaries are unlikely to make much more progress in other domains" (Smitter 73). The dilemma facing the Russian Federation is that it finds itself with a charge of establishing and following democratic institutions, while at the same time facing secessionary pressures that seem to require extra-democratic means to preserve the integrity of the nation. Nationalism in multiethnic areas in the Russian Federation has provided a substantial challenge for democratization. There is a direct relationship between democratization and ethnic peace (Smitter 72). In a democratically weak society, ethnicity assumes a stronger role, and when democracy and ethnicity are balanced, political stability is possible. As a result of a lack of democratic institutions and channels for dialogue, Russia's inhabitants are now increasingly identifying themselves as members of ethnic groups rather than as citizens of the Russian Federation (Drobizheva). An important development in center-periphery relations is the growing importance of "economic nationalism," an effort to create an economic basis for political independence. Economic nationalism is a protective defense against the Russian federal government's economic dominance. Alternatively, it is also a sign that the republics wish to retain relations with Moscow since politics remains primarily in the hands of the center (Drobizheva). For example, Tatarstan and Sakha-Yakutia both have a wealth of natural resources, giving them a potential advantage in economic development and a desire to establish control over these resources. Tatarstan, for example, strives to sell its oil at world market prices in foreign markets to generate income, and in 1993-94, the local governments in Tatarstan and Yakutia sought economic decentralization in Russia by refusing to pay federal taxes. Consequently, an agreement reached between the federal government and the republics gave the latter what they wanted: increased economic autonomy (Drobizheva). Further inquiry into the agreements with Tartarsan demonstrates the flexibility the Yeltsin regime is willing to employ in dealing with possible powder-keg situations. A treaty signed on February 15, 1994 attempted to mollify the tensions on both sides. The treaty affirmed Tartarsan right to its own "international and economic relations" and, as previously noted, provided substantial autonomy in economic issues for Tartarsan. Smoothing over contradictions in each state's constitution, the agreement affirms the union between Russia and Tartarsan (Lapidus 107). The treaty with Tartarsan provides a possible blueprint for future center-periphery relations. It forebears a evolving and fluid approach that should be beneficial in establishing a stable democracy. But in typical Yeltsin contradictory manner, the war in Chechnya has demonstrated the worst of the Yeltsin regime. The conflict between Chechnya and the Russian Federation should not be considered an ethnic conflict. The authorities did not even give as a pretext for the invasion the defense of Russian-speaking people. Such a pretext would have been unbelievable, in light of the fact that Russian- speaking people suffered from the bombing of Grozny at least as much as the native population. The war was connected more with the struggle for power in Moscow than with either economic or ethnic factors. The Chechnyan campaign was characterized by Yeltsin employing Soviet-era coercive measures. Paternalism, clientelism, and military intervention prevailed over legal methods and legal institutions. Lilia Shevtsova considers the Chechnyan war a byproduct of the Yeltsin regime's reliance on personal politics. She writes "Yeltsin saw the war as a chance to flex his muscles...neutralize the conflicts within his own regime; expand his political base...and appear before the world...as a strong leader" (Shevtsova 67). The tragedy in Chechnya not withstanding, and with all due concern towards the dangerous tensions that exist between Moscow and it various ethnic republics, I agree with Gail Lapidus and Edward Walker that it is unlikely that we will see a significant secession movement in the Russian Federation in the near future. Of paramount importance is the economic and political realities facing both Moscow and the various republics. Secession provides the republics with a myriad of additional stumbling blocks towards establishment of stable democracy. These include questions of international recognition, Russian implemented economic pressures, and devastating civil war (Lapidus 108). The costs of leaving the Federation would appear to outweigh any perceivable benefits gained by secession. Yet there are serious nationalist and regionalist concerns that the Russian Federation must address if there is a chance for democracy to take hold. Economic chaos must be avoided by establishing a sound currency and creating a common economic bond between the center and the periphery (Lapidus 108). There will be a deeper examination into the economic issues facing the Federation as a whole in the next section, but note that these concerns are magnified in the peripheral areas that lack developed agricultural and industrial economies. Issues of more effective regional and ethnic political representation must be addressed through a movement away from the Soviet system that unfairly distributes economic control and political power among ethnicities and nationalities (Lapidus 96). Many ethnic minorities lack administrative recognition for seemingly arbitrary reasons. It would appear that the best antidote for ethnic and national ills is a healthy economy that would bind the periphery to the center, therefore making secession an unattractive option. Along with sensible economic reforms, political restructuring is essential for stable democracy to take hold. The Road to a Market Economy At the heart of the difficulties plaguing the Russian Federation are the economic reforms that the Yeltsin regime has imposed upon the Russian people. Capitalism is viewed as a necessary ingredient (though not sufficient) contingency of a stable democracy. All established democracies are located in countries that place economic manufacture and aggregation in the hands of privately owned firms, with distribution of scarce resource achieved through market forces (Smitter 66). The movement away from the penetrative, all-encompassing Soviet economic octopus has caused enormous hardships for the Russian people. It has placed economic uncertainties in the path of political realities, resulting in policies that attempt to address the often contradictory objectives of economic liberalization in the wake of political democratization. Sweeping in after the failed coup of August 1991, economic reformers, led by Prime Minister Egor Gaidar, placed the Russian economy on a steady diet of economic shock therapy. The government's misguided attempt to rest its reform program on fulfillment of a limited number of macroeconomic variables left the Russian economy in disarray. Despite a precipitous decline in economic productivity, radical reformers defended their macroeconomic policy, arguing that the supply side of the Russian economy would receive proper attention after stabilization. But what were the Russians to do in the meantime? The revolutionary fervor that characterized the early economic reforms did not take into account the punitive realities of their policies. As Steven Fish writes: "All had advocated 'transition to a market economy.' But this goal had been more of a dream than a demand, and few had actually considered how to achieve it (Fish 215). With all due deference to cliché, the early Russian economic policies can be succinctly summarized in "Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it." Khrushchev stated that a country may follow its own road to socialism, and in a perverse sense that logic is still be applicable for Russian affairs. But, rather the mandate should be that each country should follow its own road towards capitalism. An examination of what the Communist apparatus left in its wake should cause pause for any free-market optimist. Seventy plus years of state socialism has left Russia with a two-ton gorilla on its collective economic back. On page 66 and 67 of his "Dangers And Dilemmas of Democracy", Smitter outlines possible starting scenarios for incipient democracies. A best case scenario finds the nation with a preceding autocracy that had already concentrated profits, encouraged the private accumulation of wealth, increased the state's fiscal capacity, invested in the country's physical infrastructure and provided a positive starting point for international trade. Countries, such as Chile and Spain, that had inherited these elements, found the transition to a market economy easier. Russia and the other successor states to the Soviet Union found themselves in a much more precarious predicament. The state socialist regime left a legacy of corruption, protectionism, price distortions, foreign indebtedness, inefficient public enterprises, trade imbalances, and fiscal instability (Smitter 67). Combined with the simultaneous need for political reform, Russia faces a tall task indeed. The dubious tradition of the Soviet era has led to an overdependence on foreign advise and models of capitalism. Yet, it is clear that this may not be a wise path to follow. Much of the literature concerning post- communist literature warns of Russia relying to closely to the Western model of capitalism. Jowitt warns that Americans should temper their "missionary zeal" in exporting an idealistic view of "what we once were" (Jowitt 7). The simultaneous difficulties of nation-building, marketization, and democratization place the Soviet successor states in a unique and precarious situation. Privatization in Russia did occur extraordinarily rapidly, with the idea being that getting productive assets into private hands as fast as possible would make economic reform irreversible. This was arguably right - there is indeed a large and powerful group that has a great deal to lose from any effort to re-nationalize the economy. But this class is at the same time decidedly not interested in fair rules of market competition and an open economy. Rather it wants the state to preserve its privileges, protect its markets, and allow it to continue to reap the windfall gains of privatization. And neither does it seem to care much about democracy. At the same time, privatization has contributed greatly to the popular conviction that marketization has been deeply unjust: state assets were distributed disproportionately to insiders, to people willing to skirt the letter of the law, and in many cases to outright criminals. Official corruption and the lack of fair and enforced laws and clearly-defined property rights, have only contributed to this perception. As a result, while there is a growing middle class in Russia, it is smaller, less democratic in orientation, and less politically influential than it might have been without the state socialist tradition. The greatest misstep the Yeltsin regime took was moving forward with economic reform without addressing the need for wholesale, political renovation. There is a serious quandary that results in concurrent democratization and marketization. It derives from the basic difference between a government that strives to distribute power and status relatively equally (democratization) and an economy that distributes property and income relatively unequally (capitalism) (Smitter 67). This obstacle is magnified in Russian democratization with the fusion between politics and economics. Shevtsova writes "reformers cannot rest content with a rearrangement of relations among different institutions, but must strive to form new political and economic system" (Shevstova 57). Democratization and the Reinvention of Russian Government An orderly exit from the Soviet past and progress towards stable democracy necessitates the development of a state capable of effective governance. Tsarism and state socialism have provided Russians with little experience with working governmental institutions, nor knowledge of how to coordinate the actions of state agencies in pursuit of a common goal. As especially was the case with the early Gaidar economic reforms, political compromise and coalition building were ignored in favor of policies designed for the "public good." The continued employment of Soviet-style politics by the Yeltsin regime bodes ill for the establishment of consolidated democracy in Russia. To begin the movement to a consolidated democracy, Russian government most promote new institutional capacities and move towards more rational and pragmatic linkages between formal administrative agencies and their functions. This is a sharp break away from bureaucratic malaise that characterized the Soviet system. Important in this development is the fostering of economic movements outside the old system (Shevtsova 56). Shevtsova raises an interesting question of whether the "collapse" of communism actually strengthened the hand of the nomenklatura , especially on the regional and local level, by allowing them to gain a novel claim of legitimacy as the leaders of new nations (Shevtsova 60). Along with this new found legitimacy came access to the new found economic resources. It is of foremost importance that wealth not be distributed solely among a small group of state officials and enterprise directors. Such actions could lead to a continuation of patron-client and personalist relations that characterized the state socialist system. But the separation between the public and private sphere is not clearly defined in Russian society. The penetration and coerciveness of the Communist Party dulled the line between state and civil society. In order to consolidate and strengthen the budding private sector, Russia needs to create an administrative system that actively encourages its growth. Note my use of the word "actively.". Laissez faire policies are not what the private sector needs to grow and develop into a true bourgeoisie. A true bourgeoisie in the sense that economic opportunity and success is not achieved by simply being a former member of the nomenklatura. But recent improvements show that the distribution of wealth is becoming more equitable. Recent improvements in the privatization process, especially in dwellings, hold great promise for the expansion of small-scale property ownership; an important step in consolidating private ownership. This is along with a growing entrepreneurial spirit among less advantaged segments of the population, especially the young (Fish 234). To allow a government to actively encourage private, economic enterprise, political appointments must move above the personal level. There must be a balance between the administrative and political roles of the members of the bureaucracy. Shevstova writes on page 69 that Yeltsin "has a habit of ranking personal loyalty to himself far above professionalism when choosing appointees and subordinates." The clientelism of the Soviet era is alive and kicking in the Yeltsin government. To challenge this system, a professional bureaucracy, one that is limited in its ability to intervene directly in the policy-making process, must develop. Another important component of democratization that Shevstova feels is missing from the current Yeltsin administration is a lack of imperatives to build broad consensus and foster genuine communication between leaders and citizens at large (Shevstova 57). Much of this can be attributed to the Communist tradition that placed enormous authority in the local ministers. The autarkic, socialist system allowed executive agencies to acquire many legislative functions. Communication with constituents and consensus building was a unnecessary hassle. The real conflict existed within the decision-making elite. As we will see later, elite conflict is still a major ingredient in the Yeltsin formula of power consolidation. Shevstova call this lack of consensus building and communication a hangover from Leninism (Shevstova 57). Political power was restricted to a self-selected elite which iniated new personnel less for their technical skills than their willingness to embrace Communist ideology or their relationship to powerful party elites. This system of clientelism retarded and made irrelevant any development of modern, responsive bureaucratic institutional arrangements. Consequently, today's bureaucrats (and yesterday's communists) find it difficult to appreciate the need for compromise, power sharing, and local initiative. This is precisely the problem Russia faces with Yeltsin. It is painfully apparent from his tenure as the architect of Russia early transition period, that old habits die hard. Yeltsin: Presidential Power and His Communist Tradition A brief look at the Boris Yeltsin biographical sketch shows that he is truly a maverick who, on the eve of Ol' Blue Eyes birthday (Sinatra that is; I think Yeltsin also has blue eyes), "did it his way." Rising through the nomenklatura , gaining a reputation as a fearless reformer, Yeltsin found himself as a member of the Politburo. Once again, Yeltsin proved an able and determined reformer, but an estrangement between himself and Gorbachev set in when Yeltsin began criticizing the slow pace of reform at party meetings, challenging party conservatives and even criticizing Gorbachev himself. Yeltsin was forced to resign in disgrace from the Moscow party leadership in 1987 and from the Politburo in 1988. His Lazarus act is well documented. Just as well documented his tendency to become a political chameleon, changing his colors to suit any political condition. He has been a communist boss, a reformer within the communist system, a liberal slayer of communism and a nationalist warrior against secessionism (Shevstova 69). While the American president may wear many hats, Yeltsin has traded in his entire wardrobe numerous times over. He is truly a skilled political in-fighter, maneuvers he learned from his Communist political education. Lilia Shevstova is ardently critical of the decisions Yeltsin has made in the post-Soviet era. She lays much of the responsibility for the politics of confrontation squarely at the feet of Yeltsin and his advisors (Shevstova 58). First, she debunks the idea that Yeltsin is a "destroyer of the old system. Correctly, she considers him a reformer who has not attempted to address the institutional hegemony held by the former nomenklatura . His policies have resulted in the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of the former communist elites. And she lists a number of Soviet era tactics, such as playing the members of nomenklatura against one another, that still personify Yeltsin decision making (Shevstova 60). Yeltsin still digs deep into his Communist bag of tricks when trying to consolidate his power. The Presidential Revolution of 1993 signified a turn towards a more personalistic brand of rule for Russia. Shevstova argues, and I would agree, that the Constitutional Crisis of 1993 was largely predicated on Yeltsin attempting to outmaneuver his old Communist rivals, who had taken refuge in the legislature (Shevstova 62). The supporters that Yeltsin lined up behind him for this insurgency upon the Supreme Soviet were wildly divergent in their political orientations and goals. They included liberal reformers, bureaucrats and pragmatists, statists and security officials, and extreme nationalists (Shevstova 63). This motley crew testifies to the bizarre landscape that makes up Russian politics. Yet it is that bizarre political landscape that Yeltsin appears to be most comfortable operating upon. Yeltsin can consolidate and maintain authority because of the lingering sense of crisis that hangs over Russian politics (Shevstova 65). The widely held belief that a successor would be a worse option and an absence of any real alternatives has allowed Yeltsin to maneuver with impunity. The June presidential elections present a clear example of this phenomenon. Even with horrendous economic and political performance, Yeltsin still was able to defeat Zhyguanov, for the reason that the challenger was the pits, a tired political retread. Shevstova refers to "the fear, inertia, and disorientation that pervade Russia" (Shevstova 65). Yeltsin has adeptly used these pathologies to create a system that Shevstova refers to as "divide and conquer" (Shevstova 69). So what are the dangers in Yeltsin's brand of governing? There has been very little change in how things are done under the Yeltsin regime versus the Gorbachev regime. The specific issues were addressed in the previous section. Another important point to note is that there has been too much reliance on Yeltsin's personal prestige and charisma (Shevstova 64). Yeltsin operates outside of the nascent party system because parties constrain leaders. He is not an institution builder but, as his policies have demonstrated, he is a populist. His communist background has not made him adverse to resorting to extra-legal means to achieving his goals. It is this procedural uncertainty, and reliance upon the "man" and not the "measures", that create the greatest concern for the establishment of stable democracy. The Crystal Ball The problems that I have outlined in this paper do not bode well for the establishment of a stable democracy in Russia for the near future. The literature on the subject contends that consolidated democracy is not a likely option for Russia. Instead we are much more likely to see a "unconsolidated" democracy take hold in Russia. Fish describes an unconsolidated democracy as a system that would include many of the basic elements of democracy, such as elections and considerable civil and cultural freedoms (Fish 226). Yet we are unlikely to see the establishment of durable and stable rules and institutions that are appropriate to their respective social structures or accepted by their respective citizenries (Smitter 60). Because of the lack of any credible alternatives to democracy, we are unlikely to see a regression back to authoritarianism. Yet if appropriate reforms are not enacted, we are likely to see what is referred to as democracy by default (Smitter 60). The basic rights of democracy will exist but "regular, acceptable, and predictable democratic patterns never quite crystallize" (Smitter 61). The 1993 Constitution excaberates this problem by placing enormous power in the hands of the president, laying the groundwork for discretionary, personal expressions of authority that contradict the needed objectives of broad based political aggregation. There has been growing disenchantment in Russia with the not only Yeltsin, the politician, but with the institution of democracy itself. Public opinion show that most Russians evaluate democracy in negative terms (Whitefield). This is the danger of having a politician also represent a movement. For a stable democracy to take hold in Russia, Yeltsin and future presidents must not become institutions themselves. The personalization of transition politics presents enormous difficulties by hampering the institutionalization of necessary reforms. Still, with all these problems that have been outlined, I feel that it is unlikely that we will see a return to authoritarianism. Lilia Shevtsova concludes: "Despite the shallowness of democracy's roots and the continuous attempts by some in power to curtail freedom, the obstacles to the establishment of a full blow authoritarian regime appear insurmountable. There are just too many active and self-conscious interest groups, too many people who have become accustomed to life in a relatively free atmosphere, too many competing elites, no united and effective bureaucracy, and a military establishment that seems highly unlikely to rally behind any would be man on horseback" (Shevtsova 70). The character of the next regime will provide many clues to what the future of Russia might be. Economic transformations are not sufficient conditions for the consolidation of democracy. I am not optimistic that Yeltsin has either the proclivity or the longevity to engage in any sort of meaningful political reform. If the next regime does not adequately address what, Smitter referred to as, the extrinsic dilemmas facing Russia, then consolidation is very unlikely. These dilemmas include political graft, privileged treatment of the elite, unequal distribution of wealth, and crime (Smitter 73). If they are not dealt with the future of democracy will be bleak, indeed. Works Cited Drobizheva , Leokadia. "Democratization and Nationalism in the Russian Federation." Sponsored by the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies: Presented on February 8 1996. Fish, Stephen. Democracy From Scratch: Opposition and Regime in the New Russian Revolution . (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Jowitt, Kenneth. "Dizzy With Democracy." Problems of Post Communism, 1 (Jan-Feb, 1996) : 3-8. Lapidus, Gail and Edward Walker. "Nationalism, Regionalism, and Federalism: Center Periphery Relations in Post Communist Russia." In Lapidus, ed., The New Russia. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995): 79-113. Shevtsova, Lilia. "The Two Sides of The New Russia." Journal of Democracy. 6 (July 1995): 41-55. Smitter, Phillipe C. "Dangers And Dilemmas Of Democracy." Journal of Democracy, 5 (April 1994): 57-74. Whitefield, Stephen and Geoffrey Evans. "The Popular Basis of Anti-Reform Politics on Russia." f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Corruption&Graft.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Corruption and Graft Corruption and Graft Following Reconstruction in the war torn South, and the Sioux Wars in the West, America was enjoying an industrialization period unlike any other. Nearly gone was the frontier, industries coming in, with men gaining unheard of wealth, and having leverage in many affairs. With the Robber Barons in control over the nation's economy, and men like Oakes Ames, Leland Stanford, and William "Boss" Tweed, what occurred is that corruption and graft greatly influenced American industry and business between 1860 to 1900. However, labor organizations such as the Knights of Labor and AFL made steps in labor reforms and other government laws attempted to limit monopolies. Undoubtedly, the Robber Barons were the most influential in the corruption of industries during the 1860's to 1900's. The Robber Barons or Captains of Industry consisted of J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, Andrew Carnegie, and John Rockefeller. With the aid of graft and bribery, Vanderbilt made his fortune in railroads. Gould was Vanderbilt's fiercest competitor, and with an unwitting President Grant, Jay Gould was able to manipulate the gold market, driving prices down and causing "Black Friday" (1869) that produced a depression that lasted for years. By the 1890's, many of the railroad lines were near bankruptcy stemming from terrible economic conditions and tough competition. J.P. Morgan, the banker's banker, went in and by 1900, owned half of America's track mileage. Since his friends owned the rest, they were able to set railroad rates in the country, thereby cheating the customer. In another landmark that year, U.S. Steel was born, the first billion-dollar company by anti-union Andrew Carnegie and Morgan. John D. Rockefeller made his cash in the booming oil business. With a group of partners, he started the South Improvement Company. The company was extremely corrupt and soon saw its end. Rockefeller then formed Standard Oil of Cleveland in 1870. The company used sabotage and bribery to get ahead. Rockefeller went on to build a monopoly by issuing "trusts" and without worrying about breaking anti-monopoly laws. Attempts at reform were and in 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for the purpose of protecting trade against "unlawful restraints" but the act later proved to lose effectiveness. Moreover, the United States government was embarrassed by scandals in their government. Following the building of the first Transcontinental railroad, Americans were not proud to know that their government was cheated out of millions of dollars by congressman, Oakes Ames, and both the Union Pacific and Central Pacific. After the Credit Mobilier Scandal of 1872, the Whiskey Ring Scandal reached the White House and as did the corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Under Grant's administration graft and corruption was widespread. Consequently, after experiencing poor working conditions, pay cuts, and other problems, many workers decided to organize and strike to improve their livelihood. While Robber Baron Andrew Carnegie was in Scotland, one of his managers, Henry Frick, induced a strike at Homestead, Pennsylvania. Pinkerton guards were bought in to protect the strikebreakers, after a battle with the guards, twenty people were left dead. This was a vigorous union defeat. In 1886, The Knights of Labor were involved in a strike in Chicago. After strikebreakers were attacked by strikers, police fired at the crowds killing six and wounding more. The following day, several thousand people gathered at Haymarket Square to protest the police activity. A bomb wa later thrown killing seven officers and finally slowly bringing the demise of the Noble Order of The Knights of Labor. However, the American Federation of Labor was later introduced and successfully operated by Samuel Gompers. Accordingly, William Mercy Tweed or "Boss" came to rule New York City during the 1860's and 1870's. From his outpost at Tammany Hall, a Democratic political machine, he gained control by getting votes repaid from befriended immigrants. In all, Tweed stole about 100 million from New York's treasury. The club's political and economic impact was felt right into the twentieth century. Finally, Robber Barons made ridiculous amounts of cash at the expense of the average worker. Labor organizations were formed and saw some success. After a scandalous Grant administration, other Presidents came and tried to fix the monopoly problem facing the Robber Baron's competitors. Closing the century, Americans look to labor unions as everyday life. Word Count: 714 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Crazy Horse.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Crazy Horse When I think back of the stories that I have heard about how the Native American Indians were driven from their land and forced to live on the reservations one particular event comes to my mind. That event is the Battle of the Little Big Horn. It is one of the few times that the Oglala Sioux made history with them being the ones who left the battlefield as winners. When stories are told, or when the media dares to tamper with history, it is usually the American Indians who are looked upon as the bad guys. They are portrayed as savages who spent their time raiding wagon trains and scalping the white settlers just for fun. The media has lead us to believe that the American government was forced to take the land from these savage Indians. We should put the blame where it belongs, on the U.S. Government who lied, cheated, and stole from the Oglala forcing Crazy Horse, the great war chief, and many other leaders to surrender their nation in order to save the lives of their people. In the nineteenth century the most dominant nation in the western plains was the Sioux Nation. This nation was divided into seven tribes: Oglala's, Brule', Minneconjou, Hunkpapa, No Bow, Two Kettle, and the Blackfoot. Of these tribes they had different band. The Hunkpatila was one band of the Oglala's (Guttmacher 12). One of the greatest war chiefs of all times came from this band. His name was Crazy Horse. Crazy Horse was not given this name, on his birth date in the fall of 1841. He was born of his father, Crazy Horse an Oglala holy man, and his mother a sister of a Brule' warrior, Spotted Tail. As the boy grew older his hair was wavy so his people gave him the nickname of Curly (Guttmacher 23). He was to go by Curly until the summer of 1858, after a battle with the Arapaho's. Curly's brave charged against the Arapaho's led his father to give Curly the name Crazy Horse. This was the name of his father and of many fathers before him (Guttmacher 47). In the 1850's, the country where the Sioux Nation lived, was being invaded by the white settlers. This was upsetting for many of the tribes. They did not understand the ways of the whites. When the whites tore into the land with plows and hunted the sacred buffalo just for the hides this went against the morale and religious beliefs of the Sioux. The white government began to build forts. In 1851, Fort Laramie was built along the North Platte river in Sioux territory (Matthiessen 6) . In 1851, the settlers began complaining of the Indians who would not allow them to go where they wanted. U.S. Agents drew up a treaty that required the Indians to give safe passage to the white settlers along the Oregon Trail. In return the government promised yearly supplies of guns, ammunition, flour, sugar, coffee, tobacco, blankets, and bacon. These supplies were to be provided for fifty-five years. Ten thousand Sioux gathered at the fort to listen to the words of the white government and to be showered with gifts. In addition the treaty wanted the Indians to allow all settlers to cross their lands. They were to divide the plains into separate territories and each tribe was not to cross the border of their territory. The treaty also wanted no wars to be waged on other tribes. They wanted each Indian nation to choose a leader that would speak for the entire nation. Many Indians did not like this treaty and only after weeks of bribery did the whites finally convince a sizable group of leaders to sign. The Oglala's were among those who refused (Matthiessen 6). This Treaty however did not stop the trouble between the Indians and the settlers. The Indians however, did not cause violent trouble, they would perhaps approach a covered wagon to trade or extract gifts of food. The most daring warrior might make away with a metal pot or pan but nothing violent like the books and movies lead us to believe (Matthiessen 7). The straw that broke the camels back took place on August 17, 1854 when the relations between the Indians and Whites were shattered. Among the settlers heading west was a group of Mormons and as they were passing, a few miles south of Fort Laramie, an Indian stole a cow. The Mormons reported this to Lieutenant Hugh B. Fleming, the commander of the post. Fleming demanded that the offender, High Forehead of the Minneconjou, face charges. Chief Conquering Bear suggested that the Mormons come to his herd of ponies and pick out the best pony he had to replace the cow, which to the Sioux these ponies were their wealth. This seemed to be a very gracious offer. Fleming would not agree and sent Lieutenant John L. Grattan to bring back the warrior. When Grattan arrived at Conquering Bears camp, he was given another offer. This time they could choose five ponies from five herds among the tribes. Grattan refused and began to open fire (Guttmacher 14-19). This outrageous act of war was not called for. The Mormons would have surely been satisfied with the ponies or the money the ponies would have bought. The government just did not want to keep the Indian-White relationship peaceful. Crazy Horse, then called Curly, was only thirteen when the soldiers and the Indians fought. The Indians outnumbered the soldiers and won the battle (Guttmacher 20). Crazy Horse eventually became a leader of his people. In today's society our leaders are given money and gifts but in the times of Crazy Horse it was almost the opposite. He was expected to live modestly, keep only what he needed and give away the rest. After hunting he would give the needy the choicest meat and keep the stringy meat for himself. He did however, have the honor and prestige that allowed him to make the decisions for the tribe (Ambrose 125). As well as other Sioux leaders, Crazy Horse lead his people into the Powder River country. The reason for this move was to leave behind the ways of the white man and continue living the ways of the Sioux. The white man had brought to their country sickness, liquor and damaging lifestyles much different from the lifestyles of the Sioux . In 1865, U.S. officials wanted to obtain land from the Indians. They offered many different bribes, such as gifts and liquor, to the Indians who lived around the forts. They were very good at making the sell of land seem temporary and they convinced many that what the right thing to do was sell. The land they wanted was access land into the Powder River country. The government did not have the luck they needed in obtaining the land with money or bribes. So in the summer of 1865 they sent more than two thousand soldiers from Fort Laramie into the Powder River country (Ambrose 151). In 1866 the government, knowing that the land they wanted was worth much more, offered the Sioux fifteen thousand dollars annually for access into Powder River country. The Indians did allow whites to use the Bozeman Trail just as they allowed immigrants to use the Holy Road. The U.S. Government had an obligation to protect its citizens but not to provoke a crisis. They did create a crisis when they established forts in the heart of Oglala territory. After conquering the confederates the U.S. Army was full of optimism and wanted desperately to have an all out war to exterminate the Sioux. Although the Indians were allowing the whites to use the Bozeman Trail, the government was not satisfied. They wanted the legal right to use the trail. E.B. Taylor, a government agent at one of the Indian Offices, tricked some of the Indian Leaders into going to Fort Laramie in 1866 for a treaty. He deliberately attempted to deceive them; he said nothing about building forts along the trail, only that they wanted to use the Bozeman Trail. He offered them guns, ammunition, gifts plus money. The Indians did not sell (Ambrose 213-214). In June 1867, the government officials produced a new treaty. This treaty, like all the ones before, only promised lavish gifts to those who would sign. One of the Oglala chiefs, Red Cloud, wanted more for his nation than the simple gifts offered. He wanted the troops to move from the forts; Reno, Philkearny and C.F. Smith. During the summer of 1868 his request was accepted. The troops moved. A civil war hero William Tecumseh Sherman moved into the territory as the new commander of the plains. He had plans to get the treaty signed. His hopes were to, shut up the congressional critics, get the Sioux to agree on a treaty and maintain the army's morale. After negotiations were made Red Cloud lead one hundred-and twenty-five leaders of the Sioux nations to sign the treaty of 1868. This treaty guaranteed "absolute and undisturbed use of the Great Sioux Reservation. No person shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in territory described in this article, or without consent of the Indians pass through the same" (Matthiessen 7-8). This treaty also stated that the hunting rights on the land between the Black Hills and the Big Horn Mountains "as long as the grass shall grow and the water flows".(Guttmacher 73). It forced the Indians to be farmers and live in houses. There could be no changes made to the treaty without three fourths of all adult males of the Sioux nation agreeing (Ambrose 282). The Indians had divided into those who agreed with the treaty, the "friendly" and those who wanted nothing to do with the treaty, the "hostile". The U.S. government did not recognize these separate groups. They forbid trade with the Powder River Indians until all Indians moved to the reservation. This was not in the Treaty of 1868, (Guttmacher 76). Even though the government was getting the best part of the treaty they were not satisfied with progress. In 1871 the Indian Appropriation Bill was passed which stated "hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power with whom the U.S. may contract by treaty" (Matthiessen 7-8). General Armstrong Custer was appointed as the new commander of the plains. He led the Seventh Calvary on a mission to subdue a band of hostile Cheyenne. The calvary came across an Indian village and attacked them instead. Black Kettle, the chief of the village and his wife were killed as they rode to surrender. This killing of 100 Cheyenne, mostly women and children, and 800 ponies was advertised as Custer's victory against the brutal savages (Guttmacher 81-82). The U.S. Army led an expedition into the Sioux territory. According to the Treaty of 1868 this expedition was not legal. The expedition was to survey land for the Northern Pacific Railroad. The railroad meant progress. (Guttmacher 81). Since the civil war the American economy was booming. Railroad stocks led the way. On, September 18 1873, banking crashed. Farm prices plummeted, grasshopper plaques ruined crops, yellow fever struck in the Mississippi Valley, and unemployment went sky high. The government figured that it's role was to pour money into the economy. The gold supply was insufficient. President Grants solution to the economy was to open new territory for exploration. So in the spring of 1874 troops were sent to open a fort in the Black Hills. The government, exaggerated at the best or lied at the worst, said the Indians were not keeping up their part of the treaty. Custer was in charge of this expedition. During this expedition Custer claimed that there was gold in the Black Hills. Grant looked at this as an opportunity to show the country he could pull them from the depression and he opened the Black Hills for prospecting. This broke the treaty of 1868 again (Ambrose 343-346). The Black Hills was a sacred place to the Sioux. It was a place where spirits dwelled, a holy place called Pa Sapa by the Sioux. The whites had only the crudest concept of what the hills meant to the Indians. By 1876 ten thousand whites lived in Custer City, the frontier town of the southern Black Hills. Agency Indians were not living very well on the reservations. Government agents were corrupt. They would accept diseased cattle, rotten flour and wormy corn. They would get a kickback on the profits. The Indians were undernourished and even starving. The agents also claimed the Indians exaggerated in their numbers just to receive more rations. However, in a census conducted by the government trying to prove this, they found that the Indians were actually claiming less (Ambrose 359). In 1876, the agencies were taken from the churches and given to the army to control. This was petitioned to Washington with statements that soldiers were obnoxious and their dislike for Indians was very obvious. Also the army was corrupting the Indians by introducing and encouraging alcohol and gambling. The petition also stated that all the agency troubles had been caused directly or indirectly by the soldiers. No change in policy was done on behalf of these petitions (Kadlecek 33). Unwilling to pay for the Black Hills and unable to defeat the Sioux in war, on August, 15, 1876 Congress passed the Sioux Appropriation Bill. This bill stated that further provisions would not be given to the Sioux until the hostiles gave up the Black Hills, Powder River country and Bighorn country. They would also have to move to the Missouri River in Central Dakota or to Oklahoma. Upset because of there defeat the Government demanded unconditional surrender of the Sioux or they would starve those in the agencies. Red Cloud and the other chiefs were told to sign a treaty or their people would starve. Crazy horse and Sitting Bull continued to fight for land that was stolen from them in a misleading treaty (Ambrose 417-418). The Treaty of 1876 was not signed by at least three fourths of the male members of the Sioux nation as the Treaty of 1868 had stipulated. So they cheated by calling the treaty an "Agreement" instead of a treaty (Friswold 19). The government had changed or disturbed nearly every part of the Indians lives. They had taken their horses (their wealth), taken their land, taken the buffalo and taken their tipis. They still had their religion. They had seven ceremonial rites of which two were the most beneficial; the Vision Quest and the Sun Dance. The Vision quest was an individual dance and the Sun Dance a community affair. In June 1877 the biggest Sun Dance seen on the reservation, twenty thousand strong, was held to honor Crazy Horse. This was the last big Sun Dance (Kadlecek 37-42). Crazy Horse was finally persuaded to bring his people in to live on the reservation. Crazy horse was lied to when a government official told him that he was needed at a conference. He realized this was a trap when he saw bars on the windows. He drew his knife and attempted to break loose. A white soldier, William Gentiles, lunged at Crazy Horse with a fixed bayonet that punctured his kidney. Crazy Horse died September, 5 1877 (Kadlecek 53). The Sioux Indians had lost nearly everything that made them a strong nation. In 1881 the government prohibited all reservations from allowing the Sun Dance. The government went against the First Amendment and took away the Sioux's greatest religious ceremony. General Sherman, never known as an Indian lover, said a reservation was "a parcel of land inhabited by Indians and surrounded by thieves" (Matthiessen 17). This type of harassment did not stop. In 1887 the General Allotment Act (the Dawes Act) was passed. This Act was designed to assist the Indians to mainstream into America. Each male Indian was given 160 acres of land from the reservation. Of course the excess land was taken by the government and sold to the whites. The Indians were not accustom to dealing with thieves and the majority of them lost their land through shady dealings (Matthiessen 17). The U.S. Government used many deceptions to obtain the land the Indians once owned. The Sioux Indians were not treated with the most respect to say the least. They must be commended for staying strong and still being a big part of the United States today. Budd 3 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Crusaders.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Crusaders Among the most intriguing and legendary figures of the Crusades is Saladin, or as he is more commonly referred to in Arabic, Salah ad-Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub (Righteousness of Faith, Joseph son of Job).1 Christian and Muslim scholars alike have written volumes of work praising him as a man of virtuous qualities and heroism; in much of the literature, Salah ad-Din appears frequently as a conquering hero over his Latin enemies. However, closer examination of his life reveals him not only to be a conqueror, but also a man who struggled to create peace and unity among the dispersed Muslim forces under his command. Historians have often argued that Salah ad-Din pursued this goal with patience and perseverance, recognizing that achieving this objective was crucial in order to wage a decisive military campaign against the Christian infidels. His call for a holy war, or jihad, resonated throughout the Muslim east, uniting Muslim forces in battle in an effort to reclaim their lost glory through reconquest of stolen lands. Much of the Muslim achievements throughout the counter-crusades were in large part attributable to Salah ad-Din's ability to overcome internal and external challenges. His strengths were often reflected in his exuberant personality, shrewd sense of political judgement, as well as mastery of military tact and skill. In addition, he was a keenly devout Muslim who stringently followed the tenants of Islam. Collectively, these elements provided the basis for his outstanding leadership abilities. This paper examines Salah ad-Din's role in the Muslim victories throughout the crusading period. In addition, it assesses the significance of this legendary personage as a relevant figure in the history of the Crusades. Born in 1137 or 1138 of Kurdish descent Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub spent much of his childhood in Baalbek. His father Ayyub held the position of governor, first under Zengi and subsequently under the princes of Damascus. It was not long before Salah ad-Din followed in his father's footsteps when in 1152, at the age of fourteen, he joined his uncle Shirkuh at Aleppo in the service of Nur ad-Din, for which he was allotted a fief.2 Four years later, he succeeded his eldest brother Turan-Shah as Nur ad-Din's deputy in the military governorship of Damascus, but resigned from the post shortly after in protest against the corruption of the chief accountant. Soon after, he rejoined Nur ad-Din at Aleppo and later returned to his post in the office of deputy commandant of Damascus for an unspecified period.3 During his post in the service of Nur ad-Din Arab, chroniclers maintain that Salah ad-Din was a youth who developed "excellent qualities" wherein he "to walk in the path of righteousness, to act virtuously and be zealous in fighting the infidels."4 His interest in religious studies was in part inspired by the model behaviour of Nur ad-Din. It was not, however, his only source of influence. Historian Stanley Lane-Poole states, Salah ad-Din received the best education for a Muslim boy due to his father's honoured position. Salah ad-Din's father was himself particularly devout in his practice of Islam. It was therefore no surprise that his son received years of education in the Quran, Arabic grammar, elements of rhetoric poetry and theology.5 Collectively, these studies formed the standard and foundation of higher education among the learned men of Salah ad-Din's time which included him. Throughout his later years, his literary tastes tended to be theological. According to Lane-Poole, Salah ad-Din "enjoyed hearing holy traditions traced and verified, canon law formulated, passages in the Quran explained and sound orthodoxy vindicated, inspired him with strange delight."6 His knowledge and interest in Islamic theology continued to grow and develop, as did the prestige of his political posts. During his first campaigns in Egypt, Salah ad-Din played a subordinate, though not insignificant, role under his uncle Shirkuh. At that time, Salah ad-Din was the acting administrator of Egypt, while Shirkuh held the vizirate. Nine weeks later, following the death of Shirkuh, Salah ad-Din succeeded him as the new vizier of Egypt, much to the resentment of Nur ad-Din's Turkish officers. On March 26, 1169 Salah ad-Din was officially crowned the Sultan of Egypt or "el-malik an-nasir" in Arabic.7 From this moment on, he "put aside the thought of pleasure and the love of ease, adopted a Spartan rule and set it as an example to his troops."8 He devoted all his energies henceforth to one great objective-to found a Muslim empire strong enough to drive the infidels out of the land. "When God gave me the land of Egypt," he said, "I was sure that he meant Palestine for me also."9 Whether it was a natural selfish ambition that hastened his zeal or not, the result was the same: henceforward his career was one long championship of Islam. He had pledged himself to Holy War. Many preliminary conquests were necessary and many years were to intervene before he could address himself to this main task. The next five years were spent consolidating his position as the Sultan of Egypt. One of the many internal struggles he was forced to contend with was the revolt which broke out among the Egyptian officers. The army consisted of several regiments of white cavalrymen and approximately 30 000 Sudanese infantry.10 Salah ad-Din immediately began building up his own army at the expense of the Egyptian officers and when a revolt broke out among the Sudanese, he had already prepared himself with regular troops of his own in order to decimate them and drive them out of Cairo into upper Egypt.11 The white troops co-operated under the direction of their new vizier.12 In 1169, the region of Damietta was attacked by an army of Crusaders and Greeks.13 Using his own prudence and the aid of his father and brothers, he was successful in vanquishing the attackers.14 By 1171, following the death of the Fatimid caliph, and under the orders of his overlord Nur ad-Din, Salah ad-Din restored the Abbasid caliphate in Egypt. Despite this gesture of committed loyalty to his uncle and many others like it, the good relations which had existed up to this point between the two grew strained.15 Nur ad-Din began to view his nephew's rising prestige with displeasure, realizing that his subordinate was becoming a rival power.16 According to historian Sir Hamilton Gibb, author of the article "The Rise of Saladin", some suspicions on the part of Nur ad-Din may have been aroused by Saladin's failure to assist his suzerain during the expedition to Krak de Montreal (ash-Shaubak) in October 1171, despite his reasons for his withdrawl.17 More notably, Gibb maintains that more than likely the greatest cause of the strain lay in the divergence of their political views with regard to the strategic importance of Egypt.18 Any worries Salah ad-Din may have had concerning this troubled relationship quickly disappeared upon the death of his suzerain on May 15, 1173.19 It was not long however, before his old worries were replaced with new concerns, primarily of a military nature. Not only did Salah ad-Din make it his duty to build a new army strong enough to hold Egypt in all contingencies, but he made it his mission as the "true heir" of Nur ad-Din to re-establish his empire, starting with the occupation of Damascus.20 He attained this with virtually no opposition on October 28, 1174. The occupation of subsequent strategic regions did not prove to be as easy a task despite his appeals to the local amirs for the unification of Muslim power, " In the interests of Islam and its people we put first and foremost whatever will combine their forces and unite them in one purpose; in the interests of the house of atabeg we put first and foremost whatever will safeguard its root and its branch. Loyalty can only be the consequence of loyalty. We are in one valley and those who think ill of us are in another."21 Many of them did not always view Salah ad-Din's professed aim with similar intentions. Yet, as Gibb astutely noted, the extent to which Salah ad-Din's personal motives were mingled with his genuine devotion to the cause and ideals of Islam is a question which may never be answered.22 During this time, however selfless his motives may have been, the only effective means by which his objective could be realized was by concentrating power into his own hands, and only delegating, to persons whose loyalty was unquestionable.23 In December of 1174, he appointed his brother Tughtigin as governor of Damascus, while he himself pressed northwards with a small force to occupy Homs and Hamah.24 In addition, he demanded that Aleppo should also concede its borders to him as the rightful guardian of Nur ad-Din's son as-Salih.25 As a result, many amirs concluded that Salah ad-Din sought nothing but the aggrandizement of his own house at the expense of the house of Zengi.26 On two separate occasions, there were assassination attempts local adversaries, both of which proved unsuccessful. These occurrences do, however, illustrate the extent to which he was forced to contend with political rivalries and internal strife. Salah ad-Din proved to be a shrewd politician by creating various forms of alliances with his amirs, many of whom were of similar Kurdish descent.27 Undoubtably, his relations with them were strengthened by a common bond of race and the broad role in affairs which he gave them. In other areas, he availed himself of marriage alliances, thereby creating both familial bonds and constituting an open recognition of the amirs' high status. Historian Stephen Humphrey wrote extensively about the structure of politics during the reign of Salah ad-Din and argued that it was not merely a one sided relationship. He contends that Salah ad-Din's amirs were linked to him by very clear bonds of political dependence. This political dependence proceeded in the first instance from his personal qualities and political skill. Salah ad-Din's extravagant generosity to those around him, though undoubtably irresponsible, was also a widely used and much esteemed political device for ensuring the loyalty of questionable supporters.28 This practice even received Quranic sanction under the name "ta'lif al-qulub"--the winning-over of hearts.29 His oftenoted reluctance to examine the activities of his provincial governors and administrators too closely was likewise more the product of calculation than of carelessness.30 When he did learn of some malfeasance, he punished the guilty official only in certain circumstances.31 An account retold by Imad ad-Din illustrates this point : "...at the beginning of my journey with him [Saladin] to Egypt in 572 [1176], an accounting was demanded of his term in office. The audit of his books indicated a deficit of 70 000 dinars. [The Sultan] neither sought nor mentioned [this sum], and caused him to think that he knew nothing of it, although the sahib al-diwan did not deny it...Nor was [the sultan] pleased to dismiss him, but put him in charge of diwan al-jaysh."32 Corruption and misadministration were prevalent throughout the political system, but by down-playing these weaknesses, Salah ad-Din could retain the services-and reinforce the sense of gratitude-of a presumably valued official.33 His generosity and forbearance were attractive qualities; they were also of great political utility. Salah ad-Din 's qualities were important not only in dealing with individual cases, but also in handling his amirs as a body. According to Humphrey, each group was granted reasonable shares of the iqta's and governorships and each of their chiefs were equally heard by the sultan, with no one group gaining greater favour over another.34 Humphrey adds that for the political benefits of such a policy were immense: his treatment of individuals meant that he had to face only a few cases of personal discontent and even if some disgruntled amir had tried to mount a conspiracy against him, he would have found no faction at hand to support him.35 It was, of course, much to Salah ad-Din's advantage that he was the only political leader in the region who had both the personality and political insight to establish such a relationship with his amirs. Sa'd al-Din Gumushtigin began his brief career as dictator of Aleppo by imprisoning a number of amirs and alienating several others who should have been among the most loyal supporters of the Zengid house.36 Similarly, when Izz al-Din Mas'ud of Mosul and his chief advisor Mujahid al-Din Kiymaz occupied the region in 577/1182, they favoured their own Mosul amirs over the Aleppan Nuriyya, with subsequent discontent and at least one important defection to Salah ad-Din.37 In the face of such treatment, Salah ad-Din's generosity and equitableness were bound to seem more attractive than the duty of loyalty to the house of Zengi.38 The political bond which Salah ad-Din's created was a strong and effective one, but by itself did not suffice. Salah ad-Din's amirs were ambitious men, after all, and like professional soliders in a position to choose their ruler, they would serve the man who assured them the richest rewards.39 Had he been the ruler of a small passive state-it is doubtful that he could have sustained the services of most of his amirs. The kingdom, however, was quite different. From the outset, it was clearly the most vigorous and dynamic power in the Nile Valley and Fertile Crescent.40 For a man of ambition by far the greatest prospects lay with Salah ad-Din. Participation in Salah ad-Din's success entailed the development of opportunities and newly secured interests in land and political power enjoyed by the amirs. To a large extent argues Humphrey, Salah ad-Din's success was the surest guarantee of the amirs' loyalty.41 The system of loyalties created by Salah ad-Din thus rested equally on successful expansion and on his perceptiveness in dealing both with individuals and the disparate groups among his amirs. Expansion bound the amirs to his cause because it promised material rewards, and this bond grew all the more effective as Salah ad-Din became the only ruler in the region able to offer such inducements on a grand scale.42 But with the inevitable rivalries and disappointed hopes which accompany rapid imperial expansion, or in the face of frustration and defect, a material tie of this kind was subject to quick dissolution.43 It was the cement of personal trust and mutual obligation which could (at least in part) sustain the commitment of his amirs under such circumstances.44 Salah ad-Din's military efforts proved just as challenging, if not more so against these political obstacles. As noted previously, Salah ad-Din's demands for Aleppo proved unrelenting. After a second attempt, he posted his forces around the region, leaving Gumushtigin no alternative but to accept his terms. This left Aleppo in the hands of as-Salih with the condition that the two armies combine operations against the Franks.45 A series of skirmishes against the Christian forces followed with only modest successe and no decisive victory could be achieved with only the forces of Damascus and those which could be spared from the defense of Egypt.46 The forces of Aleppo, Mosul and Mespotamia were required to assist him in his reconquest of Palestine.47 With the opposition of Aleppo tactically resolved, Salah ad-Din directed his attention on the potential hostility of the Zengids of Mosul and the very likely possibility that their troops could still effectively neutralize his ultimate objective.48 For him, the conclusion was inescapable: since he could not concentrate the forces of Syria and Egypt against the crusaders so long as he was endangered by potential rear attacks from Mosul, their forces, too, had to be brought under his control and turned into auxillaries in the jihad.49 If the Holy War was to be successful, it had be waged with all Muslim forces united. In his dispatches to the caliphate in Baghdad following the capture of Amida, Salah ad-Din made a moral appeal for the rights to Mosul arguing that, "This alone stood in the way of the union of Islam and the recovery of Jerusalem. Let the commander of the faithful compare the conduct of his clients and judge which of them most faithfully served the cause of Islam."50 Salah ad-Din's insistence on the inclusion of Mesopotamia and Mosul in his dominions was because, " this little Jazira [i.e. Mesopotamia] is the lever which will set in motion the great Jazira [i.e. the whole Arab east]; it is the point of division and center of resistance, and once it is set in its place in the chain of alliances, the whole armed might of Islam will be coordinated to engage the forces of unbelief."51 After a period of tension and conflict, a peaceful settlement was reached and a grand coalition was at last formed with the goal of reconquering Palestine. Salah ad-Din's armies, though organized along the same lines as those of Nur ad-Din, differed in one important respect. The proportion of Kurds in his regiments was much greater and the mamluk element less prominent.52 Their common loyalty to him kept in check the rivalries that might otherwise have resulted in conflicts between them, and in his selection of fiefholders and lesser governors, he seems to have kept the balance fairly evenly.53 Saladin also had to contend with his amirs' discontent, especially after longer, discouraging campaigns. Although this never degenerated into open mutiny, he could not ignore its possibility. But by and large, his authority among his amirs was such that he could manage campaigns of many months' duration for years on end without provoking serious dissension. To all of Muslim forces, argues Gibb, he gave his complete confidence and expected of them equal loyalty in return.54 Finally reuniting his forces, Salah ad-Din marched his goal, the recapture of Jerusalem. After a seige of less than a fortnight, the city surrendered on October 2, 1187. This, along with his other impressive victories which reduced the holdings of the crusaders in Syria to three cities ( Tyre, Tripoli and Antioch with a few outlying fortresses) in such a short span of time, has led Muslim and Christian scholars alike to view him as a great and successful general. Salah ad-Din possessed military virtues of high order; but his victories were due to his moral qualities which have little to do with strategic gifts.55 He was a man inspired by an intense and unwavering ideal, the achievement of which necessarily involved him in a long series of military activities. Until 1186, these activities were directed toward imposing his will upon the prevailing feudal military system and shaping it into the instrument which his purpose required.56 These, however, were not Salah ad-Din's only strengths; his ability to ignite the mass fervour of jihad was crucial in itself-since no leader, not even Nur ad-Din, had been capable of organizing such a powerful effort. It has often been argued that it was Nur ad-Din who laid the political and physical groundwork for Salah ad-Din who went on to command more defensive and emotional support for the holy war than any previous ruler.57 Under Salah ad-Din, the growth of Muslim strength, unity and vigor for jihad developed and found its fullest expression. Ibn Shaddad, one of Salah ad-Din's greatest eulogizers, concluded that for Salah ad-Din it was not an issue of building up his own power for selfish reasons, but to command sufficient strength to fight the " accursed" Franks.58 Salah ad-Din himself is said to have argued that, " a man does not serve Allah unless he is occupied with the maintenance of the jihad with extraordinary effort and application."59 Historian Gibb further adds that for Salah ad-Din, if the war to which he had vowed himself against the crusaders was to be a real jihad, a true Holy War, it was imperative to conduct it with scrupulous observance of the revealed law of Islam.60 A government which sought to serve the cause of God in battle must not only be a lawful government, duly authorized by supreme represention of the divine law, but must serve God with equal zeal in its administration and in its treatment of its subjects.61 Salah ad-Din possessed all the religious virtues of orthodoxy: piety, obedience to the law, hadith and the Quran; and respect for learned men; as well as knowledge of the tradition and law of jihad and activation of that knowledge.62 He could and often did call upon military strength (once consolidated) when he wished, in comparison with the number of amirs and governors whom Nur ad-Din had employed in similar roles.63 Ibn Shaddad recalls several cases of many volunteers and martyrs who responded willingly to the calls of jihad by their suzerain. In 1189, the troops were full of fervour at Acre-this was a day on which one could sell one's life for the great reward of paradise and Gibb recounts many references to men who donated their services to Salah ad-Din and others who died as martyrs for Allah in battle.64 Other instances are cited, whereby Salah ad-Din himself exhorted his men before a battle, or during a critical point in the fight, encouraging them to exert themselves in Allah's service (fi sabil Allah or in the way of Allah).65 As a powerful leader of his time,using the element of holy war to instigate military activity, Salah ad-Din was able to command the loyalty and ideals of a group of men bound by a similar principle of faith-Islam. Salah ad-Din achieved what no Muslim commander, for centuries before him ever attempted: he ruled for three years without any relatively major disruptions and still fulfilled his ultimate goals. Had he been no more than a military leader, he could not have attained it; his feudal troops would have fallen apart and been overun by the Franks. It was, however, the collaboration of his true greatness and inner strength which helped produce such a victorious outcome. He was faced with no easy task--waging a double conflict: the external struggle with the crusaders and the internal struggle with fissiparous tendencies and instability of the feudal armies. Military genius was but one element in the combination of qualities he possessed which enabled him to fight crusaders successfully. The military campaign was a long and difficult one, consisting of military reversals and disaster; his generals were openly critical, his troops at times mutinous. It was through his sheer strength of character, the undying passion of faith within him and his example of steadfast endurance that he inspired the obstinate resistance which ultimately defeated the Christian infidels. Word Count: 3730 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\cyprus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CYPRUS; HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT Cyprus, an island in the Eastern Mediterranean, at the cross-roads of three continents - Europe, Asia and Africa - has one of the oldest histories of the world, dating back 9000 years. Its strategic position, its wealth in forests and mineral deposits, as well as its skilled craftsmen, made it the prized possession of the powers of the day. Cultural influences came from all directions - all major regional civilisations left their mark on the island, contributing to the development of a very rich and diverse cultural heritage. ANCIENT TIMES The Stone Age The first signs of human life on the island date back to c. 8500 BC during the Palaeolithic period. Evidence of human activity was found in cave dwellings near Liopetri, though it is not known whether they were just hunting parties passing through or permanent settlers. The first undisputed settlements are believed to have been established towards the end of the 8th millennium BC. Vestiges of such early communities are found all over the island, such as at Khirokitia, Kalavasos-Tenta, Apostolos Andreas- Kastros, Phrenaros, Petra tou Limniti. Neolithic Cypriots built circular houses with small undressed stones for the lower structures and sun-dried mudbricks and clay for the middle and superstructure. The Khirokitia neolithic settlement in Larnaca district stands out as a striking example of prehistoric architecture. The Neolithic settlement of Khirokitia The Bronze/ Copper Age Large copper deposits brought fame and wealth to the island and may have even given it its name. It has been documented that during the bronze age Cyprus had intense commercial relations with the main commercial and cultural centres of that time. During this period metallurgy and pottery flourished while close relations developed, particularly with Crete, which are also expressed in the Cypro-Minoan script which appeared in Cyprus around 1500 BC. Of special significance for the future of Cyprus was its colonisation around 1200 BC by Mycenaean and Achaean Greeks, a migration process that lasted for more than a century. They brought with them to the island the Hellenic language, culture and religion. Legend has it that the first Hellenes who settled in Cyprus were heroes of the Trojan war. The arrival of the Achaeans greatly influenced town planning, architecture, and pottery. Since then Cyprus has remained predominantly Greek in culture, language and population despite influences resulting from successive occupations. Iron Age More and more people from the Greek world came to live in Cyprus. They built city along the lines of the Greek ones. There were about eleven city kingdoms in all: Kourion, Paphos, Soloi, Marion, Lapithos, Salamis, Kition, Kyrenia, Amathus, and Idalion. Although Cyprus was conquered by other peoples, these city kingdoms mostly ruled themselves, paying taxes to their conquerors. The island was conquered in succession by the Assyrians, the Egyptians and the Persians (800-332 BC). The Classical Period For more than a century, Cyprus was caught in the middle of the power struggle between Greece and Persia. In the 6th century BC Persia became the dominant power and the kings of Cyprus, while being allowed to retain their autonomy, were obliged to pay tribute to the Persian King and place their military forces at his disposal. Persia's domination, however, was not maintained easily and there were several attempts tooverthrow the Persian yoke, the most significant being the Ionian revolt and an attempt by King Evagoras I of Salamis to unite all of Cyprus' city-kingdoms under him. attempts failed. The Hellenistic Period Cyprus stayed in Persian hands until Alexander the Great defeated the Persian Empire when the island became part of his huge Empire. Upon Alexander's death Cyprus fell to one of his generals, Ptolemy I, the ruler of Egypt. From then on Cyprus, under the Ptolemies, was an integral part of the Hellenistic World until its integration with the Roman Empire in 30 BC. During this time Cyprus experienced significant cultural activity and close contacts with the city kingdoms of the Hellenic World. Cypriot athletes took part in the Olympic and Panathenian Games and the names of Cypriot sculptors are referred to at Delphi and Lemnos. The worship of Aphrodite was known throughout the region and the Temple of Goddess of Love and Beauty at Palaepaphos gathered pilgrims from all over the ancient world. The city-kingdoms of Salamis, Amathus, Paphos and others which were established at the time of Greek colonisation flourished during this period and produced magnificent pieces of architecture and sculpture which survive till our days. The Roman Period As the Ptolemaic empire declined, Cyprus came under Roman domination and was a colony in 58 BC. Romans also left their legacy on the island in the form of Roman amphitheatres, public baths, mosaics and other architectural edifices. One of the most significant events during this period was the visit to the island of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, the latter being considered the founder of the Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus. The Apostles travelled all across the island to Paphos where they converted the Roman governor to Christianity and so Cyprus became the first country to be ruled by a Christian. THE MIDDLE AGES The Byzantine Period The Christian civilisation was consolidated in the island during the Byzantine Period (330-1191 AD) at which time the island was an important spiritual focus. Wonderful churches and magnificent monasteries containing fine wall paintings and mosaics survive to our times and are testimony to the importance of Cyprus in the East Roman Empire. St Bartholomew, mosaic from the Kanakaria Church. 6th century AD With the emergence of Islam in the 6th and 7th centuries AD, Cyprus became an object dispute between Christendom and Islam. The Arabs, who with their repeated incursions, spread death and destruction in coastal settlements, were finally pushed away in 965 AD by Emperor Nicephorus Phocas and restored Cyprus as a province of the Byzantine Empire. The western Crusaders influenced a great deal the development of the history of Cyprus. It was Richard the Lionheart, King of England, who during the Third Crusade captured the island defeating its ruler, Isaac Comnenos in 1191. Richard tried to sell Cyprus to the Knights Templars, who nevertheless, were not able to resist the revolt of the people of Cyprus. Thus the island went back to the English King, who sold it again this time to the Frankish King of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan. The Frankish Period The rule of the Franks in Cyprus lasted until 1489 and during that time life on the island was organised on the basis of the feudal model of the West, oppression of the indigenous population being its main characteristic. The Lusignan period left numerous monuments on the island - mainly Gothic churches and mountain fortifications. During the 14th century Cyprus is an important point of contact between East and West. Within a network of contradictions, a complex cultural creation took shape both in the letters and in the arts with the pronounced seal of a variety of influences. The end of the Latin period in Cyprus came with the Venetian rule from 1489 to 1571. The Venetians held the island for its strategic position in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean on the way to the vital Silk Route to China. Venice, wished in this way to underline its prominence among the western powers of the time and attempted to keep to road to the East open despite the growing menace of the Ottomans. The Venetians also left their mark on the island's cultural heritage with their fortifications around Nicosia and Famagusta. These, built with the intention of fending off the Turks, proved inadequate and Cyprus fell to the Turks in 1571, becoming part of the Ottoman Empire. MODERN TIMES The Turkish Period Though Cyprus on the whole became less prosperous under Ottoman rule, there were certain immediate benefits. Serfdom was abolished and the rights of the Greek Orthodox Church, which had been suppressed since the Franks, were restored. However, there was very harsh rule and harsh taxation which impoverished the people, and there were continual revolts. In 1821 an attempt by Cypriots to support the Greeks in their revolt against Ottoman rule was brutally crushed, with the Archbishop being publicly hanged and many others, including three bishops, put to death. Cyprus remained under Ottoman rule until 1878 when, with the Treaty of Berlin, the Sultan in his effort to secure British support in his conflict with the Russians leased Cyprus to Great Britain. Then in 1914, following the entry of Turkey in World War I on the side of Germany, the British government annexed Cyprus and turned it into a Crown colony in 1925. In the meantime Turkey surrendered all claim on Cyprus with the Lausanne Treaty it concluded with Greece in 1923. The British Period British rule left its mark on the island's complex culture with the adoption by the people Cyprus of some of the customs of their colonial masters, the legacy of some British colonial buildings, and, most importantly, the tradition of the British administration especially in the civil service. Cypriots fought alongside the allies against fascism and nazism during World War II. The British, however, refused to keep their word and offer the island the right of self determination at the end of the war. There followed the Enosis referendum of 1950, when 96% of Greek Cypriots voted for Enosis, Union with Greece. In April 1955 the EOKA Liberation Struggle, against the colonial rulers, resulted in the granting of independence to the island on the basis of the Zurich and London Agreements of February 1959. Independence and invasion The independent Republic of Cyprus came into being in August 1960. Its first President was Archbishop Makarios. Over the first three years of independence relations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots deteriorated, mainly as a result of flaws in the constitution which gave disproportional rights to the Turkish Cypriot community including the right to block the passing of laws. In 1963 intercommunal violence broke out following which many Turkish Cypriots withdrew to enclaves. Attempts to bring the two sides back together were made through the United Nations who sent a contingent to the island. On 15 July 1974 the Junta ruling Athens at the time organised a coup to overthrow Archbishop Makarios. A week later Turkey invaded the island, claiming this was to restore constitutional order. However, when the rightful government was restored, Turkish troops stayed on, implementing a long-held policy of partitioning the island. They went on to occupy more than a third of Cyprus, forcing 200,000 people to lose their homes and become refugees. The area under Turkish occupation unilaterally declared independence in 1983, an act condemned by the UN and other international organisations. No country in the world other than Turkey has recognised this illegal state. The political issue, despite efforts to solve it, remains virtually frozen since 1974 and the occupation of part of Cyprus by the Turkish army still continues. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\DDay.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Introduction June 6, 1944 will be remembered for many reasons. Some may think of it as a success and some as a failure. The pages following this could be used to prove either one. The only sure thing that I can tell you about D-Day is this: D-Day, June 6, 1944 was the focal point of the greatest and most planned out invasion of all time. The allied invasion of France was long awaited and tactfully thought out. For months the allied forces of millions trained in Britain waiting for the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces, General Eisenhower to set a date. June 6, 1944 was to be the day with the H-hour at 06:30. Aircraft bombed German installations and helped prepare the ground attack. The ground forces landed and made their push inland. Soon Operation Overlord was in full affect as the allied forces pushed the Germans back towards the Russian forces coming in from the east. D-Day was the beginning and the key to the fight to take back Europe. Preparations for D-Day Operation Overlord was in no way a last minute operation thrown together. When the plan was finalized in the spring of 1944 the world started work on preparing the hundreds of thousands of men for the greatest battle in history. By June of 1944 the landing forces were training hard, awaiting D-Day. 1,700,000 British, 1,500,000 Americans, 175,000 from Dominions (mostly Canada), and another 44,000 from other countries were going to take part. Not only did men have to be recruited and trained but also equipment had to be built to transport and fight with the soldiers. 1,300 warships, 1,600 merchant ships, 4,000 landing craft and 13,000 aircraft including bombers, fighters and gliders were built. Also several new types of tanks and armoured vehicles were built. Two examples would be the Sherman Crab flail tank and the Churchill Crocodile. On the ground Britain assembled three armoured divisions, eight infantry divisions, two airborne divisions and ten independent fighting brigades. The United States had six armoured divisions, thirteen infantry and two airborne divisions. With one armoured division and two infantry divisions Canada also contributed greatly with the war effort especially when you look at the size of the country at the time. In the air Britain's one hundred RAF squadrons (1,200 aircraft) paled in comparison to the one hundred and sixty-five USAAF squadrons (2,000 aircraft). The entire Operation Overlord was supposed to go according to Montgomery's Master Plan which was created by General Sir Bernard L. Montgomery. His plan was initiated by a command system which connected the U.S. and Britain and helped them jointly run the operation. His plan was to have five divisions act as a first wave land on the sixty-one mile long beach front. Four more divisions as well as some airborne landings would support the first wave. The beaches of Normandy would be separated into five beaches, codenamed, from west to east Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword. The Americans would invade the two westernmost beaches, being Utah and Omaha and the British and it's Dominions would take Gold, Juno and Sword. The Canadians were nearly the entire force to land on Juno beach. The operation was also coordinated with various French resistance groups called the "Secret Army." The naval plans were to transport the allied expeditionary forces, help secure and defend a beachhead, and to help setup a method of constant resupplying of allied forces. Operation Overlord, in short, was as follows: The airforce would be used to knock out German defences and immobilize their forces, blowup tanks and other dummies were used to fool Germans into thinking the invasion was coming at Pas de Calais, the navy would transport the troops while doing whatever it can to help them gain ground, and enough of France would be liberated and held by allied forces so that they would not be pushed back into the sea. Utah Beach Utah beach was a stretch of beachfront approximately five miles long and located in the dunes of Varreville. Like most beach attacks that day, the planned attack time was 06:30 or H hour. As early as 02:00 (H-4:30) the preparations for attack were being made as minesweepers started working at creating a safe path for allied battleships, frigates, corvettes, etc. At about 02:30 the flagship for Utah beach was in place and the order was given for the landing crafts to be loaded and placed into the water. The four waves of troops were ready to go and the German radar had not spotted any buildup of ships. The first gunfire occurred at daybreak when some ships were spotted and fired upon by coastal guns. 276 planes, all B-26 Marauder's flew in to drop their payload of 4400 bombs on the targets. Almost all missed and nearly a third fell onto the beaches and into the sea, far away from their targets. Although some guns were silenced the poor accuracy of the aircraft was costly and would turn out to be only one of the many errors made by the allied forces. At 06:30 the first of the troops landed, the 8th and 4th infantry missed the correct beach and landed 2,000 yards away on what turned out to be a less heavily defended beach. This mix up was blamed on smoke and rough seas. These first troops were all part of the twenty landing craft, each carrying thirty men that made up the first wave. After the first wave came the 32 amphibious tanks. The second wave of troops consisted of 32 craft carrying combat engineers and a naval demolition team. Dozer tanks would make up the third wave. Long after the securing of the beach 2 engineer battalions arrived. This may sound like all the divisions made it easily to shore but that is not true. Many amphibious tanks were unable to make the trek on the rough seas and sank. Two out of the three control vessels for the beach hit land mines and sank and countless landing craft were shelled by German coastal guns. There were also several drownings involving troops being weighed down by their equipment and drowning in water around six feet deep. If the soldiers managed to make it to shore they were still faced with German machine gun fire. Fortunately, the beach and it's surroundings had become the victim of a large sea launched missile attack clearing most of the German defences. Once divisions had made it on the beach and secured it they had to start moving inland on their pre-planned missions. The divisions that landed on the wrong beach decided "to start the war from right here." Most of the landed troops were supposed to secure the areas and push inland, eventually meeting up with the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions that had dropped behind the enemy in order to cut them off from escape and so that they could be attacked from two angles. In the Utah Beach attack there were six divisions involved. The 4th and 8th divisions that landed on the wrong beaches still continued on with their missions. The 4th, which was originally supposed to land on the islands of St. Marcouf to destroy coastal guns thought to be there ended up moving inland and linking up with the 101st airborne division. The other division that landed in the wrong location was the 8th. Their mission was to reduce beach fortifications and to move inland. The last two divisions were the 12th and 22nd. Both divisions were to work together to secure the Northern region of the beach. The 22nd was to move northwest clearing beaches and the high ground overlooking them while the 12th moved inland on their left flank. Unfortunately the 22nd was unable to make it's deep swing into the Northwest. By the end of the day the only infantry that was able to make it to it's D-Day objective was the 8th infantry that had landed on the wrong beach. Most of the area was secure except for a pocket of Germans that controlled a small area shaped like a two mile finger on the ridges north of Les Forges. The experimental idea of having two airborne divisions drop farther inland had helped make the Utah Beach attack a near success. Omaha Beach The Omaha beach area was the largest of all the Normandy beaches at approximately 34,500 yards in length. The beach itself had only five passable ways off, creating another difficulty for the landing troops and vehicles. Behind the beach were heavily defended bluffs and high cliffs. In order to invade the area, with it's twelve German strongpoints over 34,000 troops and 3,300 vehicles would be involved in the Omaha Beach invasion. The large number was partly because of the fact that beginning in April of the same year German military had started to fortify the area in hopes of deterring any invasion from the area. The sandy beaches themselves were free of mines but three bands of obstacles were put into place in order to create impassable obstacles for landing sea craft. First large gate-like structures were built, simply to get in the way. The second band were large posts and logs dug into the beach also creating obstacles. The third and final obstacle was farther up the beach, they were large "hedgehogs" which were mined obstacles that looked as though they were some sort of weird medieval art. Like the rest of the beaches, the planned attack time (H hour) was 06:30. Many would think that this would be when the death toll would first start to rise but this just wasn't so. Many men died far from the beach. Two companies of amphibious DD tanks sank because of heavy seas. Included with the 27 tanks that sunk were 11 landing craft that tipped. Soldiers on these transports drowned because the weight of the equipment they were carrying held them under the water. Other craft hit mines, losing troops, supplies and weapons. Most of the landing craft were being fired upon by German machine gun fire even when the crafts were still over 1,000 yards away from the beach. Some even ran aground while still 100 feet from shore. Attempts to improve the situation were made by groups such as the 29th division who decided to bring their tanks in on the landing craft. 8 of the 16 tanks made it to the beach. Other craft either missed their landing area or arrived too late. The lateral current dragged some infantry units 100's of yards from their objectives and a few battalions, like the 2nd Ranger battalion arrived 40 minutes after they were scheduled to land. Once most of the craft had managed to make it to the beach the soldiers still faced many problems. Air strikes that were planned to knock out enemy machine gunners were not successful enough. Most of the troops were pinned behind the sea wall and other obstacles by machine gun fire ahead of them and the raising tides behind them. Tides rose four feet per hour, shrinking the beach by eighty feet in the same time period. Those soldiers who were too injured to walk or crawl drowned as the tide sped up on them. With soldiers pinned down and not enough vehicles being able to get off the beach other craft were unable to land due to the lack of room. For the first few hours at Omaha Beach things looked grim. No major advances were being made. The real turnaround that day was when a few destroyers actually came in as close as eight hundred yards in order to fire at enemy strongpoints. The risk of grounding the destroyers took and the arrival of tanks lead to the eventual fall of the German beach defences. Once the groups could move inland their individual missions were put into place. One of the most important missions put upon any division was the destruction of six French-made 155mm naval guns at Pointe du Hoc. This responsibility was given to the 116th brigade and it's two combat teams: US 5th Ranger and US 2nd Ranger teams. The 5th met the fate of many battalions as the landed on the wrong beach. Luckily the remaining two teams did manage to destroy the naval guns that were capable of attacking ships as far out as 25,000 yards (22km). This would prove to be one of the few missions that were completed that day. Because of the great break downs in planned assaults, the day started to look like a chaotic day with only individual missions of survival. Most divisions managed to stay organized and plan their survival and attack plans. Col. George H. Taylor of the 16th regiment said, "Two kinds of people are staying on this beach, the dead and those about to die, not let's get the hell out of here." These sort of speeches sparked other soldiers to continue with their slightly revised missions. Originally it was planned for the area's above the beaches to be taken by an advance up the heavily defended bluffs but the plan was changed to a less organized direct assault on the German gunners in the high cliffs. Other such companies that decided on newly created missions included the 16th infantry and the 29th division. These two groups decided on a joint mission to save their allies who were pinned on the beach. Also involved on the Omaha Beach invasion were the US 1 Infantry Division, and the US 18th and 115th Brigades. By the end of D-Day on Omaha Beach the advance had gone barely one and a half miles inland. Several of the enemy strongpoints were intact and the beachhead was still under fire. Although this beaches day sounds like a disaster the major exits from the area were held, three villages were under allied control and hole in the German line about two and half kilometers long was made and the coastal guns were destroyed. The landing had been made, all the troops could do was secure the area and organize the beach for the introduction of reinforcements and supplies. Gold Beach Gold Beach was the second largest of the beaches of Normandy and was also the middle beach: Utah and Omaha to the west and Juno and Sword to the east. Gold beach was like most of the other beaches invaded on D-Day except it had one characteristic which was disadvantageous to the allies. Coral reefs, ranging from twenty to a hundred yards out could ground landing craft at low tide. Because of this factor the Gold Beach was postponed almost an hour after most of the other attacks that day. H hour on this beach was to be 07:25. It turned out the this adverse condition would soon show to have it's pro's and con's. The largest pro being that this left more time for bombardment of German defenses by RAF bombers and naval guns. The con's were of course the fact that with the rising tides men landing on the beach would end up facing the fate of many soldiers on Omaha beach, being pinned behind a sea wall and being drowned by the advancing waves. It would also turn out that, along with beach obstacles, the rising tide would make it even harder for landing craft to make their transport runs. Not soon after the arrival of the first wave of landing crafts the problems started to mount. Also, like at Omaha, regiments decided to bring their DD Sherman tanks on their LCD transports instead of floating them in. This was mainly because of the weather which created high seas. Unfortunately this sort of tactic left the tanks as sitting ducks and all but one of the tanks were disabled or destroyed. Soon one problem lead to another as those soldiers that landed on the beach were unable to advance and were without any tanks to bail them out of their predicament. Eventually with the help of the one tank that survived the landing the troops at Gold Beach were able to press forward. Not unlike any of the other beaches, Gold had a complicated battle plan including many divisions, regiments and even a commando group. The overall goal was to take the key points of the German defenses and secure the area. One such key point was Port-en-Bessin which was to be invaded by the British 47th Royal Marine Commando who would later meet up with an America regiment from Omaha. The problem was that not everything went according to plan and they were unable to take the city and Americans who were supposed to help in the fight inland by moving through the North-west flank of the area never showed up. Another such joining of teams did go according to plans as the 50th division met up with a division of Canadians from Juno beach after coming within a mile of their D-day objective of the taking of Bayeux. The only two groups to succeed in their D-day objectives as Gold Beach were the 69th and 231st regiments. The 231st successfully took the city of Arromanches while the 69th took la Riviere even after they were forced to originally bypass the stronghold and return and destroy it later on. Other groups involved included the British 8th, 151st and 56th regiments who aided in the push inland and the clearing of the beaches of mines and obstacles. Although a lot of the operations planned for Gold Beach went array, a few great things did occur. A few of which, carried out by CSM Stanley Hollis, were so extraordinary that they enabled him to be awarded with the only Victoria Cross to be awarded the entire day of June 6, 1944. Col. Hollis of the 6th company was ordered to check out some pillboxes(small German machine-gun bunkers). A few of his officers were sent in to investigate and "when they were twenty yards from the pillbox, a machine gun opened fire from the slit and CSM Hollis instantly rushed straight at the pillbox, recharged his magazine, threw a grenade in through the door and fired his Sten gun into it, killing two Germans and making the remainder prisoner. He then cleared several Germans from a neighbouring trench." Then when his company was pinned down by heavy machine-gun fire Hollis managed to destroy the gun using a PIAT (Projector Infantry Anti-Tank) weapon and retreated his troops. After learning that some of his men were still cornered in a nearby house Hollis ran at the Germans with his gun firing allowing the men to escape. By the end of the day most of the D-day objectives had failed but three brigades were ready to push farther inland at sunlight. The beach was secured and ready for reinforcements. Unfortunately Bayeux was not taken but most of the area's hidden bunkers and trenches were. Some in fact were found to be manned by unwilling Asiatic conscripts from the southern Soviet republics who were put there by Germans. Juno Beach Juno beach was Canada's beach with over 21,000 Canadians landing there. Not unlike other beaches Juno's H-hour was delayed until 07:45. The reason was that air reconnaissance had spotted some underwater "shoals" (rocks/reefs) and they wanted to wait until the tide had gone in to make it safer for the landing craft. (Later on the "shoals" turned out to be masses of floating seaweed). The beach itself was wide enough to land two brigades side by side, the Canadian 7th at Courseulles and the 8th at Bernieres. The decision to wait until 07:45 caused more problems than it solved. The rising tide hid most of the beach obstacles meaning two things: it was dangerous for the landing craft to come ashore and the demolition crews couldn't get at the obstacles to make room for the landing craft. Thirty percent of all the landing craft at Juno beach on D-day were disabled in beach obstacle related incidents. One such example was when one craft started to disembark troops a wave threw the craft onto a mined beach obstacle. Like at most of the beaches that day, armoured divisions started to bring their tanks in on the landing craft but like on all the other beaches this caused problems. The Regina Rifles, one of the first groups to land, had to wait twenty minutes on the beach without the aid of any tanks or heavy artillery. Due to heavy seas and tanks coming in on the landing craft it "meant that people who should have been in front were behind." The Canadians were smarter than most in the setup of their landing. They chose a position at sea which was only seven or eight miles out instead of the distance most other beach operations were using of about eleven miles. This greatly increased the speed and accuracy of the landings and the first Canadian wave was on the beach by 08:15. Once on the beach the amount of German defences surprised the allied forces, once again the air assault on the German gunneries were not as successful as planned. However, like at Gold beach the Canadians did find out that the firepower of their tanks were the difference between being able to push inland and being pinned down at the beach. After the main beach defences of the Germans were taken the inland push became slower and slower the farther south they got. A few of the main objectives were successful. The 3rd division reach the Caen-Bayeux road and a lot of French towns were liberated. The French residents "were very welcoming and greeted us heartily in the midst of the ruins of their homes." The one strongpoint that would become a problem for troops at Juno as well as Sword would be Caen. The Canadians found increased resistance the closer they got and in that aspect their D-day mission did not succeed. As night fell the Canadians were still well short of a lot of objectives. They did get their tanks on the Caen-Bayeux road but that was about it. The British 3rd division from Sword beach was planned to meet up with the Canadians in order to close the gap between Juno and Sword beaches but they never showed. This left a two mile gap in the beaches and would be the area of the only German counterattack of the day. The other linkup between beaches was successful as Canadians met the 50th division from Gold beach. Overall the Canadians didn't get all that far but were in a good position to move inland. Sword Beach Sword beach was the easternmost beach in Normandy. Like at Juno Beach H-hour was again postponed because of "shoals" until 07:25. The main objective at Sword beach was to advance and invade the German strongpoint of Caen. Four whole brigades of the 3rd division were sent to Caen. There were also airborne divisions that dropped behind lines using large gliders which could carry troops as well as other armoured vehicles. Those groups not supposed to head toward Caen were planned to reach the airborne divisions and secure the area's bridges from counterattack. Even as the Canadians moved inland trouble was developing back at the beach. Although all the DD tanks made it to the beach the tide was turning the already small beach into one with only ten yards from the seafront to the water's edge. With only one road off the beach the overcrowding caused delay's in most objective's for that day. Some of the armoured divisions like the 27th armoured Brigade abandoned their objectives in order to bail out infantry pinned down on the crowded beaches. Those who did make it off the beach in time were quite successful in reaching their D-day objectives. By late afternoon the leading troops of the brigades heading for Caen had reached and liberated the towns of Beuville and Bieville which were only two or so miles short of Caen. Strongpoints like the one at La Breche were taken as early as 10:00. Those troops that didn't make it off the beach in time like the 185th Brigade had to leave all their heavy equipment behind in order to catch up with the forces already nearing Caen. The move inland was really looking quite promising until the Germans launched the only counterattack of the day. The 21st Panzer division was sent out from Caen, half to take on the southward allies and the other half to head right up between Juno and Sword beach where that two mile of beach was unoccupied by allied forces. Fifty German tanks faced the brigades heading for Caen. Luckily the British were ready with artillery, fighter-bombers and a special "Firefly" Sherman tank that was fitted with a seventeen pound anti-tank gun instead of the normal seventy-five mm. gun. Soon thirteen of the German tanks were destroyed with only one M-10 tank destroyer damaged. This just went to show that the British were "slow in advance but almost unbreakable in defence." Still the Germans pressed forward until about 21:00 when the last wave of gliders of the 6th airborne divisions came in. The Germans looked up and saw about two hundred and fifty gliders fly in and land behind them. The allies now were attacking from two directions and the only German counterattack ended quickly. By the end of the day the German resistance at Sword beach was almost obliterated other than at Caen. A lot of the success was because of the joint effort of airborne divisions and divisions landing on the beach. Of the 6,250 troops of the 6th airborne that landed there were only 650 casualties. Unfortunately Caen was not taken but it's liberation was imminent. D-Day Air Battle D-day was not only a day of troops landing on the beaches of Normandy and moving inland liberating France. Without the aid of the thousands of planes Operation Overlord could not have gone as planned. As early as the spring of 1944 planes flew over German ruled France taking photographs of the defences. During the ten week period before June 6 countless missions were flown with objectives of taking out German radar installations. There were also hundreds of attacks on the railways of the area in order to immobilize the forces. Of the 2,000 locomotives that were in the area the year before 1,500 of them were destroyed or disabled by allied bombings. By the eve of D-day the allies had 2,800 heavy bombers, 1,500 light bombers and 3,700 fighter planes and fighter-bombers. They also had 56 special night bombers. When June 6, 1944 came around all the squadrons of planes involved had their missions just as the landing infantry divisions had their's. It took six squadrons of RAF Mosquitoes to patrol the huge armada of ships in the English Channel that day. Without whom there would have some serious repercussions on the entire operation. At all times there twenty anti-submarine planes patrolling the area and protecting the force who would have been sitting ducks for any German U-boats that would have gotten into the area. To aid the actual landings of the troops squadrons flew bombing missions on German pillboxes and other gunnery installations. Flying at three hundred miles per hour straight in at German machine gun fire in order to clear the way for others to take the glory is what I call guts. In order to clear the three British beaches eighteen squadrons flew missions over a nearly continuous eight hour time period. When bombers weren't destroying installations they were setting up smoke screens around the land based naval guns in order to once again protect the allied armada. Probably one of the most important things done by the fighters was to fly "phantom missions" in order to make the Germans think that the invasion would by at Pas de Calais. Without the use of air firepower as used on D-day I can say without a doubt that June 6, 1944 would be remembered as a day of complete disaster. Conclusion By the end of June 6, 1944 one of the most complicated and the most coordinated invasions had started. On the beach codenamed Utah the American 1st army held a firm beachhead with several divisions already receiving the supplies they needed and would soon be ready to move inland. On Omaha the troops there had recovered from what had looked like an impending disaster in the first hours and started to break through the German defences. At the British run beaches of Juno, Gold and Sword the forces had averaged a push inland of six miles. Even with the amount of landing soldiers numbering about seventy-five thousand, the casualties between the three beaches were only approximately three thousand. D-Day was the beginning of the end for the Germans in Europe and the end of the beginning for the fight for Europe. I'm not saying that everything went according to plan on D-day and there wasn't any errors. I am also not saying that it was a complete disaster. I am saying that D-Day was on paper, with objectives for each division and a craft for each infantry unit, the greatest battle of all time. Table of Contents I. Introduction pg. 1 II. Preperation for D-Day pg. 2 III. Beachfronts A. Utah Beach pg. 4,5 B. Omaha Beach pg. 7,8 C. Gold Beach pg. 10, 11 D. Juno Beach pg. 13 E. Sword Beach pg. 15 IV. D-Day Air Battle pg. 17 V. Conclusion pg. 19 VI. Bibliography pg. 20 Bibliography D-Day June 6, 1944: The Climatic Battle of World War II Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\de tocqueville.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Insights on De Tocqueville's Democracy In America It has been said that a French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited the United States in the 1830's, "understood us" in a way that few observers (foreign and domestic) have. Furthermore, Tocqueville's Democracy in America is often cited by present-day critics because so many of the observations in it seem extraordinarily suitable even more than one hundred and fifty years later. Alexis de Tocqueville was born 1805 into a minor noble family, in which his grandfather had been guillotined during the French Revolution. He had come to the United States in 1831 to study the prison system, in which he did not do, instead he wrote Democracy in America. He had stayed in the United States through February 1832 for about nine months, so intrigued by democracy, majority rule, and the absence of social hierarchy. Democracy in America was first published in 1825, full of observations and interpretations, was written as a sort of warning for European readers; "Is this what you want?" he asks. This book was famous for two accurate predictions, one, the U.S. would someday be a world power as would Russia, second, race would prove to be the most intractable problem for the U.S. One of Tocqueville's observations about the United States is that he thought there is no country in the civilized world that is less attention paid philosophy than the United States. This is applicable to American life in 1997 because the whole world is practically joined to the United States. Just about every country in the world trades with, tours in, and watches for the United States. What I mean by watches is that they practically always know what's going on (except for the top-secret things) in the United States, whether it be by television, computers, or satellites they know what the U.S. is doing. The U.S. is basically a "free-for-all" county; the laws and schools are less strict than other countries such as, Japan in which the students there have to go to school six days a week with much more homework then U.S. schools. Another observation of Alexis is that religion is associated with all the customs of the nation and all the feelings of patriotism. Another way of saying this that there is a religion for everyone. This is still true in 1997 because everyone has there own belief and goes to the church or believes in the religion that they desire. The religious person believes in what he or she wants to believe in and in most case respects what another persons religion might be. The reason for "most" to be in there was because some people are heavily religious and want other people to join there religion and try things such as, persuasion. Another observation by Alexis is that the majority in the United States supply a mass amount of ready-made options for the use of individuals, who are relieved from having to form their own. What this means is that since there are many people in the U.S., if someone is unable to supply there own option then there will be one for you. Let's say here for a broad example that someone is unclear of which religion he should join, he will choose the one that persuades or suits him the best. Another way of putting this is that people get ideas off of other people. Lets say that someone had part of idea and you had the other, if one of you expressed this idea to the other then you have the full idea. An overall view would be that Alexis de Tocqueville many have been right about America in the past and for a fact some of the observations, the ones stated above for example, are still true to this day and might be true in the future. Tocqueville's Democracy in America, some people would say, is often cited that many of the observations in it seem extraordinarily suitable even from one hundred and fifty to the present-day. Tocqueville's Democracy in America was often cited by present day critics because of his observations and most people think this will continue to be true in the future. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\DeclarationofIndependence.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Declaration Of Independence The Declaration of Independence was written to show a new theory of government, reasons why they were separating from England, and a formal declaration of war. It gave the 13 colonies freedom from England's laws. The man responsible for writing the Declaration was Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the Declaration between June 11, 1776 and June 28, 1776. Benjamin Franklin and John Adams looked at what Jefferson had written and made some changes to the Declaration. On July 4, 1776 Congress adopted the Declaration and it was signed by: John Hancock, Button Gwinnett, Lyman hall, George Walton, Wm Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward Jr., Thomas Lynch Jr., Arthur Middleton, Samuel Chase, Thos. Stone , George Wythe, Charles Carrol of Carrollton, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thos Nelson Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Tho M. Kean, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frans. Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, Jno.WItherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephan Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott, and Matthew Thorton. The reason people wanted the Declaration was because the people thought that they had the right to be free from England and to be their own individual colonies with their own laws. Other things leading up to independence were that the British government had committed acts that many colonists believed violated their rights as English subjects. Also that colonial blood had already been shed trying to defend these rights. The French & Indian war was the war that shed colonists blood to defend their rights. The Declaration of Independence served three major purposes. 1. Preamble and reasons for separation. Among the reasons for separation were statements about the king, George III. It said that he was a harsh and evil king and that the colonists shouldn't have to be under his rule. It also said that the citizens were patient, submissive, and long-suffering people. These statements were made to win the public support of the people for the Declaration. 2. A theory of government. In this part of the Declaration, Jefferson stated the basic principles of democracy. They were "all men are created equal, They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable1 rights; . . . among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The purpose of the government was to secure these rights. 3. A formal declaration of war. This basically stated that war did exist. If the Patriots failed to win independence, the leaders of the revolution could be judged guilty of treason against the British Crown and executed. The result of the Declaration of Independence was that colonists gained their freedom. They had freedom of religion and had a better government. Look at the world today and see what it has accomplished. Blacks and women now have just as many rights as white men. I would have wanted to gain independence from the Declaration and separate from England. I think our society has much more freedom now than it would have if we would have stayed with England. Word Count: 541 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Defensive and Offensive Strategy of the Middle Ages.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Defensive and Offensive Strategy of the Middle Ages Defensive and Offensive Strategy of the Middle Ages At this moment, there are 500,000 blood-thirsty warriors ready to hunt me down and kill me. Lucky for me, they are still a few hundred miles away and I have time to prepare an army of my own. At the moment, I am located in central England in the year 1562. My name is Duke Sir Jarkeld and it is my duty to raise and train the largest and most powerful army I can for my king. At my disposal are some of the finest blacksmiths in the world. They are in the process of creating many of the weapons and armor my army will use in the upcoming battle. Every item they make has a certain use and advantage in battle. I shall start by describing the weapons we will be using. The short sword is a basic weapon for a man who does not have great strength but is still skillful at fighting. A stronger man would want to use a long sword. It has a larger range than the short sword and can do more damage with each hit. The broadsword is the largest of the three. It is reserved for men of great strength and excellent fighting ability. It is an superb weapon for hacking off limbs or heads. The battle axe has almost the same properties of the broad sword except it only has a blade on one side. The mace is a cruel weapon which looks like a spiked ball on heavy a handle. It is a medium sized weapon which can be used for disabling the limb of an opponent or smashing his helmet. (Macaulay 55) Some wonderful types of armor are also made by my armorers. The most economical armor to make is chain mail. It consists of thousands of small metal rings which are linked together to form a heavy, yet flexible armor. Because of the tediousness of this process, it takes several months to make a full suit. The most durable armor is full plate armor. Metal plates are pounded into shape in and on molds to form a full suit, including fully articulated gauntlets and feet coverings, and helmet. Each piece is custom made to fit the wearer. This process takes days to complete each piece. (Gies 79-80) Under my command, I also have several groups of bowyers, who devote their lives to making weapons for archers. The basic bow is the short bow. My yeomen use them for hunting unless they are called upon for defence of the castle walls. The long bow requires a bit more strength to use and has a lot more range and power. At close range it can go through chain mail and leather armor. The most powerful and accurate of the new bows being created is the crossbow. It fires a metal bolt a substantial distance with great accuracy and with enough force to pierce both chain mail and armor. It is difficult to load but it is fired with a trigger so that continuous pressure on the arms is not needed. (Macaulay, 55-56) The final group of arms crafters under my influence is skilled in leather working. Some of the various items they make are shields, scale armor, belts, and boots. These items are less expensive than their metal counterparts and are better suited for peasant men in the infantry. These can also be reinforced with metal pieces. ("The Middle Ages") The part of my army which will do the most fighting is the infantry. These men are foot soldiers who fight on the ground and help to defend other members of the army. Each soldier shall be equipt with a weapon of his choice. Weapons they may use range from a short sword to a battle axe. He shall also wear a set of light armor which will help protect him from the blows of the enemy. This armor is usually leather but if the fighter needs extra protection he also wear a suit of chain mail underneath. (Gies 11) The second part of my army shall be the knights. These men are the most seasoned and most skilled of my fighters. Most will be using a broad sword or a heavy axe but if he trained with another weapon, it will be provided for him. All knights shall wear at least a set of chainmail. All others will wear full plate armor including a helmet and gauntlets. (Suskind 15; Gies 11) The third section of my army shall be composed of knights on horses, called the calvary. All knights will use long swords in order to attack from several feet above their opponents. They shall wear full plate armor to protect from all forms of attack. To get a knight in full armor onto his horse, he must be lifted by several men or a mechanical device. The horses will wear leather armor to protect them from sword attacks but will still be susceptible to a lance attack to the legs or belly. It is in the knight's best interests to protect his horse because if the horse is hit, the knight may be pinned to the ground by the dead or dying horse making him helpless to an attack by an enemy knight. (Gies 88) The next group of men are the archers. They will stay away from the actual battle and shoot arrows at the enemy form afar. They will wear minimal armor and a set of archer's gloves. The bows available to an archer at the current time are the short bow, long bow and cross-bow. The most skilled archers shall use the cross bow because of its distance and accuracy. Archers with less training will use long bows and short bows. They will fire randomly into the air showering the enemy footmen with a deady rain. Archer assassins will use cross-bows. These weapons can achieve a remarkable distance being extremely accurate when attempting to hit a predetermined target. ("The Middle Ages") The last group of men shall be the lancers. As their name reveals, they shall use long, wooden lances to impale their opponents. He will be mounted on a horse and wearing heavy armor such as plate mail. When a lancer his killed a victim, he is to retreat from battle, reposition his lance, and charge for another attack. When he is not able to retreat, he must draw his short sword and attempt to ward off his attackers until a suitable escape route is established. ("The Middle Ages") If this battle should end in a brutal defeat there is still the last line of defense. Around every major town, there is a high wall to keep out invaders. There are also several towers that are used to keep watch over the surrounding landscape. If an attack is made on the city, archers are called to the walls and they shoot arrows at the invading army. The gate to the city would then be closed and not opened until the invaders retreated. (Macaulay 14) In a larger city, a fortress would rest in the middle. If the city was attacked and the outer wall was invaded, all of the townspeople could retreat to the safety of the fortress. The walls would be so tall that only the largest ladders could scale them. In fact, the only way to get in would be a large, heavy door in the front of the fortress. If a battering ram were to be brought to the front door, a vat of hot oil, water or molten lead would be ready to pour on the people manning it. A few dozen fire arrows would finish the job. (Gies 32) If we were to win the war and hope to invade an enemy fortress, we would have several new strategies to help our cause. One is an effective invention called the catapult. It uses a lever mounted on a wheeled cart that is winched back by several strong men to launch a boulder toward a wall. Another way to weaken a wall is by mining an underground passage below the wall and burning the supports. (Gies 194-198) I am certain of my victory because we have developed much newer technology than our enemies. When all of my troops are in place, I will be well prepared to start the war and defend my country. With the proper use of defensive and battle tactics, any war can be easily won. Bibliography Gies, Joseph and Frances. Life in a Medieval City. New York: Harper & Row, 1969 Macaulay, David. Castle. Boston, Massechusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977 Suskind, Richard. Men in Armor, The Story of Knights and Knighthood. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1968 "The Middle Ages." The Last Two Million Years. 1977 ed. Word Count: 1472 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Descartes.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Descartes How does Descartes try to extricate himself from the sceptical doubts that he has raised? Does he succeed? by Tom Nuttall [All page references and quotations from the Meditations are taken from the 1995 Everyman edition] In the Meditations, Descartes embarks upon what Bernard Williams has called the project of 'Pure Enquiry' to discover certain, indubitable foundations for knowledge. By subjecting everything to doubt Descartes hoped to discover whatever was immune to it. In order to best understand how and why Descartes builds his epistemological system up from his foundations in the way that he does, it is helpful to gain an understanding of the intellectual background of the 17th century that provided the motivation for his work. We can discern three distinct influences on Descartes, three conflicting world-views that fought for prominence in his day. The first was what remained of the mediaeval scholastic philosophy, largely based on Aristotelian science and Christian theology. Descartes had been taught according to this outlook during his time at the Jesuit college La Flech_ and it had an important influence on his work, as we shall see later. The second was the scepticism that had made a sudden impact on the intellectual world, mainly as a reaction to the scholastic outlook. This scepticism was strongly influenced by the work of the Pyrrhonians as handed down from antiquity by Sextus Empiricus, which claimed that, as there is never a reason to believe p that is better than a reason not to believe p, we should forget about trying to discover the nature of reality and live by appearance alone. This attitude was best exemplified in the work of Michel de Montaigne, who mockingly dismissed the attempts of theologians and scientists to understand the nature of God and the universe respectively. Descartes felt the force of sceptical arguments and, while not being sceptically disposed himself, came to believe that scepticism towards knowledge was the best way to discover what is certain: by applying sceptical doubt to all our beliefs, we can discover which of them are indubitable, and thus form an adequate foundation for knowledge. The third world-view resulted largely from the work of the new scientists; Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon et al. Science had finally begun to assert itself and shake off its dated Aristotelian prejudices. Coherent theories about the world and its place in the universe were being constructed and many of those who were aware of this work became very optimistic about the influence it could have. Descartes was a child of the scientific revolution, but felt that until sceptical concerns were dealt with, science would always have to contend with Montaigne and his cronies, standing on the sidelines and laughing at science's pretenses to knowledge. Descartes' project, then, was to use the tools of the sceptic to disprove the sceptical thesis by discovering certain knowledge that could subsequently be used as the foundation of a new science, in which knowledge about the external world was as certain as knowledge about mathematics. It was also to hammer the last nail into the coffin of scholasticism, but also, arguably, to show that God still had a vital r_le to play in the discovery of knowledge. Meditation One describes Descartes' method of doubt. By its conclusion, Descartes has seemingly subjected all of his beliefs to the strongest and most hyberbolic of doubts. He invokes the nightmarish notion of an all-powerful, malign demon who could be deceiving him in the realm of sensory experience, in his very understanding of matter and even in the simplest cases of mathematical or logical truths. The doubts may be obscure, but this is the strength of the method - the weakness of criteria for what makes a doubt reasonable means that almost anything can count as a doubt, and therefore whatever withstands doubt must be something epistemologically formidable. In Meditation Two, Descartes hits upon the indubitable principle he has been seeking. He exists, at least when he thinks he exists. The cogito (Descartes' proof of his own existence) has been the source of a great deal of discussion ever since Descartes first formulated it in the 1637 Discourse on Method, and, I believe, a great deal of misinterpretation (quite possibly as a result of Descartes' repeated contradictions of his own position in subsequent writings). Many commentators have fallen prey to the tempting interpretation of the cogito as either syllogism or enthymeme. This view holds that Descartes asserts that he is thinking, that he believes it axiomatic that 'whatever thinks must exist' and therefore that he logically concludes that he exists. This view, it seems to me, is wrong. It should be stated on no occasion, in the Meditations, does Descartes write 'I am thinking, therefore I am', nor anything directly equivalent. Rather, he says: "Doubtless, then, that I existàand, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived in my mind." (p. 80). The point here is that it is impossible to doubt the truth of the proposition 'I exist' when one utters it. It is an indubitable proposition, and one that will necessarily be presupposed in every attack of the sceptic. Descartes is not yet entitled to use syllogisms as the possibility of the malign demon is still very much alive. As an aside, Descartes himself denies that the cogito is a syllogism, although it should be mentioned that in some of the Replies to Objections he seems to assert that it is in fact a syllogism. Finally, in the Regulae ad directionem ingenii, Descartes denies the usefulness of syllogisms as a means to knowledge. I believe that, given Descartes' project, it is fair to grant him that the cogito deserves the status he bestows upon it. For can there be anything more certain than something that is so forceful and so powerful that every time it is presented to our mind we are forced to assent to it? What Descartes did here was to jiggle about the way philosophy normally approaches the construction of knowledge structures. By starting with self-knowledge, he elevates the subjective above the objective and forces his epistemology to rest upon the knowledge he has of his own self (and inadvertently sets the tone for the next 300 years of philosophy). This leaves him with a problem. He can know his own existence, that he is a thinking thing and the contents of his consciousness, but how can any of this ever lead to any knowledge of anything outside of himself? The answer is that, by itself, it can't. Descartes, in the third Meditation, attempts to prove the existence of God, defined as a being with all perfections. This proof is to be derived from his idea of a God, defined as a being with all perfections. So far, so good - Descartes examines the contents of his consciousness and discovers within it this idea, and we can allow him this. At this point, however, he introduces a whole series of scholastic principles concerning different modes of causation and reality without proper justification: "For, without doubt, those [ideas considered as images, as opposed to modes of consciousness] that represent substances are something more, and contain in themselves, so to speak, more objective reality, that is, participate by representation in higher degrees of being or perfection than those that represent only modes or accidents; and again the idea by which I conceive a Godàhas certainly in it more objective reality than those ideas by which finite substances are represented. Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect; for whence can the effect draw its reality if not from its cause? And how could the cause communicate to it this reality unless it possessed it in itself?" Whence do these principles draw their indubitability? Even if we grant that it is contrary to natural reason that an effect can have greater 'reality' than its cause, that the concepts of modes and substances are coherent with Descartes' method, let alone possess the properties that he ascribes to them, then surely we can still bring the malign demon into play? Is it not possible that this all- powerful demon could bring it about that Descartes has a notion of a being with all possible perfections that he calls God? No, says Descartes, because the notion (representing something perfect) would then have more objective reality than the demon (as something evil and thus imperfect) has formal reality, and 'it is manifest by the natural light' that this is not possible. But why not? Maybe the demon has just made it seem impossible, and it seems that Descartes has no answer to this. Further problems remain. Cosmological arguments for God invoking the notion of causation have always had to contend with the problem of the cause of God. For if all events (or ideas) are caused ultimately by God, then what about God Himself? Why should He be exempt from this rule? The standard response to this is to claim that God, being omnipotent, causes Himself. One of the chief perfections that Descartes attributes to God is that of 'self-existence', that is, that His existence depends on nothing else but itself. But if we examine this idea, it seems a little confused. If God is the efficient cause of God then we are forced to ask how something that does not yet exist can cause anything. If God is the formal cause of God, i.e. it is part of the intrinsic nature of God that he exists - which seems more likely - then it seems that we have merely a reformulation of the ontological argument for God's existence from Meditation 5. It seems that Descartes may have anticipated the wealth of criticism that the causal proof of God would inspire, and so, after explaining how human error and a benevolent, non-deceiving God are compatible in Meditation Four, he produced in Meditation Five a version of the mediaeval ontological argument for God's existence. Unlike the causal argument, the ontological argument doesn't involve the covert import of any new principles. It simply purports to show that, from an analysis of his own idea of God, Descartes can show that He necessarily exists. The reasoning goes like this: I have ideas of things which have true and immutable natures. If I perceive clearly and distinctly that a property belongs to an idea's true and immutable nature, then it does actually belong to that nature. I perceive clearly and distinctly that God's true and mmutable nature is that of a being with all perfections. Further, I perceive clearly and distinctly that existence is a perfection and non-existence a non- perfection. Thus existence belongs to God's true and immutable nature. God exists. One of the interesting things about this argument is that, at first sight, it does not seem to depend in any way upon anything that has been proved hitherto. It is an application of pure logic, an analysis of what we mean when we say 'God' and a inference from that analysis. Descartes explicitly says that an idea's true and immutable nature does not in any way depend upon his thinking it, and thus upon his existence. Once he has perceived clearly and distinctly that an idea's true and immutable nature consists in such-and-such, that is the case whether or not he thinks it is, or even if he exists or not. Descartes in fact recognises the primacy of the ontological argument: "although all the conclusions of the preceding Meditations were false, the existence of God would pass with me for a truth at least as certain as I ever judged any truth of mathematics to be." If this is true, which it seems to be, then this argument is only as trustworthy as the faculties which enabled us to construct it, which are the same faculties that enable us to know mathematical truths, and so it seems worthwhile to ask how, under Descartes' theory, we come to know mathematical truths. Descartes claims we perceive them clearly and distinctly. How do we know that what we perceive clearly and distinctly is true? Because God, being perfect, is no deceiver, and would not let it be the case that we could ever perceive something clearly and distinctly without it being the case. It seems then, that this proof of God, relying on the veracity of clear and distinct ideas, relies on the certain knowledge that a non-deceiving God exists. We have another proof of God, the causal proof as described in Meditation three. But apart from the patent futility of using one proof of p to construct another proof of p, on examining the causal proof of God further, we find that it, too, relies upon a methodology that can only be relied upon if the divine guarantee is present, for if this guarantee is not present, then, as I mentioned above, how can we be sure that the all-powerful demon is not exercising his malignant influence? This, of course, is the infamous Cartesian circle, first identified by Arnauld in the Fourth Objections and discussed ever since. Many philosophers have tried to get Descartes off the hook in various ways, some by denying that there is a circle and some by admitting the circularity but denying its significance. I will here briefly evaluate a few of their arguments. Some commentators have taken a passage from Descartes' reply to the Second set of Objections (Mersenne's) to indicate that Descartes is only actually interested in the psychological significance of fundamental truths. The passage is as follows: "If a conviction is so firm that that it is impossible for us ever to have any reason for doubting what we are convinced of, then there are no further questions for us to ask; we have everything we could reasonably want." Under my interpretation, this is what it is about the cogito that makes it so important for Descartes, so we cannot have any argument with the principle expressed by him in the above passage. But can it help break the circle? When we clearly and distinctly perceive something, Descartes says, fairly I think, that this perception compels our assent, that we cannot but believe it. God's r_le in the system, to these commentators, is as a guarantor of our memory regarding clarity and distinctness. In other words, once we have proved God's existence, we can happily know that any memory we have of a clear and distinct idea regarding x is true i.e. that we really did have a clear and distinct idea of x. But this does not seem satisfactory, as we still do not have a divine guarantee for the reasoning that leads us from the clear and distinct notions we originally have about God to the proof of His existence. We can give assent to the clear and distinct notions we have originally; in fact, we are compelled to give this assent when the notions are presented to our mind, but the logical steps we take from these ideas to the final proof is still subject to the evil demon because God is not yet proven. Furthermore, because these steps are needed, the memory of the original clear and distinct ideas are themselves subject to doubt because God is not yet proven. It seems that the only way either of the proofs of God could be accepted would be if we had an original clear and distinct perception of God directly presented to our mind (qualitatively similar to the cogito). But this in itself would make any future proofs redundant. Interestingly, this sounds quite similar to a divine revelation. Harry Frankfurt, in his book 'Demons, Dreamers and Madmen', has argued that what Descartes is actually looking for is a coherent, indubitable set of beliefs about the universe. Whether they are 'true' or not is irrelevant. Perfect certainty is totally compatible with absolute falsity. Our certainty may not coincide precisely with 'God's' truth, but should this matter?: "Reasonàcan give us certainty. It can serve to establish beliefs in which there is no risk of betrayal. This certainty is all we need and all we demand. Perhaps our certainties do not coincide with God's truthàBut this divine or absolute truth, since it is outside the range of our faculties and cannot undermine our certainties, need be of no concern to us." (Frankfurt, p 184) This is almost a Kantian approach to knowledge, where we as humans only concern ourselves with the phenomena of objects as they present themselves to us, not with the objects in themselves. Can we ascribe this view to Descartes? It's tempting, given what we have said above regarding the prime importance of indubitability, but it would seem that a God presenting ideas to us in a form which doesn't correspond to reality, and then giving us a strong disposition to believe that they do correspond to reality would be a deceiving God and contrary to Descartes' notion of Him. Thus the belief set would not be coherent. Perhaps, as we do not have clear and distinct ideas of the bodies we perceive, and as the divine guarantee only extends as far as clear and distinct ideas, we are being too hasty in judging that reality is how it appears to be and if we stopped to meditate further we would see that reality is actually like something else. But aside from the fact that this seems unlikely, Descartes never seemed to envisage the possibility. So much for the Cartesian circle. Where does this leave the ontological argument, which we had only just begun to discuss? Aside from the methodological difficulties, there do seem to two further problems with it. The first has been noted by almost every student of Descartes over the years - that of the description of existence as a property. Put briefly, this objection states that existence is not a property like 'red' or 'hairy' or 'three-sided' that can be applied to a subject, and thus it makes no sense to say that existence is part of something's essence. If we assert that x is y, we are already asserting the existence of x as soon as we mention it, prior to any application of a predicate. from the beginning. In other words, to say 'x exists' is to utter a tautology and to say that 'x doesn't exist' is to contradict oneself. So how can sentences of the form 'x doesn't exist' make sense? one may well ask. It is because these sentences are shorthand for 'the idea I have of x has no corresponding reality' and it was to solve problems like this that Bertrand Russell constructed his theory of descriptions. To add existence to an idea doesn't just make it an idea with a new property, it changes it from an idea into an existent entity. Finally, if Descartes is right, there seems no reason why we cannot construct any other idea whose essence includes existence. For instance, if I conjure up the idea of an existent purple building that resembles the Taj Mahal', then it is the true and immutable nature of this idea that it is a building, that this building resembles the Taj Mahal, that the building is purple, and that it exists. But no such building does exist, as far as I am aware, and if it did exist, its existence would not be necessary, but contingent. This in itself is enough, I think, to show that the ontological argument is false. Once we have destroyed Descartes' proofs of the existence of God, the edifice of knowledge necessarily comes tumbling down with them, as we find that almost everything Descartes believes in is dependent on God's nature as a non-deceiver: "I remarkàthat the certitude of all other truths is so absolutely dependent on it, that without this knowledge it is impossible ever to know anything perfectly." (p.115) The only possible exceptions are those assent-compelling beliefs such as the cogito. Even these, however, are doubtful when we are not thinking about them, and the above passage does give weight to Edwin Curley's argument that: "Descartes would hold that the proposition "I exist" is fully certain only if the rest of the argument of the Meditations goes through. We must buy all or nothing." This is not the end of the story, though. As far as Descartes is concerned, by the end of Meditation Five, he has produced two powerful proofs of God, has a clear and distinct notion of his own self, has a criterion for truth, knows how to avoid error and is beginning to form ideas regarding our knowledge of corporeal bodies.. And so it remains only to explain why we are fully justified in believing in corporeal bodies, and also to draw the ideas of Meditation Two regarding self-knowledge to their full conclusion. Regarding the nature of corporeal bodies and our knowledge of them, it seems to me that, given his premises, the conclusions Descartes draws in Meditation Six are generally the correct ones. He again invokes the causal to argue that the ideas of bodies we have within our minds must be caused by something with at least as much formal reality as the ideas have objective reality. We could theoretically be producing these ideas, but Descartes dismisses this possibility for two reasons - firstly, that the idea of corporeality does not presuppose thought and secondly that our will seems to have no effect on what we perceive or don't perceive. (This second argument seems to me to ignore dreaming, in which what we perceive derives from us but is independent of our will). The ideas, then, could come from God, or from another being superior to us but inferior to God. But this, too, is impossible, argues Descartes, as if it were the case that God produces the ideas of bodies in us, then the very strong inclination we have towards believing that the idea- producing bodies resemble the ideas we have would be false and thus God would be allowing us to be deceived which is not permissible. The same would apply if any other being were producing these ideas. Thus, concludes Descartes, it is most likely that our ideas of corporeal bodies are actually caused by bodies resembling those ideas. We cannot be certain, however, as we cannot claim to have clear and distinct notions of everything we perceive. We can, however, claim certainty with regard to those properties of bodies which we do know with clarity and distinction; namely, size, figure (shape), position, motion, substance, duration and number (not all of these assertions are justified). Obviously we cannot claim that we know these properties for specific bodies with clarity and distinction, for to do so would leave open the uestion of why it is that astronomy and the senses attribute different sizes to stars. What Descartes means is that we can be sure that these primary qualities exist in bodies in the same way that they do in our ideas of bodies. This cannot be claimed for qualities such as heat, colour, taste and smell, of which our ideas are so confused and vague that we must always reserve judgement. (This conclusion is actually quite similar to the one John Locke drew fifty years later in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding.) I think we can grant this reasoning, with the caveat regarding dreaming that I noted above, and of course the other unproved reasonings that Descartes exhumes here, such as the causal principle. Furthermore, it seems to be further proof that Descartes does believe we can get to know objects in themselves to a certain extent. Finally, I turn to Descartes' argument for the distinction of mind and body. Descartes believes he has shown the mind to be better known than the body in Meditation Two. In Meditation Six he goes on to claim that, as he knows his mind and knows clearly and distinctly that its essence consists purely of thought, and that bodies' essences consist purely of extension, that he can conceive of his mind and body as existing separately. By the power of God, anything that can be clearly and distinctly conceived of as existing separately from something else can be created as existing separately. At this point, Descartes makes the apparent logical leap to claiming that the mind and body have been created separately, without justification. Most commentators agree that this is not justified, and further, that just because I can conceive of my mind existing independently of my body it does not necessarily follow that it does so. In defence of Descartes, Saul Kripke has suggested that Descartes may have anticipated a modern strand of modal logic that holds that if x=y, then L (x=y). In other words, if x is identical to y then it is necessarily identical to it. From this it follows that if it is logically possible that x and y have different properties then they are distinct. In this instance, that means that because I can clearly and distinctly conceive of my mind and body as existing separately, then they are distinct. The argument, like much modern work on identity, is too technical and involved to explore here in much depth. But suffice to say that we can clearly and distinctly conceive of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as being distinct and yet they are identical, necessarily so under Kripke's theory. It is doubtful that Kripke can come to Descartes' aid here and Descartes needs further argument to prove that the mind and the body are distinct. And so we finish our discussion of Descartes' attempts to extricate himself from the sceptical doubts he has set up for himself. As mentioned previously, the ultimate conclusion to draw regarding the success of the enterprise that Descartes set for himself must be that he failed. When the whole epistemological structure is so heavily dependent on one piece of knowledge - in this case the knowledge that God exists - then a denial of that knowledge destroys the whole structure. All that we can really grant Descartes - and this is certainly contentious - is that he can rightly claim that when a clear and distinct idea presents itself to his mind, he cannot but give his assent to this idea, and furthermore, that while this assent is being granted, the clear and distinct idea can be justly used as a foundation for knowledge. The most this gets us - and this is not a little - is the knowledge of our own existence each time we assert it. But Descartes' project should not be judged by us as a failure - the fact that he addressed topics of great and lasting interest, and provided us with a method we can both understand and utilise fruitfully, speaks for itself. Bibliography 1. Descartes, Ren_ A Discourse on Method, Meditations and Principles of Philosophy trans. John Veitch. The Everyman's Library, 1995. Descartes, Ren_ The Philosophical Writings of Descartes volume I and II ed. and trans. John Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge, 1985. Frankfurt, Harry Demons, Dreamers and Madmen. Bobbs-Merrill, 1970. Curley, Edwin Descartes Against the Skeptics. Oxford, 1978. Vesey, Godfrey Descartes: Father of Modern Philosophy. Open University Press, 1971. Sorrell, Tom Descartes: Reason and Experience. Open University Press, 1982. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ed. Ted Honderich. Oxford University Press, 1985. Cottingham, John Descartes. Oxford, 1986. Williams, Bernard Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. Harmondsworth, 1978. Russell, Bertrand The History of Western Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin, 1961. 11. Kripke, Saul Naming and Necessity. Oxford 1980. Word Count: 4577 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Development of the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Throughout history, navies have made significant impacts in the technological development of human kind. These impacts range from improvements in metal technologies made while perfecting the cannon to the advent of cybernetics, which allowed more precise targeting of weaponry. One of the more sophisticated developments in naval history has been the invention of the submarine. The submarine was born in 1620 as a leather-covered rowboat built by Cornelius Drebbel. After Robert Fulton came up with a more modern prototype in 1800, the military advantages of a nearly invisible warship were quickly divined. However, they remained unrealized for quite a while. Although Fulton probably foresaw that his invention would be used for war, he hardly could have envisioned it launching projectiles with the capability to level entire countries. However, after a series of innovations in nuclear missile and submarine designs, the submarine-launched ballistic missile has become an integral part of our naval weapons arsenal. To understand the need for the development of nuclear missile submarines, there is a need to examine the political climate of the world in the era after World War II. The realignment of the superpowers after the war resulted in a unique situation. The two major naval powers of the day, Great Britain and the United States, were now allied against the greatest land power in history in the Soviet Union. In the period from 1955 to 1965, the advantage was heavily in favor of the U.S. As the United States had developed the atomic and hydrogen bombs first, they obviously gained a head start which developed into a decisive nuclear advantage. This advantage acted as an effective deterrent to any Soviet movement into Western Europe. However, as the Soviet nuclear arsenal expanded (mostly during the Kennedy administration), it became necessary to effect a balance in the area of conventional warfare or to make more inroads in nuclear weapons development. Before this could be accomplished, however, advancements in submarine technology had to made as well. The submarines of World War II, although effective in their roles, were rather primitive. A noisy, slow, shallow-diving sub would hardly be a capable missile submarine as it could be easily detected and destroyed. Even so, before the end of the war, there were intelligence reports in America that the German Navy had developed a U-boat capable of towing or carrying V-2 rockets to launch sites near the U.S. east coast. Although these reports turned out to be false, the Germans had been developing a type of submersible barge to tow V-2s. This scare prompted the American development of ballistic missile submarines. Experiments in submarine design had concentrated mainly on improving the quality of power plants (usually diesel or electric engines), achieving better maneuverability through new hull designs, and developing quieter propulsion systems that achieved better top speeds. A nuclear reactor power plant would meet all of these objectives, but the development of a nuclear-powered submarine was not without obstacles. As the U.S. and the Soviet Union expanded their land-based nuclear arsenals, the weapons-grade uranium needed for missiles was becoming quite scarce. In America, the Air Force actually fought against using nuclear material for Naval submarine reactors, as it would cut into the production of the nuclear missiles that they controlled. After the USSR leveled the playing field by expanding its number of missiles, however, the nuclear submarine desperately needed to be built to tip the balance of power back towards the West. In 1955, the most advanced submarine in terms of these nuclear developments was the USS Nautilus. With excellent maneuvering facilitated by her Albacore hull design, the Nautilus had virtually unlimited range thanks to her nuclear power plant. In fact, the Nautilus became the first submarine to navigate under the polar ice cap in 1958. It could be said that the range of a nuclear submarine was now only constrained by the physical limits of her crew. In 1960, the USS Triton, a larger version of the Nautilus, circumnavigated the earth, becoming the first ship to accomplish this feat underwater. Like the submarine, the missiles that would eventually be launched from their hulls underwent a similar development history. The first submarine missiles were simple cruise missiles mounted on the hull. These missiles, like the Loon and the Chance-Vought Regulus, were really nothing more than converted V-1 buzz bombs. Friedman calls these projectiles "the direct predecessors of the current fleet ballistic missiles." The only problem with these missiles was their nearly complete lack of guidance systems. V-1 rockets, and the improved Loon and Regulus missiles, were terminal guidance rockets. The V-1 had a Circular Error Probable (CEP) rating of eight nautical miles. When the rocket reached the area of its target, its engine would be shut off by a timer. The high CEP meant that the missile could detonate anywhere in an eight mile circle around the target. Obviously, this kind of accuracy was unacceptable. With the Loon and the Regulus, this problem was combated by placing a second guidance source on another submarine closer to the intended target. The Loon missile had a device which would allow the second submarine to blow off the missile's wings and tail and cause it to fall "in a more predictable trajectory... lowering CEP to half a mile." The Regulus bettered this with the addition of steering components for the terminal guidance submarine. As these missiles became more successful, a vigorous development program was planned by the U.S. Navy. However, the invention of the Polaris missile precluded this. With the development of the hydrogen bomb, the U.S. and other superpowers had a weapon with 1000 times the power of the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the size of these missiles made them available for use only on B-36 or B-52 bombers. The Polaris missile changed this. The American Polaris class missile submarines, first launched in 1960, incorporated the new, smaller missile design. The first of these subs to launch a ballistic missile was fittingly called the George Washington, but it was her sister ship, the Ethan Allen, that was the first submarine to launch a nuclear missile with a live warhead in 1962. With nuclear missiles now a fixture in the United States Navy, later developments focused on making them lighter and more powerful. The Poseidon missile, first launched in 1968, accomplished these goals. A two-stage rocket with many more multi-impact reentry vehicles (MIRVs) than its predecessor, the Poseidon also had a feature that made the U.S. rush it into active service. Specifically, fleet submarines of the now outdated Polaris class could launch the Poseidon from their Polaris tubes with minimal modifications. In the quest to develop even better submarine-launched missiles, the next installment was the Trident missile. The Trident is a larger missile than both the Polaris and Poseidon and it is also several times more powerful. Perhaps the most important innovation on the Trident missile is its guidance system. The Polaris and Poseidon, while quite powerful, required heavy hardware packages to guide their MIRVs to various targets. The new Trident guidance package is much lighter. The system has the ability to sight on a star while tracking towards the target, which gives the Trident two advantages over the Poseidon. First, the missile meets its predecessor's accuracy objectives while achieving a greater range. Second, the lesser weight of the Trident guidance package allows for more powerful warheads. The Trident I missile carries eight 100 kiloton MIRVs, and its newer relative, the Trident II carries eight 475 kiloton warheads. Obviously, these missiles are some of the most powerful in service with the United States military at this time. The Trident missile is most commonly used aboard the Ohio class submarines of the U.S. Navy. This massive boat bears very little resemblance to the first Nautilus designed by Fulton. As large as a World War I battleship, the Ohio class submarines carry 24 Trident missiles. On top of this firepower, the Ohio is one of the quietest submarines in the oceans with its nuclear power plant. As of the early 1990s, the United States had 32 fleet ballistic missile submarines in service with seven more being built or converted. These numbers include both the Ohio class Trident submarines as well as older classes equipped with the Poseidon missile. Even with the massive destructive capability of the submarines discussed here, further developments are being tested even now. Specifically, the new Seawolf class submarine is the latest United States offering, though it has made slow progress due to budget cuts. It remains to be seen if the future holds an even more powerful submarine launched ballistic missile. Also, it is impossible to tell which nation will be the first to develop it. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Earthquake San Francisco 1906.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Earthquake San Francisco- 1906 On the morning 12 past 5:00 San Francisco suffered a major earthquake that killed 3000 people, the earthquake lasted for about 40 seconds and was recorded at 8.3 on the Richter Scale. People ran from there houses and some stayed inside the buildings and were crushed. The people who ran in the streets were killed by toppled buildings falling from above. There fire department was efficient but the water pipes that go down the San Andreas Fault were severed. The fire could not be stopped because there were now water until the next couple of days. Gas mains blew and caused massive fires all around the city. The city was in the middle of a great economic boom and almost all was lost on that day. The old buildings were never made to withstand earthquakes and easily crumbled and fell crushed people. Some sailers on the coast tried to leave but the waves flew the boats around like toys. The buildings were made out of unreined forced brick or wood which couldn't withstand a earthquake of that magnitude. After the earthquake, they noticed that the San Andreas Fault shifted a 250-mile long section witch tore roads and fences. Rivers, roads and power lines were severed and not aligned with its surroundings. A road across the fault ended up 21 feet north of the road to the east same with the rivers and creeks. The earthquake's most damage were in Los Bonas 30km east of the fault yet there was little damage along towns to the east side of San Francisco Bay such as Berkely, 25km east of the fault. And the capital of California Sacramento that was 120km east of the rupture showed no damage. Scientists found out that the earthquake originated north of Oregon and south to Los Angeles a total of 1170 Km. Knowing now that buildings could not withstand a earthquake with unreiforced brick, the new San Francisco would have buildings that can handle major earthquakes by constructing them so that they sway back and fourth rather than just simply crumbling to the ground killing people. The San Andreas fault is formed by the Pacific plate sliding north and the North American plate running South. The two slide together caused the earthquake. The most recent earthquake in that area today, was in 1990 in San Francisco which measured around 8.3 on the richter scale but it wasn't a bad as the one in 1906. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Effects of the P51 Mustang in WWII.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ P-51 Mustang w/ WWII The effects of the P-51 Mustang in World War II The Effect of the North American P-51 Mustang On the Air War in Europe Abstract This paper deals with the contributions of the P-51 Mustang to the eventual victory of the Allies in Europe during World War II. It describes the war scene in Europe before the P-51 was introduced, traces the development of the fighter, its advantages, and the abilities it was able to contribute to the Allies' arsenal. It concludes with the effect that the P-51 had on German air superiority, and how it led the destruction of the Luftwaffe. The thesis is that: it was not until the advent of the North American P-51 Mustang fighter, and all of the improvements, benefits, and side effects that it brought with it, that the Allies were able to achieve air superiority over the Germans. This paper was inspired largely by my grandfather, who flew the P-51 out of Leiston, England, during WW II and contributed to the eventual Allied success that is traced in this paper. He flew over seventy missions between February and August 1944, and scored three kills against German fighters. Table of Contents Introduction Reasons for the Pre-P-51 Air Situation The Pre-P-51 Situation The Allied Purpose in the Air War The Battle at Schweinfurt The Development of the P-51 The Installation of the Merlin Engines Features, Advantages, and Benefits of the P-51 The P-51's Battle Performance The Change in Policy on Escort Fighter Function P-51's Disrupt Luftwaffe Fighter Tactics P-51's Give Bombers Better Support Conclusion Works Cited Introduction On September 1, 1939, the German military forces invaded Poland to begin World War II. This invasion was very successful because of its use of a new military strategic theory -- blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg, literally "lightning war," involved the fast and deadly coordination of two distinct forces, the Wermacht and the Luftwaffe. The Wermacht advanced on the ground, while the Luftwaffe destroyed the enemy air force, attacked enemy ground forces, and disrupted enemy communication and transportation systems. This setup was responsible for the successful invasions of Poland, Norway, Western Europe, the Balkans and the initial success of the Russian invasion. For many years after the first of September, the air war in Europe was dominated by the Luftwaffe. No other nation involved in the war had the experience, technology, or numbers to challenge the Luftwaffe's superiority. It was not until the United States joined the war effort that any great harm was done to Germany and even then, German air superiority remained unscathed. It was not until the advent of the North American P-51 Mustang fighter, and all of the improvements, benefits, and side effects that it brought with it, that the Allies were able to achieve air superiority over the Germans. Reasons for the Pre-P-51 Air Situation The continued domination of the European skies by the Luftwaffe was caused by two factors, the first of which was the difference in military theory between the Luftwaffe and the Royal Air Force. The theories concerning the purpose and function of the Luftwaffe and RAF were exactly opposite and were a result of their experiences in World War I. During WW I, Germany attempted a strategic bombing effort directed against England using Gothas (biplane bombers) and Zeppelins (slow-moving hot-air balloons) which did not give much of a result. This, plus the fact that German military theory at the beginning of WW II was based much more on fast quick results (Blitzkrieg), meant that Germany decided not to develop a strategic air force. The Luftwaffe had experienced great success when they used tactical ground-attack aircraft in Spain (i.e. at Guernica), and so they figured that their air force should mainly consist of this kind of planes. So Germany made the Luftwaffe a ground support force that was essentially an extension of the army and functioned as a long- range, aerial artillery. The RAF, on the other hand, had experimented with ground-attack fighters during WW I, and had suffered grievous casualty rates. This, combined with the fact that the British had been deeply enraged and offended by the German Gotha and Zeppelin attacks on their home soil, made them determined to develop a strategic air force that would be capable of bombing German soil in the next war. Thus, at the beginning of WW II, the RAF was mostly a strategic force that consisted of heavy bombers and backup fighters, and lacked any tactical dive- bombers or ground-attack fighters. (Boyne 21) The Pre-P-51 Situation Because of these fundamental differences, the situation that resulted after the air war began was: bombers in enemy territory vs. attack planes. The "in enemy territory" was the second reason for the domination of the Luftwaffe. At the beginning of WW II, and for many years afterward, the Allies had no long-range escort fighters, which meant that the bombers were forced to fly most of their long journeys alone. (Perret 104) Before the P-51 was brought into combat, the main Allied fighters were the American P-47 Thunderbolt and the British Spitfire, neither of which had a very long range. The rule-of-thumb for fighter ranges was that they could go as far as Aachen, which was about 250 miles from the Allied fighters' home bases in England, before they had to turn around. Unfortunately, most of the bombers' targets were between 400 and 700 miles from England. (Bailey 2-3) This meant that bombers could only be escorted into the Benelux countries, northern France, and the very western fringe of Germany. When these unescorted, ungainly, slow, unmaneuverable bombers flew over Germany, they were practically sitting ducks for the fast German fighters. On the other hand, the bombers were equipped with several machine guns and were able to consistently shoot down some of their attackers. Because of this, "U.S. strategists were not yet convinced of the need for long-range fighters; they continued to cling to the belief that their big bomber formations could defend themselves over Germany." (Bailey 153) The Allied Purpose in the Air War The Allies knew that they had to drive German industry into the ground in order to win the war. Since the factories, refineries, assembly-lines, and other industry-related structures were all inland, the only way to destroy them was by sending in bombers. The only way that the bombers could achieve real success was by gaining air superiority, which meant that nearly all of the bombers would be able to drop their bombs without being harassed by fighters, and return home to fight another day. The problem with this sequence was that the Allies did not have this superiority, (Bailey 28) because their bombers were consistently getting shot down in fairly large numbers, by the German fighters that kept coming. The Allies soon realized that in order to gain this superiority, they would have to destroy more German fighters. In order to destroy the fighters, they would have to be forced into the air in greater numbers. In order to get more German fighters into the air, the more sensitive German industries would have to be attacked with more aggression. Following this logic, the Allies began a intensified bombing effort that resulted in the famous bombings of Hamburg (July 24-28, 1943) and Ploesti (August 1, 1943), among others. And, indeed, this did cause more fighters to come up to meet and engage the bombers. Unfortunately, the bombers were overwhelmed by the German opposition, and their losses soon began to increase. (Copp 359) The Allied air forces had, in effect, pushed a stick into a hornets' nest, hoping to kill the hornets when they came out, and been stung by the ferocity of their response. The Battle at Schweinfurt The culminating point of this backfiring plan was the second bombing raid on Schweinfurt, which occurred on October 14, 1943. Schweinfurt was the location of huge ball-bearing factories that supplied most of the ball-bearings for the entire German military. The U.S. Eighth Air Force had staged a fairly successful raid on the same city two months earlier, but the second time around, the Germans were ready for them. The official report afterwards said that the Luftwaffe "turned in a performance unprecedented in its magnitude, in the cleverness with which it was planned, and in the severity with which it was executed." Of the 229 bombers that actually made it all the way to Schweinfurt, 60 were shot down, and 17 more made it home, but were damaged beyond repair. This was a 26.5% battle loss rate for the Americans, while the Germans only lost 38 airplanes the whole day, from all causes. (Boyne 327) This battle was one of the key battles of the war, and undeniably proved to the Allies that the bomber offensive could not continue without a long-range fighter escort. (Copp 444) Even before October of '43, some had begun to realize the need for this kind of fighter. In June, the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces, General Hap Arnold, wrote a memo to his Chief of Staff, Major General Barney Giles, which said: This brings to my mind the absolute necessity for building a fighter airplane that can go in and out with the bombers. Moreover, this fighter has got to go into Germany. . . . Whether you use an existing type or have to start from scratch is your problem. Get to work on this right away because by January '44, I want a fighter escort for all our bombers from the U.K. into Germany. (Copp 413-414) The Development of the P-51 In April of 1940, "Dutch" Kindleberger, president of North American Aviation, visited Sir Henry Self, the head of the aircraft division of the British Purchasing Commission, asking if Britain would like to buy some of his B-25 bombers. Self was not interested in buying any more bombers, but was interested in buying a good fighter. He directed Kindleberger to the Curtiss company, who had a new fighter design, but were too busy building P-40's to do anything with it. Kindleberger went to Curtiss and bought their design for $56,000. He promised Self to have the planes ready by September of 1941. The prototype of the NA-73, as it was called, was ready to fly in October of 1940 and proved to have an excellent design. The NA-73 had a revolutionary wing design that allowed it to fly at high speeds without adverse compression effects. In other planes, as they approached a certain speed, usually around 450 mph, the air would be flowing around the wing at nearly the speed of sound, putting huge amounts of pressure on the wings, which were unable to deal with the stress. The NA-73 did not have this problem, which meant it could fly safely at much higher speeds. Another revolutionary idea in the plane was the way heated air from the radiator was dealt with. The NA-73's engineers designed it to expel this air and boost the planes speed by 15 or 25 mph. The engineers also worked especially hard on making the plane as aerodynamic as possible, and so they positioned the radiator in a new place, made the fuselage as narrow as possible, and set the cockpit low in the fuselage. (Perret 118-119) It was at this point that an error was made that made the Mustang useless as a long-range offensive fighter. When the NA-73 was mass produced as the P-51, it was powered by a 1550 horsepower air-cooled Allison engine, which did not have a supercharger and lost performance above 11,800 ft. At high altitudes air pressure goes down, and so there is less oxygen in a given amount of air, which means that engines do not burn as cleanly, and so lose power. Superchargers compress air before it is pumped into the engine cylinders so that there is enough oxygen for the engine to function well. The early Allison-engined planes did not have the supercharger, and so were limited to low-altitude operations. Even without a high- altitude capability, the Mustang was an impressive plane and was bought in quantity by the RAF. It flew its first mission on May 10, 1942, against Berck-sur-Mer on the French coast. (Grant 17-18) The Installation of the Merlin Engines So, for the next eighteen months, the P-51A's continued to fly with the RAF, doing their unexceptional jobs well. After the plane began to go into combat, some people began looking into the idea of fitting the Mustang with a more powerful engine. As the RAF said, it was "a bloody good airplane, only it needs a bit more poke." (Grant 22) One day, an RAF test pilot was flying a P-51A and the thought occurred to him that the plane could be fitted with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, which had about 300 more horsepower and included a supercharger. He suggested it to Rolls-Royce's Chief Aerodynamic Engineer and "both men realized that the combination of this sort of performance with the aerodynamically efficient airframe of the Mustang would revolutionize its potential." (Grant 22) This plan was duly carried out and in November 1943, the first group of P-51B's arrived in England. Features, Advantages, and Benefits of the P-51 This final Mustang design was superior to anything else that flew at the time. The P-51B had a huge internal gasoline tank capacity (around 425 gallons) and its engine was very economical, using about half the gasoline of other American fighters. This meant its range was 1080 miles and could be extended to 2600 miles when extra drop-tanks were attached to the wings. This made its range far more than any Allied or German fighter's. As far as performance went, it was superior to all others as well. Neither of the other two main American fighters could compete; the P-47 was too heavy and the P-38 had too many technical problems. The British fighters, the Spitfire and the Hurricane did not have the range, speed, or power. But most important was its superiority over the German fighters, the most important of which were the FW-190 and the Me-109. The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel. The P-51's Battle Performance So, at the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944, the new American P-51B's began arriving in England in force. (Dupuy 34) For the first few months of the year, the Mustangs were settling in and having their systems perfected. But by March, the Mustangs had decisively taken control. The arrival and subsequent heavy use of the P-51's had several effects. The first effect that the Mustangs had was in the running air battles over Europe. Before the beginning of 1944, the bombers had been alone as they approached their faraway targets. But the P-51 changed this, and quickly made an impression on all concerned, enemy and ally alike. For example, on January 11, 1944, the Eighth Air Force launched its first deep penetration of Germany with P-51 coverage. The bombers' targets were the cities of Oschersleben and Halberstadt, where many German planes were being constructed. When they arrived, there were 49 Mustangs covering a force of around 220 bombers. Even though the bombers suffered heavy casualties, they were able to inflict substantial damage on their target factories. But the most significant thing about the battle was the shining performance of the P-51's. Since the bombers were attacking two different cities, the Mustang force had to divide into two groups, to support the different attacks. Because of the sensitive nature of the bombers' targets, the Luftwaffe came out in force to defend their factories. During the ensuing melee, the 49 P-51's shot down 15 enemy planes without suffering a single loss. Major Howard, the group's leader, was credited with four kills within minutes. (Bailey 155) In the grand scheme of things, this battle was insignificant, but it goes to show how much of advantage the P-51's had over their German counterparts. Considering that these were essentially first-time pilots in the Mustangs' first big battle, this is very impressive. The Change in Policy on Escort Fighter Function Another thing happened at the same time as the arrival of the P-51 that greatly aided the Allies and fully utilized the great capabilities of the Mustang. Before the beginning of 1944, the bomber escort's primary function was to fly alongside the bombers, repel any attacks made on the bombers, and generally make sure the bombers stayed safe. Indeed, the motto of the Eighth Air Force Fighter Command was "Our Mission is to Bring the Bombers Back Alive." One day at the beginning of the year, Jimmy Doolittle, who was the commander of the Eighth Air Force, saw a plaque on the wall with this motto on it and said, "That's not so. Your mission is to destroy the German Air Force. . .Take that damned thing down." (Copp 456) And just days before, in his New Year's Day address to the Eighth Air Force command, General Arnold had said, "My personal message to you-this is a MUST- is to destroy the enemy air force wherever you find them, in the air, on the ground and in the factories." (Copp 456) What this meant was that the escort fighters were not tied to the bombers anymore, and were free to roam over the countryside and through the towns and cities, destroying at will. The sweeping Mustangs were released to ravage German convoys, trains, antiaircraft gun emplacements, warehouses, airfields, factories, radar installations, and other important things that would be impractical to be attacked by bombers. The fighters were also able to attack German fighters when they were least prepared for it, like when they were taking off or forming up in the air. What made this possible was the increase in the number of American planes present in Europe. This increase in the number of Allied planes compared to the number of German planes continued to the point that, on D-Day, the Allies used 12,873 aircraft while the Germans were only able to muster a mere 300. (Overy 77) By using this overwhelming numerical advantage, the Allied fighters were able to swamp their opponents in an unstoppable flood of planes. P-51's Disrupt Luftwaffe Fighter Tactics This increase in the number of fighters plus the change in fighter philosophy allowed the escorts to cover the bombers while simultaneously ranging far from the bomber stream and destroying all that they could find. This caused the disruption of several effective German fighter tactics that had been used successfully in the past. One of these tactics was the deployment of slow, ungainly German planes that would fly around the bomber formations, out of gun range, and report back on where the bombers were and where their weak spots were. The free-ranging P-51's soon wiped out these planes. Another popular tactic was to mount rocket launchers on the wings of some of these slower craft, have them linger just out of range of the bombers' guns, and send rockets flying into the bomber formations. These rocket attacks were terrifying to the bomber crews, and often broke up formations, sending some planes to the ground. Obviously, these attacks also came to a halt. Most importantly, the fast German fighters had to change their attack tactics. Beforehand, they would fly alongside the formations and wait for the right moment to swoop in and attack a bomber. Now, they were forced to group together several miles away from the bombers, and then turn and made a mad rush at the bombers, hoping to inflict sufficient damage on one pass to shoot down some number of enemy bombers. They could not afford to stay with the bombers for very long for fear of being attacked by the Mustangs. (Perret 293) Indeed, soon after the P-51's entered onto the scene, Hermann Goering, the commander of the Luftwaffe, recommended that the German defensive fighters avoid combat with the P-51, and only attack bomber formations when there were no fighters around. The result of all of this is that the American fighters, led by the P-51's, soon began to gain air superiority. Not long after Goering's recommendation, a sarcastic Luftwaffe officer commented that the safest flying in the world was to be an American fighter over Germany. (Dupuy 35-36) It is obvious that the P-51, once it was supplied to the Eighth Air Force in great quantities, and unleashed by Doolittle and Arnold's new fighter policies, soon took a heavy toll on German air superiority. P-51's Give Bombers Better Support Another profound effect that the increased fighter coverage had was on the most important people, the bombers. After the entrance of the P-51, and the virtual elimination of the German fighter threat, the bombers were in much less danger from German fighters. The result of the decreased danger to the bombers is subtle, but obvious when thought about. Imagine a bomber crew sitting in their cramped plane, unable to move around or evade attack during their bombing run while numerous German fighters speed past their plane firing at them. Second lieutenant William Brick, the bombardier of a B-17 bomber, tells about the day he flew to Linz, Austria on a bombing run: . . . The remainder of the run must be perfectly straight and level, without the slightest deviation, or our five- thousand-pound bomb load will fall wide of the target. No evasive action is possible. . . Then comes the sickening rattle of machine-gun bullets and cannon fire hitting our ship; ignoring the flak from the antiaircraft batteries, German fighter planes zoom in so close that it seems they will ram us. . . Even at the sub-zero temperatures of this altitude, salty sweat pours down my face and burns my eyeballs. Cursing and praying, I am gripped by the same brand of helpless fear that fliers experience during every bomb run. I feel the terror in my hands, in my stomach, even in my feet. Long after returning from the mission, its effects will remain etched indelibly on my face. . . . (Brick 61) This kind of terror experienced by the entire crew of the bombers was sure to affect their concentration and their carefulness. Indeed, "it is an undeniable, if unquantifiable, fact that it is easier to bomb precisely when you know you will probably not be shot out of the sky." (Boyne 341) Conclusion In the end, the way that the Allied air forces gained air superiority was by destroying its opposition. The ways in which the fighters were able to destroy German fighters were diverse. The fighters utilized their high speed and maneuverability to fly low-level strafing missions that ranged over large expanses of territory and destroyed many Luftwaffe craft on the ground. This tactic was responsible for the destruction of many dozens of fighters that were unable to go on and fight in the air. Another way that the Allied fighters destroyed their opposition, and the most important way, was by luring them into the air. Going back to the hornets' nest analogy, the Allies stopped pushing the stick and decided to bide their time until the moment was right. When they did start pushing the stick into the nest again, they were armed with a metaphoric insecticide. In real life, this "insecticide" was the P-51. Beforehand, the Allies had nothing that could stop the "hornets" and so were helpless to stop their attack. But after they had developed an "insecticide" capable of killing the "hornets," they proceeded to lure the hornets into the open where they could be destroyed. In real life, the bombers were the lure that brought the Luftwaffe into the air. Using the long-range Mustangs, the Allies were able to make their bombing raids more effective and more deadly to Germany. The approaching end of the Third Reich was enough to get the German fighters into the air to try to stop the bombers from wrecking their war effort. "Air superiority had been won not by bombing the enemy's factories into oblivion; instead, it was won by the long-range fighter, using the bomber formations as bait to entice the Luftwaffe to fight." (Boyne 338) With the advent of great numbers of the highly superior P-51 Mustang, the German fighters that came up to attack the bombers quickly met their match and were easily repelled by the Mustangs. Works Cited Bailey, Ronald H. The Air War in Europe. Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1979. A simple, straight-forward book that includes much background on the development of military aviation, and includes many pictures that chronicle the air war. Boyne, Walter J. Clash of Wings: World War II in the Air. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. A very informative and user- friendly book that dealt with the air aspect of all fronts and theaters of WWII. It includes much data on numerous planes in its appendices. Brick, William. "Bombardier." American History, April 1995, pp. 60-65. A short magazine article following the story of how a U.S. airman was shot down over Austria, and his subsequent imprisonment by the Nazis. Copp, DeWitt S. Forged in Fire: Strategy and Decisions in the Airwar over Europe, 1940-1945. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1982. A book dealing mostly with the U.S. involvement in the War, with particular emphasis on the politics of the military officials, and how the major strategic decisions were made. Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt. The Air War in the West: June 1941 to April 1945. New York: Franklin Watts, Inc., 1963. A short, very basic book that did not go into depth, but did cover its material well. Grant, William Newby. P-51 Mustang. London: Bison Books Limited, 1980. A relatively short book, but one that dealt solely with the P-51, and went into considerable depth concerning its construction and use during WWII and in later conflicts. Overy, R.J. The Air War: 1939-1945. New York: Stein and Day Publishers, 1980. A fairly dry book that dealt mostly with the economics and generalities of the air war, without dealing too much with the actual fighting. Perret, Geoffrey. Winged Victory: The Army Air Forces in World War II. New York: Random House, 1993. A good book that covered its topic well, although in-depth discussion of the contributions of the other allies' forces is not dealt with. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Egypt The New Kingdom.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The New Kingdom Egypt: The New Kingdom I was always fascinated with the Egyptians and their way of life. The way they utilized the water, the land and the tools still amaze me to this day. The art was something that would astound you. And the Pyramids and temples are breathtaking wonders. The New Kingdom is one of the most interesting periods of the Egyptian Empire. The New kingdom was to me the most glorious period of the Egyptian periods. The Egyptians knew how to utilize the water and make dams to irrigate their crops and bathe during the first Egyptian civilization. "The Egyptians were accomplished farmers. They knew the Nile would flood each year and bring abundant grain." During the 18th dynasty the Egyptians improved on farming and art by assimilating some of the culture and artistic knowledge of the people that they conquered (I will talk about the people that they conquered later on in this report). In doing this it made them one of the greatest farmers there were. The Egyptian art and architectures during the New Kingdom still leaves people in awe to this day. Cyril Aldred stated " The New Kingdom seems the most golden of all the epochs of Egyptian history, perhaps because so much of its wealth remains." Although their were no pyramids built at this time, there were tombs and temples built. The Pyramids were also restored during this magnificent period by kings and Queens to come in the 18th dynasty and on into the Roman period. The pyramids are being kept up to this day. Scientist and archaeologists are trying to figure out just how the pyramids were built. The tomb artifacts, and the tomb paintings are like a doorway to ancient Egypt. From the artifacts in the tombs, archaeologist know that men and women wore jewelry such as earrings and necklaces. In their jewelry they put amethyst, turquoise, and onyx in with copper and gold. From the paintings you would learn that they made boats, believed in different Gods and religion. The Sphinx also has archaeologist bewildered on how an ancient civilization could build one of the seven wonders of the world with the tools of their day. The Sphinx's dimensions are: the paws; 50 feet long (15m), The Head; 30 feet long (10m) 14 meters wide (4m), The Entire Body: 150 feet (45m). "To keep the monument within it's past and present shape, the Ancient Egyptians from the Old Kingdom into the new, and even in the time of the modern Twentieth century, have added to the monument to maintain it structurally." "The ancient Egyptians interpreted every occurrence in terms of relationship between natural and supernatural forces." The flooding of the Nile river, the daily cycle of the sun are some of these natural forces. The Egyptians believed that the sun god Re would be reborn every day. Egypt was divided into Lower Egypt (north) and Upper Egypt (south). Early in the history of Egypt they were unified. This unification would not last but it would happen again in the 18th dynasty under the rule of Ahmose (Ahmosis). Ahmose ruled from 1570 -1546 B.C. He was the first ruler and was said to be the founder of the New Kingdom. Ahmose drove the Hykkos across the Red Sea avenging a defeat that they had suffered more than a century ago. This unification began the expansion and power of the New Kingdom. "During the New Kingdom, Egypt reached the peak of its power, wealth, and territory. The government was reorganized into a military state with an administration centralized in the hands of the pharaoh and his chief minister." Thutmose I (3456 - 3443) pursued the Hykkos through Canaan and into Syria. He also expanded Egypt's empire into Nubia. Thutmose I constructed the first tomb in the Valley of the Kings. Thutmose III ruled from 1490-1436 B.C. and he lead profound campaigns against the Palestine's, Syria, and the Northern Euphrates area in the Mesopotamia. They conquered these people and their farmers and artisans and assimilated their culture as Egypt's own. Egypt expanded by bringing their conquered enemy into the Egyptian empire. Thutmose III established an intricate system of diplomacy, alliances, and treaties. Pharaohs that succeeded him often engaged in warfare with other nations. The Hittites and the Hurrians were two of the enemies that Egypt would have to become allies with. Thutmose III was also credited for making peace with the Hurrians. Two Hurrian kings married their daughters to the two Egyptian kings Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, thereby insuring peace between the two nations. Hatshepsut was the queen of Egypt during the 18th dynasty. She ruled from ca. 1503 to 1480 B.C. "In contrast to the warlike temper of her dynasty, she devoted herself to administration and the encouragement of commerce. In the summer of 1493 B.C. , she sent a fleet of five ships with thirty rowers each from Kosseir, on the Red Sea, to the Land of Punt, near present-day Somalia. It was primarily a trading expedition, for Punt, or God's land, produced myrrh, frankincense, and fragrant ointments that the Egyptians used for religious purposes and cosmetics." She was the daughter of Thutmose I. She married Thutmose II. Hatshepsut built the temple at Deir Al- Bahri. Expansion continued under the reign of Amenophis II and Thutmose IV. Amenophis III was the next king and under his rule was built some of the greatest Pharaonic structures. The Temple of Luxor is one of his greatest tributes. Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV, 1364-1347 B.C.) ruled towards the end of the 18th dynasty. He ruled for a short time but while he was ruler, he changed Egypt forever. He believed in one god, Ra, at this time this was unheard of. He had his god's symbol replace that of all the other gods. Akhenaten's religious ideas did not survive his death. His ideas were abandoned in part because of the economic collapse that ensued at the end of his reign. To restore the morale of the nation, Akhenaten's successor, Tutankhamen, cleaned and repaired temples. New images were made, priests appointed, and endowments restored. Akhenaten's new city was abandoned to the desert sands. This was done to appeased the gods. Tutankhamen ruled for 16 years. After his father's death monotheism died out but it would take two kings after the young ruler for the beliefs to be eradicated. The 19th dynasty experienced rulers such as Seti I and Ramses The Great. Just as Akhenaten lost territories, Seti I recaptured these territories. Seti I began the construction of a temple at Abydos and it was completed by his son, Ramses II also known as Ramses The Great. Ramses II was the co-ruler of Egypt during his father's reign. He also constructed structures like the Ramesseum in Thebes and the sun temples of Abu Simbel. Merneptah was the next successor and he spent most of his rule forcing back invaders from Libya and the Mediterranean. The Last king of the 19th dynasty was Seti II. He defended the Egyptian empire from Libya and the Mediterranean foes also. The Last dynasty of the New Kingdom was the 20th Dynasty. Ramses III was also occupied with defending the Egyptian empire from invasion. "His successors, who were all named Ramses, presided over the decline of their empire until Ramses XI withdrew from active control over his kingdom, delegating authority over Upper Egypt to his High Priest Amun Herihor and Lower Egypt to his minister Smendes. They were to be the last rulers of the New Kingdom." This was not the end of the Egyptians but it was to lead to the demise of the Egyptian empire. Through their Art and sculptures they will always be remembered . Their fantastic tombs and other architecture will always be looked upon as a wonder in itself. Living in the ancient times of the Egyptians and others like them seems to have been very war-like. To have survived back then you would have to have been very powerful and resourceful. I will always be fascinated with the accomplishments of this ancient civilization. I just named some of their achievements and kings. How could an empire this powerful and civilized befall such a great demise as they did. That question would lead us into Third intermediate period, which would take much more time to write about. But you can see that the Egyptians were a glorious people. Works Cited Deborah Howard, Exploring Ancient World Cultures, Essays on Ancient Egypt, The Egyptian Culture Reflected in Worship[cited 1996] "Egypt: A Country Study" in Federal Research Division: from Library of Congress , Egypt, Art and Architecture in the New Kingdom ed. Helen Chapin Metz [database online] [cited December 1996] http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/egtoc.html "Life in Ancient Egypt " Oriental Institute Research Archives [database online] (Chicago: University of Chicago 1998 - [cited 21 April 1998]): available from http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/RECREAD/REC_READ.html "Life in Ancient Egytpt" Gods and Religion [database online] ( Carnegie Museum of Natural History [cited December 1996]available from http://www.clpgh.org/cmnh/exhibits/egypt/religion.html "Egypt: A Country Study" in Federal Research Division: from Library of Congress , The New Kingdom and the third Intermediate Period ed. Helen Chapin Metz [database online] [cited December 1996] http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/egtoc.html Sayed Z. El-Sayed, Queen Hatshepsut's Expedition to the Land of Punt: The first Oceanic Cruise? (Oceanography, Texas A&M University [cited 24 July 1995] available from http://www.ocean.tamu.edu/Quaterdeck/Q3.1/Elsayed/elsayed(hatshepsut).html "The New Kingdom (1567-1083)" Egypt History Docs [database online] at Arabnet [cited 1996] available from http://www.arab.net/net/egypt/history/et_newkingdom.html Deborah Howard, Exploring Ancient World Cultures, Essays on Ancient Egypt, The Egyptian Culture Reflected in Worship[cited 1996] "Egypt: A Country Study" in Federal Research Division: from Library of Congress , ed. Helen Chapin Metz [database online] [cited December 1996] http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/egtoc.html Life in Ancient Egypt " Oriental Institute Research Archives [database online] (Chicago: University of Chicago 1998 - [cited 21 April 1998]): available from http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/RECREAD/REC_READ.html "Life in Ancient Egytpt" Gods and Religion [database online] ( Carnegie Museum of Natural History cited December 1996] available from http://www.clpgh.org/cmnh/exhibits/egypt/religion.html "Egypt: A Country Study" in Federal Research Division: from Library of Congress , ed. Helen Chapin Metz [database online] [cited December 1996] http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/egtoc.html Sayed Z. El-Sayed, Queen Hatshepsut's Expedition to the Land of Punt: The first Oceanic Cruise? (Oceanography, Texas A&M University [cited 24 July 1995] available from http://www.ocean.tamu.edu/Quaterdeck/Q3.1/Elsayed/elsayed(hatshepsut).html "The New Kingdom (1567-1083)" Egypt History Docs [database online] at Arabnet [cited 1996] available from http: //www.arab.net/net/egypt/history/et_newkingdom.html Word Count: 1718 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Egyptian Medicine.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Egyptian Medicine So that you know: I was most worried with my court, because the Nile did not come in seven years and the entire country was in great need. Then I turned my heart to the front; and I asked the wise Imhotep for advice, where the birthplace of the Nile is found and who would be the god that lived there. Upon this Imhotep answered, "I have to go to the house of books and look up in the holy books." He returned soon and revealed wonders to me, to which no king has ever been shown the way since the beginning of time... Inscription of the "Stele of Famine with the Edict of Djoser to the prince of Elephantine" (2780 BC) 1 The Nile river is known almost universally by historians as the cradle of medicine because it passes through the great region of Egypt. Egypt greatly contributed to the western civilization. Their knowledge was far superior to any previous civilization, and many civilizations to come. One of their greatest achievements was in the field of medicine because they replaced myth with medical fact, this laid the foundations for modern medical practice. They discovered the cause of various illnesses and developed a cure. They practised both medical and spiritual healing so the worlds of religion and science could coexist. With the discoveries of several papyrus', we are learning more and more about their knowledge of the human anatomy. The literature discovered by archaeologists dates back to over 7000 years ago. In the early Egyptian times, medicine was practised most often by priests, not doctors or physicians. There were three main types of early healers, the priest physician, lay physician, and the magician-physician. The priest physicians were ranked highest among physicians because they practised a combination of clinical and spiritual medicine. The priest physicians were in such a high favour that it is most likely they were part of the Egyptian hierarchy, and involved with the state officials and pharaohs. It is unknown if the priest physicians ever received medical training. They were permitted to examine patients and participate in minor tasks. All diseases except those of the eye, were treated by a clergy who specialized with their own rule and hierarchy known as the Priests of Sekhmet. Gradually the physicians would gain their medical knowledge and would combine it with their knowledge of magic to become an effective and respected healer. The lay physicians also practised a combination of clinical and spiritual healing. Unlike the priest physician, the lay physicians were most likely trained to practice medicine. They were most likely derived from priests who had knowledge of the anatomy, and from magicians because they weren't associated with any particular god or temple. The role of a lay physician wasn't only open to males, unlike the priest physicians, there are records of women physicians. Although the duties of the lay physician are vague due to the lack of information contained in the medical papyri, we can assume that they were closely linked to the field of surgery because of their medical training. The last type of physician called the magician-physician, was not trained in medicine and only used spells to cure the ill. This signifies that although the Egyptians made advances in the field of medicine, the aspect of magic never their medicine. All physicians of Egypt were regarded in high favour of the kings. They were given such titles as "Chief of all court physicians,""Physicians of the body, who knows the inner juices,""Priest of Aton who in the palace goes and comes and gas admission to the king." The nobles also used the term "body physicians." These "body physicians," were permanently employed. Historians and archaeologists are unsure of the methods of payment for these physicians, but they know that the general physicians who went into the land were paid by natural resources such as a gold ring or bracelet. It was a family tradition to become a doctor. It is unsure whether the position was inherited or the fathers just wanted to pass down their knowledge to their sons. They can come to the conclusion that all physicians were well looked after and were a valuable asset to all pharaoh. In wartime and on journeys anywhere within Egypt, the sick are all treated free of charge, because doctors are paid by the state and scrupulous observance of the prescriptions drawn up by great doctors of the past is incumbent on them. Diodorus Siculus2 Court physicians had the same advantages of those who went out to the war front. They were paid directly by the pharaoh so a wounded soldier in battle would be able to receive free treatment. The art of medicine is thus divided: each physician applies himself to one disease only and not more. All places abound in physicians; some are for the eyes, others for the head, others for the teeth, others for the intestines, and others for internal disorders. Herodutus3 In ancient Egypt, most physicians were specialists. One physician would specialize in treating flesh wounds, while another would specialize in treating eye infections. The larger part of the training of physicians took place in a house of life. The house of life is a temple devoted to treated the ill. One would only have to tell the "house of life" of his illness and a physician who specialized in that field would visit that person and treat the illness as best he could. At the temple of Heliopis, they discovered gravestones of the doctors of old schools and engraved on them were such inscriptions as "superintendent of the secrets of health of the house of Thoth", "the greatest of doctors", "eye specialist to the palace." From hieroglyphics on the tomb of doctor Iry, we learned that he is called "keeper of the king's rectum." There was also a "keeper of the king's right eye," and "keeper of the kings left eye." The Egyptians were able to treat teeth and eye problems. Doctors who specialized in the eyes were regarded extremely high in Egyptian society and were the pride of many Pharaohs. Eye doctors had considerable knowledge of the eye. They distinguished that there is both an outside part and an inside part to be treated. Eye diseases in Egypt, then and now, are more common then in any other region. Therefore eye doctors were in great demand and kings from neighbouring lands would ask the gift of an experienced eye doctor to join their court. They discovered a treatment for trachoma, or "Egyptian eye disease." Trachoma causes fifty percent of all blindness, and is contagious. It is caused by the bacteria Chlamydia trachomatis, and it forms tiny blisters on the conjunctiva. The eye specialists would treat it by applying a mixture of sodium carbonate, black mascara, and red ocher. They were able to perform surgeries on the eye where they would remove the iris and remove a piece of rock or metal. Another speciality was the treating of the teeth. Ancient Egyptian doctors who specialized in dental care, are not believed to have had knowledge of dental surgery because no evidence has been found in any written texts. But archaeological finds show that attempts have been made. They discovered a mandible from the Fourth Dynasty that indicates that there was an attempt to drill a hole in one of the teeth. Possibly the first prosthesis was found in 1929 in Giza where two teeth were found with gold wire fixed to the teeth. Also they have found several mummies with artificial teeth. The study of several mummies indicates poor teeth condition. This can be attributed to the lack of nutrition, mostly lower class citizens. In the Papyrus Ebers, they found parts of a dental monograph titled "The Beginning of Remedies for Stronger Teeth." Carious teeth were treated with a mixture of ocher, flour, spelt, and honey. Fillings were made out of a combination of malachite and resin. The Ancient Egyptian doctors and physicians used many types of natural resources to cure patients. In one case it was discovered that they used the electrical charge of the Malapterusus electricus, a close relative of the electric eel, was used to cure certain kinds of pain. To cure the gout, the patient would step on the electric eel, then place the other foot on a wet beach then wait until the leg is numb up to the knee. But he electric eel's charges were too week to cure some ailments so the used the organs of some fish that produced electrical charges. At first history believed that the first case of leeches being used for medical purposes was in 135 AD by the Greek Nikandros. He described that the leeches were placed on the body and would clear out blood and congested fluids. They now know that 2,000 years earlier, this procedure was common in Egypt. They do not know how this was done, whether they actually cut open the vein with a knife, or used some other method. Their remedies are not all that different from our own. They used various kinds of pills, potions, pouttices, suppositories, and plasters. They had the knowledge to prevent wounds and cure many types of animal bites such as the crocodile. The doctors and physicians would suggest mouldy bread to prevent blisters, intestinal diseases, and suppurating wounds. They developed a cure for the cough that goes as follows: pieces of plant and mineral substances should be heated on hot stones. A pot with a hole bored into it should be put on top of this and a pipe should be put into the hole. The patient must "swallow" the herbal steam seven times. And because the mouth dries out, it should be rinsed out with oil.4 Archaeologists have discovered many papyrus', but some containing more information then others. The most famous of these is the Papyrus Ebers. It was found by an Arab in Luxor who discovered it will excavating a tomb. He demanded a large sum of money for the purchase, so with the financial support of a friend, George Ebers purchased the Papyrus. They dated back to the period between 1553-1550 BC. It was a collection of texts from the Old Empire that gave instructions on how to cure wounds, fractures, dislocations, and many other types of illnesses. They described how to treat fractures, they would use splints bound with bandages. When the Papyrus Ebers was written, Egypt was at it's highest medical achievement. Historians can come to the conclusion that the papyrus belonged to the Pharaoh Amenhotep (1557-1501 BC) . It is the most accurate account of early Egyptian medicine ever written. At this time medicine was much freer of magic then before. It is used as the founding book of knowledge for ancient Egyptian medicine. Much of the contents of the papyrus, deal with constipation, giving several effective cures that in some parts of the world, are still used today. The Papyrus Ebers consisted of 108 columns divided into forty-five groups. The second group for example would describe various kinds of laxatives, while group four describes stomach ailments. The texts contained in the Papyrus Ebers are difficult to understand, and there are many unknown terms used within. One of the most famous ancient doctors is Imhotep. He was a great privilege to have as a Pharaoh. He worked in the court of the pharaoh Khasekhem. When he was finished, he turned to the speechless women and said, 'on these wounds, compresses of fresh meat must be applied and new ones must be reapplied five times daily. After this, the patient should drink milk mixed with beef gall bladder....'5 This is an exert from Pierre Montalauer's book about Imhotep. It refers to the ordeal of the birth of the great Pharaoh Djoser. After the deliverance, the queen of the Upper Egyptian capital, received a tear of the perineum. Imhotep quickly bandaged the haemorrhaging and stitched the wound. The exert is Imhotep giving the queen instructions to follow in order to let the wound heal properly. He saved the queen but around the same time his wife died giving birth to his son. He then locked himself in with his wife for forty days to mummify her. This was the first recorded process of mummification known. He committed a large part of his life to Djoser the future Pharaoh. He played a major role in the court, was vizier to his king , he was a great architect and astrologist. In some legends it says that he ended the seven year drought by creating an elaborate system of irrigation, organizing fisheries, and he also preserved food. Imhotep built the first pyramid in the world, the step mastaba of Saqara.6 It was erected over the resting place of Pharaoh's wife who was buried in the Nile Delta. It is now known that Egyptian medicine contributed greatly to modern medicine. Many of the therapies used today are similar to those used in ancient Egyptian times such as the method of treating a fractured bone. They were the first to use electrotherapy to cure pain, and also have an understanding of what happened. The first ever mummification was in Egypt and the process was used for centuries to come by all Egyptian peoples. With the discoveries of more and more papyrus', ancient Egyptian's are now getting the credit they deserve for their contributions to modern medicine. Bibliography Atkinson, D.T. Magic, Myth and Medicine. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1956. Dawson, Warren R. Ancient Egyptian Medicine. (Online) available. http://www.lri.ucsf.edu/public_html/egypt.html Margotta, Roberto. The Story of Medicine. New York: Golden Press, 1968. Stetter, Cornelius. The Secret Medicine of the Pharaohs: Ancient Egyptian Healing. Carol Stream: Quintessence Publishing Company, 1993. Thorward, Jurgen. Science and Secrets of Early Medicine. Cologn: DuMont Press, 1962. Trueman, John H., Trueman, Dawn Cline. The Enduring Past. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1982. Footnotes Word Count: 2314 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Egyptian Tomb 5.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Early Western Civilization Egyption Tomb 5 Egyptologists had lost interest in the site of tomb 5, which had been explored and looted decades ago. Therefore, they wanted to give way to a parking lot. However, no one would have ever known the treasure that lay only 200 ft. from King Tut's resting place which was beyond a few rubble strewn rooms that previous excavators had used to hold their debris. Dr. Kent Weeks, an Egyptologist with the American University in Cairo, wanted to be sure the new parking facility wouldn't destroy anything important. Thus, Dr. weeks embarked in 1988 on one final exploration of the old dumping ground. Eventually he was able to pry open a door blocked for thousands of years, and announced the discovery of a life time. "We found ourselves in a corridor," he remembers. "On each side were 10 doors and at end there was a statue of Osiris, the god of the afterlife." The tomb is mostly unexcavated and the chambers are choked with debris, Weeks is convinced that there are more rooms on a lower level, bringing the total number to more than 100. That would make tomb 5 the biggest and most complex tomb ever found in Egypt, and quite conceivable the resting place of up to 50 sons of Ramesses II, perhaps the best known of all the pharaohs, the ruler believed to have been Moses'nemesis in the book of Exodus. The Valley of the Kings, in which Tomb 5 is located, is just across the Nile River from Luxor, Egypt. It is never exactly been off the beaten track. Tourism has been brisk in the valley for millenniums: graffiti scrawled on tomb walls proves that Greek and Roman travelers stopped here to gaze at the wall paintings and hieroglyphics that were already old long before the birth of Christ. Archaeologists have been coming for centuries too. Napoleon brought his own team of excavators when he invaded in 1798, and a series of expeditions in 19th and early 20th centuries uncovered one tomb after another. A total of 61 burial spots had been found by the time the British explorer Howard Carter opened the treasure-laden tomb of King Tutankhamun in 1922. Britain's James Burton had burrowed into the site of Tomb 5 in 1820, and decided that there was nothing inside. A dismissive Carter used its entryway as a place to dump the debris he was hauling out of Tut's tomb. In the late 1980s, came the proposed parking area and Weeks' concern. His 1988 foray made it clear that the tomb wasn't dull as Burton said. Elaborate carvings covered walls and referred to Ramesses II, whose own tomb was just 100 ft. away. The wall inscriptions on the companion crypt mentioned two of Ramesses'52 known sons, implying some of the royal offspring might have been buried within. Then, came last month's astonishing announcement. For treasure, the tomb probably won't come to close to Tut's because robbers apparently plundered the chamber long time ago. No gold or fine jewelry has been found so far, and Weeks does not expect to find any riches to speak of. The carvings and inscriptions Weeks and his friends have seen, along with thousands of artifacts such as beads, fragments of jars that were used to store the organs of the deceased, and mummified body parts which tell historians a great amount about ancient Egypt during the reign of its most important king. "Egyptians do not call him Ramesses II," Sabry Abd El Aziz, director of antiquities for the Qurna region said. " We call him Ramesses al-Akbar which means Ramesses the Great." During his 67 years on the throne stretching from 1279 B.C. to 1212 B. C., Ramesses could have filled an ancient edition of the Guinness Book of Records all by himself: he built more temples, obelisks and monuments; took more wives(eight, not counting concubines) and claimed to have sired more children (as many as 162, by some accounts) than any other pharaoh in history. He presided over an empire that stretched from present-day Libya to Iraq in the east, as far north as Turkey and southward into the Sudan. Today, historians know a great deal about Ramesses and the customs of his day. However, the newly explored tomb suddenly presents scholars with all sort of puzzles to ponder. For one thing, many of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings are syringe-like, plunging straight as a needle into the steep hillsides. For reasons nobody yet knows, says Weeks, this one "is more like an octopus, with a body surrounded by tentacles." The body in this case is an enormous square room, at least 50 ft. on a side and divided by 16 massive columns. In Ramesses 'day the room would have seemed positively cavernous; now it is filled nearly to the top with rubble washed in over the centuries by infrequent flash floods. Anyone who wants to traverse the chamber has to crawl through a tight passage, lighted by a string of dim electric light bulbs where the dirt has been painstakingly cleared away. At the end of his claustrophobic journey lies the door Weeks found, and the relatively spacious corridors beyond. It is here, as well as in two outermost rooms that the artifacts were discovered. Weeks says, "The tomb was pretty well gone over in ancient times." The archaeologists have tracked down a record of one of those robberies which in about 1150 B.C. A 3,000 year old papyrus fragment housed in a museum in Turin, Italy which recounts the trial of a thief who was caught in the Valley of the Kings. He confessed under torture that he had broken into Ramesses II's tomb and then returned the next night to rob the tomb of Ramesses'children, which across the path. Additional artifacts could lie buried if, as Weeks believes, the tomb had unusual split level design. The ceilings of the corridors to the left and right of the statue of Osiris slope downward and then drop abruptly about 4 ft. Moreover, the doors that line the corridors all lead to identical 10 ft. by 10 ft. chambers. The openings are only about 2.5 ft. wide which is too narrow to accommodate a prince's sarcophagus. That suggests to Weeks that the rooms weren't burial chambers but rather chapels for funeral offerings. Hieroglyphics above each painting make it clear that the pharaoh's firs, second, seventh, and 15th sons were buried in Tomb 5. Many of the engravings show Ramesses presenting one or another of the newly deceased young men to Re-Harakhty, the god of the sun; Horus, the falcon headed god of the sky; or Hathor, goddes of motherhood, who is often depicted as a cow. These scenes reflect the belief that pharaohs were demigods while alive and that life was merely a short term way station on the road to full deity. Anything that researchers learn in Tomb 5 about Ramesses'oldest son, Amen-hir-khopshef, could be especially significant to religion scholars. Cautions Weeks: " I'm not saying that we will prove the validity of the Bible,but scholars are hungry for any new information about this crucial time in Judeo-Christian history." The great buildings boom got under way as soon as Ramesses took throne at age 25, right after he discovered that the great temple his father Seti I had begun at Abydos was a shambles. The new pharaoh summoned his coursties to hear his plans for completing the work. Then, he went on to built dozens of monuments, including a temple at Luxor and Karnak and the cliff temples at Abu Simbel which were rescued from waters rising behind the Aswan Dam in the 1960s. In an age when life expectancy could not have been much more than 40, it must have seemed to his subjects that Ramesses would never die. At 92, the pharaoh went to join his ancestors and some of his sons in the Valley of the Kings. His internal organs were removed and placed in vessels known as canopic jars, and the body was embalmed and gently wrapped in cloth. Archaeologists found that the embalmers has even stuffed peppercorns into the monarch's nostrils to keep his aquiline nose from being flattened by the wrappings. Ramesses was then placed in a sarcophagus and interred, along with everything he would need to travel through the afterlife: The Book of the Dead, containing spells that would give the pharaoh access to the netherworld; tiny statuettes known as Ushabti, which would come alive to help the dead king perform labors for the gods; offering of food and wine; jewelry and even furniture to make the afterlife more comfortable. It's likely, say scholars that Ramesses II's tomb was originally far richer and more elaborate than King Tut's. Unlike several other tombs in the valley, Ramesses'has never been fully excavated. A French team is clearing it now, and the entire tomb could be ready for visitors within five years, but it is not expected to offer archaeologists any surprises. Tomb 5 is a completly different story. Weeks says " We have never found a multiple burial of a pharaoh's children. We have no idea at all what happened to the most of the pharaoh's children." Archaeologists either have to assume that Ramesses II buried his children in a unique way, or they have to consider the possibility that they've overlooked a major type of royal tomb. Archaelogists still haven't resolved many basic questions about Tomb 5; when the tomb was built, over what priod of time it was used. Some answers could pop up as the excavations progress. Says Weeks " Let's hope the tomb yields a whole lot of new bodies. Then, medicos can get to work on them, and find out what therse princes were like, whether they had toothaches, how long they lived." Weeks'team plans to return to Tomb 5 for the month of July. Their goal is to get enough inside to explore the staircases and lower level. Weeks stimates that it will take at least five years to study and map the entire tomb, protect the decorations, install climate controls and electricity and shore up the precarious sections. Says Abdel Halim Nur el Din, secretary-general of egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquites: " We're in no hurry to open this tomb to the public. We already have 10 or 12 that they can visit." It is more improtant to preserve the tombs that have already been excavated, say the Egyptians, than make new ones accessible. The recent find gives scholars hope that more can be discovered even in this most explored of Egypt's archaeological sites. Notes the antiquities department's Abd El Aziz: " We still haven't found the tombs of Amenhotep I or Ramesses VIII," he says. " We have 62 tombs in the Valley of the Kings, but in the Western Valley, which runs perpendicular to it, we have discovered only two tombs. The pharaohs would be pleased to know they have held on to a few of their secrets. After all, they dug their tombs deep into hillsides, where the crypts would be safe from the rabble and robbers. However, they never counted on was the need for parking lots f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Eli Whitney.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Eli Whitney Historians believe that one of the greatest pioneers in the birth of automation, American inventor, pioneer, mechanical engineer, and manufacturer Eli Whitney. Best remembered as the inventor of the cotton gin. He made his first violin when he was only 12. Eli started college when he was 23, in 1788. He left for Georgia and got his first look at cotton business. He graduated from Yale in 1792, and went to Savannah, Georgia to teach and study law. After he graduated he went south to tutor the children of a wealthy plantation owner. He taught school for five years. Eli Whitney made and sold nails during the Revolutionary war. In 1798 Eli obtained a government contract to make 10,000 muskets. In 1812 he was given another contract for 15,000 muskets .He built the first firearms factory to use mass production methods. When Eli Whitney built his first factory in 1798, he allocated a great deal of his precious resources to providing housing for his workers as well as ensuring that they were well off financially. This consideration marked his entire career as an industrialist. He wanted to "employ steady sober people,"tied to his factory and part of a community of industry. He intended to create a self- sufficient village, producing goods, and populated by well educated, happy workers,Whitneyville. He also affected the industrial development of the United States , in manufacturing muskets but most of whitney's own guns parts do not in fact interchange. Nevertheless, Eli Whitney is a figure whose history is fascinating, and whose impact in New Haven can not be overstated. He translated the concept of interchangeable parts into a manufacturing system, giving birth to the Americanmass- production concept. Whitney saw that a machine to clean the seed from cotton could make the South prosperous and make its inventor rich. He set to work at once and within days had drawn a sketch to explain his idea; 10 days later he constructed a crude model that separated fiber from seed. By 1793 he designed and constructed a machine called the cotton gin, that quickly separated cotton seed from the shortstaple cotton fiber. The first cotton gin was a wooden box that spun around a drum and picked the cotton seed with wire hooks.Cotton Gin, machine used to separate the fibers of cotton from the seeds. Before the invention of the cotton gin, seeds had to be removed from cotton fibers by hand; this labor-intensive and time-consuming process made growing and harvesting cotton uneconomical. The cotton gin allowed the seeds to be removed mechanically and rapidly from the cotton fibers, making cotton production economical and leading to dramatic growth in the United States cotton industry. This expansion contributed to an increase of slave labor in the United States. Whitney's cotton gin, also called a saw gin, consisted of a cylinder to which a number of sawlike teeth were attached. As the cylinder revolved, the teeth passed through the closely spaced ribs of a fixed comb. When cotton was fed into the gin, the teeth caught the cotton fibers and pulled them through the comb. The seeds, which were too large to pass between the ribs, were left behind,( This principle, with virtually no modifications, is still employed in modern automatic saw gins used to process the bulk of the U.S. cotton crop).After perfecting his machine he filed an application for a patent on June 20, 1793; in February 1794 he deposited a model at the Patent Office, and on March 14 he received his patent. Whitney's gin brought the South prosperity.Whitney entered into partnership with the plantation manager, Phineas Miller, to manufacture cotton gins at New Haven, Connecticut. A disastrous factory fire prevented the partners from making enough gins to meet the demand, and manufacturers throughout the South began to copy the invention.but the unwillingness of the planters to pay for its use and the ease with which the gin could be pirated put Whitney's company out of business by 1797. When Congress refused to renew the patent, which expired in 1807, Whitney concluded that 'an invention can be so valuable as to be worthless to the inventor.' He never patented his later inventions, one of which was a milling machine the other ground gravel used in road production. His genius as expressed in tools, machines, and technological ideas made the southern United States dominant in cotton production and the northern states a bastion of industry. He had one sister- Elizabeth, and two brothers- Benjamin and Josiah. In 1817 he married Henrietta Frances Edwards of Bridgeport, Connecticut. They had three daughters and one son. Eli Whitney died in 1824 of natural causes. There is a award this day which is for distinguished accomplishments in improving capability within the broad concept of orderly production. The person receiving this Award should be presently in a top management position, active personally in the development of ideas, concept of process, associated with engineering, responsible for proven concepts, with wide recognition in the area of mass production and generating greater productivity Word Count: 834 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Essay on the American Colonies.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Essay on Colonies The New England and Southern Colonies were both settled largely by the English. By 1700, the regions had evolved into two distinct societies. The southern colonies have characteristics that are the antithesis of the New England colonies attributes. New England was colonized for Freedom of Worship and freedom of political thought. The Southern colonies were developed for freedom of economic opportunity. The New England colonies had aspirations for a distinct society, where they could show their homeland, how a country should be run. The southern colonies had goals for mercantilism, and increasing the prosperity of England. The New England colonies were based on theocracy, where the state forced the people to live and worship in an orthodox way. The southern colonies(Virginia) had a government based on a royal government, where the state was governed by a governor and council named by the king, and an elected assembly chosen by the people. Finally, the New England colonies wanted to establish the colony for religious motives, while the southern colonies were established for economic motives. England and the rebels of England (Pilgrims), made up the New England and southern colonies. "God Almighty in his most holy and wise providence hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity, other mean and in subjection. Yet we must be knit together in this work as one man."(John Winthrop, A Model of Christian Charity) This statement by John Winthrop, demonstrates importance of religion in the lives of the New England settlers. "We must delight in each other, make others' conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body." (John Winthrop, A Model of Christian Charity). The use of the word "together" and "community" indicates that the New England settlers were of a communal nature, they were less individualistic than the southern colonies. The New England colonies were based on religious freedom, thus their society was reflected the religion. "These underwritten names are to be transported to Virginia, embarked in the Merchant's Hope, Hugh Weston, Master, per examination by the minister of Gravesend touching upon their conformity to the Church discipline of England, and have taken oaths of allegiance and supremacy:" (Ship's List of Emigrants Bound for Virginia). The use of the word "Master", shows, that the southern colonies were more of a individualistic state rather than a communal state(New England). This individualism was the effect of the motivation of the southern colonies for economic opportunity. "We whose names are underwritten, being by God's providnce engaged together to make a plantation...." (Articles of Agreement). The New England settlers, again were of a communal nature, in how they are binding together for the good of the community. "We intend by God's grace, as soon as we can with all convenient speed, to procure some Godly and faithful minster with whom we purpose to join in church covenant to walk in the ways of Christ."(Articles of Agreement). The statement above, shows how the minister, was the head of the theocracy, of the small communities. Furthermore, the "Articles of Agreement", demonstates the importance of sharing within the community. This article, was another product of the motivation of the New England settlers for religious freedom. "This court... in the interim recommends [that] all tradesmen and laborers consider the religious end of their callings...". The puritans believed everyone had a specific duty in life, something that one was proficient at. Almost all the mores and society itself radiated from religion, as a result, many people who couldn't endure the rigidity of such a society were exiled and the dissenters created new societies. "The worst[among us were the gold seekers who]with their golden promises made all men their slaves in hope of recompenses. There was no talk... but dig gold, wash gold, refine gold, load gold.." (Captain John Smith, History of Virginia). The southern colonists were a people who settled in the southern colonies for econmic motives. The people were more materialistic, and individualistic, thus greed prevailed. Conversely, the New England settlers were of a spiritual nature, and were dispassionate in materialistic matters. The drive of the southern colonists were toward economic prosperity. "For by our nearest computation we leave at our backs as many servants(besides Negroes) as there are friedman to defend the shores and all our frontiers [against] the Indians....[This] gives men fearful apprehensions of the danger they leave their estates and families in, while they are drawn from their houses to defend the borders."(Governor Berkeley and His Council on Their Inability to defend Virginia Against a Dutch Attack). The southern colonists were protective of their land, and were seeking more and more land. The colonists' idea was for more economic prosperity coming from more and more land. The southern colonists were motivated for economic prosperity. "Let us observe the sudden rise of their estates...[compared] with the quality in which they first entered this country." (Bacons "Manifesto"). This statement shows how the southern colonists had progressed by arriving to America because of their economic motivation. The advancement is a result of economic drive toward prosperity. The colonies were settled chiefly by the same race of people. The distinct quality that seperated the southern colonists from the New England colonists is that the motivation of the two were distinct, and as a result two colonies diverged in their goals. The southern colonists were aiming for economic prosperity; the presence of vast quantities of cheap land in America opened opportunities for economic advancement unknown in overcrowded Europe. The religious freedom was a major contribution because in Europe religious toleration was almost unknown, and dissenters were looked down upon. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Essay on The Atomic Bomb.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There has been a long standing debate on why the atomic bomb was used to defeat Japan. The threat of Russian advancement in Europe and in Asia was enough to worry the top officials in the United States and British governments. Wherever the Russians moved through they took for themselves. The imminent invasion of mainland Japan and the allied casualties that came with it were also a factor in the decision to drop the bomb, as said in document A. The dropping of the bomb was not entirely used to stop the Russian advancement. If the allied forces had invaded mainland Japan, many lives on both sides would have been lost. Most probably more than were lost in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. The tactics that the allies had used up to this point had cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. This was when the Japanese only had maybe two or three thousand men on an island; whereas on the mainland millions of people who would fight until their death to protect their country. Can you imagine if the Americans invaded mainland Japan where they had not only soldiers to fight against but the citizens of Japan loyal to Hirohito? Massive destruction, immense loss of life, and prolonging of the war until late 1946, as stated in document A, would result from invading on foot instead of using the bomb. Revenge also played a role in the decision to bomb Japan. The Japanese were not following the Geneva convention in regards to treatment of prisoners of war. Which says that the prisoners are not to be put through torture of the psychological or physical nature. The Japanese did these things anyway, they would decapitate American prisoners, or they would shove bamboo shoots under their fingernails. The American government also wanted revenge for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. No warning was given by the Japanese to the Americans and no war was declared until after the incident. The Russian territorial expansion definitely played a factor in the dropping the bomb on Japan. The Soviet Union had already taken Poland and many other countries during the war. The Soviets were helping the Chinese with the war against Japan and later would get railroads in China and Manchuria when Japan completely surrendered, as stated in document D. As said in document E, the Americans did not want the Russians to get involved in the war against Japan. The most obvious reasons would be to prevent the Russians from expanding any more and to keep them out of Japan where they would hamper the peace process and gain even more territory. As president Harry Truman says in his radio address, document H, all of the countries involved were trying to create the atomic bomb to use for their efforts. Fortunately the Americans won the "race of discovery". If the Germans had won that race they probably would have used it continuously in Russia and Britain until Hitler got what he wanted which was world domination and the extinguishing of the Jewish and others and the ascent of his "superior race" of Germans. The dropping of the atomic weapon on Japan was not entirely to halt Soviet expansion although it did play a major role. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Events leading to the American Revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Events leading to the American Revolution During the late seventeen hundreds, many tumultuous events resulted in Colonial opposition to Great Britain. The conditions of rights of the colonists will slowly be changed as the constriction of the parliament becomes more and more intolerable. During the Seven Years' War England was not only alarmed by the colonists' insistence on trading with the enemy, but also with Boston merchants hiring James Otis inorder to protest the legality of the writs of assistance (general search warrants) used to hunt out smuggled goods. "let the parliament lay what burthens they please on us, we must, it is our duty to submit and patiently bear them, till they will be pleased to relieve us....". This is a very strong dictum, that in 1764, the colonists were of a submissive nature, and were weakly pleading for self- autonomy. This small fire of anger will become a huge conflagration as the rights are slowly rescinded. On October 19, 1765 the Stamp Act Congress and Parliamentary Taxation committee's passed some laws that attempted to strengthen the grip of the English crown. "I.That his Majesty's subjects in these colonies, owe the same allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the Parliament of Great Britain." This statement can be used as a summation of the entire document that the Stamp Act Congress had initiated. The statement depicts the colonists has having to be submissive and servile in the view of Great Britain, this policy angered the colonists very much, and was another component of the transition of the colonists' rights and liberties. When the Declatory Act was passed in March of 1766, many colonies were attempting to claim that they were "seceding" from England. "Whereas several of the houses of representatives in his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America, have of late, against law, or to the general assemblies of the same, the sole and exclusive right of imposing duties and taxes upon his Majesty's subjects in the said colonies....be it declared ...., that the said colonies and plantations in America, have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial Crown and Parliament of Great Britain;". The Parliament of course denounced the attempt at independance and still dogmatilcally passed the following law to show that the colonists were still british subjects. Again, the colonists were infuriated and later will resist the british imperialism on the colonies. "All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve prpromote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empite"", yet those duties were always imposed with design to restrain the commerce of one part". This statement by the colonist (John Dickinson), shows that the sole rason for new taxes is just for the British gov't to make money, at the expense of the economy of the colonies. Dickinson makes a important distinction between the rights of the colonies and the authority of the parliament. Dickinson's comments were ubiquitous among the colonists, and thus infuriated them to rebellion, and the seizure of basic democratic rights. "From necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country , and the commercial benefits of it's respective members excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America without their consent ...." The continental congress had presented it's colonial rights. These rights enable the colonies to be more autonomous with exception to those several states who are under the british control. One important element of the document, is the idea of taxation without representation; the said that raising taxes without consent was illegal and that the commercial benefits of the colony should be shared within the colonies, instead of England becoming more and more economically prosperous. The whole idea of mercantilism was about to be crushed, due to this idea, of self-autonomy with respect to colonial economics. "Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do, ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny....". This statement made by Thomas Paine shows the foreshadowing, of what colonists would do. The British are trying to prevent independence, and from doing so, they are being tyrannical. Again, the rights of the colonists are being questioned and rebellion shortly will be forthcoming. "That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundations on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.". What the declaration is really saying, is that a society who has no or little rights (such as the colonies) should be destroyed, thus separation from England. A new society would follow, where the people of the society would have these rights necessary for self-autonomy. The Declaration of Independence was a strong justification for revolution. The Revolution follows the Declaration of Independence, where a transition occurs. The transition has to do with the rights of the colonists. The colonists acquire their rights through resistance to British imperial conformity, by resisting certain policies detrimental to the inalienable rights of a democracy. The transitional period was from 1760's to 1770's. This is a crucial period of time, because this is where the center of power is transferred from the british government (Parliament) to the colonial citizens. A major component to this center of power was the rights of the colonists, the colonists gained their rights through resistence to an imperial power. This transition is depicted through the progression of time in the documents. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Evolution of Caesar.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Throughout the book "The Sacrilege," Caesar evolved from a political nothing, to a political mastermind. It is easy to see his progress through the eyes of a character by the name of Decius. He helps use to realize that Caesar wanted three main things in this scheme. He desired money, some military men, and finally a consulship. To get what he wanted, Caesar had to be smart, powerful, and a little sneaky. Decius changes his views on how he views Caesar through a series of events throughout the story. Decius gains respect for Caesar and so does every else who has seen Caesar in action. At first, Decius doesn't believe that Caesar will amount to much in his lifetime. He believes that Caesar would rather live a luxurious and relaxed life. Although Caesar didn't think so. Burra, who thought that Caesar would be brilliant if he enlisted and controlled a legion, was exactly correct. Caesar, as history as shown, is a brilliant leader. Caesar believed that by leading you must not just make a plan, you must carry it out with his own manpower. He was always on his horse leading his pack through the bloodshed, not like many other leaders. When Decius was talking to Milo towards the beginning of the story he says that Caesar is known for being "reckless." He recounts the story of the pirates that captured him. Also in that conversation, Decius puts down Caesar because he says that Caesar has no money and that even as Pontifex Maximus, he still doesn't have any money. So he thinks less of Caesar when Milo tells him about a huge loan from Crassus to Caesar because he couldn't pay off his debts. Decius starts to gain respect for Caesar when he makes the announcement, as Pontifex Maximus, to label the "heinous" crime a "sacrilege." Caesar walks so seriously and confidently people "lose their stony faces" when Caesar arrives. Although when Caesar makes the remark of "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion," Decius is the first person to burst out laughing. He loses some of the respect for Caesar that he will later notice. Then Decius comes to a point where is gains full respect for Caesar. When Clodius is chasing him down, and they end up fighting each other in hand to hand combat, Caesar breaks in. At that point Decius says that he realizes how Caesar is able the manipulate people and break up crowds like "the parting of the sea." Caesar holds a very powerful position, Pontifex Maximus, which means that no blood can shed before his eyes. So when Clodius and Decius stop to listen to Caesar's little speech, Decius is amazed at the seriousness, integrity, and powerful Caesar. Finally, Decius realizes that Caesar is a very bright man when he asks for the evidence. Caesar doesn't know what it is, but he knows there is something that has caused all this commotion, so he asks for it. So through a series of events, some maybe not mentioned, Decius gains respect for Caesar. He realizes that Caesar holds a powerful position, is very intelligent, and can command a legion with great success. Decius underestimated Caesar at the beginning of this story, but now understands well the power of Caius Julius Caesar. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Fascism Compared to Communism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fascism Compared to Communism Analyze the similarities and the differences between single party rule in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia between 1933 and 1945. Answers should consider: methods of dealing with opposition, control of media and education, control of the economy, and war time planning. --- Why is it that Germany's fascism lasted a relatively short time compared to Russia's communism? The regimes established under Hitler and Stalin were incredibly similar with respect to the rise and control of the state. Both systems were based on entirely different ideology and goals. Hitler's Mein Kampf established the superiority of the German race and the need to expand as wanted by God. Hitler wanted the world. The government in Russia established by Lenin was based on a book called Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, a call to the proletariate to unite and rebel against their selfish employers. It is my belief that Lenin had entirely good reasons for doing as he did, and felt he was helping the world as apposed to Adolf Hitler. Immediately after Lenin's death, a man very much the same in nature as Hitler, Stalin, came to control the Bolsheviks and throw Russia in a civil war in a quest for power. You now have two men of equal aspirations soon to be in control of two very similar governments. In any rise of power, there needs to be a period of careful planning requiring much thought. These two men had very little history with which to work with which to model their revolutions. Times had been changing rapidly, technological improvements in the fields of manufacturing, transportation, and communication made this period of time very different from any other. Hitler spent his time imprison writing his book, Mein Kampf, filling it full of warped ideas of conquest and superiority of one race over another. I think it is strange that such works would go unnoticed with nobody left to watch a man with such dangerous ideas. Lenin planned his revolution while in exile in Switzerland. Then he made a deal with the German government whereby he was hid on a train and passed through enemy Germany to Russia. The conclusions with respect to methods of acquiring power and controlling it when they did get it were very much the same. Both rulers had full run of their respective governments. Stalin was already dictator of Russia with his power and loyalty of the people guaranteed by the secret police, the Cheka. This entity provided Stalin with an easy means of destroying the opposition and weeding out the undesirable to be sent to prison camps in Siberia, a virtual death sentence. For Hitler to ascend to that level of power he rammed the Enabling Act through the German Congress which gave him the power to enact laws. Under Article 1 of his new power, Hitler decreed the only existing party shall be the NSDAP. With Article 2 he declared all association of, collaboration with, and support of other parties would result in imprisonment in camps similar to Russia's labor camps. With Hitler's Gestapo, secret police, he enforced those rules and used existing policies to get rid of other unfit Germans. Political prisoners, homosexuals, Jews and other people sent to the concentration camps were given different colored symbols for easy identification. At this point, no one dared speak against their country even in the privacy of one's home lest their children let something slip at school. If you control people's thoughts, you control them. Propaganda was an important tool used by both Germany and Russia. Hitler appointed a man by the name of Joseph Goebbles to head the Ministry of Public Enlightenment in Germany. This man used newspapers, magazines, and radio to spread Nazism. Even if a man bathed in thoughts of discontent at home, he was bombarded with propaganda in public, and at the workplace. Banners hung from building, posters on almost every sign or lamppost. Anyone with a suspicious look on their face was first detained, and the sent to a prison camp. It was no longer just desirable to be a Nazi considering the benefits like government contracts or being able to stand first in line, but necessary for employment. Russia employed much the same tactics with much more emphasis on fear. Education was virtually unheard of in the early years of Russia, but by 1933 children were guaranteed primary education. Huge problems resulted form the ignorance and illiteracy, workers usually did not intentionally break machines but did not know how to use them. In official reports the reason for failure was terrorism by the Kulaks, rich peasants persecuted in the same way Germany's Jews. German education was geared toward physical aspects and the fathering of children. Membership to the German Youth for boys was compulsory by 1936. Emphasis was placed on physical fitness and team sports in these youth groups. Outstanding youths went to Adolf Hitler schools for secondary education, and Order Castles for future party leaders. Control of the economy and war time planning was a must for both nations. A story likened to the fact that with Communism you must give your cows to the government and they give you milk back. With fascism, you got to keep your cows and gave the milk to the government. Both systems were command economies and state controlled. Contingency plans were constantly drawn up and updated to fit new circumstances. Both nations were preparing for war. Germany was going to rule the world, Russia only wanted to defend herself from Capitalism. The resulting governments evolving from the two different systems of thought were very similar. But as one can see, the aspirations were radically different. Hitler was a threat to everyone and needed to be dealt with. Russia kept to themselves and bothered no one. A Cold War ensued with Russia complete with the irrational fear of Communism, McCarthyism, and a peace time build up of weapons followed. Germany was crushed in battle and Russia's Iron Curtain is being pulled down as I write. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Fascism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fascism is a form of counter-revolutionary politics that first arose in the early part of the twentieth-century in Europe. It was a response to the rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Fascism is a philosophy or a system of government the advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of aggressive nationalism. Celebrating the nation or the race as an organic community surpassing all other loyalties. This right-wing philosophy will even advocate violent action to maintain this loyalty which is held in such high regards. Fascism approaches politics in two central areas, populist and elitist. Populist in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies and to create a nation of unity. The elitist approach treats as putting the people's will on one select group, or most often one supreme leader called El Duce, from whom all power proceeds downward. The two most recognized names that go along with Fascism is Italy's Benito Mussolini and Germany's Adolf Hitler. The philosophy of Fascism can be traced to the philosophers who argue that the will is prior to and superior to the intellect or reason. George Sorel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Georg Hegal are main philosophers who's beliefs and ideologies greatly influenced the shaping of Fascist theory. Sorel (1847-1922) was a French social philosopher who had a major influence on Mussolini. Sorel believed that societies naturally became decadent and disorganized. This decay could only be slowed by the leadership of idealists who were willing to use violence to obtain power. Nietzsche (1844-1900) theorized that there were two moral codes: the ruling class ( master morality) and the oppressed class (slave morality). Nietzsche believed the ancient empires were developed from the master majority and the religious ideas and views grew out the slave majority. The idea of the "overman" or superman which symbolized man at his most creative and highest intellectual capacity was brought about by Nietzsche as well. Hegal believed people should sacrifice for the community. He thought war was also necessary to unify the state, with peace bring nothing but a weak society. Hegal also sustained that laws should be made by the corporate organization of the state. Fascism values human nature in a group for the benefit of the community. The group as a whole is called the human will, which is ruled by a select group or one leader, with the power being passed down from top to bottom. Fascism seeks to organize an organization led mass movement in an effort to capture the state power. When the power is in the firm grip of the ruler, or IL Duce, the government will be used to control the population and everything in it so the community will be benefited. Fascism's ideal government would be fashioned around the good of the community or nation. Everyone would work for the benefit of the nation and that is all. Regularly this would take place with the merging of the state and business leadership, with concern only of the nation. In this the nation will also take care of its members if the need should arise. This could be money ,shelter, food, or any other need that might come about. The ideology of Fascism has been identified with totalitarianism, state terror, fanaticism, arranged violence, and blind obedience. Adolf Hitler established his own personal ideology, Mein Kampf, which means My Struggle. The book was written while Hitler was in prison and not yet in power. Mussolini fashioned his ideology after he took control of Italy. Despite their two different angles on the use of Fascism Hitler and Mussolini both worked similarly on how they established their principles in the same basic manner. Their principles came from basic responses to various issues the leaders faced. Fascism is an authoritarian political movement that developed in Italy and other European countries after 1919 as a reaction against the profound political and social changes brought about from inflation, and declining social, economic, and political conditions. Italy, which was ready for a new political aspect, was the birthplace of fascist ideology. Benito Mussolini was the man who brought this ideology to Italy. Mussolini had been looking for the perfect opportunity to take complete control of the country and now was the time to do so. Mussolini said "Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary...does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal" (Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State) this statement can be easily recognized in the steps that Mussolini took to gain control of Italy. In 1919 Mussolini and his followers, mostly war veterans, were organized along paramilitary lines and wore black shirts as uniforms. After defeats at the polls Mussolini used his new financial backing friends to clothe a gang of thugs who would attack other street gangs supporting other ideologies that Mussolini disliked. These black shirts also vandalized, terrorized, bullied, and on occasion took control of self-governing governments by force. Paralyzed by these violent occurrences, the government did little to combat the fascists. Mussolini furthered his popularity by supporting eight hour days, elimination of class privileges, universal suffrage, and tax advantages. Adolf Hitler's Nazi (National Socialist German Worker's Party) party is the most recognized example of fascism. Nazism is the ideology and policies of Hitler and his party from 1921 to 1945. Nazism also stressed the superiority of the Aryan race, calling for the unification of all German-speaking peoples into one single empire. Unlike fascism, the state was second in importance, behind only racial purity for the nation. Hitler used his book Mein Kampf to establish a plan of action for creating this racially pure state. In January of 1933 Hitler was named Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg. By the end of the year Hitler had concentrated his power as a fascist dictator and began a campaign for a racially pure nation that eventually led to the Holocaust. In order for Hitler to maintain his ability to control the German people he had to organize several militia groups. Hitler even wrote down important points of the Nazi party that had to be followed. These Twenty Five points of Hitler's party were enforced by these militia groups. A few of the points made by Hitler are as follows: immigration of non-Germans must be prevented, no individual shall do any work that would I any way hurt the interest of the community for the benefit of all, a creation of a national (folk) army, all editors and their assistants on newspapers published in German must be a citizen, and all material to be published must go through the government for approval. To keep control of the population and maintain the law, Hitler setup he set up militia groups to see that everything was in order. Hitler began to organize the SA, his Nazi storm troopers, which in Mein Kampf he referred to as "...an instrument for the conduct and reinforcement of the movement's struggle for its philosophy of life." (The Rise of Hitler: A New Beginning) Realizing the liking of uniforms by the German man the SA adopted a brown-shirt outfit, with boots, swastika armband, badges and caps. The accessories on the outfit would become important because of the visual tools providing easy recognition and visibility, allowing for an increase of notoriety in and out of the Nazi party. Hitler then created a special unit that would only answer to him and be his personal body guards. The elite groups was known as Schutzstaffel, the staff guard or SS for short. The SS took a black uniform , modeled after the Italian Fascists. Josef Berchtold, a former stationary salesman, was the groups first leader. The Gestapo, established in 1933, was a secret state police. All these groups were used to carry out mass murders of anyone or any groups that posed a threat to Hitler and the party's beliefs. They would also create, destroy, and falsify any record that would benefit the party and the nation. Hitler, using modern technology, furthered his power. He used the microphone, radio, and newspaper to create any appearance that fascism will be the new political power in the twentieth century. Hitler once said that "The great masses of people... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." (Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State) He accomplished this feat by use of the microphone, speaking to thousands at one time he was able to rally support for his cause. He used the power of the airwaves and print to setup a vial hatred of Jews, blacks, and the physical handicaps, calling them all imperfections of society and they must be destroyed. With the Jews being the main scapegoat of the Nazi party. Hitler could have held to his belief that the dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy as an inferior race could have aided in the plot to justify genocide. Hitler used the media in the sense that he and his leaders had to approve anything that was being published. Allowing for selective material to be let about the party and other world events. Mussolini's Brown Shirts and Hitler's Nazi's are not the only right wing element to have an influence in today's society. There are numerous other groups who have their own agenda to deal with. Even though these groups have differences generally they do agree on certain main issues. With their core administration dealing with issues centering on anti-government. The issues are gun control, taxes, Constitution liberties, and federal regulations. These militia groups believe that the government is tyrannical, and there is a secret elite conspiracy on controlling the government, the economy, the culture, or all three. Just as Hitler used the Jews as his scapegoat these militia groups have there own victims that the use. Federal officials and law enforcement officers, minority groups, gay and lesbian right activists, and people of color or immigrants are just a few of the escape whole the right-wing militia use. One of the most famous right wing militia movements in the United States is the Ku Klux Klan, or KKK as it is even better known as. The KKK is a militia group that got started during the disorder of the Reconstruction era. Now the Klan's political agenda are a number of things. They believe the United States government should protect the jobs and welfare of American's first, not just anyone in the third world countries. The Klan does not want to continue seeing America sell itself to foreigners such as the Japanese, America should be owned by Americans. Closing American borders to immigrants also is a project that the KKK thinks should handled by putting American troops at the border of Mexico. The idea that the end of the world is coming is rapidly growing in right wing religious groups. Leading the way is Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Robertson and his Christian Coalition is credited in helping many of the Republican Senators and Congressmen attain their current standings. Robertson even believes by reading Revelation 13 that if America were to change its money by putting codes on it that it have in it the mark of the beast. Some of the states even have their own militia groups. The Michigan Militia is just one of the many individual groups. The Michigan Militia believes that the American government is undermining the individual freedoms that American's posses, and even selling out to international organizations. The drug problem is one of the major areas the group centralizes on. Even though the CIA has taken Noriega out of the drug cartel in Panama the business is still running just as strong due to other members of drug families were put back into power. Most of the people who choose to become part of these groups have several factors influencing their decision. Desperation generally is the main reason. They are people who barley are hanging on to their finical and social status. Wanting to protect themselves and their children from a life of poverty and hardship they join a group that will offer a family atmosphere of love and support. One idea shared by all fascist movements is the evident lack of a consistent political standard behind the ideology. Each individual leader would handle every situation a little differently with no sense of tradition or law. However, one very commonplace aspect about fascism would be its unsympathetic drive to achieve and maintain state power and sovereignty. On that road to conquest though fascists are willing to abandon any principle to adopt an issue more in acceptance and more likely to gain converts. Fascism and its right wing counterparts have been influencing twentieth century politics in every area. Hitler and Mussolini are perhaps the two most noted people to bring fascism to the forefront of government. Regardless of the power and force fascism has established in the past the same conclusion happens every time, it fails. Leading a person to question the vitality of this type of government. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baradat, Leon. Political Ideologies. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1994. Berlet, Chip. Armed Wing Populism, and Scapegoating. http://paul.spu.edu/~sinnfein/berlet.html. Merkel, Peter. The Making of a Stormtrooper. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980. Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State. Payne, Stanley. Fascism. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1980. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Http://members.iglou.com/kkk/belief.html The History Place: The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler?25points.htm. The History Place: The Rise of Hitler, A New Beginning. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/new.htm. The History Place: The Rise of Adolf Hitler, Nazi Party is Formed. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/party.htm. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\FDR.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Franklin D. Roosevelt On January 30, 1882 in Hyde Park, New York Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born. James Roosevelt, Franklin's father, was a prosperous railroad official and landowner(Lawson 25). His predecessors, when they came from the Netherlands, were succes Roosevelt learned from private tutors, not going to school until the age of fourteen. He had already studied German, Latin and French by the time he had started school(Freidel 6). Sailing, bird hunting and stamp collecting were among his hobbies. On his In 1896, at the age of fourteen his parents sent him away to Groton, Massachusetts, to a private, boys only, boarding school. He was not very popular among the students, but was respected by his peers and was never the object of pranks pulled by the ol From there, Roosevelt went on to enter Harvard in 1900. There too Roosevelt remained an average student, making it through with a C average most of the time(Hacker 19). At Harvard, his social activities took preference over his academic pursuit and the In 1903 Roosevelt graduated from Harvard and entered the Columbia Law School. He dropped out in his third year after passing the New York bar examination(Hacker 24). Soon after, Roosevelt started practicing law with a New York law firm. While still in law school, Roosevelt met Anna Eleanor Roosevelt a distant cousin, only a few years younger than him(Alsop 28). They were married on St. Patrick's day, March 17th, 1905(Freidel 13). He was twenty-three and she was twenty-one. Her fathe A few years later in 1910, Roosevelt accepted the Democratic nomination for the New York State Senate(Freidel 17). He won the elections, and in the following January he entered the Senate at the young age of twenty-eight(Freidel 18). Later in 1912 he ra In July of 1921, while vacationing at Campobello Island, he went sailing with his children. One day, they saw, what appeared to be a forest fire, on a nearby island they quickly sailed to shore to help put out the fire. It took a couple of hours and w was able to walk in the pool unaided. His disease, poliomyelitis, had affected him on land but in the water he was as quick as anyone. In 1926 he bought Warm Springs for $200,000(Hacker 40). In 1927 he contributed two-thirds of his wealth(Freidel 47) a His physical disabilities didn't hinder his climb of the political ladder. In 1928 Roosevelt ran for governor of New York and won the election with a large margin. One of his main goals was that the state should own the electric companies and other util In October of 1929, when Roosevelt was still Governor, the stock market suddenly collapsed. This caused nation-wide panic. Grain and cotton prices dropped tremendously due to an overabundant supply, and many farmers were out of jobs. Rapidly, people w Roosevelt did not run for the presidency in 1928 because that year, most of the country was in favor of a Republican candidate for president. Four years later in 1932, a week before his fiftieth birthday, Roosevelt announced his candidacy for president Through his campaign speeches he preached of a 'New Deal' for the American people, one that would lift them out of the depression. Now he was going to fulfill his promise. Roosevelt did not sit back and watch the country take itself out of a depression. uests would be permitted to reopen and those that couldn't, wouldn't. Banks that couldn't meet withdrawals requests would, together with federal aid, meet the withdrawal demands(Lawson 48). Of the nineteen thousand banks, only about twenty-four hundred Like he said in campaign speeches, "If I were elected President, my first step would be to mobilize the country for war on unemployment"(Woolf). This is exactly what he started to do. Another main bill passed in the hundred days was the Civilian Conserv He also signed into law one of the most important laws that today helps back up our bank system. Until that time there was no insurance to cover for banks that went bankrupt or collapsed. The Banking Act of 1933 changed all of this. The government put a He also accomplished many things which greatly boosted the economy. He reduced the 1934 federal budget by 13%. Although he often spoke that the American Navy and Marines should be the best in the world, he was not hesitant in cutting the 1934 defense bud On August 14, 1935 he signed into law the Social Security Act. This act offered protection to the needy and old through pensions and public aid, and promoted unemployment insurance. He ran again for a second term in 1936 against Alfred M. Landon of Kansas and beat him by well over eleven million of the popular vote, and won 523 out of the total 531 electoral votes, the biggest landslide since James Monroe defeated John Quincy Adams Again he ran for a third term in 1940 against Henry A. Wallace. He beat his opponent 449 to 82 in the electoral voting. He ran for last time in 1944, and won again with an easy margin. On March 30, 1945, Roosevelt returned to Warm Springs to take a rest from the presidency. On April 12 the only president in American history to serve more than two terms had died. He served his people more than twelve years and had now taken his final re Bibliography Alsop, Joseph, FDR, A Centenary Rememberance, The Viking Press, New York, 1982. Hacker, Jeffrey H., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Franklin Watts, New York, 1983. Freidel, Frank, A Rendezvous With Destiny, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1990. Lawson, Don, FDR's New Deal, Thomas Y. Crowell, New York, 1974. Woolf, S.J., Thomas Depicts the Socialist Utopia, New York Times Magazine, July 24, 1932, The New York Times Company. Word Count: 958 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\FDRsInfluences.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FDR's Influence as president Some have called him the best president yet. Others have even claimed that he was the world's most influential and successful leader of the twentieth century. Those claims can be backed up by the overwhelming support that he received from his citizens throughout his four terms in office. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began a new era in American history by ending the Great Depression that the country had fallen into in 1929. His social reforms gave people a new perspective on government. Government was not only expected to protect the people from foreign invaders, but to protect against poverty and joblessness. Roosevelt had shown his military and diplomatic skill as the Commander in Chief during World War II. This wartime leadership and international relations policy won him an award in the hearts of many Americans. Roosevelt threw his hat in the ring in 1931 in order to prepare for the election of 1932. Democratic Party chairman James A Farley directed his campaign. He started a nationwide radio address, outlining a program to meet the economic problems of the nation. He coined the term "forgotten man" to mean all of those who had been hard hit by the evils of the depression. These radio addresses were the start to what he called the "fireside chats". Overall, Roosevelt was the most energetic and dynamic candidate, and he was nominated by the party on the fourth ballot. Although he displayed excellent characteristics, his competition was fairly tough. He was up against John Nance Garner of Texas (who would be his Vice Presidential running mate); Newton D. Baker of Ohio, who was former Secretary of War; and former Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York. For three ballots, Roosevelt held a large lead, but lacked the two- thirds margin necessary for victory. Farley then promised John Garner the vice presidential nomination, which he accepted grudgingly. Then FDR took the presidential nomination on the fourth ballot. One of the purposes of the national convention is to bring the party together in a movement of support behind the nominated candidate. Although there was rough competition during the choosing process, most party leaders were happy with the Roosevelt choice. It would help pull votes from the urban-Eastern region of the country. Also, Roosevelt made a dashing introduction at the Chicago convention by being the first nominee to ever write an acceptance speech. In this speech, he brought emotions from the audience in his last line, "I pledge to you, I pledge to myself, to a new deal for the American people." During the November campaign against Hoover, Roosevelt suggested a few parts of the so called "New Deal". He spoke of relief and public works money. He wanted to develop a plan to cut agricultural overproduction. He was for public power, conservation and unemployment insurance. The repeal of prohibition and stock exchange regulation were also big items on his platform. However, other than the aforementioned items, Roosevelt was quite vague about other plans. He mentioned little about his plans for industrial recovery or labor laws. As much foreign policy experience as he had, he talked very little of it during the campaign. Many believe that he was simply trying to home in on the problems that the American public saw most prominent at the time. When it came to election day, Roosevelt was the only viable alternative to Hoover, who many blamed for the Great Depression, although critics argue that it was the presidents preceding the Hoover Administration. The outcome reflected this thinking: Roosevelt won 22,821,857 votes compared to Hoover's 15, 761,841. Roosevelt also won the electoral 472 to 59. The voters had sent large majorities of Democrats to both houses as well, which would enable Roosevelt to accomplish more by pushing through more bills. Roosevelt's second election was in 1936. The Democratic National Convention re-nominated him by acclamation-- no vote was even taken. Vice President Garner was also nominated. The Republican opponents were Governor Alfred M. Landon of Kansas and Frank Knox, a newspaper publisher. Republicans, seeing Roosevelt's overwhelming popularity, were reaching for a tomato to throw. They claimed that he had not kept his promise to the people to balance the budget. Roosevelt replied by pointing to the actions of fighting the depression and returning the nation to prosperity to precedence over the budget. As expected, Roosevelt won by a landslide. He received 27,751,491 popular votes and carried 46 states with 523 electoral votes. His opponent only received 16,679,491 popular votes and 2 states with 8 electorals. This reflected the nation's confidence in the man and his leadership ability. However, the nation still had a long way to go. He stated in his inauguration address, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished". After another over-all successful term, Roosevelt ran again in 1940. The Democratic Party broke precedent with his re-nomination. There were some party members that felt it was unfair to elect him again, so his margins of popularity fell slightly. This time, he was not the only one up for the nomination. There was James Farley, who received 72 13/30 votes, previous Vice President John Nance Garner, receiving 61 votes; Millard Tydings of Maryland, receiving 9 1/2 votes; and Cordell Hull, former Secretary of State, who received only 5 2/3 votes. Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace was chosen as a Vice Presidential running mate. The Republicans nominated Wendell Wilkie of Indiana, a corporation president, to oppose the Roosevelt/Wallace team. The two candidates had some similar views. Wilkie supported Roosevelt's foreign policy and favored many New Deal programs already in effect. However, Wilkie opposed the controls that the Democratic Administration had put on business. To obtain more Republican support for this campaign, Roosevelt used his executive power of appointment to appoint two republicans to his Cabinet in 1940. The first was Henry L. Stimson for Secretary of War, who held the office under the Taft Administration. He also held the office of Secretary of State under President Hoover. Stimson replaced Harry Woodring who was regarded as isolationist. Roosevelt's previous opponent who ran for as Vice President on the republican side, newspaper publisher Frank Knox, was placed as the Secretary of the Navy. The Republicans based their campaign on the tradition that no President had ever gone for a third term in succession. To counter this, Roosevelt put the spotlight on his administration's achievements. Because of the risky situation abroad, many felt that Roosevelt's expertise was needed if war occurred. The election results were closer this time than the previous two times. Roosevelt received 27,243,466 popular votes and 449 electoral votes. Wilkie received 22,334,413 popular votes and 82 electoral votes. When it was time for Roosevelt's third term to end, he initially said he wanted to retire. However, he later declared that he felt it was his duty to serve if his country called on him. Much of this feeling was based on the idea that it would be a bad thing for the country to change leadership in the middle of the war. Many of the president's advisors felt he would not live through a fourth term, considering his heart disease, hypertension, and other cardiac problems. Because of his condition, the Vice President nomination for the 1944 election was of utmost importance. Roosevelt was persuaded to drop Henry Wallace, whom many regarded as too liberal and emotionally unsuited to be president. Harry Truman of Missouri was chosen to fill the spot. Although Roosevelt received party nomination on the first ballot, there were two other candidates: Harry Byrd (89 votes) and James Farley--again-- (1 vote). The Republicans nominated Thomas Dewey of New York for President and John Bricker of Ohio for Vice President. Again, their argument was term length. No President should serve for 16 years, they declared. The opposing argument by the Democrats was that no country should "change horses in mid-stream". Roosevelt drove around the streets of New York City in a rainstorm and then made a speech to show that his health was not a major issue. The election outcome was even slimmer this time, but Roosevelt still captured a hearty vote. Roosevelt received 25,602,505 votes and 432 electoral votes and his Republican opponent received 22,013,372 popular votes and 99 electoral votes. Many of the advisers who helped Roosevelt during his presidential campaigns continued to aid him after he entered the White House. Below are the four cabinets: FIRST TERM March 4, 1933-January 20, 1937 POSITION NAME/ STATE DATE OF INDUCTION Secretary of State: Cordell Hull, TN 3/4/33 Secretary of Treasury: William Hartman Woodin, NY 3/4/33 Henry Morganthau, Jr., NY 1/1/34 Secretary of War: George Henry Dern, UT 3/4/33 Harry Woodring, KA 9/25/36-5/6/37 Attorney General: Homer Stille Cummings, CN 3/4/33 Postmaster General: James A. Farley, NY 3/4/33 Secretary of the Navy: Claude A. Swanson, VA 3/4/33 Secretary of Interior: Harold Ickes, IL** 3/4/33 Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, IW 3/4/33 Secretary of Commerce: Daniel Calhoun Roper, SC 3/4/33 Secretary of Labor: Frances Perkins, NY* 3/4/33 * first female to be appointed to the Cabinet **previously the leader of the Chicago NAACP SECOND TERM January 20, 1937-January 20, 1941 POSITION NAME/STATE DATE OF INDUCTION Secretary of State Cordell Hull, TN from previous admn. Secretary of Treasury: Henry Morgenthau, Jr., NY from previous admn. Secretary of War: Harry Woodring from previous-5/6/37 Henry L. Stimson, NY 7/10/40 Attorney General: Homer Stille Cummings, CN from previous-1/17/40 Robert Houghwout Jackson, NY 1/18/40 Postmaster General: James A. Farley, NY from previous-9/1/40 Frank C. Walker, PA 9/10/40 Secretary of Navy: Claude Swanson, VA from previous-7/7/39 Charles Edison, NJ 8/5/39-1/12/40 Frank Knox, IL 7/10/40 Secretary of the Interior: Harold Ickes, IL from previous Secretary of Agriculture: Henry A. Wallace, IW from previous Claude Raymond Wickard, IN 8/27/40 Secretary of Commerce: Daniel C. Roper, SC from previous Harry Hopkins, NY 12/24/38 Jesse Jones, TX 9/16/40 Secretary of Labor: Francis Perkins, NY from previous THIRD TERM January 20, 1941-January 20, 1945 POSITION NAME/STATE DATE OF INDUCTION Secretary of State: Cordell Hull, TN from previous Edward Stettinius, VA 11/30/44 Secretary of Treasury: Henry Morgenthau, Jr., NY from previous Secretary of War: Henry L. Stimson, NY from previous Attorney General: Robert Jackson, NY from previous Francis Biddle, PA 9/5/41 Postmaster General: Frank Walker, PA from previous Secretary of the Navy: Frank Knox, IL from previous-4/28/44 James Vincent Forrestal, NY 6/18/44 Secretary of the Interior: Harold Ickes, IL from previous Secretary of Agriculture: Claude Wickard, IN from previous Secretary of Commerce: Jesse Jones, TX from previous Secretary of Labor: Francis Perkins, NY from previous FOURTH TERM January 20, 1945- April 12, 1945 POSITION NAME/STATE DATE OF INDUCTION Secretary of State: Edward Stettinius, VA from previous Secretary of Treasury: Henry Morganthau, Jr. NY from previous Secretary of War: Henry Stimson, NY from previous Attorney General: Francis Biddle, PA from previous Postmaster General: Frank Walker, PA from previous Secretary of the Navy: James Forrestal, NY from previous Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, IL from previous Secretary of Agriculture: Claude Wickard, IN from previous Secretary of Commerce: Jesse Jones, TX from previous Henry Wallace 3/1/45 Secretary of Labor: Frances Perkins, NY from previous By the time Roosevelt was inagurated on March 4, 1933, the economic situation was desperate. Between 13 and 15 million Americans were unemployed. Of these, between 1 and 2 million people were wandering about the country looking for jobs. Thousands lived in cardboard shacks called "hoovervilles". Even more were standing in bread lines hoping to get a few crumbs for their family. Panic-stricken people hoping to rescue their deposits had forced 38 states to close their banks. The Depression hit all levels of the social scale-- heads of corporations and Wall Street bankers were left on the street begging-- "brother, can you spare a dime?" became the catch phrase of the era. Roosevelt's action would be two parted: restore confidence and rebuild the economic and social structure. In one of his addresses, he pushed confidence with his statement, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". It is here where he would push his presidential powers farther than almost any other president in history during peacetime. He made the bold request to Congress to allow him "broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were invaded by a foreign foe." One of his first steps was to take action upon the bank problem. Because of the Depression, there were "runs" to the bank that people were making to pull their deposits out in return for paper cash and gold. Many banks were not fit to handle this rush. Roosevelt declared a "bank holiday" that began on March 6, 1933 and lasted for four days. All banks in the nation were closed until the Department of Treasury could examine each one's fiscal situation. Those that were determined to be in sound financial condition were allowed to reopen. Those that were questionable were looked at more deeply. Those banks who had been badly operated were not allowed to reopen. During the FDR administration, 5,504 banks had closed and deposits of nearly $3.5 billion dollars were lost. Shortly after the President restored confidence in the banks, what is now known as the "100 days" began on March 9 and ended on June 16, 1933. The President at once began to submit recovery and reform laws for congressional approval. Congress passed nearly all the important bills that he requested, most of them by large majorities. The fact that there was a Democratic party majority in both houses helped speed things along. What emerged from these 100 days was a 3-fold focus, RELIEF-RECOVERY-REFORM. One of the relief actions was known as the Emergency Relief Act. This established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and he pushed an appropriation of $500 million to be spent immediately for quick relief. Harry Hopkins was appointed to the head of FERA as the Federal Relief Administrator. The Reforestation Act of 1933 killed two birds with one stone. First it helped stop and repair some of the environmental damage that had occurred as a result of the industrial revolution. More importantly, however, it created the Civilian Conservation Corps, which eventually employed more than 2 1/2 million men at various camps. Projects included reforestation, road construction, soil erosion and flood control as well as national park development. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was designed to raise crop prices and raise the standard of living for American farmers. Production was cut to increase demand, therefore raising the price. Also, various subsides were set up to add to the farmers income. It also gave the president the power to inflate the currency by devaluating its gold content or the free coinage of silver and issue about $3 billion in paper currency. The AAA was later struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court-- US vs. Butler. The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), another recovery measure, was designed to balance the interests of business and labor and consumers/workers and to reduce unemployment. This act set codes of anti-trust laws and fair competition, as well as setting a new standard-- minimum wage. Section 7A of the law guaranteed collective bargaining rights to workers. NIRA also established the Public Works Administration (PWA), which supervised the building of roads and public buildings at a cost of $3.3 billion to Uncle Sam. A new idea came about in those 100 days, it was known as the federal corporation. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was the first agency to work much like a private enterprise. The goal of the TVA was to reform one of the poorest parts of the country, the Tennessee River Valley. The TVA was responsible for the construction and management of power plants, dams, electricity, flood control systems and the development of navigation systems. The Federal Securities Act required the government to register and approve all issues of stocks and bonds. This act also created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which regulates exchanges and transactions of securities. Other reforms included the Home Owners Refinancing Act, which established mortgage money for homeowners to refinance and the Banking Act of 1933, which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It was empowered to guarantee individual bank deposits up to $5000. After the initial 100 days, reform continued throughout the first part of the Roosevelt Administration. In November, 1933, the Civil Works Administration was created by executive order, which provided temp jobs during the winter of 1933-34. The Gold Reserve Act helped fix some of the problems of the economy at the roots. First all gold was transferred from the Federal Reserve to the National Treasury. FDR was also empowered to fix the values of the dollar by weighing its value in gold. He later set the price of gold at $35 per ounce, which in turn stabilized markets. The Silver Purchase Act followed, allowing the government to have not only gold in the Treasury, but Silver as well-- valued at 1/3 the price of gold. The Communications Act of 1934 established one of the most active federal agencies today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It general purpose was to monitor radio, telegraph, and telephone communications. In Roosevelt's Annual Address to Congress on January 4, 1935, he outlined phase two of the New Deal, whose main component would be the establishment of the modern welfare system. The federal government would withdraw from the direct relief, leaving it up to state and local governments. A program of social reforms would also be included in the second half of the New Deal. This would include social security for the aged, unemployed and ill, as well as slum clearance and better housing. One of the first acts of the New Deal, Phase II was the Emergency Relief Act. By Executive Order, Roosevelt created three new relief agencies in 1935. The first would be the Work Progress Administration (WPA), which would spend $11 billion on temporary construction jobs. Schools, theaters, museums, airfields, parks and post offices were constructed as a result. This increased the national purchasing power. Another part of the Emergency Relief Act was the Resettlement Administration (RA). Its goals were to improve the condition of farm families not already benefiting from AAA, prevent waste by unprofitable farming operations or improper land use and projects such as flood control and reforestation. This agency also resettled poor families in "subsistence homestead communities". These were basic suburbs constructed for the city's poor workers. Many times, these communities were known as "greenbelt towns" because of their proximity to open space. Two model suburbs were set up-- Greenbelt in Washington DC and Greenhills in Cincinnati. Another aid to the farmer was the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). Its goals were to provide electricity to isolated areas where private utility companies did not see it profitable to run lines and set up service. The year of 1935 brought with it numerous reform efforts. These were the final efforts of the New Deal before the nation geared up for war. Included in this was the National Labor Relations Act, whose most important function was to set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which monitored corporations to ensure worker rights and safety. The National Housing Act created the US Housing Authority (USHA) to administer low-interest 60-year loans to small communities for slum clearance and construction projects. This agency also gave subsidies to those landlords willing to offer low-income housing. A Revenue Act of 1935 capped off the New Deal with a tax on the rich, and a tax break on the middle classmen. One of the most important and lasting effects of the Roosevelt Administration was his into push for the Social Security Act of 1935. This was an innovative plan that was supposed to lead to a nation-wide retirement system. It also established a cooperative federal-state welfare system/unemployment system. A tax was levied on the employee, which was met dollar for dollar by the employer. This tax went into a special fund operated by the Social Security Administration. Later in life, when a person reached retirement, they could draw the money out of this account that they had placed in for the last few decades. The Supreme Court was fairly conservative, and attempted to shoot holes in many of Roosevelt's New Deal Programs. It felt that Roosevelt had taken his legislative presidential power to recommend legislation too far, and that Congress was equally responsible for allowing him to usurp the powers for reasons of what Roosevelt claimed was a "national emergency". In a statement made in May of 1935, one of the Supreme Court Justices announced that "Congress had delegated virtually unfettered powers to the [Roosevelt] Administration.-- something truly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress." The Supreme Court even went as far as to strike the entire AAA program down, claiming that it violated state's rights. FDR was infuriated at the actions of the Court. He thought of them as nine old men who were living in days gone by-- far too conservative to see the economic and social needs of today. He soon began to plan retribution, however in secrecy. Two days after inviting the Justices to a formal social function at the White House, he called upon his staff to write up the Judicial Reform Act of 1937. Essentially, this document alleged that the Judicial Branch of the federal government was overwhelmed. The Act described a desperate situation in which reform and recovery issues were not flowing through government on a timely basis--simply because the Supreme Court was backed up. His answer to solve the dilemma was to use his executive power of appointment and place more Justices on the Court. Another section of the Act suggested that at age 70 (most of the Justices were above this age), each Justice would be supplemented with an additional Justice. This meant up to 15 Supreme Court Justices serving at one time. Roosevelt hoped to load the Court with social liberal Democrats who would not oppose his New Deal Programs. This became known as his "Court Packing Scheme". The President can appoint Justices, however, they must be approved by Congress. After a long period of embarrassing debate, the Senate rejected Roosevelt's proposal. This, in turn, caused Roosevelt to reject the Senate. He set out on a mission to purge the Democratic party of the moderate type thinker, replacing him with the ultra-liberal. Roosevelt used his diplomatic and military powers in the later part of his Administration nearly as much as he used his executive and legislative powers in the first half. At the time Roosevelt took office, the nation was suprisingly isolationistic. This started in the late nineteenth century, and continued up to the Roosevelt Administration. When the Great Depression hit in the 1930's, America became even more concerned with its own problems. However, seeing the importance of a global view and seeing the possible impact of World War II, Roosevelt directed the country toward nations abroad. Roosevelt described his foreign policy as that of a good neighbor. The phrase came to be used to describe the US attitude toward the countries of Latin America. Under the policy, the United States took a stronger lead in promoting good will among these nations. The Platt Amendment of 1901 gave the US the right to intervene in the affairs of Cuba. In May of 1934, the government repealed this amendment. It also withdrew American occupation forces from some Caribbean republics, and settled long- standing oil disputes with Mexico. Roosevelt was the first to sign reciprocal trade agreements with the Latin American countries, including Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Nicaragua. In 1935, the US signed treaties of non-aggression and conciliation with six Latin American nations. This desire to spread ties across the Western Hemispheres led to reciprocal trade agreements with Canada. Roosevelt also used personal diplomacy by taking trips to various Latin American nations. In July, 1934, he became the first American president to visit South American in his trip to Columbia. In 1936, he attended the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, in Buenos Aires. Roosevelt used his diplomatic power of recognition to resume trading between the Soviet Union and the US The recognition was given to the Soviet government in November of 1933. This was the first attempt at civil relations since the Russian Revolution in 1917. In 1933, for the first time in 16 years, the two nations exchanged representatives. In 1937, Japan, at war with China, attacked a US river gunboat, the USS Panay, on the Yangtze River, killing two US citizens. This event infuriated the American public as well as the Roosevelt Administration. However, the US protested the Japanese action rather than demanding action taken against them. Roosevelt used his diplomatic power and refused to recognize the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo in Northern China until there was an official apology. Shortly after Roosevelt's statement, Japan made an official apology to the US and offend to pay for the damages in full. Although Roosevelt set his sights upon a global society, many Americans disagreed. This school of thought led to the Neutrality Acts of the 1930's. These acts, passed by Congress, prohibited the US from furnishing weapons or supplies to any nation at war. President Roosevelt hoped that any more of these laws that would be enacted in the future would allow more flexibility. He disliked the fact that these Acts treated all nations the same, whether a country had attacked another or not. World War II began on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. Still, many Americans did not agree that the situation was as dangerou Word Count: 4281 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Former Yugoslavia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Former Yugoslavia : The Former Yugoslavia "...79 this is 72....72A has just exploded.....They just disapeared. They must have hit a mine. I think they're all dead......" On the 15th of the September 1992 Sgt. James Davis' armoured personel carrier struck a TMA-3 anti-tank mine, although his comrades had thought them dead, they both survived the ordeal with little or no injury. The next day a Combat Engineer by the name of Sgt. Mike Ralph was killed on the same road while clearing the road for mines by another anti-tank mine, laid by one of the opposing factions to destroy there enemy's vehicle's. Sgt. Mike Ralph left behind his wife, and two daughters. This story has been told countless times in the former Yugoslavia, not only by Cannadians, but by the French, British, Nepalease, and dozens of other countries who committed thmselves to ending the bitter fighting in the former Yugoslavia. The fight for independence by various ethnic and religious factions has gone on in wha tis now known as the former Yugoslavia, since the early 19th century; fighting to gain control of the balkan state has gone on since the late 13th century. For over 700 years there have been large scale conflicts faught in the former Yugoslavia. (Communist state) There is now a large concerted effort to end the centuries of fighting by the International community. The root of the problem in the balkans is the longevity of the issue and centuries of ethinic and religious hatred that have been passed along from genreation, to generation. Is it really possible for the internaional community to quell this hatred? Sober second thoughts suggest that the type of peace imposed on the Balkans by the Dayton Accord continues to fuel these flames of discontent. This political agremant was quickly crafted in the waning days of the Clinton Administrations first mandate and To understand the weaknesses of the current peace accord it is necessary to examine the past in more detail. As with manuy complex historical issues the problems that are in question, stem not from recent history, but lie in the seeds of the past. This is the case in the former Yugoslavia. One can date back fighting in the region back to 1371at the battle of Maritsa, and the battle of Kososvo in 1389. Both were critcal battles faught by the rising Ottoman-Turkish empire, which subdued the then serbian state. In 1453 Constantinople (Istanbull), fell the Turks this marked the decisive estblishment of their foot hold in Europe. On two occasions, the new European power laid seige on Veienna. Although they drove that far north there success against the Austrians, and Hungarians was futile, in large part to a large military frontier, populated mainly by Serbs. Those Serbs were largley the same serbs who had fled from the Turks in the past two centuries. The Hungarians, espeacially had a keen liking to the serbs, who they gave refuge too. The hungarians gave them land, freedom of religion, and the power to elect their own officials. All this came at price, the serbian willingness to fight the Turks. The favorable conditions produced by the Hungarians produced a large flux of migration from the serbian population and thousands left their homeland. At the same time most south slavs living under Turkish rule were forced to convert to the faith of Islam, most times under death. This is the point were one can begin to see the beginings of the large split in the baltic state. In the early 19th century the subjugated Serbs statred two uprisings against the waning Ottoman-Turkish power, in 1805, and 1815. By 1850 there was once again a Serbian rule, and in 1878 Serbia recieved International recognition. The south slavs being politically concious, because of foreign rule, became aware of the new Serbian self rule. As a result many Slavs visited the new state. This visitors discovered that they spoke a cousin language, very similar to serbo-croation which was spoken in Serbia. Next they they discovered they were Christian, they themselves being mainly, Roman catholic, and many Islamic. Among all the salvs there was a strong sense of subjugation which was a uniting power. These similarities were also seen by the two powers at the time (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman-Turkey). At this time the two powers sowed the seeds of distrust in to the southern slavs who the craving for independence that serbia had. This was directed mainly at Serbia whom both empires feared. At the same time the then young and fragile serbian state realized that large populations of serbs and other slavs were living not in the state of Serbia but mainly abroad. They also realized in order to strenghten themselves. In 1844 the Serbs created a foreign polocy document known as the "outline" which was a call to unite al the neighbours of Serbia, into one united country. This plan never materialised formally, but was in the back of the minds of many serbs, and ambitious Southern slavs. By the end of the century Serbia thought they would come to realize they're dream of total rule of all serbs. Towards the end of the 19th century the large group of southern slavs began to split into three major groups. The Croation , Muslim, and of coarse Serbain groups of people. These three groups all had there own ideas of what a unified country should be. This made the job of unification three times more difficult. The goals of Serbia were courageous, and valiant, but they were to never succeed.. They were never meant to succeed, because Austria and Hungary, wanted the whole Balkan region to themselevs. Austria, and Hungary wanted control of the region, in order to accompolish this, they gave themselves the right to annex the region of Bosnia and Herzogoniva into a new province. The Alliance was so keen on this because it drove a wedge, between the strong Serb area of Montenegro, and Serbia. In the long run the Alliance could easily take the whole region. Although there were subtule diffrences between the native enhabitants such as Language, religion, and ethnicity, the difrences were onlyminimal, and because of the seeds of distrust which were sowed earleir these diffrences began to grow into a small shrub. On the 28th of June 1914, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was asaisinated by a Bosnian-Serb student. The Archduke was the aire to the throne of the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. He was on a state visit, to the Austrian territory of Bosnia-Herzogvina. Austria and Hungary immediatley sent an ultimatum to to Belgrade, that they must give Austria the power to investigate the assasination, and prosecute any Serb citizen. Serbia agreed, out of a feeling of remorse. Austria found thta there had been no plot to assasinate the Archduke, and the action was strictly a one person effort. Only weks before the Assasination Austria had asked for the support of Germany in a premempive strike on Serbia. The Austrian government argued to the German governemnt thta it was needed for Serbias own salvation. Germany agreed and would support any move made by Austria, and Hungary. The Serbian Prime Minister Pasic, realized that Austria was going to invade eventually, and went the Russian Tsar pleading for protection. Russia agreed, and became Serbias new ally. On July 28th of July 1914 just one month after the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinad Austria declared war on Serbia. Austria however did not inform Belrin of their rash decision, Berlin did not wnat to proceed this way, but they then also declared war on Serbia.The rest of coarse is history, Britian of coarse feeling tied to Russia, supported them, and thus the First World war began, all over Austrias greed over Serbia. When Austria invaded, the native population faught back, and ressited until 1915. In 1915 Germany committed troops to the region, and Serbia fell. After the war with the defeat of Germany, and Austria, the Slavs could once again try to form a united country. Great Britian mediated the talks between the different factions in the region, Serbian, Croatian, Slovevian, Montenegran, and Macedonain. The mediator found that the Serbs just wanted control of everyhting, espeacially other Serbs, and if the Croats, wanted to join voluntarilly that was just fine, because it meant a larger empire. The Croats did not see things the same, because if they were under Serb rule they would once again be under foreign rule, not there own. With all this said and done it was still in the best interst of the Croats, and slovenes to sign on , it gave them the best chance of self rule.On October 29 1918 it was announced thata state would be created named the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. In February 1919 the state gained international recognition from the United States of America.It quickly became clear that the Kingdom was existed primarily for Serbs, and not for the Croats, and Slovevenes. Every thing form foreign polocy, to the running of local constabularies was run by the Serbs.The Croats entering the state believing they would be granted home rule, had none.In 1928 chaos broke lose in the national parlimant, when two Croatian politicians were shot dead. King PeterI immediatley closed parliament, and took dicatorial power of the state. In 1929 the name of the state was changed to Yugoslavia(state of south slavs)this was one to give the people the idea of not being Serbian, Muslim, or slovenian, but being Yugoslavian.A new ploiticla party was formed called the Yugoslav National party. The attempts to melt the deffernet groups failed, and afterthe cloud settled Serbs considered themselves Serbs, and Croats considerd themselves Croats. By the mid 1930's attempsts were being made to setttle the rivalry between the Serbs, and the Croats. In August 1939 the State of Croatia was put on the map/. This move by the countries leader, infuruated the Serb population. Before anyhting else could be donethe Second World War began, and all hopes of settling the fuming rivalries died. In April 1941, the massive German war machine rolled into the Balkans, and took the region in deciesive two weeks, overcoming any hasty resistance, with ease.This marked the beginings of one of the countries darkest hours. The Nazi party installed puppet governments into Croatia, and Serbia. The germans choose anybody who would follow their orders, this resulted in the rising of fanatics, who would do anyhting for power.In Croatia a fascist government was put into place named the Ustatsa. The Ustasa went on a spree of Killing. The Croatian government persecuted and killed over a quarter of a million Serbs.As in any military occupation resistance groups, began to surface. There were two main guerilla groups one the Chetniks, made up of mainly Serbs whose goal was re-establish the Serbian royal family, of which all fled abroad, and a new serbian state. The other group were the Partisans, who were made up of mostly Serbs, and non-serbs. The partisnas were organised, by their leader , a communist by the name of Josep Broz Tito. Tito being a member of the comunist party, in Yugoslavia, nourished it, from a couple of dozen clubs, with low membership, to a party with over 10,000 members. With this experiance in mind he raised an army of well over 150,000 resistance fighters, in fifteen months. As a surprise the Chetniks did not fully engage the German forces, this was in large part the German reprisal method all over its occupied teeritory, from France, to Norway. The order issued stated that for every german soldier killed by the locla population, one-hundred citizens would be killed. This order dettered the Chetniks from engaging the Germans. The Partisans had their own doctrine. They believed the killing of the locla population would only swell their ranks. This doctrine also included a limited war agianst the Ustasa government, and the puppet government in Belgrade. Toward the end of the war Tito's forces were mainly fighting a civil war, not a war of resietance. Tito's injenuity set him up as the next leader of the region, and this was his goal from the time he joined the communist party. In October 1945 A joint Soviet, partisan force liberated the Belgrade. The Sopviets left it up to the partisans to mop up the remaining German forces. After the war came the most drastic political swing he region had ever exerianced. In march 1945 tehallies compelled the royal family to appoint Tito as leader. This was done, and immeaditley Yugoslavia was a communist state with absolute dictatorial power given to Tito.Tito was an admirer of the then powerful Soviet Union. Tito realized as Stalin did that industrialism was needed in order to equalize the gap between the peasentry, and the aristocrat. Tito formulated a five year plan similar to that of the Soviet Union. This plan included industrializing the provinces of Bosnai and Herzgovina, macedonia, and montenegro. This plan was done in large part to modernise Yugosl;avia, but also to equalise the Yugoslav economy. Joseph Stalin became increasingly irritated by Tio's actions. He wantred Yugoslavia to become a grain farm for the Soviet Union. In 1948 Yugoslavia was expelled from the Soviet Union, and left to flounder. Tito, was a leader an had great ambitions for his kinsmen. After Yugoslavias expelltion from the union Tito went to the west for help. The west gave him loans, new trade allainces, and armaments. With the loans , and new trade Tito could build the country of his dreams. The state of Yugoslavia was dream. The econmy was subsidised by massive international loans, the inflation rate was always rising, and unemployment, was rampent. Tito hoped that the new prosperity would calm the waters of the past. He invisioned that Serbs, Croats, macedonias would think themselevs not by their ethnicity, but as consumers. During the 1970's Yugoslavias econmy baegan to falter. In Tito's great equalised Yugoslavia, Croats, and Slovenes earned twice the wages of a Serb, and three times as much as a Macedonian, and Montenegran. The Slovenenians, and Croats became resentfull of the fact that they had to support the poorer south. The Serbs, and other Slavs felt they desreved more from the rich Croats, and Slovenes. Tito's idea, and ambition had failed like so many others in the region had before. Half way through the decade on calls of renewed nationilism by Serbs, Croats , slovenes, and montenegrans, Tito reorganized the state into six republoics. This move only widened the divisions in the region, every republic had resentment toward one another. After the death of Tito, in 1980 the situation in the region went from bad to worse. During the 1980's Europe, experianced an economic resurgence, and their economies grew. Yugoslavia on the other hand never felt this, and went farther into debt. To divert the blame most yugoslav politicians brgan to convince their respective peoples that the other groups were at fault. Serbians blamed Albanians, Croatians blamed Muslims etc. One such politicain was Slobodan Milosevic. He was president of Serbia, and he was in essence a fear mongar and propoganda maghine. He told the Serbian people that the Croatia was planning a war of genocide against them, and that Albania was gouing to invade the province of Kosovo. The divisions, in Yugoslavia went from the size of a creek, to the size of the Atlantic, overnight. After the crumbel of the berlin wall in 1989, the pot of water which is yugoslavia boiled over. In 1990 the communist party disloved, and the politicaly the country split. Croatia, and Slovenia decided to move in their own direction. In 1991 Croatia, and slovevia held a referendums to decide wether they should each form independant states. Each republic did and broke away from Yugoslavia. Bsonia-herzcegovina followed suite in 1992. Serbia and Monetnegro stayed in Yugoslavia, and claimed that what Croatia, slovenai, and Bosnia had commited was illegal. At the heart of the issue was that ten percent of Croatia population was Serbian. In June 1991 under the authority of Yugoslavia the yugoslav army was sent into Kraijina, and had control of it by January 1992. At that point, a cease fire was signed. In the aftermath thirty percent of Croatia was left to the Serbs. In 1992 when Bosnia- Herzcegovina seperated from the serbian republic seris was outraged. Bosnia as Croatia had a large Serb populatuion, and therfore must belong to Serbia. Croatia to made this argument. As a result both armies entered Bosnia, on the preminishen of gainig more territory. Serbia wanted alink to the sea, and Kraijina, and croatia wanted to gain what it had lost tohe serbs in Kraijina. Caught in the middle was the Muslim population Bosnia, which fiaght to hold their land. Each faction committed horendous atrocities, ethnic cleansing was rampent , and was not committed only by the Serbs as the media has shown, but also by croatians, and Muslims. The conflict grew and grew, until the international community said "Stop". In August 1991 the United Nations secutriy council passed a resolution, calling for a force to enter the enbattled region, and separate the warring factions. The force was to fail from the begining for three main reasons. The first was that they entered the region assuming that the boundries of Tito's yugoslvia were adequete, and sustainable. This was not true, because in Bosnia, and Croatia there was a large Serb populations. So when UNPROFOR(United Nations Protection Force), entered the region they were defending the wrong borders, and seperating the people at the wrong borders. Secondly UNPROFOR had no right to interceede in the conflict, unless their personell or equipment was at risk, and even if they did if they would attack one side the other would become resentfull to the U.N. thus expanding the problem. Thirdly the force sent was outnumbered, and out gunned. In 1991 there was no Artillery available for the defence of U.N. soldiers, their were no helicopters for Medical evacuation, and the U.N. possessed no heavy Armour(Main Battle Tanks). The force was only aglorified police force with lightly armoured APC's. This set the stage for disaster, little to nothing was acomplished, except losing the lives of our soldiers. Most Aid convoys, were sacked and the food was used to feed soldiers. In 1995 Word Count: 3041 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Fort Pillow Attack.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fort Pillow Attack THE GRAND FABRICATION It is almost as difficult to find consistent information about the incident at Fort Pillow as it is to determine the moral significance of its outcome. Scholars disagree about exactly what transpired on April 12, 1864 at Fort Pillow, when General Nathan Bedford Forrest captured the fort with his 1,500 troops and claimed numerous Union lives in the process (Wyeth 250). It became an issue of propaganda for the Union, and as a result the facts were grossly distorted. After close examination it is clear that the ŠFort Pillow Massacre_ (as it became known by abolitionists) was nothing of the sort. The 1,500 troops under the command of General Nathan Bedford Forrest acted as men and as soldiers in their capture of Fort Pillow. It is first necessary to understand what happened in the battle before any judgment can be made. A careful study performed by Dr. John Wyeth revealed the following information: from April 9-11, 1864, troops under the command of Ben McCulloch, Tyree Harris Bell, and Brig. General James Chalmers marched non-stop to Fort Pillow to begin their assault under the command of General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Confederate sharpshooters claimed the lives of several key Union officers during the morning assault on the fort. The losses included the commanding officer Major Loinel F. Booth, and his second in command shortly after that. These losses created a complete breakdown of order and leadership among the Union troops within the fort. (251) During the morning engagement, the gun boat the New Era was continually attempting to shell the Confederate forces from the Mississippi, but with minimal success. The Union forces fought back heartily until around one oŠclock in the afternoon, when both sides slowed down. Around that time the New Era steamed out of range to cool its weapons. It had fired a total of 282 rounds, and its supplies were almost totally exhausted. During this hiatus in the firing, while Confederate troops waited for supplies that would arrive around three oŠclock, Forrestwas injured when his horse fell on him after being mortaily wounded (252). When the supplies arrived, Confederate troops under a flag of truce delivered a message from Forrest that said, ŠMy men have received a fresh supply of ammunition, and from their present position can easily assault and capture the fort,_ (253). Forrest demanded Šthe unconditional surrender of the garrison,_ promising that you shall be treated as prisoners of war_ ( 253). This agreement was refused by Major William F. Bradford using the name of Major Booth, and Forrest was left with no option but to attack (Long & Long 484). Without a word, Forrest rode to his post, and a bugle call began the charge. The soldiers stormed the fort under the cover of sharpshooter fire. The Union spent their rounds on the charging mass, and the second wave was to all intents and purposes a Šturkey shoot._ As hordes of soldiers came over the wall, a considerable number of Union lives were lost to point blank fire, an action that was deemed murder by the northern press. (255) However, it must not be forgotten that those Union troops who died were in the process of reloading their rifles. Even knowing that they were severely outnumbered, they had demanded the fight (Henry 255). By this point most of the Union officers in the fort had been killed, and the remaining troops fled the fort toward the river where they had provisions waiting . There was also a plan for the New Era to shell the Confederate troops in the fort with canister, but the shelling never happened(. Confederate troops were waiting at the bottom of the fort to prevent access to the supplies by the Union forces. With the Union flag still flying upon the fort and Union forces still firing on the run, Confederate troops claimed many more lives on the river bank. It was reported by Colonel FIRST NAME Barteau that they made a wild, crazy, scattering fight. They acted like a crowd of drunken men. They would at one moment yield and throw down their guns, and then would rush again to arms, seize their guns and renew the fire. If one squad was left as prisoners ... it would soon discover that they could not be trusted as having surrendered, for taking the first opportunity they would break lose again and engage in the contest. Some of our men were killed by Negroes who had once surrendered (256). With this type of activity, it is understandable how a superior force could claim so many casualties. However, the issue is not so clear to Civil War historians. The first and biggest problem has to do with the information that different historians base their opinions on. For example, in a historical account written by Carl Sandburg it is reported that ForrestŠs troops stood 6,000 strong. This is slightly inflated from the actual 1,500 that were present. In this same account Sandburg claims that the Šbattle ended as a mob scene with wholesale lynching_(Sandburg 247). It was distorted information such as this that was used by the Union as propaganda against the South. After the incident General FIRST NAME Kilpatrick was quoted saying Forrest had Šnailed Negroes to the fences, set fire to the fences, and burned the Negroes to death_(Hurst 321). With reports like this, it is understandable why abolitionist were outraged. The Congressional Committee released a summary after the event. It stated that the rebels took advantage of a flag of truce to place themselves in position from which the more readily to charge the upon the fort that after the fall of the fort Šthe rebels commenced in an indiscriminate slaughter sparing neither age nor sex, white or black, soldier or civilian; that this was not the results passions excited by the heat of conflict, but of a policy deliberation decided upon and unhesitatingly announced; that several of the wounded were intentionally burned to death in huts and tents about the fort; and the Šthe rebels buried some of the living the dead._(Henry 260) In the intensive studies performed by Dr. John Wyeth there were more than fifty soldiers that were present at this battle who gave sworn testimonies contradicting these findings.(260) This suggests that the Union fabricated the truth to aid in its own cause. The fact is that most of what was said about ForrestŠs unethical actions were false accusations. Testimonies from several different sources (both Union and Confederate) claim that there were no movements under the flag of truce, but that they had their positions hours before. (Henry 260) It is true that the losses were huge in this battle, but that is typical of many significantly unbalanced battles. According to Wyeth there was only one incident of force against the Union after the Union flag came down, and that resulted in an on the spot arrest . This entire incident was blown totally of proportion. It is tragic to lose even one life, but on a battle field, death is inevitable. This event became a monumental point in the war because of exaggeration and lies told by Union supporters. These lies strengthened the Union cause and further blemished the reputation of Confederate forces. Morally, there is no fault in ForrestŠs actions. Works Cited Henry, Robert Selph. ŠFirst the Most_-Forrest. . New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1944. Hurst, Jack. Nathan Bedford Forrest-A Biography. New York: Alfred Knoph, 1993. Lee, Guy Carleton. The True History of the Civil War. Philadelphia: I.B. Lippincott, 1903. Long, E. B. and Barbara Long. The Civil War Day by Day-An Almanac. New York: Doubleday, 1971. Sandburg, Carl. Storm over the Land--A Profile of the Civil War. New York: Harcourt Brace: 1939. Wyeth, John Allan. That Devil Forrest -The Life of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959. Word Count: 1575 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Frederick Douglas Name & the Duality of His Nature.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Frederick Douglass' Name & the Duality of His Nature Frederick Douglass was an emancipated slave who passed from one master to another until he finally found the satisfaction of being his own; he went through almost as many names as masters. His mother's family name, traceable at least as far back as 1701 (FD, 5) was Bailey, the name he bore until his flight to freedom in 1838. His father may or may not have been a white man named Anthony, but Douglass never firmly validated or rejected this possibility. During transit to New York (where he became a freedman) his name became Stanley, and upon arrival he changed it again to Johnson. In New Bedford, where there were too many Johnson's, he found it necessary to change it once more, and his final choice was Douglass, taken, as suggested to him by a white friend and benefactor, from a story by Sir Walter Scott (although the character in that story bore only a single 's' in his name). All throughout, he clung to Frederick, to 'preserve a sense of my identity' (Norton, 1988). This succession of names is illustrative of the transformation undergone by one returning from the world of the dead, which in a sense is what the move from oppression to liberty is. Frederick Douglass not only underwent a transformation but, being intelligent and endowed with the gift of Voice, he brought back with him a sharp perspective on the blights of racism and slavery. Dropped into America during the heat of reform as he was, his appearance on the scene of debate, upon his own self-emancipation, was a valuable blessing for the abolitionists. In their struggles so far, there had been many skilled arguers but few who could so convincingly portray the evils of slavery, an act which seemed to demand little short of firsthand experience, but which also required a clear understanding of it. Douglass had both, and proved himself an incredibly powerful weapon for reform. While the identity of his father is uncertain, it is generally accepted that the man was white, giving Douglass a mixed ancestry. Mirroring this, he was also blessed with an eye that could bring into focus different perspectives and, just as many multi-racial children today are able to speak multiple languages with ease, he had the ability to translate in the most eloquent fashion between the worlds of the black man and white man. Thus, ironically, the torturous beginning of Douglass' existence was inadvertently made (by him) into a treasure for 'us' (being mainly white America). The story of the American Dream, wherein a young man, born into a hostile world, never loses sight of one goal, is not all that distant in theme from Narrative of The Life of Frederick Douglass. The story of the American Dream has been embedded deeply in our (American) culture from the beginning. Similarly anchored in the American consciousness is the presence of a 'slavery-complex'. Along these lines Douglass' role is a major one, for relatively few first-hand accounts of slavery as powerful and representative as his exist, in light of the magnitude of the crime, and few voices have been as far-reaching. More recent heirs of this 'office' such as Malcolm X have carried the torch further, just as America's racial sickness still clings to our collective consciousness. Frederick Douglass has been described as 'bicultural'. In other words, he occupied a middleground shared by blacks and whites alike. This designation proves to be thematically consistent with his biological (if we are to take his word for it) as well as psychological characteristics. Dual-natured in this fashion, he is made accountable for both sides. This can be seen in his gravitation towards freedom when he was a slave, and manifests itself just as strongly in his vision, once he was able to look back, of the 'graveyard of the mind' that American slavery was for him -- as it was for the rest of black America. "They would sometimes sing the most pathetic sentiment in the most rapturous tone, and the most rapturous sentiment in the most pathetic tone...they would sing, as a chorus...words which to many would seem unmeaning jargon, but which, nevertheless, were full of meaning to themselves. I have sometimes thought that the mere hearing of those songs would do more to impress some minds with the horrible character of slavery, than the reading of whole volumes of philosophy on the subject could do. I did not, as a slave, understand the deep meaning of those rude and apparently incoherent songs. I was within the circle; so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see or hear." (Norton, 1944) With the duality of perspective came also one of language, a fact to which we owe his writings and abolitionist activism. This is seen in Douglass' reflection on slave-songs (above). Men such as Malcolm X and Frederick Douglass do not occupy the niche of translator accidentally; they each earned the title of spokesman because it takes a certain kind of man to bridge the gap between the two worlds of black and white, or freeman and slave. This job calls not only for access to the two worlds which he must inhabit, but also for the ability to pass freely back and forth between them, in body, mind and spirit; most importantly, such a man must be capable of acting as a human filter or channel, so that each side can see the other. Becoming such a bridge extracts a profound price from the individual and leaves scars just as deep as those of slavery itself. It makes fundamental alterations in the very identity of the host, who is morally obligated to present his boons to the world. A man in this position is called upon to balance his experiences of the two realities. He must embrace the new world he finds himself in and glean as much as he can from it; he also must continue to carry the weight of his past so that he can interpret it for others, who must learn from it. So did Douglass learn and master the 'power dialect', or upper-class English, and use it to show the very same group who invented and hoarded it, the evil that they and their withholding of language caused. In a world where knowledge is sat on by the 'have's, language is power, and language was first Frederick Douglass' first key to freedom, then his armor, and finally his sword. He turned on his oppressors and raised it against them. But Douglass and his gift of language underwent yet another transformation, and his words became a healing balm and a fixer of wrongs. From slavery to freedom, from the South to the North, from a young man of many names to the adult named Frederick Douglass, in revealing songs of happiness to be ones of woe, and 'singing' those songs so that all could hear, this gifted man helped America come to terms with slavery as it really was. Bibliography 1. Douglass, Frederick. 'Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave'. Norton Anthology of American Literature, 4th edition, vol.I. 2. Sundquist, Eric. 'Introduction to Frederick Douglass: New Literary and Historical Essays'. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Freedom.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Freedom Have you ever wondered what life at school would be like without "freedom?" In myopinion I think it would be horrid. Think about it. If we had no freedom we wouldn't be able to do the things we love most, or choose what friends we hang out with. The freedoms we have now we all take for granted. For example, do you even know what your freedoms are? If you don't, then you ought to hear me out so you know in the future what they mean. First of all there are two very specific freedoms that all students and teachers should know and understand. These two freedoms are the very basis for our society. 1)FREEDOM OF SPEECH Freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have because if we didn't have this one we wouldn't be able to speak our minds through speeches in public. This freedom allows us to speak in more ways than one. It allows us to express ourselves through reading, writing, and speaking. Although freedom of speech has its greatness in many ways, it also has a downfall, in which it is abused. For example: Media today can twist this freedom to invade your privacy, which is not a good thing if you're Arnold Shwartzenegger getting out of the shower, and someone takes a picture of you naked and prints it in the local paper. But most of the time this sinerio doesn't occur because they've come up with laws like the "Privacy Act," and so on so this sort of mayhem doesn't happen, but even though laws are made people still break them. 2)FREEDOM OF RELIGION This freedom goes along with freedom of speech yet stands alone in its own category. There are many ways to look at this freedom. It has as many goods as it does bads. You just have to learn how to apply it to you. First I'll list the goods. The gains of this freedom allow you not only to speak your own opinions, but allows you to take it a step further. Example: Lets say you are a Christian, but go to a school where Christianity is looked down upon. Now lets say you have some friends that also attend this school and want to have a lunchtime bible study, but are afraid that the school may suspend you or even worse. Well, it says in the constitution, the rules and regulations our country is based upon, that students may have a bible study in and on school premises as long as it is student led. Teachers may even attend, but cannot participate in the function. This is where a lot can go wrong and things get turned upside down. This is also where some of the bads come into play. This freedom is more a rightstricken than abused law. In other words it's more denied than abused. An example of this was written by Rebecca Jones from the American Schoolboard Journal. She wrote, "Lillian Gobits Vs Minersville District, in 1940 led some West Virginians to punish Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to have their children recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The Witnesses, she wrote, "Were actually herded together and fed castor oil, stripped of their clothes, and forced to walk through town." (Jones 2) Well, about three years later the supreme court reversed itself and ruled that schools could not require the pledge. It's this kind of abuse that turns people away from religion in my opinion. Nothing is more challenging than confronting a well-established myth. A myth, repeated often enough that it takes a hold on peoples imaginations and is all but impossible to get rid of. One such myth is that when it comes to religion in public schools, people For and Against school prayer are engaged in the legal equivalent of Hand-to-hand combat, one side fighting to put God in schools, and the other desperately trying to keep him out. Unfortunately, parents, schools officials, and politicians alike sometimes act as if the myth were fact. Some people ag-on this myth with well-intentioned, but simply wrong statements about what the constitution does and does not permit. House speaker Newt Gingrich, for example, announced a while back that under current law students could not pray in the schools cafeteria. Also, teachers believing this outlandish myth have sometimes refused to accept homework with religious content. Some schools mistakenly support some segments of the religious community when they permit (unconstitutional) state-sponsored prayer, such as allowing coaches to pray with their teams, as long as they excuse students who do not want to pray. Or, another example is where a school excludes all religious activity period. As much in this media age, perception overcasts reality. Matters on which there is no dissagreement in the courts and, equally important in the thinking of church and civil groups, have too often escalated into open conflict because parents, the public, and school officials simply don't know what the law provides. Schools have been distracted from their educational mission and forced to endure unnecessary debates over religious issues. Our society as a whole is depicted as being boiled in an endless culture war over public education. As our courts have reaffirmed, nothing in the 1st amendment converts our public schools into religious-free zones, or require that all religious expression to be left behind at the schools' house door. "Religious freedom is perhaps the most precious of all American liberties--called by many our First freedom." (clinton 20-22) "The Constitution protects expression by students of their religious beliefs through reports, homework, and art work." (Stern 6-8) If you really think about it, we really have it easy, because all we actually do is take them for granted until someone tries to either take them away or abuses them, then we get mad about it. A long time ago teachers and students were limited by a strict theme of rules and guidelines, but today we have a new challenge. One to carry on generation after generation. Our freedom to speak out against wrong doing and our freedom to live a normal happy life. In my opinion "If you don't have freedom what do you have." Word Count: 1034 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\French Revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ French Revolution French Revolution, one of the major revolutions in European history. The revolution marks a turning point in Frence history and in world history in general. Forms of government, morals, ideologies, and social development were greatly affected by it in all Europe and even in U.S. The beginning of the Frence Revolution in generally dated from June, 1789. But the crisis in political and economic affairs in France in that period was so great that social unrest, rioting, a and rebellion were common for two years before. The end of the revolutionary perios was marked by the establishment of the Empire by Napolean in 1804. The basic causes of the French Revolution were rooted in the rigidities of French society in the 18th century. Lines of distinction between classes were tightly drawn, and opportunites for social advancement were very few. The economy was not growing as fast as it should have been. Then needs of an increasing population were not being met. Governmet was inefficient and unrepresentative. Economic problems made the heavy tax exempt but neary so, while the peasents and middle classes were subjected to greater and greater burdens. Crops falied, and trade was stagnant. The people could no longer be taxed, but the government faced bankruptcy unless new revenues were found. The only soulution was to tax the privileged classes. But they were jealoous of their privileged posistion. Altought they were not completely unwilling to contribute some additional taxes, they never understood how grave the economis crisis was. They say the crises as only some form of financial corruption that could be explained away by firing the king's finace ministers. The libiral ideas of the French Enlightenment had been absorbed by some of the clergy and the nobility but only by a very few. The upper classes in France in 1789 were more jealous of their privileges then they had been at any time in the 100 years before. When the French aided the Americans during the American Revolution, they only sent men and ships and guns but lent saubstantial financial aid as well. As a result, the budget of the French government was thrown out of balance. When economic depression in France made the every growing debt even greater, the state seemed on the verge of bankruptcy. It was necessary to vote new taxes. The king's power was not as absoulute as he pretended it was, and no new taxes could be decreed unless the king's edicts were registered in the district courts, the parliaments. Their members were mostly members of the priviliged classes and were always ready to oppose the king's measures. Becuase of their continual refusal to register tax and reform edicts, it was necessary for the king, Louis XVI, to find some other way of legalizing his edicts France had never had a parliament exactly like the British, but it had a similar institution called the States- General. Unlike the British institution it met very frequently. The last one had met in 1616. The States- General was called, and it convened in May, 1789. The States-General was composed of three houses, or estates, calles the first, second, and third estates. The first represented the clerfy; the second, the nobility; and the third, the middle classes. The third estate contained as many members as the first and second combined. When the estates met, the third estate wished to vote with the first two houses. The clergy and nobility and the king insisted the houses vote separately. But the third decided that it was more representative of the French people than the other two estates and that it was not fair to allow the first two estates so much power. On June 17, 1789, they converted themselves into a National Assembly, or Constituent Assembly, and resolved to draw up a new consitution for France. The king closed down the hall, but the members went to a nearyby tennis court and there took an oath (June 20) not to disband until a constitution was written. The pressure of public opinion was so much in their favor that Louis XVI was forced to reconize them, as he did by the end of the month. Bad crops and famine conditions contributed to the unrest. During July there were spotaneous peasant uprisings all over France. On Jult 14 a Paris mob stormed and demolished the Bastille, and old fortress housing political prisoners. On August 4, the assembly, led by certain enlightened nobles, abolished feudal rights and privileges with compensation to owners. A few years later the compensation was also abolished. On August 27 a Declaration of the Rights of Man, similar to the American Bill of Rights, was issued. The new constitution was completed by July, 1790, and the king accepted it. But Louis XVI's behavior was never consistent. In July, 1791, he tried to flee the country in order to reconquer it with the aid of Austrain and Prussian armies. He was caught, however, and popular feeling ran against him. He now accepted a revised constitution, in September, 1791, and the assembly dissolved. A legislative assemble was elected, and it met from October, 1791, to September, 1792. The legislative assembly was dominated by the Girondists, who wished to set up a federal republic. When the war broke out with Austria in April, 1792, there was no longer any reason for tolerating Louis XVI. He had plotted with his wife's family, which ruled Austria, and was now an enemy of the state. The National Convention, which reigned from September, 1791, to October, 1795, was the government of the Reign of Terror. It was the one that executed the king in January, 1793. The convention was ruled by two committees under the domination of Roberspirre from 1793 to 1794. Robespierre saw to the execution of his enemies and was rampant, war was at the doorstep, and bread riots were common. The tide turned in another direction, and a stronger executive power in the form of the Dierctory (1795-1799) was set up. A five-man committe ruled the country. Meanwhile, Napolean was making his name famous by his military success. Napoleon allied with two directors in the Directory and with his btoher Lucien, who was president of the Council of Five Hundred, and assembly under the Directory. On Nov. 9, 1799, in the Coup d'Etat de Brumaire he overthrewthe government. A forn of government modeled on the old Roman type was set up. Napoleon was elected first consul for ten years. By 1804 Napolean assumed the title of emperor, and absoulute monarachy was revied. Bibliography Microsoft Encarta, 1997 Sucdus Som Sibro Universal World Reference Enclopedia ------------------------------------------------- f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Freud and MArx.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hey! I got an A- on this paper, so I guess it's pretty good! I put my own personal spin to it in that not only did I compare Freud and Marx's viewpoints, I stated that perhaps what they saw in society was just a reflection of their own biases and personal inner feelings. Humanities Assignment Freud and Marx it can be argued were both, as individuals, dissatisfied with their societies. Marx more plainly than Freud, but Freud can also be seen as discontent in certain aspects such as his cynical view of human nature. Each were great thinkers and philosophers, but both seemed unhappy. Perhaps the social ills and trouble each perceived in the world about them were only the reflections of what each of the thinkers held within themselves. Each person observes the same world, but each of us interprets that information in a different way. They both saw the world as being injust or base. Each understood the disfunctions in society as being caused by some aspect of human greed or other similar instinct. They did however, disagree on what the vehicle for these instincts' corrupting influences are. Freud claimed that tension caused by the stuggle to repress anti-social instincts eventually was released and caused the social evils he observed. Marx also saw instincts at work but not the tensions and Id that Freud saw, Marx simply credited man's greed and the subsequent oppression of other men as the root to all that was wrong with civilization. It is interesting to note that both Freud and Marx saw conflict but each traced it back to sources each was respectively educated in. Freud was a Psychoanalyst and his understanding of the mind was very conflict oriented. He saw man as a kind of glorified animal who had the same desires and needs as any other animal. The only true difference between the human-animal and other animals was that the human-animal possessed an intellect. Freud divided man's psyche into three parts, the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo. What differed the human-animal from any other animal was the SuperEgo, which arose from man's intellect. The Super-Ego as Freud theorised it is the values of one's parents internalised. He went further to then explain that unhappiness in life is caused by the conflict between the Id and the SuperEgo. As stated, all of Frued's philosophy was very conflict oriented so it is not difficult to understand then how Freud applied this view macrocosmically to society as a whole. Freud addressed this in his essay, "Civilization and It's Discontents". In it, Freud claimed that civilizations are developed through the channeling of anti-social erotic and aggressive urges into constructive outlets. He went further and explained that social ills are caused by those members of society who are not satisfied with the substitutes supplied by the channelling of anti-social instincts into social creative energies. Such repression causes a certain tension which after awhile cannot be repressed and is released in socially unacceptable behaviour. As Freud explained it, "Civilized society is perpetually menaced with disintegration through this primary hostility of men towards one another". Freud saw humanity as being destined to stuggle as long as humanity exists. In his own words, "This struggle is what all life essentially consists of and the evolution of civilizations may therefore be simply describes as the struggle for the life of the human species". Although like Freud, he saw conflict within society, Karl Marx had radically different ideas and perceptions about humanity and civilization. Marx saw the same things as Freud, but chalked it up to inter-economic class conflict instead of conflict within one's psyche. This class conflict was caused by one class, the Bourgeois, which he characterized as having the great majority of wealth and power and having rule over the lower class, or Proletariots, which worked for the Bourgeois. This view of economic class strife was just one stage of Marx's idea that all of history was leading up to some finality and that at such a time all of man would be able to live in a Utopia. Marx also applied this idea in reverse and attempted to explain that the Proletariot class and Bourgeois class have existed in varying forms for all of mankind's history. He tried to illustrate using the example of slavery and feudalism that each time a form of oppression by a class of another class was destroyed a new form took it's place. Marx felt that it was a Communist's responsibility to awaken the mostly ignorant Proletariot to this and help to abolish the concept of private property, which he also believed was the primary means of the Bourgeois to oppress the Proletariot workers. Marx predicted that Capitalism and it's Bourgeois patrons would eventually become thin out due to competition and therefore the wealth would become increasingly more centralised in fewer people's pockets. The spread of wealth would eventually become so uneven and lop-sided that a revolution would occur and the Bourgeois would be overthrown. Marx believed that Capitalism was probably the last form of oppression and once overthrown, everyone would live as a single society where all men could live in peace without rule over one another, Utopia. Freud and Marx although similar in some ways, held very different views about the world around them. Aside from the obvious difference that Freud believed the cause of social evils was within man himself and Marx saw the problem as being an economic one as long as history itself, there are other more specific differences. Freud saw the conflict as being internal and therefore expressed within the society in which a man is part of, but Marx saw the conflict in a more black-and-white sense. To Marx, it was between two groups of people, the oppressed and the oppressors. Marx however was also generally more optimistic, especially when it came to predictions of the future. He saw the underdogs, the Proletariots eventually overcoming adversity and establishing Utopia. Freud is much less exciting for all he could divine was that humanity would continue to struggle. Freud seemed perhaps to believe that the meaning of life was struggling. Freud saw nothing of the occasional revolutions Marx did, it was all one long struggle to him. Freud and Marx theorised about and observed the world around them and interpreted it in the terms and ways they were most accomplished at and familiar with. The question remains unanswered though, did Freud and Marx simply observe the true reality of the world and state what they saw, or was the world about them in actually reflecting themselves. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Friedrich Nietzsche.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Life & Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy Class Essay Born: 1844. Rocken, Germany Died: 1900. Weimar, Germany Major Works: The Gay Science (1882), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885), Beyond Good & Evil (1886), On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), MAJOR IDEAS Self deception is a particularly destructive characteristic of West Culture. Life is The Will To Power; our natural desire is to dominate and reshape the world to fit our own preferences and assert our personal strength to the fullest degree possible. Struggle, through which individuals achieve a degree of power commensurate with their abilities, is the basic fact of human existence. Ideals of human equality perpetuate mediocrity -- a truth that has been distorted and concealed by modern value systems. Christian morality, which identifies goodness with meekness and servility is the prime culprit in creating a cultural climate that thwarts the drive for excellence and self realization God is dead; a new era of human creativity and achievement is at hand. -- Great Thinkers In The Western World. By: Ian P. McGreal, 1992 PREFACE Much information is available on Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche, including many books that he wrote himself, during his philosophical career. I took this as a good sign I would find a fountain of enlightened material produced by the man. I've had to go through a bit of my own philosophical meditations to put my own value judgements aside, and truly look for the contributions Nietzsche gave to philosophy. Much of my understanding came only after I had a grasp of Neitzsche's history; therefore, I encourage you to read-up on his history before diving into his philosophy (see Appendix I). The modern Westerner might disagree with every aspect of his philosophy, but there are many things one must unfortunately admit are true (only if you put your morality aside). So, from here, I will present his contributions to philosophy, and do my best to delete my own opinions, other than to say that he was not the chosen topic of this paper out of any admiration. THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE Sometimes philosophy is called "timeless," implying that it's lessons are of value to any generation. This may be hard to see in Nietzsche's work; but, we are assured that it was appropriate thought for his time. However, even Nietzsche's critics admit that his words hold an undeniable truth, as hard as it is to accept. Perhaps this is why his work is timeless, and has survived 150 years in print. Christianity "God is Dead!" announced Zarathustra (better known as Zoroaster), in Neitzsche's proudest book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885). Unlike many philosophers, Nietzsche never tried to prove or disprove the existence of God, just that belief in God can create sickness; and to convince that highest achievements in human life depend on elimination of God. Whether God existed had no relevance in his goal. Proclamation of the death of God was a fundamental ingredient in the revaluation of values Nietzsche advocated. "Nothing has done more than Christianity to entrench the morality of mediocrity in human consciousness." "Christian love extols qualities of weakness; it causes guilt. Charity is just teaching hatred and revenge directed toward nobility." "Belief in God is a tool to bring submission to the individual of noble character." -- F. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Hero Morality Nietzsche had an ideal world in mind, with an ideal government and an ideal God: the "Overman" or "Superman." These Gods were a product of natural selection, or social Darwinism. He felt, very strongly, that any kind of moral limitations upon man would only stand in the way of The Overman. "The Will To Power," his strongest teaching, meant that The Overman should and would do anything possible to gain power, control and strength. If one showed the smallest bit of weakness or morality, he would be killed by the stronger Overman, and taken over. Thus, the advancement of The Master Race (Nietzsche's "Master Race" will be discussed later). "Not mankind, but superman is the goal. The very last thing a sensible man would undertake would be to improve mankind: mankind does not improve, it doesn't even exist - it is an abstraction." "... his superman as the individual rising precariously out of the mire of mass mediocrity, and owing his existence more to deliberate breeding and careful nurture than to the hazards of natural selection." Master Race Nietzsche is often referred to as a pre-Nazi thinker, by his idealism of The Master Race. He was, in fact, a prime influence on the writing of Hitler's highest men, and quoted in Hitler's speeches. But, his writings were mostly taken out of context, because he was very open about his distaste for "those anti- semites." If one is able to come from a more intelligent place, regarding the breeding of best-fit humans, Nietzsche was far beyond Hitler. Nietzsche understood the necessity for variation in a population, and especially was able to appreciate the contributions of other races and cultures. His ideal society would be a race that included select bits from many races/cultures. The only culture that he seemed to have a special appreciation for were the Polish. He wrote, "The Poles, I consider the most gifted and gallant among Slavic people..." Still, he wrote about his value for the Jews, as response to the growing anti-semite culture in Germany during his time: "The whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation though a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred. In almost all contemporary nations, therefore -- in direct proportion to the degree which they act up nationalistically -- the literary obscenity of leading the Jews to slaughter as scapegoats of every conceivable public and internal misfortune is spreading. As soon as it is no longer a matter of preserving nations, but of producing the strongest possible Euro-Mixed race, the Jew is just as useful and desirable as ingredient as any other national remnant." War Mentality Nietzsche had an incredible infatuation with evil and violence. He did so much to find evil and cruelty in the world, that he seemed to have a sadistic pleasure in celebrating it; "man is the cruelest animal," he states in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In his book, Beyond Good and Evil, he really aims at changing the reader's opinion as to what is good and what is evil, but professes, except at moments, to be raising what is "evil" and decrying what is "good." It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters. "Everything that pampers, that softens, and that brings the 'people' or 'woman' to the front, operates in favor of universal suffrage -- that is to say, the dominion of 'inferior' men." Women & The Family This brings us to Nietzsche's view of women. At this point, I believe it's important to note Nietzsche's experience with women, because his writings about them seemed to begin closely after being rejected by the only woman he admitted to love. She rejected him as heasked her hand in marriage. "Men shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior. All else is folly." "The patriotic member of a militant society will look upon bravery and strength as the highest virtues of a man; upon obedience as the highest virtue of the citizen; and upon silent submission to multiple motherhood as the highest virtue of woman." "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip." From Nietzsche's experience with women, as author Betrand Russell said, "Nine out of ten women would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks." Many of his comments toward women reflected what a lonely and unloved person he was. In some poems he wrote after his prospective wife left him, he wrote this lonely line: "I could sing a song, and I will sing it, although I am alone in an empty house and must sing it to mine own ears." So, he added appropriately to his beliefs the following: "How absurd it is, after all, to let higher individuals marry for love -- heroes with servant girls and geniuses with seamstresses! When a man is in love he should not be permitted to make decisions affecting his entire life. We should declare invalid the vows of lovers and should make love a legal impediment to marriage." The Aristocracy Nietzsche loved his aristocratic anarchism, and had such a hate for democracy, that it consumes nearly every bit of his philosophy. His ideal society was divided into three classes: producers (farmers, merchants, business men), officials (soldiers and government), and rulers. The latter would rule, but they would not officiate in government; the actual government is a menial task. The rulers would be philosopher-statesmen rather than office-holders. Their power will rest on the control of credit and the army; but they would live more like the proud- soldier than like the financier. Nietzsche believed that some people were inherently more important than others; their happiness or unhappiness counted for more than the happiness of average people. He dismissed John Stuart Mill as a "blockhead" for the presupposition that everyone was equal. He wrote about Mill: "I abhor the man's vulgarity when he says "what is right for one man is right for another. Such principals wild fain establish the whole of human traffic upon mutual services, so every action would appear to be a cash payment for something done to us. The hypothesis here is ignoble to the last degree; it is taken for granted that there is some sort of equivalence in value between my actions and thine." Nietzsche, as I said before, hated democracy, but he recognized Christianity as a greater risk. Perhaps this was because people are always more loyal to their od, than their government. He felt that democracy began with Christianity: "...holy epileptics like saint Paul, who had no honesty. The new testament is the gospel of a completely ignoble species of man. Christianity is the most fatal and seductive lie that ever existed." So, before stripping people of their choice and equality, their God had to be taken first, Then the government. "Consequently, the road to the superman must lie through aristocracy. Democracy - - this manner for counting noses -- must be eradicated before it Is too late. The first step here is the destruction of Christianity so far as all higher men are concerned." Conclusion As Will Durant stated Nietzsche's faults so eloquently, "we can see him suffering at every line, and we must love him even where we question him," I couldn't agree more. I always ask the supremacist the question, "why do you support a supremacist government that would probably reject you into it's lower class?" I have no doubt, that if Nietzsche lived in his ideal society, he would have no honor, as he misses every requirement, being a sickly man who was rejected from the army, and lacking the strength to compete with his own "superman." Word Count: 1,878 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\From Communism to Democracy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From Communism to Democracy Gradualism is naturally the most feasible approach to any situation. Since the fall of the iron curtain, these two Communist power houses have chose to move towards democracy. China has chosen to take the natural, more gradual approach to democracy where as Russia has chosen the fast-paced, more dangerous approach. These two nations have chosen to change their economies from a collectivized command one to a market oriented one in order to increase the standard of living in their countries. As we have seen in recent years, China is booming and becoming more and more successful, while Russia seems like it is regressing back to parochial ways. It is impossible to compare anything but Russia and China's approaches to change, and the results that incurred. The two nations have vastly different economies and to compare one economy to another would be illogical. China and Russia's approach to change are vastly different, almost like night and day. China's political and economic policy has always been to do things gradually. Whereas Russia believed in going through the necessary changes quickly, so that the hardship would in turn pass just as quickly. In the implementation of their policies, we have seen that China's approach has led to a 29% of growth in their industrial field. But in comparison, Russia only yielded 15% with their approach. But one must keep in mind that China has more industrial sectors than does Russia, so their job in improving industry is notably easier than Russia's feat in developing an industry. Politically, the two nations have the same policies that they held in their economies. China believes in gradually letting the people have more access to political freedom. And again, Russia's policy has been to flood them all at once with these new found freedoms. Unfortunately Russia's policy hasn't been the most naturally feasible approach again. Their people have been suddenly bombarded with all of these new found freedoms they have never experience before. They are like little children let loose in a candy store. There are all of these new things available to them, and most of the younger generation wants too try everything at once. All of these citizens experimenting with their new freedoms are creating political chaos. The Russian citizens don't have time to savor their new freedoms and are just trying to grab them from left and right. For they are probably afraid that if they don't take their freedoms quickly, they will leave as quickly as they came. On the other hand, China refuses to allow their citizens run the nation. Instead they are continuing to shun democracy. They refuse to have democratic elections, pro-democracy demonstrations, and still censor the press. They are still trying to maintain that wall that separates them from the rest of the world. From a democratic aspect, China's approach is appalling. China is refusing basic democratic rights that the Western nation citizens take for granted. China is under the misconception that they can give it's people little crumbs of freedom and keep them from wanting more. China's leaders think that they can keep controlling that many people for an undetermined amount of time, they don't realize that once the people know about a better life, nothing can stop them from pursuing that life also. So looking at Russia and China's political policies, it is safe to say that what is good for the economy may not necessarily be good for the people. When looking at evolution and physiology, one will also notice that changes naturally happen gradually. Over time, living organisms change and evolve, but the key ingredient is time. Sometimes changes take place over thousands of millions of years, as intended by nature. But when examining a change in nature that occurred spontaneously or quickly, one will notice that the change was usually a fluke, or a by-product of the interferences by mankind. China has taken the natural path, and has gradually succeeded in the short time span that it has be on the market-oriented path. On the other hand, Russia, who chose to take a fast-paced approach is suffering and has not succeeded in changing. Personally, I believe that the Russian people will try to revert back to communism, but will be stopped, either by force or by will. They people will become so fed up with the hardship they endure and the constant longing for when life was better under the red guard, that they will tr to start a revolt to go back to communism. But their attempts to go back will be defeated by either force (like Tienamin Square) or by will. The Russian economy will continue to slowly improve for about 40 to 70 years until they have reached decent standard of living levels. And after the improvement on the economy, they will realize that democracy will help them, and that there will be an energetic burst to further pursue democracy. I believe that China will continue to improve their industry and will attempt to maintain an iron grip on their people, but will fail. The Chinese will revolt against the suppression of their democratic rights and will try another revolt to receive their rights. If the revolt is big enough, and not isolated to one certain sector, but is dispersed nation-wide, then they will succeed. But if it is only a small group, then they will fail. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Fuedlism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Feudalism Well, most people don't recognise this, but the chess board at your house or that you have know is call "The Feudal System". The kings and the queen, the knights, castles, bishop ...... they are base on this historic system. Well it was first, in the early time of our history, most of the people live their live their live by hard work on their land, and there was so much war going on that time, and that justice was unfair. Sooo, the weak would look to the strong for help, and protection and in return they would pay them back in many different ways. well that system was call "the feudal system". Then it later, the feudal system became a means of defending, and support the king who is at reign a well trained army. And that every kings no matter great or small, powerful or weak, must have lords that obey and respect him to serve him. And in return that would receive protection and support from the king. Feudalism first started in the land which is known as France now. Yahh, sooo, hmmm, anyway the frankish king had a problem with their the territories were invaded and that they are more interested in fighting each other rather than fighting their enermys. Soo lack of money and. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Function of the English Exchequer in the 12th century.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How and how well did the English Exchequer function in the twelfth century? The English exchequer was the central board responsible for all in comings and out goings into the royal treasury. It arrived with the Normans and was the first system of centralized revenue extraction to appear that although crude was a direct predecessor to the modern one. The information on how the Exchequer functioned as a method of institutionalised revenue extraction is from the ŒThe course of the Exchequer¹ written by Richard son of Nigel. The text provides a one sided argument into the merits of the Exchequer as Richard himself is the treasurer. The text is written in a typically classical dialogue style with a Œmaster¹ dictating to his Œscholar¹. Richard also presents himself as a well educated and intelligent man through his grasp of Latin and his quotations from Biblical and classical texts as well as alluding to philosophy through his talk of logic. The interesting proposition therefore is who was interested in such a complicated text and why was it produced. The system of the Exchequer was a complex one that would have been understood by few at the time. By attempting to describe this system in a way that presents it as equitable, it could have convinced the Barons and others paying taxes of the validity and fairness of a system of which they would have had little comprehension. This would also be helped by Richards apparently good grasp of the area. The Exchequer board was the highest office that could be obtained in the royal circle and was the most powerful and prestigious as it presided over all financial matters. It allowed records to be formed and general standards to be maintained. The ultimate power of the exchequer is aptly put in the text...¹where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.² The Exchequer had a greater role than just recording revenue as it provided a forum where judgments could be made and disputes about financial matters could be settled. It also saw commands depersonalized through the use of writs which can be described as the Œroutinization of charisma¹ (Clanchy, 1979). The King no longer had to have any direct influence over a command and some form of general standard could be applied. In command of the Exchequer was the Kings Chief Justiciar who was effectively second in command from the King. He presided over the whole board and was the only one besides the king himself who could reverse decisions once they had been made. Any writs from the treasury for payment and expenditure had to be authorized by him. The exchequer was structured into a lower and higher board which contained various officials, Kings dignitaries, clerks and scribes to ensure that any decisions that were reached were recorded accurately. The members who played an active role in the exchequer were the tallies clerk who held all the counter tallies of receipt, an accountant who used the actual exchequer board and counters to record all financial in comings and out goings and the treasurer who recorded all goings on. Above all these men were scribes who recorded again precisely what was written down and to ensure that this was correct they checked it against each other at the conclusion of the session. Other important officials that sat on the exchequer board were the chancellor who was the keeper of the kings official signature, his seal. Another was the constable who had to witness all writs as well as sort out payment to the kings various mercenaries and wage earners. Chamberlains performed the task of collating the account into a forel and then presenting them to the treasury on behalf of the sheriff of a particular county. There was a Marshall responsible for arresting any debtor who had failed to pay. A significant part of the system were the tally sticks that were given as receipts for any payment. The sticks were notched in different ways according to the amount being recorded. This stick was then split in two with the debtor receiving half and the other portion tied together to form totals. Receipts were probably given in this way as they were more likely to survive and in a time of relatively widespread illiteracy easier to understand. This simplistic method was very precise as can be seen by its continual use up until the nineteenth century. The accounts were formed by a clerk who made out the account using coins for counters on the exchequer board which was essentially like an abacus. This appears to have been a very complicated process. The counters are placed in the desired position and then the figures were called out and recorded by a scribe which must have been extremely hard work. The treasury received all account from the sheriffs of different counties and were written onto a role. In all three separate roles were kept. Being on the board of the exchequer appears to have involved long hours and a high degree of pressure. In the course of the exchequer it is stated that...²the treasurer, indeed, is beset by so many constant great cares and anxieties, that he cannot be blamed if sleep sometimes over takes him in the middle of it all.² The general problems faced by the exchequer would best be summed up by the text...²Moreover, in human affairs scarcely anything is absolutely perfect.² The exchequer even if limited by technology capable of adding the figures was ultimately aided by its reliance on human endeavor. It appears that it functioned by accountability, that is each members accountability to another. This occurred from the scribes and the clerks right up to the chief justiciar and ultimately the King. The Exchequer functioned as a bureaucratic organization with records being written and taxes collected in an organised, literate way and was not only a sign of the development of a feudal system in England but as a precursor to the modern state. References Clanchy M. T, From Memory to Written Record, 2nd ed. Cambridge 1989 Richard son of Nigel, The Course of the Exchequer, trans. C. Johnson, London 1950. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Fyodor Dostoyevskys The House of the Dead.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The House of the Dead Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky was born in Moscow on Nov. 11, 1825. As his father was a former military surgeon, Dostoyevsky grew up in the noble class. He entered the military engineering school at St. Petersburg at age 16. Shortly after graduating, he resigned his commission and devoted all his time to writing. However, he soon became caught up in the movement for political and social reform during the reign of Tsar Nicholas I. He began to participate in weekly discussions about the ideas of French utopian Socialists. This Petrashevsky Circle was arrested in April 1849. After a long investigation, Dostoyevsky, along with 20 other members of the Circle, were condemned to be shot. Literally moments before his execution was to occur, his sentence was commuted to four years hard labor in Omsk, Siberia. He accepted his punishment and began to regard many of the simple convicts as extraordinary people. During his sentence, he became devoted to Orthodox Christianity. The House of the Dead was initially published in Russia, 1860. Upon initial examination of the work, it appears to be a stream of consciousness account of Dostoyevsky's four years in a Siberian prison camp. But, upon further review, it seems to be more an account of Dostoyevsky's personality and attitudes through these years. In his first year in prison, Dostoyevsky "found myself hating these fellow-sufferers of mine." (305) His first day in prison, several convicts approached him, a member of the noble class and no doubt very wealthy in the convicts' eyes, and asked him for money four times each; and each refusal seemed to bring more convicts. He quickly grew to spite these people, for they thought him to be an idiot, unable to remember that the very same convict had approached him for money not fifteen minutes earlier. (67-8) But, Dostoyevsky makes a startling realization at the end of this first year, a discovery which allows him to drastically alter his personality: "...the convicts lived here not as if this were their home, but as some wayside inn, en route somewhere." (303) this concept is followed by Dostoyevsky's realization that he wanted, unlike many other convicts in the camp, to live as he did before his imprisonment. He believed that "Physical, no less moral strength is required for penal servitude if one is to survive all the materiel deprivations of that accursed existence. And I wanted to go on living after I had left prison...." (277). The remaining twenty pages are anti-climatic; they simply deal with the change of a Major stationed at the prison and Dostoyevsky's release from the camp. Dostoyevsky's The House of the Dead is a beneficial source of historical information. First of all, it presents life inside of a Siberian prison camp. For years, Russians feared the concept of a Siberian prison camp, a place where convicts, troublemakers and dissenters were to be sent. But, Dostoyevsky presents a camp that does not fulfill such horrid expectations. While many of the sections of the work deal with flogging and punishment, these stories are outweighed by stories of the freedoms that most of the prisoners enjoyed: money, vodka, harlots, special clothing, and special prison meals. While prisoners enjoyed such benefits, these were, however, few and far between. Dostoyevsky recounts how prisoners had to have shaved heads, lie on mattresses infested with bed bugs and eat soup containing cockroaches. Summer days were consumed by eighteen hours of manual labor. And their sentences included up to five-thousand lashes with a birch cane. Finally, it deals with human nature, and the lengths to which man may go to avoid his fate. Dostoyevsky provides the tale of one prisoner, sentenced to thirty years in an especially arduous camp, the "special" camp, would offer to trade names (and, therefore, sentences) with a more gullible prisoner, who believed that a "special" camp provided exemption from manual labor. This name change would often include a small bit of vodka for the gullible prisoner. Also, he told of prisoners who, as they were being taken to their sentencing, would kill an officer simply to delay their sentencing, even though the convict was fully aware that such actions would bring two or three times as much punishment upon them. the reader has no reason to not believe Dostoyevsky and his tales: what could possibly come from lying about prison experiences? Also, Dostoyevsky is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Russian authors; I would hope he can be trusted. I would recommend this book, as well as other Dostoyevsky novels, to others. Dostoyevsky is a very interesting author, whose works often deal with human nature and are rarely boring. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Galileo Galilei.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Galileo Galilei Galileo Galilei was born at Pisa on the 18th of February in 1564. His father, Vincenzo Galilei, belonged to a noble family and had gained some distinction as a musician and a mathematician. At an early age, Galileo manifested his ability to learn both mathematical and mechanical types of things, but his parents, wishing to turn him aside from studies which promised no substantial return, steered him toward some sort of medical profession. But this had no effect on Galileo. During his youth he was allowed to follow the path that he wished to. Although in the popular mind Galileo is remembered chiefly as an astronomer, however, the science of mechanics and dynamics pretty much owe their existence to his findings. Before he was twenty, observation of the oscillations of a swinging lamp in the cathedral of Pisa led him to the discovery of the isochronism of the pendulum, which theory he utilized fifty years later in the construction of an astronomical clock. In 1588, an essay on the center of gravity in solids obtained for him the title of the Archimedes of his time, and secured him a teaching spot in the University of Pisa. During the years immediately following, taking advantage of the celebrated leaning tower, he laid the foundation experimentally of the theory of falling bodies and demonstrated the falsity of the peripatetic maxim, which is that an objects rate of descent is proportional to its weight. When he challenged this it made all of the followers of Aristotle extremely angry, they would not except the fact that their leader could have been wrong. Galileo, in result of this and other troubles, found it prudent to quit Pisa and move to Florence, the original home of his family. In Florence he was nominated by the Venetian Senate in 1592 to the chair of mathematics in the University of Padua, which he occupied for eighteen years, with ever-increasing fame. After that he was appointed philosopher and mathematician to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. During the whole of this period, and to the close of his life, his investigation of Nature, in all her fields, was never stopped. Following up his experiments at Pisa with others upon inclined planes, Galileo established the laws of falling bodies as they are still formulated. He likewise demonstrated the laws of projectiles, and largely anticipated the laws of motion as finally established by Newton. In statics, he gave the first direct and satisfactory demonstration of the laws of equilibrium and the principle of virtual velocities. In hydrostatics, he set forth the true principle of flotation. He invented a thermometer, though a defective one, but he did not, as is sometimes claimed for him, invent the microscope. Though, as has been said, it is by his astronomical discoveries that he is most widely remembered, it is not these that constitute his most substantial title to fame. In this connection, his greatest achievement was undoubtedly his virtual invention of the telescope. Hearing early in 1609 that a Dutch optician, named Lippershey, had produced an instrument by which the apparent size of remote objects was magnified, Galileo at once realized the principle by which such a result could alone be attained, and, after a single night devoted to consideration of the laws of refraction, he succeeded in constructing a telescope which magnified three times, its magnifying power being soon increased to thirty-two. This instrument being provided and turned towards the heavens, the discoveries, which have made Galileo famous, were bound at once to follow, though undoubtedly he was quick to grasp their full significance. The moon was shown not to be, as the old astronomy taught, a smooth and perfect sphere, of different nature to the earth, but to possess hills and valleys and other features resembling those of our own globe. The planet Jupiter was found to have satellites, thus displaying a solar system in miniature, and supporting the doctrine of Copernicus. It had been argued against the said system that, if it were true, the inferior planets, Venus and Mercury, between the earth and the sun, should in the course of their revolution exhibit phases like those of the moon, and, these being invisible to the naked eye, Copernicus had to change the false explanation that these planets were transparent and the sun's rays passed through them. But with his telescope Galileo found that Venus did actually exhibit the desired phases, and the objection was thus turned into an argument for Copernicanism. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for his writings discussing the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems. In June 1633, Galileo was condemned to life imprisonment for heresy. His writings about these subjects were banned, and printers were forbidden to publish anything further by him or even to reprint his previous works. Outside Italy, however, his writings were translated into Latin and were read by scholars throughout Europe. Galileo remained under imprisonment until his death in 1642. However he never was a real prisoner for he never spent any time in a prison cell or being treated like a criminal. Instead he spent his time in fancy apartments. The rest of the time he was allowed to use houses of friends as his places of confinement the, always comfortable and usually luxurious. Outline Galileo Galilei I. Early Life A. Born in 1564 at Pisa B. Parents want him to be a doctor C. Eventually allowed to follow his own path II. Accomplishments other than in the field of astronomy A. Isochronism of the pendulum 1. later led to astronomical clock B. Center of Gravity in Solids C. Teacher at University of Pisa D. Theory of Falling Bodies E. Nominated to the chair of mathematics in the University of Padua F. Laws of Projectiles G. Laws of Equilibrium / Principle of Virtual Velocities H. Thermometer III. Astronomical Discoveries A. Designed highest powered telescopes of the time. B. The moon 1. Not a perfect and smooth sphere C. Jupiter 1. Four moons of Jupiter D. Venus and Mercury 1. Not transparent 2. Had phases IV. Later Life A. Tried by the Inquisition 1. For writings 2. Charged with Heresy B. Sentenced to house arrest 1. lived in luxury 2. never in a prison cell C. Writings Prohibited D. Died in 1642 Bibliography 1. Drake, S. ,Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography. Greensborough Press, 1995. 2. Finnochiara, Maurice A. ,The Galileo Affair. The University of California Press, 1989. 3. Redondi, P. ,Galileo Heretic. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987. 4. Reston, J. Jr. ,Galileo: A Life. HarperCollins Publishing, 1994. 5. Segre, M. ,In the Wake of Galileo. New Brunswick Co., 1992. 6. Sharratt, M. ,Galileo: Decisive Innovator., Sanford Publishing 1994 Word Count: 1113 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Genocide.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From the time humans existed, hatred seemed to be the dominant trait that possessed the souls of men. It was inevitable emotions could provoke people to engage in acts without thinking; but it was the acts that were premeditated which were classified as evil and brutal. A. M. Rosenthal, the author of No News From Auschwitz, described a single moment in history where these kinds of acts were invoked. This appalling endeavor is known as genocide which is the deliberate destruction of a national, racial or a religious group (Winston Dictionary). Genocide is universal rather than limited to one time and one group of people. The Catholics in Ireland were being threatened and eliminated by the Puritans. The typical Irish lifestyle came to an abrupt halt during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Lewis 9). In 1641, the Norman-Irish, who were worried that their lands would be lost, and the native Irish, who were forced to accept an unfamiliar culture, rebelled (Lewis 9). In 1649, Oliver Cromwell, leader of the Parliamentarians in the English Civil war, lead the Puritans into a bloodbath against the Catholics (Lewis 9). "He did it brutally, massacring the Irish without mercy and called the large scale killing 'the righteous judgements and mighty works of God'" (Meyer 78). Thousands of Catholics preferred to suffer and die than deny their faith (Firth 10). By the middle of the seventeenth century, the Protestants settled on the land they seized from the Catholics and the Catholics were forced to colonize in towns which clung to wild coastlines with dangerous tides (Meyer 78). The differences 2. between the lives of the Catholics and Protestants were clear and the foundation for their troubles had been laid (Meyer 78). Another case of genocide occurred when the Armenians were eradicated by the Turks from the Ottoman Empire (Armenian Genocide). During 1915 and 1916, one and a half million Armenians were killed. "The Armenian Genocide was masterminded by the Central Committee of the Young Turk Party" (Armenian Genocide). The extermination of the Armenians occurred in a systematic fashion. First the Armenians in the army were disarmed, placed into labor battalions and then killed. Then the Armenian political and intellectual leaders were rounded up on April 24, 1915, and killed. Finally, the remaining Armenians were called from their homes and told they would be relocated ... and then marched off to concentration camps ... in the desert ... would starve and thirst to death in the burning sun (Armenian Genocide). To this present day, the Turkish Government denied these allegations. They claimed the Armenians were only removed from a "war-zone." The leaders of the Young Turk Government were found guilty of carrying out the killing by a secret network (Armenian Genocide). The decision to eradicate the Armenians was not an impulsive decision, but "the result of extensive and profound deliberations" (Armenian Genocide). In the case with China, genocide resulted in the 3. extermination of the newly born female infants. Since ancient times, the Chinese have regarded the males to be precious and more prestigious than the females. The birth of a boy signifies wealth, prosperity and luck (Chow). The Chinese Government recently passed a law which limited the birth of children to one child per family in order to decrease the current population. If the first born was a girl, the parents would kill the toddler in order to receive another chance at conceiving a son. The son is deemed as the "golden child" because he will keep the family name alive (Chow). The female babies are eliminated by suffocation immediately so the parents do not develop an emotional bond. Their lifeless bodies are wrapped in a thin cloth and are buried like meaningless possessions (Chow). These cruel acts took place without the government's knowledge. This phenomenon is not as frequent as it was when the law was first introduced. Undoubtably, genocide is an inhumane course of action chosen by irrational individuals. The bloodshed of the Puritans against the Catholics, Turks against the Armenians, and the Chinese parents against their very own flesh and blood were only a few examples of the numerous situations of this sort of calamity. Indeed, it was evident genocide has no boundaries, and was not confined to a specific moment in history or one category of people. It is sad but true, the beliefs of one person could eliminate the existence of people with different denominations. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Geoffrey Chaucer.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Geoffrey Chaucer ...I think some of Chaucer belongs to his time and that much of that time is dead, extinct, and never to be made alive again. What was alive in it, lives through him..._ --John Masefield Geoffrey ChaucerŠs world was the Europe of the fourteenth century. It was neither rich or poor, happy nor sad. Rather, it was the intermingling of these, a mixture of splendor and poverty, displaying both worldly desire and spiritual purity. ChaucerŠs travels through it, mostly on Šthe KingŠs business,_ or civil service, shaped his writing, offering the readers of today a brief glimpse into the world in which he lived. Chaucer lived from approximately AD 1340 to 1400. The world in which he lived was not one of peace or stability. Born the son of a London vintner, he remained a Londoner for most of the rest of his life, leaving the city only on Šthe KingŠs business_. The city of London was thus ChaucerŠs environment for most of his life. Aside from brief visits into other countries or areas of England, he remained in the city, and itŠs affects on his writing was immense. London of that time was not the London of today. It was a walled city, guarded against invasion, but long enough time had passed since such a threat had approached that the defenses had loosened. Houses perched upon the walls, and Chaucer in fact, lived for a time in a house built over Aldgate, (one of the gates of the city). London was a city less than three-quarters of a square mile in size: It ran east and west along the Thames less than one and a half miles, and extended northwards less than half a mile. Over 20,000 people were packed into this small area; the diversity of the inhabitants was overwhelming. Londoners ranged from wealthy to impoverished, from small to large, from shoemaker to blacksmith to minstrel to priest. The city was thus fairly close. Stone building mingled with tile, wood, and thatch. While the major streets were fairly wide, small shops and stands often spread out into the road, effectively narrowing it by up to half itŠs width. London Bridge (the only bridge in the city) was home to a multitude of homes and shops, perched on top of the span to conserve space. Waste was disposed of simply. It was emptied out the windows into the alley or street and slaughtering was done in he streets as well, with scraps being tossed underfoot. Hogs were often used to keep the streets clean, but were assisted by wild dogs and scavenger birds. Open sewers ran through the streets and into the Thames. Most of the rest of ChaucerŠs life was open at the courts of the king of England. Here a startling change was apparent. The filth of the streets disappeared, to be replaced by the splendor so often associated with royalty. The royal court of England was home to many in ChaucerŠs time. Courtiers, pages, knights, nobles, princes, and of course the King and Queen. Chaucer rose through the ranks of the kingŠs men, experiencing all aspects of court life. He was a page, squire, court-bard, counselor and finally courtier to various monarchs. Many kings rose an fell in his lifetime. Chaucer began his life in the kingŠs service in the reign of Edward III, and performed his service a long while. He was important enough to Edward that he was personally ransomed after being captured by the French in the war between Edward and Charles, an honor usually reserved for nobles. By 1378 Edward III had died, and Chaucer was the man of Richard II. The country was caught up in a political battle between the nobles of Gloucester and Lancaster. The actions of these two nobles sent Chaucer reeling , his world constantly changing about him. The only stable item in ChaucerŠs world was religion. The institution of religion, the church, was quite prominent and visible. Cathedrals dotted the cities of the world, and even the smallest town had a church. The glory of the Church may even have outshone that of the royal court. Cathedrals were brilliant with magnificent carvings, statues of precious metals murals, holy artifacts, and many other gleaming treasures. Even the smallest church was home to some splendor. The glory of the church, and the power it put forth over the population made it a major political power of the time. Chaucer was born in the early 1340Šs. Very little is known about the first stage of his life. However, two items are fairly certain. It appears that Chaucer was the son of a London vintner and relatively strong evidence supports that he attended one of three grammar-schools: either St.PaulŠs, St. Mary-le-BowŠs or St. Martin-le-GrandŠs. Aside from this slim bit of information details of ChaucerŠs early life are few. The next reliable bit of information places him at around the age of fourteen, a page in the household of the wife of Prince Lionel, the second son of Edward III. He held this position for some time. ChaucerŠs first appearance into the kingŠs business appeared in October of 1360, when he carried letters from Calais to England during peace negotiations there. For this service he held the official title of clerk of the king attached to the person of Prince Lionel. In this way, Chaucer began his life of service to his king. In 1368, Chaucer was awarded a royal reward for a long and valued service to his job. His actual duties during this period were apparently fairly hazy. He served as a sort of jack of all trades. The only thing we know about ChaucerŠs life between 1358 and 1367 is that he was imprisoned in France, during the hundred years war, and was ransomed in March of 1360, for a rather large sum. In this time Chaucer also married Philippa Roet, lady in waiting to the Queen. She bore at least two children, Thomas and ŠLyte Lowys,_ a child who was delighted in arithmetic. Between 1368 and 1387, Chaucer undertook nearly a dozen diplomatic missions to Flanders, France, and Italy. Most were important, many were so secret that they were not mentioned in the histories of the time at all. In 1381, Chaucer was sent to deal with marriage negotiations between Richard II and the daughter of the French King. While Chaucer was not on diplomatic missions, he was performing his duties in the position for which he is best known, the Kings Custom Service. From 1374 to 1386, he was the comptroller of London. When he was removed from the post in 1386 he was instead granted the title ŠKnight of the Shire_, an important Parliament post, and later was placed as the Clerk of the KingŠs works at Westminster, the Tower, and other royal property in South England. ChaucerŠs final post in the KingŠs service was that of the keeper of the small royal forest of North Pertherton. He held this post twice, from 1390 to 1391, and from 1397 to 1398. In 1399, he settled in Westminster. On Christmas Eve he leased, for fifty-three years, the garden of the monks of Westminster, to live in. However, he did not live long to enjoy his retirement. Geoffrey Chaucer died in October 25, 1400. In a time when literacy was a luxury affordable only by the very wealthy and powerful, ChaucerŠs writings stand out as unique. The main language of literature of the time was Latin. Literacy and fluency in Latin were taught as early as literacy in English. In fact, many people could read Latin yet had treat difficulty figuring out the simplest English sentences. What little literature was not written in Latin was written in French. Latin and French poetry was widely recognized as being the only real literature of any worth. This of course, makes ChaucerŠs works even more unusual. Unlike most of the other writers of the time, Chaucer wrote his works in English. It was read in English to the Royal Court upon completion. ChaucerŠs writing career was not completely original nor free of influences. His first works borrowed heavily form French and Latin poems, and it was only later that some of his works became more original. For example, ChaucerŠs first recorded poem (the Book of the Duchess) the opening lines are simply translations of the openings of FroissartŠs Paradys dŠAmour. While this is the most obvious use of the French poem, other nstances reminiscent of the work appear throughout ChaucerŠs poem. In the first part of ChaucerŠs career as a writer, it can be seen that his writing is restricted by a style made popular at the time by French poetry. As in the prominent French poetry of the time, the Book demonstrates a love for detail and description. Chaucer never quite escapes the French influences in his writing but escapes some areas of French style. It was not until Chaucer began writing his most well-known work The Canterbury Tales, that he did this. Until this work, his writings were simply translations of old myths, or barely original poems written to fit the standards of French style. Chaucer wished to write something more ambitious, original, and memorable. The Canterbury Tales was the result. ChaucerŠs style of writing in The Canterbury Tales is quite different from his earlier works. Hidden within the stories of the Pilgrims are sermons and scoldings about the world he knew, and the evils he saw within it. The Canterbury Tales have no single style throughout, to which each shorter story is fit. Rather, Chaucer gives each section of the poem itŠs own style. In fact, the over-ruling style of ChaucerŠs last work seems to be no style at all, each work is written to fit the subject. Chaucer worked throughout his life to break away from the molds which society had set about poetry in general, and his work in specific. Instead of forging beautifully crafted lies and tales about society, his poetry held up a mirror to reflect reality as he saw it. ChaucerŠs growth out of the mold imposed by tradition is illustrated by the steady departure of it in his writings. And his final works, escaping at last form the accepted style, set the stage for the beginnings of English literature. Bibliography Chute, Marchette. Geoffrey Chaucer of England. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co, 1946. Word Count: 1798 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Germany The answer to an old Question.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Germany: The answer to an old Question Thesis: This paper will argue that Germany needs to secure itself as both the economic and political hegemon of Europe inside of the European Union; until its present condition and effectiveness in the global politics changes, instability in the European Union, as well as, basic fear of will always be present. I. Introduction II. Historical Perspective-The two negative factors A. Fear - twice in one century 1) Bismarck/Frederick II 2) Hitler B. Foolishness 1) WWI 2) WWII III. Reunification - The Key A. Economic realities 1) E. Germany's status 2) Infrastructure B. The significance of one Germany 1) Future 2) Politics IV. European Union-The means to and end A. European "check and balance system" 1) Hope for the future 2) Provisions for success B. The answer to a disturbing question 1) Can Germany be strong and peaceful? 2) France and England V. Conclusion The formation of a state can be both a beautiful and terrifying event . As a national you now have a home and place to live with people of a common culture and heritage, an identity. If you are a founder of the new state, there would be a sense of accomplishment of having achieved the fulfillment of a lifetime goal. Other states which deemed this new state as legitimate and recognized it as a self-determined equal, have created a potential ally or enemy. The downside, the premature recognition and the actual struggle for that status, usually entails conflict, loss of life, revolution and even war. A state was formed and recognized in 1871 in the center of Europe. This event has had an enormous impact since its inception. It has been both the salvation of Europe through economic depressions and hard times, as well as, the cause for two world wars and the near decimation of Europe. Its people have been back and forth between rags and riches, democracy and dictatorships, united, broken and then reunited. This state is known as Germany. Modern Germany has been reunified after almost 50 years of separation during the cold war. Once again German power and influence is on the rise. The world watches because Germany has not been able to successfully retain both total sovereignty over its territory and be an economic world power, for a substantial period of time; without plunging the world into an unavoidable conflict. The question of Germany and its position in world politics is one which has plagued statesmen since Germany's formation. This paper will argue that the answer lies within the state. Germany needs to secure itself as both the economic and political hegemon of Europe under the auspices of the European Union. Furthermore, until Germany's present condition and effectiveness in global politics changes, the instability in the European Union will continue, as well as, the persistent German question.. Twice in history Germany has risen from disorder and weakness to stand strong and belligerent upsetting the existing world order. Can there be any question of why the world views Germany suspiciously? In 1914, German expansionism and short-sighted diplomacy paved the way toward an inevitable war. Germany moved from Bismarkian Diplomacy which maintained the "status quo" in Europe and abroad, to an aggressive militaristic imperialism which desired redistribution of global territory. A large naval fleet was built second only to the Royal navy (Britain) as well as a massive increase in military hardware production. By 1913 Germany replaced Britain as the main manufacturing European power. This fact reinforced by the aggressive nature shown in German foreign policy obviously was not in the interest of maintaining any sort of status quo. The situation was far from being solved. Though Germany was defeated was placed at the mercies of the other victorious world powers, which were determined not have the scenario of 1914 happen again. Unfortunately, a similar situation did develop once again with Germany in the center. By 1938 Germany had rearmed and was aggressively expanding both its physical and economic boarders. Adolf Hitler saw the opportunities which a weak Europe armed with the ideas of appeasement as a deterrent for military aggression presented to Germany. These two historical occasions promoted a general distrust of a strong united Germany. Both times in history after the conclusions of the wars Germany was used for its large production capabilities and natural resources. The first time was to pay back large war debt acquired by Britain and France. The second was during the cold war and Germany was split between the two super powers. Thus, the development of the German question or problem. Reunification was possible because of a few factors. The largest was the collapse of the Soviet Union which is also the most obvious. This is true due to the fact that the occupied eastern region of Germany by the Soviet army was relinquished. The second was that West Germany had been so economically successful that the massive investments needed for updating East German industry, infrastructure and economy was available. The third was the existence and strength of the European Community. The collapse of the Soviet empire freed of East Germany and gave it its independence. The Soviets also hold vivid memories of the two times Germany rose to the status of a world power. Both times the Germans invaded and pushed deep into Russian territory, the last thing the Soviets wanted was a unified German. However, the Soviet economy weak and collapsing was unable to retain its occupation and relinquished control in 1989. The merger between East and West Germany, in 1990, has not been easy, to say the least. Germany faces three major problems concerning unification. The first of these dilemmas is unemployment. Only 56% of East Germany's 16 million population was employed prior to reunification. East German government which employed 2.2 million has now been reduced to 1.2 million. Manufacturing employment dropped from 3.2 million to approximately between 800,000 and 1.4 million. These are grim statistics, however, this produces an opportunity to devise new methods of retraining and experiment with part-time employment projects. The second problem facing Germany is the enormous expense of upgrading the shabby infrastructure which is in the east. The infrastructure includes roads, railroads, telecommunications, public service, public educational systems and the postal service. This gives Germany the chance to integrate technology and new organizational systems which will bring the east to or even surpass existing standards located in the west. Thirdly, is the environmental problems which are located in the east after decades of neglect. The deplorable conditions of the east are going to prove to be quite a challenge both in practice and economically. East German officials disclosed that its industry has the highest sulphur dioxide per capita producer in the world, 5.2 million tons a year. There also exists over 15,000 identified toxic waste dumps. Approximately 70% of existing East German industry fails to meet the West German environmental laws. Despite the severity of these very expensive dilemmas, reunification needed to take place for the benefit both Germany and Europe. Now with the added 16 million people, the increase of physical size Germany, the situation in Eastern Europe and the existence of the European Union there has never been a better time for Europe. Possessing the resources, economies, population and production of practically the entire continent of Europe, the E.U. is in a very strong position globally. The European Union is the organization which has been absent in the past to act as a European systems diagnostic. It allows the member states to exist independently and interdependently, keeping them in check not allowing for unwarranted forms of imperialism and predatorial power politics. It creates a much needed form of a "check and balance" system, which is empowered by functionalism. Functionalism, in relation to politics, is defined as the states actions in surrendering some authority which would normally rest in the hands of a sovereign state to a supranational institution. Germany has locked itself into an agreement which allows member states to build their industries, maximize their power, expand economically and play politics without creating extreme political strife and eventual war with neighboring countries. For Germany "the E.U. is an almost desperately needed vehicle and instrument for German policy, internationally and at home. They can do more as a member than going out on their own... Germany wants a strong, properly integrated E.U." This quote establishes the idea for Europe, who is extremely weary of the newly reunited state, and Germany; that the E.U. is a necessary institution for peaceful coexistence. The European Union also sets a stage for Germany to rise to a position of the economic leader in Europe without exercising the past forms of militaristic expansionism. In the recent and almost disastrous time for the E.U. the ratification of Maastricht, the social problems of Union surfaced first in Denmark. The Danish making it absolutely clear that they are tired of Germans renting property along the Danish coast and how happy they were that Denmark beat Germany in a soccer championship match is fine. But to turn down the treaty that could bring lasting security to Europe for an extend time period is a tad short-sighted. Realizing the alternative that they could be engulfed beneath a third expansionistic military regime creates room for the questioning the wisdom of such a rejection of the proposed referendum. Granted, to say that this is the only alternative is indeed a stretch, however, the point is that the deepening of the E.U. is of absolute importance, whether it be by Maastricht or another means. As Germany grows in stature, the Germans are bound to feel that their role is changing, especially with the developments in Eastern Europe and beyond. These developments have created a power vacuum through which Germany will naturally feel the need to lead in "safe-guarding" order. It is the nature of politics to say that as German power grows so will German influence, the only peaceful alternative and answer to the German question is the E.U. Only, that is, if the E.U. remains elastic to always contain but not hinder the growth of its members, especially Germany. This brings the argument to ask the question of whether there can be a European Germany or only a German Europe? This asks if Germany can be successfully and "properly" integrated with the rest of Europe. This is a nonsensical question which is self defeating. Are the Germans some sort of special breed of humanity which make them inherently above the law? Alfred Baring, a German Historian, is referred to as accusing his "fellow citizen of a laxness bordering on irresponsible." Stating that, "Germans have been political lightweights for forty years and want to stay that way." Continuing that, "Germany has been living in an idyllic situation in which it has not had to challenge itself and think of its role in Europe." Germany is as much of a part of Europe as France or Italy. Each nation-state has a position and a role to play in the E.U.. To discard Germany as being overbearing and dominant, placing it on the shelf will simply not work. Giving Germany a monopoly on political an economic policy making is also foolish. This argument is not about creating a fourth German empire. Germany has a role to fill in Europe, fear and paranoia should not be allowed to dictate how it is accomplished. "A strong, properly integrated European Union" is possible with Germany. The word "strong" is an attribute of which Germany has been all to familiar with. History is full of examples, some previously stated in this paper, of a Europe integrated through strength. However, "properly" is the key word in Euro-integration. Nietzsche, in his work "Beyond Good and Evil" addresses this matter. He states, "I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on earth in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head [italics mine], we are good Europeans!" This is an analogy speaking of the movement of politics and power shifts in the late 1800's towards Germany, in the perspective of a German philosopher. He believed that Germans were unique to the rest of the populous of Europe. Unfortunately, this philosophical notion has been altered and used for rather devious measures. Adolf Hitler is the best example of this. Germans are unique as are all races in and outside of Europe. However, Nietchzsche saw that perhaps the German people possessed a quality not of superiority, as the "Uber Mensch"; but rather analogically speaking of the Germans in Europe as a whole. That "properly integrated" means a strong Germany both economically and politically, not hiding behind checkbook or its constitution. Thus, after over 120 years Germany has seen mush change and German power is on the rise again. This paper has illustrated the past struggles of Germany which has affected the world. The reach for power by attempting to establish an empire under the Kaiser and the militaristic expansionism shown by Adolf Hitler both ended in conflict bring the world to war and Germany to its knees. The new battle Germany faces is the reunification process, Eastern Europe and the European Union. All of these three factors are crucial in the future of Germany. As argued in this paper Germany needs to establish itself as a stable and reliable support for Europe under the auspices of the European Union. The success of the European Union and the economic development of Eastern Europe are in direct relation and dependant on that event. Patrick J. Hearden, Roosevelt Confronts Hitler: America's Entry into World War II, (Dekalb, I.L.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1987), p. 189. Hans J. Morganthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 6th ed. revised. Kenneth W. Thompson (McGraw Hill, Inc., 1985), p. 67. Michael Ignatieff, Blood And Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, ( New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1983), p. 57. Friedrich Nietzche, Beyond Good andEvil, trans. R.J.Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books, 1973), p.170. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, "Foreign Political Aid: the German political foundations and their US counterparts," International Affairs 67 (January 1991) : p.33-64. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Ghandi and MLK.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Title: "Power Comes From the Barrel of a Gun" - took the opposing view "Would you respect me, If I didn't have this gun? 'Cause without it, I don't get it, And that's why I carry one." -Phil Collins Power. A word from which many meanings derive. To each individual, it means something distinct and it is how one uses their power that makes up who they are. Power does not come from the barrel of a gun. A gun can do nothing without someone there to pull the trigger. The power to take a life rests within the person, the gun simply serving as their tool. When groups protesting for a cause they believe in use violent tactics, do they ever accomplish anything? When we kill , what do we achieve? To say that power lies in the barrel of a gun is to say that the most effective way to get what we want, or what we feel we deserve is to murder. It is only those with no faith in their dreams, or belief in themselves who could make such a statement. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "If a man hasn't found something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." A leader in the Black community and the recipient of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, King's accomplishment of attaining civil rights for Blacks was a great one, but the road to achievement was long and full of sacrifices. It was a time when Blacks had no rights and most of them accepted this as the way it was and no one could do anything about it. Most of them, but not King. When the police arrested a black woman for sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to give up her seat to a white woman, King led a committee that organized a boycott of buses. The results were that on April 23, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that "segregation in public transportation is unconstitutional" and that South Carolina as well as 12 other states must remove the "whites only" signs that hung in the front of the buses. This was just the beginning, he vowed to continue his fight using "passive resistance and the weapon of love". He helped establish the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and became its first president. Then in 1957, King met with Vice-president Nixon in Washington to "discuss racial problems . He went on to lead protests, demonstrations and marches, making the non-violent resistance stronger than it had ever been before. He succeeded in making people aware that every human being is born equal and that no one should be denied his civil rights. Martin Luther King had a dream and he knew that there was only one way to make it come true, to wake up and to take action. He was a true example of someone putting their power to good use. He started his life with a disadvantage, he was hated because of the color of his skin, but he did not let that stop him. He was arrested, thrown in jail, stabbed, stoned, he even had his home bombed. Through it all, he refused to give up, he had found a cause worth dying for and he did. He was murdered on the night of April 4, 1968. People tried to use their power to stop him and his fight. In the end, they may have succeeded in killing its leader, but the battle against racism lived on. Looking back, people say that Martin Luther King Jr. was a very powerful man. I have never heard anyone say his attackers or his murderers had. "I am indeed, a practical dreamer. My dreams are not airy nothings. I want to convert my dreams into realities, as far as possible." -Mohandas K. Gandhi Mahatma is the name the people of India gave to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The meaning is Great Soul, and they considered him as the father of their nation. He named his autobiography, "The story of My Experiments With Truth." That was, after all, what his life was about: the truth and his search to find it. He was against violence in any form, he felt there existed better methods of accomplishing things, and he proved to be successful. he made up his won technique for social action that he called satyagraha, "non-violent resistance to injustice and wrong." Gandhi's actions were guided by his philosophy that the way a person behaves is more important than what he achieves. It was these tactics that he used in his fight for India's independence. Gandhi was a lawyer, on a business trip to South Africa and he was greeted with prejudice and discrimination against the fellow Indians living there. What was supposed to be a trip, ended up being a 21 year stay as he began to work towards a cause he believed in, Indian rights. He launched a newspaper entitles, "Indian Opinion" that was published weekly. He returned to India and soon after became the leader of the Indian Nationalistic Movement. He led a satyagraha campaign, but the moment riots broke out, he canceled it. It was defeating its own purpose if violence was involved. Gandhi brought about many economic and social reforms; he led campaigns, strikes, demonstrations, and achieved many great things. The people of India will always be grateful to him, for he played the major role in acquiring freedom for their country, which Great Britain finally granted in the year 1947. Although he may not have been large in build, his strengths when it came to the issue he believed in as well as his moral values, were immeasurable. He found something to fight for and he did, never suing violence, even if it could have worked to his advantage. He was a man much like Martin Luther King Jr., both achieving civil rights for their people and attempting to abolish discrimination. Unfortunately, Gandhi too, suffered from his opposition. he too was arrested on several occasion and was the victim of murder. The day he dies was one marked with grief, but not a weakness on his part. No one thought on that day, Gandhi lost his power and his murderers achieved it. Reflecting on his life, one could describe it as a series of historical events . Gandhi defined a satyagraha as one with the persistent hope, "who followed a vision of truth and tried to deploy the strength of truth and love in daily life. I believe that that is an accurate description of is own character. "In the name of our party's movement, The Syrian Muslim Party of Justice, we declare that the blood of all Jews living in Syria will be spilled starting on Saturday the 13 of March 1994, according to Muslim month (1/Shawal 1414). May the almighty witness our deed." A special branch of the secret police in Syria --the Makhabrat-- was assigned to keep the Jewish community's activities under constant surveillance. Emigration of the Jews was forbidden. When Jews who still tried to escape illegally were caught, they were thrown in jail without a trial or charge. Jews were not permitted to be a candidate in an election nor were they granted voting rights. Travel was allowed only for medical treatment or to visit relatives In order to assure their return, they were required to leave as family members behind as well as large sums of money. There were restrictions on the numbers of Jews allowed to attend University, and the only Jewish schools in Damascus were ordered to accept a vast number of Palestinian students. The Jews were forced to wear identity cards, marking their religion on it. All mail from outside Syria was censored and telephone calls were monitored. The Jews outside Syria found out what was going on and decided to take the matter into their own hands. Everyone went about it in their own individual way. Michael Schelew, national chairman of the Syrian Jewry Committee of B'nai Brith Canada's Institute for International Affairs and Paul Marcus, National Director of B'nai Birth Canada's Institute for International Affairs, wrote an article for the Leader-Post, a newspaper printed in Regina. The article was entitle, "The abuse of Jews a fact of life in Syria" and it exposed the truth about what was really going on there. NAHON, an organization that focuses mainly on social action and is made up exclusively of students, distributed this article as well as many others at one of their conventions, to promote awareness among students in Montreal. When Syrian President Hafez Assad made a commitment to allow the Jews to leave freely in 1992, he did not honor his promise. 73 senators wrote a letter expressing their concern over this issue to President Clinton, urging him to "press Syria to honor its commitment to allow the Hews the right to travel freely." B'nai Brith Youth Organization began an international petition, requesting that "the Syrian government fulfill its promise and allow free emigration of Jews from the country" immediately. Everyone had their own way of helping, each individual and group used their power in their way, and together, we succeeded. The Jews in Syria are now to free to leave the country as they wish. Regardless of whether or not an individual is the president of the United States or simply a student, they have the power. It is up to us to make the difference because the power remains with the people, not the gun. it is easy to walk blindly past the truth, to close our eyes and deny what is going on. It is easy to blame others and to say that unless we kill, there is nothing we can do. The ones who make use of their power are the heroes, the ones who are remembered. Do not follow the path set out for you, do as the people mentioned in this paper have. Pave you own, and leave a trail. Power does not lie within the barrel of a gun, it lies within you. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Goals and Failures of the First and Second Reconstruction.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Goals and Failures of the First and Second Reconstructions Some people say we've got a lot of malice some say its a lot of nerve. But, I say we won't quit moving until we get what we deserve. We have been bucked and we have been conned. We have been treated bad, talked about as just bones. But just as it takes two eyes to eyes make a pair. Brother we won't quit until we get our share. Say it loud- I'm Black and I'm Proud. James Brown Say it Loud- I'm Black and I'm Proud Say It Loud- I'm Black and I'm Proud the Album The First and Second Reconstructions held out the great promise of rectifying racial injustices in America. The First Reconstruction, emerging out of the chaos of the Civil War had as its goals equality for Blacks in voting, politics, and use of public facilities. The Second Reconstruction emerging out of the booming economy of the 1950's, had as its goals, integration, the end of Jim Crow and the more amorphous goal of making America a biracial democracy where, "the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave holders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." Even though both movements, were borne of high hopes they failed in bringing about their goals. Born in hope, they died in despair, as both movements saw many of their gains washed away. I propose to examine why they failed in realizing their goals. My thesis is that failure to incorporate economic justice for Blacks in both movements led to the failure of the First and Second Reconstruction. The First Reconstruction came after the Civil War and lasted till 1877. The political, social, and economic conditions after the Civil War defined the goals of the First Reconstruction. At this time the Congress was divided politically on issues that grew out of the Civil War: Black equality, rebuilding the South, readmitting Southern states to Union, and deciding who would control government.1 Socially, the South was in chaos. Newly emancipated slaves wandered the South after having left their former masters, and the White population was spiritually devastated, uneasy about what lay ahead. Economically, the South was also devastated: plantations lay ruined, railroads torn up, the system of slave labor in shambles, and cities burnt down. The economic condition of ex-slaves after the Civil War was just as uncertain; many had left former masters and roamed the highways.2 Amid the post Civil War chaos, various political groups were scrambling to further their agendas. First, Southern Democrats, a party comprised of leaders of the confederacy and other wealthy Southern whites, sought to end what they perceived as Northern domination of the South. They also sought to institute Black Codes, by limiting the rights of Blacks to move, vote, travel, and change jobs,3 which like slavery, would provide an adequate and cheap labor supply for plantations. Second, Moderate Republicans wanted to pursue a policy of reconciliation between North and South, but at the same time ensure slavery was abolished.4 Third, Radical Republicans, comprised of Northern politicians, were strongly opposed to slavery, unsympathetic to the South, wanted to protect newly free slaves, and keep there majority in Congress.5 The fourth political element, at the end of the Civil War was President Andrew Johnson whose major goal was unifying the nation. The fifth element were various fringe groups such as, abolitionists and Quakers. Strongly motivated by principle and a belief in equality, they believed that Blacks needed equality in American society, although they differed on what the nature of that should be.6 The Northern Radical Republicans, with a majority in Congress, emerged as the political group that set the goals for Reconstruction which was to prevent slavery from rising again in the South. At first, the Radical Republicans thought this could be accomplished by outlawing slavery with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. But Southern Democrats in their quest to restore their rule in the South brought back slavery in all but name, by passing Black Codes as early as 1865. Both Moderate Republicans and Radical Republicans in Congress reacted. Joining together in 1866, they passed a bill to extend the life and responsibilities of the Freedmen's Bureau to protect newly freed slaves against the various Black Codes. President Johnson vetoed the bill, but Radical and Moderate Republicans eventually were able to pass it.7 The Black Codes and President Johnson's veto of all Reconstruction legislation that was unfavorable to the South caused Moderate and Radical Republicans to change their goals from just ending slavery to seeking political equality and voting rights for Blacks.8 The new goals, were based on humanitarian and political considerations. Northerners had grown increasingly sympathetic to the plight of the Blacks in the South following numerous well publicized incidents in which innocent Blacks were harassed, beaten, and killed.9 The extension of suffrage to Black males was a political move by the Republicans in Congress who believed that Blacks would form the backbone of the Republican Party in the South, preventing Southern Democrats from winning elections in Southern states, and uphold the Republican majority in Congress after the Southern States rejoined the Union. As one Congressman from the North bluntly put it, "It prevents the States from going into the hands of the rebels, and giving them the President and the Congress for the next forty years."10 Until the 1890's, this policy of achieving equality through granting political rights to Blacks worked moderately well. During Reconstruction, newly freed slaves voted in large numbers in the South. Of the 1,330,000 people registered to vote under Reconstruction Acts 703,000 were Black and only 627,000 were White.11 Even after 1877, when federal troops were withdrawn12, Jim Crow laws did not fully emerge in the South and Blacks continued to vote in high numbers and hold various state and federal offices. Between 1877 and 1900, a total of ten Blacks were elected to serve in the US Congress.13 This occurred because Southern Democrats forged a unlikely coalition with Black voters against White laborers14. Under this paternalistic order Southern Democrats agreed to protect Blacks political rights in the South in return for Black votes15. But voting and election figures hide the true nature of Black political power during and after Reconstruction. Few Blacks held elective offices in relation to their percentage of the South's population.16 And those in office usually did not wield the power, which during Reconstruction continued to reside with Moderate and Radical Republicans in Congress, whites who ran Southern state governments, and federal troops. Emancipated slaves had little to do with either fashioning Reconstruction policy or its implementation. Blacks political rights were dependent upon alliances made with groups with conflicting interests White Northern Republicans and White elites in the South.17 Though they pursued political equality for Blacks, their goals were shaped more by self-interest than for concern for Black equality. By 1905 Blacks lost their right to vote. In Louisiana alone the number of Black voters fell from 130,334 in 1896 to 1,342 in 1904.18 The number of elected Black public officials dropped to zero. The disenfranchisement of Blacks was accomplished through good character tests, poll taxes, White primaries, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and intimidation. By 1905, whatever success politically and socially the Reconstruction had enjoyed had been wiped out.19 Following on the heels of disenfranchisement came implementation of comprehensive Jim Crow laws segregating steamboats, toilets, ticket windows and myriad of other previously non-segregated public places. 20 Two historians, C. Van Woodward and William Julius Wilson, both pin point specific events such as, recessions, class conflicts, imperialist expansion to explain the rise of Jim Crow. Wilson's21 and Woodward's22 analysis is lacking because the United States has undergone many recessions and many times minority groups such as Jews, Irish, and Eastern Europeans and have been blamed for taking away the jobs of the lower-class; and yet these groups have not had their votes stripped away from them and did not have an elaborate set of laws constructed to keep them segregated in society as Blacks have. The only community of people in the Untied States who have been victims of systematic, long-term, violent, White Supremacy have been Native Americans. And Native Americans, like Afro-Americans, have been predominately powerless economically and politically. This points to the conclusion that the systemic demise of the First Reconstruction stems from the failure of Reconstruction leaders to include economic justice for Blacks as a goal; thus dooming the Reconstruction movement from the outset. The failure of pursuing a policy of economic redistribution forced Blacks into fragile political alliances that quickly disintegrated (as can be seen in 1877 and 1896); Blacks were forced to rely on the Radical Republicans and Federal troops to give them their rights and later their former slave masters, the Southern Democrats, to safeguard their rights.23 The disintegration of these agreements were caused directly by the events that Woodward and Wilson point to, but these political agreements were inherently fragile and would have inevitably unraveled because of their very nature. These political alliances had conflicting interests. The poor sharecropper and the White elites of the South were inherently unequal. The former slaves were looked on not as equals, but as inferior.24 Whatever well meaning reforms were instituted were done so paternalistically and for Southern Democrats own interests. And when an alliance with Blacks no longer served the interests of the whites they were easily abandoned. When the Blacks agreement with the Southern Democrats unraveled Blacks were left economically naked except for the loin cloth of political rights. But this loin cloth was easily stripped from them, because lacking economic power, they were unable to make other political allies, their economic position allowed them to be easily intimidated by White land owners, they had no way to lobby the government, no way to leave the South, few employment opportunities, and for many Blacks no education.25 The leaders of the Reconstruction failed to understand that without economic justice Blacks would be forced into a dependency on the White power structure to protect their rights and when these rights no longer served the interests of this power structure they were easily stripped away. Reconstruction Acts and Constitutional Amendments offered little protection to stop this stripping away of Black political rights. The Reconstruction leaders failed to understand the relationship between political rights and economic power, if they had they might not have rejected measures that could have provided former slaves with the economic power to safeguard their political rights. Two possibilities presented themselves at the outset of the First Reconstruction. A Quaker and Radical Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania, Thaddeus Stevens, proposed that the North seize the land holdings of the South's richest land owners as a war indemnity and redistribute the land giving each newly freed Negro adult male a mule and forty acres.26 Thaddeus Stevens a bitter foe of the South,27 explained that a free society had to be based on land redistribution: Southern Society has more the features of aristocracy then a democracy..... It is impossible that any practical equality of rights can exist where a few thousand men monopolize the who landed property. How can Republican institutions, free schools, free churches, free social intercourse exist in a mingled community of nabobs and serfs, of owners of twenty-thousand-acre manors, with lordly palaces, and the occupants of narrow huts inhabited by low White trash? Stevens plan in the Republican Press though drew unfavorable responses. The plan was called brash and unfair. Only one newspaper endorsed it and that was the French paper La Temps which said, "There cannot be real emancipation for men who do no possess at least a small portion of soil."28 When the bill was introduced in Congress it was resoundingly defeated by a majority of Republicans. Stevens was alone in understanding the tremendous institutional changes that would have to take place to guarantee the emancipation of a people. If the former slave did not have his own land he would be turned into a serf in his own nation a stranger to the freedoms guaranteed to him and a slave all but in name. The other alternative the leaders of Reconstruction had was expanding the Freedmen's Bureau from a temporary to a permanent institution that educated all former slaves and ensured that former slaves had a viable economic base that did not exploit them. Instead, the Freedmen's Bureau lasted merely five years, and only five million dollars were appropriated to it. Its mission to educate and protect the Freedmen was meet in only a small way in this short amount of time and when the Freedmen's Bureau shutdown it left the education of former slaves to local governments which allocated limited if any funds.29 Although proposed by a few Republicans the Freedmen's Bureau also refused to set a minimum wage in the South to ensure that former slaves received a fair wage from their former slave masters. Instead, the Freedmen's Bureau was instrumental in spearheading the formation of sharecropping by encouraging both former slaves and plantation owners to enter into sharecropping agreements.30 By the time the Bureau ceased operations in 1870, the sharecropping system was the dominant arrangement in the South. This arrangement continued the poverty and oppression of Blacks in the South. As one Southern governor said about sharecropping, "The Negro skins the land and the landlord skins the Negro."31 The Freedmen's Bureau missed a great opportunity; had its mission been broadened, its funding increased, and its power been extended, it could have educated the Black population and guaranteed some type of land reform in the South. Because neither Thaddeus Stevens plan for land redistribution or an expansion of the Freedmen's Bureau took place, Blacks were left after slavery much as they were before, landless and uneducated. In the absence of an economic base for Blacks, three forces moved in during the 1890's wiping out the political successes of Reconstruction: the white sheets of White supremacy, the blue suits of politicians all too eager to unify whites with racism, and the black robes of the judiciary in cases like Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896 stripped away Blacks' social and political rights. The Civil Rights movement came nearly ninety years after the First Reconstruction. The goals of the Second Reconstruction involved at first tearing down the legal Jim Crow of the South, but by the March on Washington in 1964 the goals had changed to guaranteeing all Americans equality of opportunity, integration both social and political, and the more amorphous goal of a biracial democracy.32 But the goals did not include the need to transform the economic condition of Blacks. Instead they emphasized the need to transform the political and social condition of Blacks.33 At the beginning, the Civil Rights Movement sought solutions to racial injustice through laws and used the Federal courts to secure them. The Supreme Court set the stage in 1954 with Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas: the Brown decision focused the attention of dominant Black institutions such as CORE (Congress On Racial Equality) and the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) on fighting the illegality of segregation in Congress and courts. Subsequent organizations that came to play larger roles in the Civil Rights Movement such as, SNCC (Students Non-violent Coordinating Committee) and SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Council) fell into this same pattern-- combating mainly legal segregation. Although they pioneered different tactics-- sit-ins, boycotts, and marches, the goal was to focus attention on getting rid of Jim Crow.34 The Civil Rights movement, successfully pressured Congress and the President to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights Movement also brought about a fundamental shift in public opinion; de jure racial discrimination became a moral wrong for many Americans. The Civil Rights Movement by 1965 had broken the back of legal Jim Crow in the South. However, in the North, Blacks living under de facto segregation by economic and racist conditions. Segregated schools and housing were unaffected by the progress of the Civil Rights Movement.35 By the middle of 1965, the Civil Rights Movement had stalled; never recovering its momentum.36 C. Van Woodward views the failure of the Civil Rights Movement to realize its goals and its disintegration in the same myopic way he views the failure of the First Reconstruction. He points to three different events, from 1965 to 1968, to explain the disintegration of the Civil Rights Movement: riots in urban areas which created a White backlash37, the rise of racial separatism and extremism within the Civil Rights Movement and Black community, 38 and the Vietnam War which diverted White liberals' attention. Woodward's analysis fails to provide a broad perspective of why these events destroyed such a strong movement. There had been riots in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, yet these riots neither spread nor crippled the movement.39 Black separatism had been a vocal movement before 1965 in the form of the Nation of Islam.40 And mass opposition to the Vietnam War among White liberals did not pickup momentum until the late 1960's after the Civil Rights Movement had stalled. On the other hand, William Julius Wilson provides a more coherent explanation of the demise of the Civil Rights Movement. Wilson says the movement failed because it did not effectively address the economic plight of inner city Blacks living in the North. This failure was caused by the leadership of the Civil Rights Movement which had little connection with Blacks in the ghetto. The leaders of the movement were from the Southern middle-class Blacks; who were either college students, teachers, preachers, or lawyers.41 Like the leaders of the First Reconstruction, the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement lacked understanding of the economic needs of the Black lower-class. Instead of addressing the economic plight of Northern Black ghettoes, the Civil Rights Movement continued to push for broad political and civil rights. Inhabitants of Northern Ghettoes, were trapped not by Jim Crow, but by poverty and de facto segregation. Nonviolent protests, marches, pickets, and rallies did nothing to change poor housing, lack of employment, and inferior schools. However, the Civil Rights Movement's battles to end Jim Crow in the South and obtain passage of Civil Rights acts in the 1960's raised awareness of lower-class Blacks in the ghetto to racism and increased their impatience with police brutality and economic injustice. This heightened awareness of racism in their community and desperation over their plight, turned poor urban Blacks into matches and ghettoes into kindling. The Riots from 1965 to 1968 became a way to raise economic issues the Civil Rights Movement had ignored. The Riots were caused, not just by desperation, they had been desperate for years, not just by a heightened awareness of racism, they had been aware of it before 1965, but because they found no answers to their plight. Neither White politicians nor civil rights leaders had solutions for their economic needs.42 Wilson's analysis thus far provides as answer for the riots and subsequent White backlash. However, Wilson's explanation of the emergence and appeal of Black Power is lacking. Wilson says Black Power's emergence was caused by riots in the summers from 1965 to 1968. But these riots occurred after Black Power had emerged inside the Civil Rights Movement. In the spring of 1965 the leadership of SNCC and CORE had expelled its White members, rejected integration as a goal, and elected black separatists as presidents.43 Instead, I see the emergence of the Black Power Movement as related to the failure of the Civil Rights Movement to address lower-class frustration with economic injustice, and de facto racism in the North. Black Power, as a movement, had many facets and leaders. Black Power leaders were from the lower-class while the Civil Rights Movements leaders were from the middle-class. Stokely Carmichael, a poor immigrant from Trinidad; Eldridge Cleaver, the son of a Texas carpenter, and went to jail for rape44; Huey Newton, before becoming a political leader, was a hustler. Other leaders such as Angela Davis gravitated to the movement because of its mix of Marxist and nationalist economic politics.45 The rise of these leaders was a result of the Civil Rights Movement's failure before 1965, to articulate a program of racial justice for poor Blacks in the North; in this absence violent, vocal and angry leaders emerged to fill this void. Leaders such as H. Rap Brown called for "killing the honkies," James Brown called for Black pride with his song "Say It Loud- I'm Black and I'm Proud." Black Power provided poor Blacks with psychological and economic solutions to their problems. Psychologically it brought about a shift in Black consciousness a shift that made being Black beautiful, no longer as W.E.B. Du Bois wrote in 1905 were Blacks a "Seventh Son." But equally important the Black Power Movement tried to provide economic answers to urban Blacks with answers such as: racial separatism, moving back to Africa, taking over the government, and taking "what was theirs" from whites. Although these solutions ultimately proved unworkable for solving economic problems, they tried, while the Civil Rights movement did not attempt solutions. The failure of the Civil Rights Movement in articulating and pursuing a plan of economic justice for lower-class Blacks doomed the movement's goal of integration, furthering de facto segregation in housing and schools. The end of Jim Crow did not end the income difference between Whites and Blacks. In 1954, Blacks earned approximately 53% of what whites earned, and in 1980 they earned 57% what an average White earns. At this rate racial equality in average income would come in 250 years.46 This racial inequality in income left unaddressed by the Civil Rights Movement, forces poor Blacks to remain in deteriorating slums in cities, while whites flee to the suburbs. The de facto segregation that has emerged has shifted the good jobs to suburbs and relegated lower-class Blacks in cities to diminishing job prospects. This has caused rising rates of unemployment, economic desperation, and jobs predominantly in the low-wage sector. This poverty cycle among lower-class Blacks remains after vestiges of legal Jim Crow have disappeared.47 White flight to suburbs and the poverty trap of the inner city for Blacks has been so great that in 1980 the number of segregated schools surpassed the number of segregated schools before 1954.48 Both the First and Second Reconstructions left Blacks with no economic base, dependent on others for their social and political power. And as in the First Reconstruction, when those political alliances did not serve the needs of the whites in power, Blacks were abandoned and their political and social goals wiped out. In the 1990's most political leaders have long given up on the plight of the Black urban poor. Mandatory busing is fast being eliminated in major cities, and Black leaders cry out for help to a President and Congress more interested in balancing the budget, cutting welfare costs, and spending on the military then dealing with the complicated cycle of urban poverty. Though, the two Reconstructions held out great promise and hope to Blacks in America, both failed to achieve their broad goals and in subsequent decades much of their accomplishments washed away. Yet, both brought significant permanent changes. The First Reconstruction ended slavery and the second ended legal segregation. But just as the First Reconstruction disintegrated by the 1890's because of the failure of the federal government to create a viable economic base for freed slaves, the Second Reconstruction did not result in a fully integrated society because it too failed to fundamentally change the economic condition of poor Blacks. The Black experience in America is a contradiction for there is no one black experience just as there is no one white experience. In the same way, the failure of the First and Second Reconstructions was caused not by one event but by many. The failings of these Reconstructions are not as simple as racism, politics, or individual events; to single out one to explain such complicated periods gives an incomplete picture of both history and the nature of racism. The leaders of both the First and Second Reconstructions fell into this trap and sought to solve racial inequality through political means. Their failure to see the economic dimensions of racism was key to the demise of the First and Second Reconstructions. While far from the movements only failing it is a factor that has been ignored by historians such as C. Vann Woodward and William Julius Wilson. America still has a long way to go to reach a place where "little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little White boys and White girls as sisters and brothers." We are still a divided society- economically if not legally. We are divided between the inner city ghettoes of South Central LA and the mansions of Beverly Hills; between Harlem's abandoned buildings and the plush apartments of Park Avenue. Racial injustice will never be solved with mere politics and laws, anger and separatism. If we fail to bridge this divide the question of the Twenty-First century like the Twentieth will be that of the color line. Endnotes 1 Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution (New York: Harper and Row, 1988) p.228. 2 Ibid. pp.124-125. 3 Eli Ginzberg and Alfred S. Eichner, Troublesome Presence: Democracy and Black Americans (London: Transaction Publishers, 1993) p. 148. 4 Ibid. p. 152. 5 Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution (New York: Harper and Row, 1988) pp.229-231. 6 Daniel J. Mcinerney, The Fortunate Heirs of Freedom: Abolition and the Republican Party (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994) p.151. 7 Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution (New York: Harper and Row, 1988) pp.228-251. 8 The transformation of the goals of Reconstruction was caused by Johnson's veto of nearly every Reconstruction bill. This forced Moderates to join the Radical Republicans in an alliance against President Johnson. Eli Ginzberg and Alfred S. Eichner, Troublesome Presence: Democracy and Black Americans (London: Transaction Publishers, 1993) p.153. 9 Ibid. p.159. 10 Ibid. p. 161. 11 A total of twenty-two Blacks served in the House of Representatives during Reconstruction. C. Eric Lincoln, The Negro Pilgrimage in America (New York: Bantam, 1967) p.65. 12 In the Presidential election of 1876, the Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, captured a majority of the popular vote and lead in the electoral college results. But the electoral votes of three Southern States still under Republican rule were in doubt, as Ginzberg writes, "In all three states the Republicans controlled the returning boards which had to certify the election results, and in all three states they certified their own parties ticket. As the history books reveal, the crisis was finally overcome when the Southern Democrats agreed to support the Republican Candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, as a part of a larger compromise (The Compromise of 1877). Hayes promised in return to withdraw Federal troops from the South." Eli Ginzberg and Alfred S. Eichner, Troublesome Presence: Democracy and Black Americans (London: Transaction Publishers, 1993) pp. 182-183. 13 C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974) p. 54. 14 Southern Democrats were comprised of Southern elites and formed a coalition with Blacks to prevent poor Whites from passing economic initiatives such as free silver, the break up of monopolies, and labor laws. Gerald Gaither, Blacks and the Populist Revolt: Ballots and Bigotry In the New South (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1972) p.299. 15 The Coalition between poor Whites was based on a paternalistic order as C. Vann Woodward explains, "Blacks continued to vote in large numbers and hold minor offices and a few seats in Congress, but this could be turned to account by the Southern White Democrats who had trouble with White lower-class rebellion." C. Vann Woodward, Origins of a New South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951) p.254. 16 Howard N. Robinowitz, Southern Black Leaders of the Reconstruction Era ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) p.396. 17 Ibid. p.398. 18 C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974) p. 85. 19 William Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) p.63. 20 Until 1900, the only type of Jim Crow law (a law which legally segregates races) prevalent in the South was one applying to passengers aboard trains in the first class section. C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974) p. 67. 21 Woodward sees the failure of Reconstruction as related to three events. First, it was brought about by the rise of racist theories and ideas in intellectual circles around 1890. These ideas, such as eugenics and social Darwinism eroded support among elite groups such as Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans for political equality for Blacks. Second, the rise of United States imperialism lead by the Republican party starting in 1898, undercut the ability and willingness of Northern Republicans to be the moral authority on racial equality. Third, the emergence of the populist movement in the late 1880's and 1890's forced the White elites to abandon their alliance with Blacks. This was because both the populists and the Southern Democrats sought the Black vote and when neither could be assured of controlling it, both Parties realized that it would be far better for them to disenfranchise the Black population than fight for its votes. C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974) pp.82-83. 22 Wilson sees the emergence of Jim Crow and disenfranchisement of Blacks as related to three major events. First, the recession of the 1890's and the boll weevil blight brought Blacks and Whites in the lower-classes in intense competition for a shrinking pool of jobs. This intensification of competition between these groups manifested itself in White supremacy. Second, the rise of the labor movement in the 1890's lead to the rise of lower-class Whites to power this allowed them to codify into law Jim Crow which reflected their view of Blacks as competition in the labor market. Third, the migration of Blacks to urban areas in the North, and the use of Blacks as strike-breakers in Northern factories, created racial hostility among lower-class Whites toward Blacks. This forced Northern Republicans to no longer focus on racial equality because it undermined their support among White labor. William Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp.59-60. 23 Howard N. Robinowitz, Southern Black Leaders of the Reconstruction Era ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) p.400. 24 Ibid. p.399. 25 Gerald Gaither, Blacks and the Populist Revolt: Ballots and Bigotry In the New South (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1972) p. 302. 26 Eli Ginzberg and Alfred S. Eichner, Troublesome Presence: Democracy and Black Americans (London: Transaction Publishers, 1993) p. 134. 27 Ibid. pp. 132-133. 28 Ibid. p.135. 29 W.E.B. Du Bois, Souls of Black Folk (New York: Bantam Books, 1989) p.28. 30 Eli Ginzberg and Alfred S. Eichner, Troublesome Presence: Democracy and Black Americans (London: Transaction Publishers, 1993) p. 201. 31 Ibid. p.203. 32 Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989) pp.162. 33 Although the March on Washington was called a march for, "Freedom and Jobs" the goals of the March were political and social and not economic. The reason the March was called a march for, "Freedom and Jobs" was the idea for the march came from A. Philip Randolph, head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Randolph first proposed the march in 1941 to get President Roosevelt to open up defense jobs for blacks. But the march did not gather widespread support at the time. Then in 1962 Randolph planed a march for economic justice for Blacks. The idea was supported by CORE, SNCC, and SCLC. Martin Luther King's SCLC then took over organizing the march and downgraded Randolph's economic demands. Ibid. pp.159-161. 34 Ibid. p.96. 35 William Harris, The Harder We Run: Black Workers since the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) p.153. 36 Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989) p.199. 37 Between 1965 and 1968 there were over three hundred race riots in American cities. Woodward concludes that these riots helped bring about the end of the Civil Rights Movement by creating factions within the movement as different groups pursued different policies to rectify injustice in the Northern ghettos. The Riots also created a backlash among the White populace which manifested itself in the defeat of the 1966 Civil Rights Act and the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. Ibid. pp..222-223. 38 The rise of racial separatism and extremism manifested itself within SNCC and CORE and the formation of Black Separatist groups such as the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, and RAM. The rhetoric of extremists inside SNCC and in other groups captured television camera's and although Reverend Martin Luther King continued to march and speak, the face of the Civil Rights Movement became that of Angela Davis and Huey Newton; the song of the Civil Rights Movement changed from Reverend Martin Luther King's, "We Shall Overcome," to Stokely Carmichael's, "We Shall Overrun." Ibid. p..217. 39 Ibid. p.145. 40 In 1963, Malcolm X was the most quoted Black spokesman, "He played to the media, conjuring fantasies of jet fleets, piloted by Blacks, someday bombing all White neighborhoods." Ibid. p.154. 41 These Blacks were from what E. Franklin Frazier calls, "the Black Bourgeoisie." E. Franklin Frazier, Black Bourgeoisie (New York: Free Press, 1957) pp.103-104. 42 Leaders have emerged such as Minister Louis Farrakhan and Colin Powell, who either propose Black Capitalist, and nationalist solutions to the plight of the urban poor, much like Marcus Garvey in the 1920's, or they provide accommodationist views of the Black struggle in America which meets with the approval of White elites much like Booker T. Washington at the turn of the century. Cornel West, Race Matters (New York, Random House, 1994) p.57. 43 Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989) p.212. 44 Kathleen Rout, Eldridge Cleaver (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991) p.80. 45 Angela Davis, Frame Up (San Francisco: National Committee To Free Angela Davis, 1972) p.7. 46 Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989) p.234. 47 Civil Rights initiatives though have helped the Black middle-class who have experienced unprecedented job prospects as they have been able to escape the urban ghettos and take advantage of jobs in the corporate and government sector. This points to what Wilson calls, "the declining significance of race in determining poverty," instead of race dictating someone's economic status, the status of their class is what determines their economic future; with the poor Blacks getting poorer and middle-class Blacks becoming wealthier. Because of this economic inequality in the Black community has grown more than inequality in the White community. William Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp.151-154. 48 Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989) p.231. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Hinduism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HINDUISM The term Hinduism refers to the civilization of the Hindus (originally, the inhabitants of the land of the Indus River).Introduced in about 1830 by British writers, it properly denotes the Indian civilization of approximately the last 2,000 years, which evolved from Vedism the religion of the Indo-European peoples who settled in India in the last centuries of the 2nd millennium BC. The spectrum that ranges from the level of popular Hindu belief to that of elaborate ritual technique and philosophical speculation is very broad and is attended by many stages of transition and varieties of coexistence. Magic rites, animal worship, and belief in demons are often combined with the worship of more or less personal gods or with mysticism, asceticism, and abstract and profound theological systems or esoteric doctrines. The worship of local deities does not exclude the belief in pan-Indian higher gods or even in a single high God. Such local deities are also frequently looked down upon as manifestations of a high God. In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. It is axiomatic that no religious idea in India ever dies or is superseded-it is merely combined with the new ideas that arise in response to it. Hindus are inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and are doctrinally tolerant, allowing others - including both Hindus and non-Hindus - whatever beliefs suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and because Hindus are disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, they tend to believe that the highest divine powers are complement one another. Few religious ideas are considered to be irreconcilable. The core of religion does not depend on the existence or nonexistence of God or on whether there is one god or many. Because religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Moreover, the tendency of Hindus to distinguish themselves from others on the basis of practice rather than doctrine further de-emphasizes doctrinal differences. Hinduism is both a civilization and a congregation of religions; it has neither a beginning or founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organization. Hindus believe in an uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, and all-embracing principle, which, "comprising in itself being and non-being," is the sole reality, the ultimate cause and foundation, source, and goal of all existence. This ultimate reality is called Brahman. As the All, Brahman causes the universe and all beings to emanate from itself, transforms itself into the universe, or assumes it's appearance. Brahman is in all things and is the Self (atman) of all living beings. Brahman is the creator, preserver, or transformer and reabsorber of everything. Although it is Being in itself, without attributes and qualities and hence impersonal, it may also be conceived of as a personal high God, usually as Vishnu (Visnu) or Siva. This fundamental belief in and the essentially religious search for ultimate reality - that is, the One is the All - have continued almost unaltered for more than 30 centuries and has been the central focus of India's spiritual life. In some perceptions, Hinduism has been called 'atheistic'. In other perceptions, and this is perhaps the more common one, it is labeled 'polytheistic'. The term 'polytheism' acknowledges the presence of a God-figure in a religious system, but in the plural. Thus it is said that Hindus worship many such beings we call God. But obviously this implies a very profound difference in the understanding of what such a 'God' could be. It is often said that Hindus worship three gods and they are in fact called the 'Hindu Trinity'. The gods involved are: Brahma, Visnu and Siva. The first is supposed to create the world (at the beginning of each cosmic cycle), the second to maintain it in being, and Siva, at the end of a cosmic cycle, to destroy it again. But then a further idea is added which is ignored by the proponents of the theory of a Hindu Trinity. What is added invariably implies that, over and above these three figures lies a single reality. This 'one above the three' controls the activities of the creation etc. Brahma and the others, who carry out these functions, are merely manifestations of that highest being, or they relate to it in some other, equally secondary, form. This concept of a single, all powerful, eternal, personal and loving God, is the concept of "Bhagavan". But who is this Hindu Bhagavan? At least to us the outside observers he is not one, but many. Siva, Visnu, Krsna, Rama, Karttikeya and Ganesa may be mentioned as the most important Bhagavan figures. But to speak of many Bhagavans has nothing to do with 'polytheism', for in terms of Indian society, different groups have their one and only Bhagavan. In most cases a particular Bhagavan-figure may look the same as deva. By 'looking the same' is meant here: possessing the same external characteristics (including name) and having the same or very similar stories told by his mythical deeds. From this follows that the individual (or, in practice, far more often, the group to which he belongs, and this is more frequently by birth than by choice) makes a decision as to how to regard such a figure. Visnu could thus be the Bhagavan for some people, a minor manifestation of Siva for others, a godling for a third group, possibly an evil demonic being for a fourth and Isvara for a fifth. But this does not mean that every single religious individual in India ends up with a Bhagavan. Although those Hindus who particularly worship either Vishnu or Shiva generally consider one or the other as their 'favorite god' and as the Lord and Brahman in its personal aspect, Vishnu is often regarded as a special manifestation of the preservative aspect of the Supreme and Shiva as that of the destructive function. Another deity, Brahma, the creator, remains in the background as a demiurge. These three great figures (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) constitute the so-called Hindu Trinity (Trimuriti, "the One or Whole with Three Forms). This conception attempts to synthesize and harmonize the conviction that the Supreme Power is ingular with the plurality of gods in daily religious worship. Although the concept of the Trimurti assigns a position of special importance to some great gods, it never has become a living element in the religion of the people. Brahma, the first of the three Hindu gods, is called the Creator; he is the father of gods and men, the Vedic Prajapati, the lord of creators. The term is used for the Absolute, or the Ultimate Principle, beyond which nothing exists or has any reality. In the Upanishads, Brahma is said to be beyond all description. "This universe was enveloped in darkness - unperceived, indistinguishable, undiscoverable, unknowable, as it were, entirely sunk in sleep. The irresistible self existent lord, undiscerned, creating this universe with the five elements, and all other things , was manifested dispelling the gloom. he who is beyond the cognizance of the senses, subtile, indiscernible, eternal, who is the essence of all things, and inconceivable, himself shone forth. He, desiring, seeking to produce various creatures from his own body, first created the waters, and deposited in them a seed. This (seed) became a golden egg, resplendent as the sun, in which he himself was born as Brahma, the progenitor of all worlds. The waters are called nara, because they are the offspring of Nara; and since they were formerly the place of his movement (ayana), he is therefore called Narayana . Being formed by that First Cause, indiscernible, eternal, which is both existent and non-existent, that male is known in the world as Brahma. That lord having continued a year in the egg, divided it into two parts by his mere thought." In the Mahabharata and some of the Puranas, Brahma is said to have issued from a lotus that sprang from the navel of Vishnu. In picture Brahma is represented as a red man with four heads, though in the Puranas he is said to have had originally five. He is dressed in white raiment, and rides upon a goose. In one hand he carries a staff, in the other a dish for receiving alms. A legend in the "Matsya Purana", gives the following account of the formation of his numerous heads :- "Brahma formed from his own immaculate substance a female who is celebrated under the names of Satarupa, Savitri, Sarasvati, Gayatri, and Brahmani. Beholding his daughter, born from his body, Brahma became wounded with the arrows of love and exclaimed, 'How surpassingly lovely she is !' Satarupa turned to the right side from his gaze; but as Brahma wished to look after her, a second head issued from his body. As she passed to the left, and behind him, to avoid his amorous glances, two other heads successively appeared. At length she sprang into the sky; and as Brahma was anxious to gaze after her there, a fifth head was immediately formed". At present times Brahma is not largely worshipped by the Hindus. It is said that the universe will come to an end at the end of Brahma's life, but Brahmas too are innumerable, and a new universe is reborn with each new Brahma. VISHNU is called the second person of the Hindu Trimuriti or Trinity: but though called second, it must not be supposed that he is regarded as in any way inferior to Brahma. In some books Brahma is said to be the first cause of all things, in others it is as strongly asserted that Vishnu has this honour; while in others it is claimed for Siva. As Brahma's special work is creation, that of Vishnu is preservation. In the following passage from the "Padma Purana", it is taught that Vishnu is the supreme cause, thus identifying him with Brahma, and also that his special work is to preserve: " In the beginning of creation, the great Vishnu, desirous of creating the whole world, became threefold ; Creator, Preserver, Destroyer. In order to create this world, the Supreme Spirit produced from the right side of his body himself as Brahma ; then, in order to preserve the world, he produced from his left side Vishnu ; and in order to destroy the world, he produced from the middle of his body the eternal Shiva Some worship Brahma, others Vishnu, others Shiva ; but Vishnu, one yet threefold, creates, preserves, and destroys : therefore let the pious makes no difference between the three." In pictures Vishnu is represented as a black man with four arms : in one hand he holds a club ; in another a shell ; in a third a chakra, or diseus, with which he slew his enemies ; and in the fourth a lotus. He rides upon the bird Garuda, and is dressed in yellow robes. This deity is worshipped not only under the name and in the form of Vishnu, but also in one of his many incarnations. Whenever any great calamity occurred in the world, or the wickedness of any of its inhabitants proved an unbearable nuisance to the gods, Vishnu, as Preserver, had to lay aside his invisibility, come to earth in some form, generally human, and, when his work was done, he returned again to the skies. There is no certainty as to the number of times he has become incarnate. Ten is the commonly received number, and these are the most important ones. Of these ten, nine have already been accomplished ; one, the Kalki, is still future. "Some of these Avatars are of an entirely cosmical character ; others, however, are probably based on historical events, the leading personage of which was gradually endowed with divine attributes, until he was regarded as the incarnation of the deity himself." These are Fish (Matsya), Tortoise (Kurma), Boar (Varaha), Man-Lion (Narasimha), Dwarf (Vamana), Rama-with-the-Ax (Parasurama), King Rama, Krishna, Buddha, and the future incarnation, Kalki. Preference for any one of these manifestations is largely a matter of tradition. Thus, Rama and Krishna are the preferred ones. The classical narrative of Rama is recounted in the Ramayana by the saga Valmiki, who is the traditional author of the epic. Rama is deprived of the kingdom to which he is heir and is exiled to the forest with his wife Sita and his brother Laksmana. While there, Sita is abducted by Ravana, the demon king of Lanka. In their search for Sita, the brothers ally themselves with a monkey king whose general, Hanuman (who later became a monkey deity), finds Sita in Lanka. In a cosmic battle, Ravana is defeated and Sita rescued. When Rama is restored to his kingdom, Sita's chastity while captive is doubted. To reassure them, Rama banishes Sita to a hermitage, where she bears him two sons and eventually dies by reentering the earth from which she had been born. Rama's reign becomes the prototype of the harmonious and just kingdom, to which all kingdoms should aspire. Rama and Sita set the ideal of conjugal love; Rama's relationship to his father is the ideal of filial love; and Rama and Laksmana represent perfect fraternal love. In all but its oldest form, the Ramayana identifies Rama with Vishnu as another incarnation and remains the principle source for Ramaism (worship or Rama). In the Mahabharata, Krishna is primarily a hero, a chieftain of a tribe, and an ally of the Pandavas, the heroes of the Mahabharata. He accomplishes heroic feats with the Pandava prince Arjuna. Typically he helps the Pandava brothers to settle in their kingdom, and when the kingdom is taken from them, to regain it. In the process he emerges as a great teacher who reveals the Bhagavadgita, the most important religious text of Hinduism. In the further development of the Krishna myth, it is found that as a child, Krishna was full of boyish pranks and well known for his predilection for milk and butter. He would raid the dairies of the gopies (milkmaids) to steal fruit, milk, and butter, and would accuse others for his misdeeds. Krishna is the most celebrated deity of the Hindu pantheon. He is worshipped as an independent god in his own right, but is also regarded as the eighth incarnation of Vishnu. In the course of life he was supposed to have had 16,108 wives and 180,008 sons. In the epic he is a hero, a leader of his people, and an active helper of his friends. Shiva is the third person of the Hindu Trinity. As Brahma was Creator, Vishnu Preserver, in order to complete the system, as all things are subject to decay, a Destroyer was necessary and destruction is regarded as the peculiar work of Siva. It must be remembered that, according to the teachings of Hinduism, death is not death in the sense of passing into non-existence, but simply a change into a new form of life. He who destroys, therefore, causes beings to assume new phases of existence - the Destroyer is really the re-Creator ; hence the name Siva, the Bright or Happy One, is given to him, which would not have been the case had he been regarded as the destroyer, in the ordinary meaning of that term. According to the ancient Indians, Shiva primarily must have been the divine representative of the fallow, dangerous, dubious, and much-to-be-feared aspects of nature. He is considered as the ultimate foundation of all existence and the source and ruler of all life, but it is not clear whether, Shiva is invoked as a great god of frightful aspect, capable of conquering impious power, or as the boon-giving Lord and protector. He is both terrible and mild, creator and agent of reabsorption, eternal rest and ceaseless activity. These contradictions make him an ironic figure, who transcends humanity and assumes a mysterious grandeur of his own. His myths describe him as the absolute mighty unique One, who is not responsible to anybody or for anything. As a dancer, his pose expresses the eternal rhythm of the universe; he also catches the waters of the heavenly Ganges River, which destroys all sin; and he wears in his headdress the crescent moon, which drips the nectar of everlasting life. Sometimes in the act of trampling on or destroying demons, he wears around his black neck a serpent, and a necklace of skulls, furnished with a whole apparatus of external emblems, such as a white bull on which he rides, a trident , tiger's skin, elephant's skin, rattle, noose, etc. He has three eyes, one being on his forehead, in reference either to the three Vedas, or time past, present and future and in the end of time, he will dance the universe to destruction. It is said that without his consort Mother Goddess, no Hindu god is much use or value to anyone. He may strut about, but his powers are limited. To be complete he requires a Devi, "Goddess," who takes many different names and forms, but always embodies Shakti. In some myths Devi is the prime mover, who commands the male gods to do work of creation and destruction. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, all three have their own consorts. Sarasvati, the goddess of wisdom and science and, the mother of Vedas, is Brahma's wife. She is represented as a fair young woman, with four arms; with one of her right hands, she is presenting a flower to her husband, by whose side she continually stands ; and in the other she holds a book of palm-leaves, indicating that she is fond of learning. In one of her left hands, she has a string of pearls, called Sivamala (Shiva's garland) and in the other a small drum. Lakshmi, or very commonly known as Sri, is the wife of Vishnu. "Sri, the bride of Vishnu, the mother of the world, is eternal, imperishable ; as he is all-pervading, so she is omnipotent . Vishnu is meaning, she is speech ; Hari is polite, she is prudence ; Vishnu is understanding, she is intellect ; he is righteousness, she is devotion ; Sri is the earth, Hari is the support. In a word, of gods, animals, and men, Hari is all that is called male ; Lakshmi is all that is termed female ; there is nothing else than they." Lakshmi is regarded as the goddess of Love, Beauty, and Prosperity and is also known as Haripriya, "The beloved of Hari", and Lokamata, "The mother of the world". Uma or Kali, is the consort of the Hindu god Shiva in her manifestation of the power of time. As Shiva's female consort and a destructive mother goddess, she inherits some of Shiva's most fearful aspects. She is frequently portrayed as a black, laughing, naked hag with blood stained teeth, a protruding tongue, and a garland of human skulls. She usually has four arms: One hand holds a sword, the second holds a severed human head, the third is believed by her devotes to be removing fear, and the third is often interpreted as granting bliss. Kali is beyond fear and finite existence and is therefore believed to be able to protect her devotees against fear and to give them limitless peace. The canon of Hinduism is basically defined by what people do rather than what they think. Consequently, far more uniformity of behaviour than of belief is found among Hindus, although very few practices or beliefs are shared by all. A few usuages are observed by almost all Hindus: reverence for Brahmans and cows; abstention from meat (especially beef); and marriage within caste (jati), in the hope of producing male heirs. Most Hindus worship Shiva, Vishnu, or the Goddess (Devi), but they also worship hundreds of additional minor deities peculiar to a particular village or even to a particular family. Although Hindus believe and do many apparently contradictory things, each individual perceives an orderly pattern that gives form and meaning to his or her own life. No doctrinal or clerical hierarchy exists in Hinduism, but the intricate hierarchy of the social system (which is inseparable from the religion) gives each person a sense of place within the whole. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\historians.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Everything that exists in today's world has some origin coming from the past. Everything that exists today and seems to be unique of its time has some basis from the past. It is a known fact that history has a tendency of repeating itself, and so to prepare us for the future we need to understand the past. History can give a person an answer to almost everything that is going on in the present, with what we call a historical investigation. History not only states facts but explains disciplines such as sociology, religion, psychology, anthropology and so on. It explains to us why certain events happened, such as the reason why six millions Jews died in the Second World War. The reason history gives us is anti-Semitism. The Nazis were a group that had as a goal to purify the world of what we call minorities and so to keep it a White, straight, Christian world. History explains the evolution of things, people, beliefs, laws and many more in order for us to understand why certain things are the way they are. In this article, we come across a few major points. Each of them is introduced in a very original way. The author uses a literal journey into the past as a means of comparing it to the present. One of the many points is an in depth definition of history related profession. What are they trying to accomplish and how they work to get what they are looking for. "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Historians study facts and records that previous generations have left, to find out what kind of lives they led and how they solved their problems. The way a historian works is very determined and simple to understand. A historian needs to first choose an important question he wants to answer. Then he needs to find research on the subject that already exists and which he can get access to. Next he has to judge the source that he has obtained, is it credible? Is it genuine? The article explains that there are two basic forms of historical evidence that exist, primary and secondary. Primary evidence records the actual words of someone who participated or witnessed the events in question. Or it can also be newspaper accounts, diaries, official statements, photographs, videotapes. Secondary evidence, on the other hand, records the findings of someone who did not observe the event but who investigated primary evidence, which qualifies most history books. Historians have to weigh evidence carefully. "What a group says may not be what it does." A historian must analyze evidence by checking one source against the other. "The task of a trained historian is to arrange the material so that it supports a particular conclusion." He must also display the evidence in a manner that will clearly show that the conclusion drawn is a "proper" one. Later in the article it explains that a historian compares traditional and new directions of historical research. In traditional research, historians have been categorized by their disciplines. There was social, cultural, intellectual, political, diplomatic, economic or psychological. They would present their findings in a narrative form, like a biography. The new directions try to explain the reason for people's actions and thoughts. Also a new direction is the history of science and technology. A lot more of new fields of research have been discovered. Which have been influenced by other fields of knowledge such as psychohistory, psychology, demography, sociology, ethnohistory and etc.. History as a whole will help me in understanding the very controversial subject of abortion that I am contemplating in doing as my graduating project. Abortion seems to be a never ending battle in society. Since the very creation of it, people have taken opposition or supported it. This article helps me understand my job in covering this subject and how to classify my research. For example, I am presently browsing through the Internet to see what the world has to say about it. This article has thought me that I need to verify each source I get some may be just exaggerating the facts to prove their point to the reader. This article also has shown me that even though it seems that the new technology has taken over the world, the past is also very present. The houses next to the highways are still around to remind us that there was not always the Internet for example available in almost every home nonetheless more than one television set. Integrative Seminar History Article Name: Stephanie Amar Student #: 9532080 Teacher: Mr. A. Dalfen Date: March 10, 1997 "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Everything that exists in today's world has some origin coming from the past. Everything that exists today and seems to be unique of its time has some basis from the past. It is a known fact that history has a tendency of repeating itself, and so to prepare us for the future we need to understand the past. History can give a person an answer to almost everything that is going on in the present, with what we call a historical investigation. History not only states facts but explains disciplines such as sociology, religion, psychology, anthropology and so on. It explains to us why certain events happened, such as the reason why six millions Jews died in the Second World War. The reason history gives us is anti-Semitism. The Nazis were a group that had as a goal to purify the world of what we call minorities and so to keep it a White, straight, Christian world. History explains the evolution of things, people, beliefs, laws and many more in order for us to understand why certain things are the way they are. In this article, we come across a few major points. Each of them is introduced in a very original way. The author uses a literal journey into the past as a means of comparing it to the present. One of the many points is an in depth definition of history related profession. What are they trying to accomplish and how they work to get what they are looking for. "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Historians study facts and records that previous generations have left, to find out what kind of lives they led and how they solved their problems. The way a historian works is very determined and simple to understand. A historian needs to first choose an important question he wants to answer. Then he needs to find research on the subject that already exists and which he can get access to. Next he has to judge the source that he has obtained, is it credible? Is it genuine? The article explains that there are two basic forms of historical evidence that exist, primary and secondary. Primary evidence records the actual words of someone who participated or witnessed the events in question. Or it can also be newspaper accounts, diaries, official statements, photographs, videotapes. Secondary evidence, on the other hand, records the findings of someone who did not observe the event but who investigated primary evidence, which qualifies most history books. Historians have to weigh evidence carefully. "What a group says may not be what it does." A historian must analyze evidence by checking one source against the other. "The task of a trained historian is to arrange the material so that it supports a particular conclusion." He must also display the evidence in a manner that will clearly show that the conclusion drawn is a "proper" one. Later in the article it explains that a historian compares traditional and new directions of historical research. In traditional research, historians have been categorized by their disciplines. There was social, cultural, intellectual, political, diplomatic, economic or psychological. They would present their findings in a narrative form, like a biography. The new directions try to explain the reason for people's actions and thoughts. Also a new direction is the history of science and technology. A lot more of new fields of research have been discovered. Which have been influenced by other fields of knowledge such as psychohistory, psychology, demography, sociology, ethnohistory and etc.. History as a whole will help me in understanding the very controversial subject of abortion that I am contemplating in doing as my graduating project. Abortion seems to be a never ending battle in society. Since the very creation of it, people have taken opposition or supported it. This article helps me understand my job in covering this subject and how to classify my research. For example, I am presently browsing through the Internet to see what the world has to say about it. This article has thought me that I need to verify each source I get some may be just exaggerating the facts to prove their point to the reader. This article also has shown me that even though it seems that the new technology has taken over the world, the past is also very present. The houses next to the highways are still around to remind us that there was not always the Internet for example available in almost every home nonetheless more than one television set. Integrative Seminar History Article Name: Stephanie Amar Student #: 9532080 Teacher: Mr. A. Dalfen Date: March 10, 1997 "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Everything that exists in today's world has some origin coming from the past. Everything that exists today and seems to be unique of its time has some basis from the past. It is a known fact that history has a tendency of repeating itself, and so to prepare us for the future we need to understand the past. History can give a person an answer to almost everything that is going on in the present, with what we call a historical investigation. History not only states facts but explains disciplines such as sociology, religion, psychology, anthropology and so on. It explains to us why certain events happened, such as the reason why six millions Jews died in the Second World War. The reason history gives us is anti-Semitism. The Nazis were a group that had as a goal to purify the world of what we call minorities and so to keep it a White, straight, Christian world. History explains the evolution of things, people, beliefs, laws and many more in order for us to understand why certain things are the way they are. In this article, we come across a few major points. Each of them is introduced in a very original way. The author uses a literal journey into the past as a means of comparing it to the present. One of the many points is an in depth definition of history related profession. What are they trying to accomplish and how they work to get what they are looking for. "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Historians study facts and records that previous generations have left, to find out what kind of lives they led and how they solved their problems. The way a historian works is very determined and simple to understand. A historian needs to first choose an important question he wants to answer. Then he needs to find research on the subject that already exists and which he can get access to. Next he has to judge the source that he has obtained, is it credible? Is it genuine? The article explains that there are two basic forms of historical evidence that exist, primary and secondary. Primary evidence records the actual words of someone who participated or witnessed the events in question. Or it can also be newspaper accounts, diaries, official statements, photographs, videotapes. Secondary evidence, on the other hand, records the findings of someone who did not observe the event but who investigated primary evidence, which qualifies most history books. Historians have to weigh evidence carefully. "What a group says may not be what it does." A historian must analyze evidence by checking one source against the other. "The task of a trained historian is to arrange the material so that it supports a particular conclusion." He must also display the evidence in a manner that will clearly show that the conclusion drawn is a "proper" one. Later in the article it explains that a historian compares traditional and new directions of historical research. In traditional research, historians have been categorized by their disciplines. There was social, cultural, intellectual, political, diplomatic, economic or psychological. They would present their findings in a narrative form, like a biography. The new directions try to explain the reason for people's actions and thoughts. Also a new direction is the history of science and technology. A lot more of new fields of research have been discovered. Which have been influenced by other fields of knowledge such as psychohistory, psychology, demography, sociology, ethnohistory and etc.. History as a whole will help me in understanding the very controversial subject of abortion that I am contemplating in doing as my graduating project. Abortion seems to be a never ending battle in society. Since the very creation of it, people have taken opposition or supported it. This article helps me understand my job in covering this subject and how to classify my research. For example, I am presently browsing through the Internet to see what the world has to say about it. This article has thought me that I need to verify each source I get some may be just exaggerating the facts to prove their point to the reader. This article also has shown me that even though it seems that the new technology has taken over the world, the past is also very present. The houses next to the highways are still around to remind us that there was not always the Internet for example available in almost every home nonetheless more than one television set. Integrative Seminar History Article Name: Stephanie Amar Student #: 9532080 Teacher: Mr. A. Dalfen Date: March 10, 1997 "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Everything that exists in today's world has some origin coming from the past. Everything that exists today and seems to be unique of its time has some basis from the past. It is a known fact that history has a tendency of repeating itself, and so to prepare us for the future we need to understand the past. History can give a person an answer to almost everything that is going on in the present, with what we call a historical investigation. History not only states facts but explains disciplines such as sociology, religion, psychology, anthropology and so on. It explains to us why certain events happened, such as the reason why six millions Jews died in the Second World War. The reason history gives us is anti-Semitism. The Nazis were a group that had as a goal to purify the world of what we call minorities and so to keep it a White, straight, Christian world. History explains the evolution of things, people, beliefs, laws and many more in order for us to understand why certain things are the way they are. In this article, we come across a few major points. Each of them is introduced in a very original way. The author uses a literal journey into the past as a means of comparing it to the present. One of the many points is an in depth definition of history related profession. What are they trying to accomplish and how they work to get what they are looking for. "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Historians study facts and records that previous generations have left, to find out what kind of lives they led and how they solved their problems. The way a historian works is very determined and simple to understand. A historian needs to first choose an important question he wants to answer. Then he needs to find research on the subject that already exists and which he can get access to. Next he has to judge the source that he has obtained, is it credible? Is it genuine? The article explains that there are two basic forms of historical evidence that exist, primary and secondary. Primary evidence records the actual words of someone who participated or witnessed the events in question. Or it can also be newspaper accounts, diaries, official statements, photographs, videotapes. Secondary evidence, on the other hand, records the findings of someone who did not observe the event but who investigated primary evidence, which qualifies most history books. Historians have to weigh evidence carefully. "What a group says may not be what it does." A historian must analyze evidence by checking one source against the other. "The task of a trained historian is to arrange the material so that it supports a particular conclusion." He must also display the evidence in a manner that will clearly show that the conclusion drawn is a "proper" one. Later in the article it explains that a historian compares traditional and new directions of historical research. In traditional research, historians have been categorized by their disciplines. There was social, cultural, intellectual, political, diplomatic, economic or psychological. They would present their findings in a narrative form, like a biography. The new directions try to explain the reason for people's actions and thoughts. Also a new direction is the history of science and technology. A lot more of new fields of research have been discovered. Which have been influenced by other fields of knowledge such as psychohistory, psychology, demography, sociology, ethnohistory and etc.. History as a whole will help me in understanding the very controversial subject of abortion that I am contemplating in doing as my graduating project. Abortion seems to be a never ending battle in society. Since the very creation of it, people have taken opposition or supported it. This article helps me understand my job in covering this subject and how to classify my research. For example, I am presently browsing through the Internet to see what the world has to say about it. This article has thought me that I need to verify each source I get some may be just exaggerating the facts to prove their point to the reader. This article also has shown me that even though it seems that the new technology has taken over the world, the past is also very present. The houses next to the highways are still around to remind us that there was not always the Internet for example available in almost every home nonetheless more than one television set. Integrative Seminar History Article Name: Stephanie Amar Student #: 9532080 Teacher: Mr. A. Dalfen Date: March 10, 1997 "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Everything that exists in today's world has some origin coming from the past. Everything that exists today and seems to be unique of its time has some basis from the past. It is a known fact that history has a tendency of repeating itself, and so to prepare us for the future we need to understand the past. History can give a person an answer to almost everything that is going on in the present, with what we call a historical investigation. History not only states facts but explains disciplines such as sociology, religion, psychology, anthropology and so on. It explains to us why certain events happened, such as the reason why six millions Jews died in the Second World War. The reason history gives us is anti-Semitism. The Nazis were a group that had as a goal to purify the world of what we call minorities and so to keep it a White, straight, Christian world. History explains the evolution of things, people, beliefs, laws and many more in order for us to understand why certain things are the way they are. In this article, we come across a few major points. Each of them is introduced in a very original way. The author uses a literal journey into the past as a means of comparing it to the present. One of the many points is an in depth definition of history related profession. What are they trying to accomplish and how they work to get what they are looking for. "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Historians study facts and records that previous generations have left, to find out what kind of lives they led and how they solved their problems. The way a historian works is very determined and simple to understand. A historian needs to first choose an important question he wants to answer. Then he needs to find research on the subject that already exists and which he can get access to. Next he has to judge the source that he has obtained, is it credible? Is it genuine? The article explains that there are two basic forms of historical evidence that exist, primary and secondary. Primary evidence records the actual words of someone who participated or witnessed the events in question. Or it can also be newspaper accounts, diaries, official statements, photographs, videotapes. Secondary evidence, on the other hand, records the findings of someone who did not observe the event but who investigated primary evidence, which qualifies most history books. Historians have to weigh evidence carefully. "What a group says may not be what it does." A historian must analyze evidence by checking one source against the other. "The task of a trained historian is to arrange the material so that it supports a particular conclusion." He must also display the evidence in a manner that will clearly show that the conclusion drawn is a "proper" one. Later in the article it explains that a historian compares traditional and new directions of historical research. In traditional research, historians have been categorized by their disciplines. There was social, cultural, intellectual, political, diplomatic, economic or psychological. They would present their findings in a narrative form, like a biography. The new directions try to explain the reason for people's actions and thoughts. Also a new direction is the history of science and technology. A lot more of new fields of research have been discovered. Which have been influenced by other fields of knowledge such as psychohistory, psychology, demography, sociology, ethnohistory and etc.. History as a whole will help me in understanding the very controversial subject of abortion that I am contemplating in doing as my graduating project. Abortion seems to be a never ending battle in society. Since the very creation of it, people have taken opposition or supported it. This article helps me understand my job in covering this subject and how to classify my research. For example, I am presently browsing through the Internet to see what the world has to say about it. This article has thought me that I need to verify each source I get some may be just exaggerating the facts to prove their point to the reader. This article also has shown me that even though it seems that the new technology has taken over the world, the past is also very present. The houses next to the highways are still around to remind us that there was not always the Internet for example available in almost every home nonetheless more than one television set. Integrative Seminar History Article Name: Stephanie Amar Student #: 9532080 Teacher: Mr. A. Dalfen Date: March 10, 1997 "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Everything that exists in today's world has some origin coming from the past. Everything that exists today and seems to be unique of its time has some basis from the past. It is a known fact that history has a tendency of repeating itself, and so to prepare us for the future we need to understand the past. History can give a person an answer to almost everything that is going on in the present, with what we call a historical investigation. History not only states facts but explains disciplines such as sociology, religion, psychology, anthropology and so on. It explains to us why certain events happened, such as the reason why six millions Jews died in the Second World War. The reason history gives us is anti-Semitism. The Nazis were a group that had as a goal to purify the world of what we call minorities and so to keep it a White, straight, Christian world. History explains the evolution of things, people, beliefs, laws and many more in order for us to understand why certain things are the way they are. In this article, we come across a few major points. Each of them is introduced in a very original way. The author uses a literal journey into the past as a means of comparing it to the present. One of the many points is an in depth definition of history related profession. What are they trying to accomplish and how they work to get what they are looking for. "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Historians study facts and records that previous generations have left, to find out what kind of lives they led and how they solved their problems. The way a historian works is very determined and simple to understand. A historian needs to first choose an important question he wants to answer. Then he needs to find research on the subject that already exists and which he can get access to. Next he has to judge the source that he has obtained, is it credible? Is it genuine? The article explains that there are two basic forms of historical evidence that exist, primary and secondary. Primary evidence records the actual words of someone who participated or witnessed the events in question. Or it can also be newspaper accounts, diaries, official statements, photographs, videotapes. Secondary evidence, on the other hand, records the findings of someone who did not observe the event but who investigated primary evidence, which qualifies most history books. Historians have to weigh evidence carefully. "What a group says may not be what it does." A historian must analyze evidence by checking one source against the other. "The task of a trained historian is to arrange the material so that it supports a particular conclusion." He must also display the evidence in a manner that will clearly show that the conclusion drawn is a "proper" one. Later in the article it explains that a historian compares traditional and new directions of historical research. In traditional research, historians have been categorized by their disciplines. There was social, cultural, intellectual, political, diplomatic, economic or psychological. They would present their findings in a narrative form, like a biography. The new directions try to explain the reason for people's actions and thoughts. Also a new direction is the history of science and technology. A lot more of new fields of research have been discovered. Which have been influenced by other fields of knowledge such as psychohistory, psychology, demography, sociology, ethnohistory and etc.. History as a whole will help me in understanding the very controversial subject of abortion that I am contemplating in doing as my graduating project. Abortion seems to be a never ending battle in society. Since the very creation of it, people have taken opposition or supported it. This article helps me understand my job in covering this subject and how to classify my research. For example, I am presently browsing through the Internet to see what the world has to say about it. This article has thought me that I need to verify each source I get some may be just exaggerating the facts to prove their point to the reader. This article also has shown me that even though it seems that the new technology has taken over the world, the past is also very present. The houses next to the highways are still around to remind us that there was not always the Internet for example available in almost every home nonetheless more than one television set. Integrative Seminar History Article Name: Stephanie Amar Student #: 9532080 Teacher: Mr. A. Dalfen Date: March 10, 1997 "Professional historians spend their lives pursuing the meaning of the past for the present." Everything that exists in today's world has some origin coming from the past. Everything that exists today and seems to be unique of its time has some basis from the past. It is a known fact that history has a tendency of repeating itself, and so to prepare us for the future we need to understand the past. History can give a person an answer to almost everything that is going on in the present, with what we call a historical investigation. History not only states facts but explains disciplines such as sociology, religion, psychology, anthropology and so on. It explains to us why certain events happened, such as the reason why six millions Jews died in the Second World War. The reason history gives us is anti-Semitism. The Naz f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\history 17c coldwar.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mirza Jahic 6/27/03 History 17c Carlos Mujal It is 1945, with Hitler defeated and the Nazi regime becoming a power of the past, the world can finally kick of their war boots, slip into some nice slippers and relax. Unfortunately a new threat is slowly simmering in the background. What is to become of Germany now that it has been defeated by the allies? Germany was to be divided between 4 nations. The United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France was to get 4 sectors of Germany with Russia demanding to receive East Germany. The Allies agreed only under the condition that they could keep Berlin, the capital of Germany, under the control of the Allies. All the countries agreed not knowing that this was the beginning of another war, the Cold war of 1945-1990. November 1952 was a cold day in the history of human kind. The reason why I mention this date is because this is the day that the "super bomb" or an explosion that was about five hundred atomic bombs, had successfully been tested. Because the Russians pursued a similar policy to the one of the United States, the superpowers became locked in an every escalating race for nuclear dominance. There was a race going on, a cold war that both of the countries were aware of. It is 1955 and both of the superpowers have the capabilities of causing complete destruction to the opposite. The Soviet Union and the United States had both developed different foreign policies to keep things from exploding, literally. The United States used its Marshall Plan and containment of communism to battle the expansion of the Soviet Union and its communistic views and the communist regime of the Soviet Union continuously improved their weapon capability and kept spreading communism throughout Eastern Europe and Asia. Countries were attracted by the rapid economic expansion and the ability of a communistic government to flourish so quickly, until the time came where resistance was not the problem anymore. The United States saw this as a threat and continued to rally against communism and tried to get nations, to take their side. The side of capitalism and prosperity that Stalin once argued inevitably produced war. There are many incidents that occurred during the timeline of the cold war that we as the human race in general, were on the brink of destruction and extinction. For example, there is Gulf of Tonkin, the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, Korea, etc that could have led either government to push the button of total destruction. The United States foreign policy on communism is to contain it and stop it from expanding under any condition. Vietnam was a similar issue and a major event of the cold war. Where even before the United States became involved in Vietnam, when Ho Chi Minh had proclaimed independence of Vietnam from France. France not being able to handle this situation due to the fact that it just got out of WW2 and there were massive war debts and restorations to be paid, could not cover the war expenses for Vietnam in order to conquer and defeat Ho Chi Minh and take back Vietnam and put it under the control of France. That is where the United States came in and by 1954; the United States was contributing close to 75 percent to France's war. When finally Eisenhower said no to troops and support, the French resistance fell. It is not a big event in the cold war until the United States comes into play and decides that there is really no way of enforcing the containment of communism and starts to support Ngo Dinh Diem, the South Vietnamese prime minister. The big cause of this terrible war would have to be the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution where apparently North Vietnamese forces attacked two American battle ships. There are two things wrong with what happened at Tonkin. First, the American ships were not attacked by anyone but just randomly "thought" they were and ended up blasting into the night. Second, they were in fact, located in the North Vietnamese territory and even if they were attacked, they were going against the rules which eventually led to the Vietnam War. The cold war had unfortunately created a warfare state. On October 22, 1962 the world was informed that the Soviet Union was building secret missile bases in Cuba. This was yet again a very dangerous time for the United States that had to be handled with extreme caution and care because Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces. So basically the superpowers were involved in a 7 day staring contest when ultimately the Soviet Union blinked and agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba. There were a lot of incidents that occurred during the cold war that could have in fact, ended the world because of the horrible, catastrophic weapons capabilities of the two superpowers. There are a couple of good things that came out of the Cold War like for example all the military spending that was done by the United States to upgrade their defenses has helped to stimulate the domestic prosperity in a great way. It has provided jobs for the public and in fact has revolutionized and pawed the way into the technological and space exploration age. The cold war did not only have a significant affect on the technological advances and the economy but also on its society and primarily its people that reside within the United States. Some of the weaknesses that the government had were lowered down into the public that eventually created a rebellious age. New music, new fashion and new industries appeared over night. These effects of the cold war enabled more young people than ever to stay in school, benefit from a higher education and employ a bigger population of more white-collar Americans. With the United States and the Soviet Union both being capable of destroying each other at any second, people started to become paranoid of the situation at hand. Some just did not care while others benefited from it. The cold war had a huge impact on the society because of its coldness, its constant scare that because of one man's wrong decision, a lot of people could lose their lives. This in return stimulated the youth to become rebellious and explore different angles of society. Young people believed in having fun and constant recreation while parents were going crazy. The music and movie industry did not aid the public whatsoever in this field because they kept coming up with new music, such as rock 'n roll, jazz and other forms of music. With the music industry came the movie industry where James Dean courageously and without a doubt portrayed a rebel in his movie "Rebel without a cause". The cold war ended in 1990 or roughly around it when communism fell in the Soviet Union. The scars that have been made by the cold war will always and without a doubt be visible and stay in the eyes and minds of the United States public. By this statement I mean that the public has seen the government's weakness and they realized that change is possible. Woman's rights, rights of homosexuals, civil rights for blacks were all changes that were put into affect during the cold war. The strength to resist and over come by using tactics, brainpower instead of nuclear weapons is what has shaped the United States into the great country that it is today. "How we survived communism and even laughed" is not something that I would really laugh about because I am Bosnian, I am part of the ethnical cleaning, the war that Slavenka Drakulic was so nicely and innocently talking about. I was a kid when the war that she was talking about was taking place and when it was over, I know for a fact that neither me nor any of my family members laughed, we just bowed our heads, picked up what we had and continued wherever we needed to go. Slavenka comments about the USSR's policies on equipment by saying "There are no appliances, no services, and no agencies in the USSR where they could hire a person to help"1. This goes back to the famous American National Exhibition in Moscow in July 1959 where Khrushchev and Nixon met to exchange cultural differences. This is the confusing part. Khrushchev during his exchange answered "his country (soviet union) did not have the capitalist attitude for women. They are appreciated for the contributions to the economy, not the domesticity".2 If this was really the case then why does Slavenka Drakulic write "...and women are, regardless of class, sentenced to long hours of repulsive housework everyday"3. We have two statements from two different perspectives. The working middle class woman or the leader of a communistic nation. Who is right? In my opinion, I think that Khrushchev was right because if Slavenka was really living in a communistic society, she would have not said or written the book in the first place because unlike the democratic United States and the freedom of speech that comes with it, accusations and complaints about the communist government leads to death and extortion, I would know, I lived in one. My final thoughts on the cold war are that it was a building, recovering and an age of advances. Because of the cold war we as a nation have achieved so much in such a short time. The cold war was like a fire, burning deep within the United States creating and building and improving. One example is NASA, if the cold war never happened, the USSR would never have launched their space experiments with Sputnik and this would have not motivated the United States to do the same. It was a competition that benefited both nations. Russia's desire for a communist nation has fallen and with it the threats to the United States. If one really thinks this issue trough, one will realize that nothing but good things developed out of the cold war. Well, besides Vietnam and Korea. But if you look at the bright side of the cold war, you will see that communism has fallen, United States has expanded every field from technology to communication to transportation and it has succeeded in its desire to contain the spread of communism. 1 Slavenka Drakulic, "How we survived communism and even laughed" ed., Harpet Perennial) 46-47 2 Nikita Khrushchev to Nixon in Moscow in 1959 3 Slavenka Drakulic, "How we survived communism and even laughed" ed., Harpet Perennial) 46 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\HISTORY EMPATHY COURSEWORK LENT 1996.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HISTORY EMPATHY COURSEWORK : LENT 1996 A Jew In Germany or Occupied Europe: 27/2/96 CATEGORY C PROLOGUE (JANUARY 1935): My name is Julian Zycheavik and I am a Polish jew. This is my diary which I have decided to write, so that I can hopefully relive my youth when I read this when I am an old man. I live in the south of Poland with my family which I adore very much since they mean everything to me. We have a small family business, a small shop, which supplies us with enough money to get by on during these hard times since the slump nearly five years ago. Life is hard but rewarding at the moment, soon there will be a new member to the family, since my wife is expecting our second child. I hope one day to see my children grow up and carry on the business which I started nearly eight years ago in 1927. AUGUST 1936: Today I received a letter from my sister Erika, who lives in Germany. She too followed the family tradition and set up her own shop in Germany with her husband, but in this letter she seems to be very distressed and worried. She says that life has started to become very difficult since 1933. There has been a new ruling body installed in Germany called NAZI and according to her newspapers it is led by a hero, who has come to save Germany; Adolf Hitler. These Nazis oppose our jewish religion greatly; nearly everybody does, but this is a new strain of hatred that I have no seen before. In letter she states that some new anti-semitic rules called "The Nuremburg Laws" came into effect just this month which will practically sign her business' death warrant. Over the pass year her shop has been fire bombed several times and even her distressed children are receiving threats from kids their own age. Her husband has even been assaulted by brown shirted thugs belonging to this Nazi party. I hope she will write soon because I think she will not be able to cope with any more of this harassment. DECEMBER 1938: There is an air of uncertainty of the frost bittern streets of our city. We are currently celebrating "Chunakah", the festival of Light which coincides with Christmas. These celebrations are now hollow to us, hollow with the emptiness of absent relatives. Many of my friends like me are worried for our loved ones in Germany and Czechoslovakia. The Nazi power in Germany has grown like an petty acorn to a giant oak tree. There are daily reports in our papers about increased pogroms against our fellow jews and families in Germany. My family and I are very worried about my sister. We have not heard from here lately. My children keep asking: "Daddy, Daddy, oh when we see aunty Erika again? Has she been gotten by that nasty Hitler man?". I do not know how to reply to them, I just pray to God that she is safe from our new threat. I feel immense anxiety due to the new reports of "Kristallnacht", the Night of Broken glass, which occurred two weeks ago quite near were my sister is living. The word on the street is that every synagogue in Germany has been ransacked by the Nazis. There are also rumours of immense numbers of Jewish books being burn there as well. This, according to my neighbour, is a grave omen of what is to come since he says that when you start to burn books, you start to burn people. I am not too sure what he means by this, but it does not sound good. JULY 1939: It has been a long and worrying summer, I am now fearing for my sister's life since I have heard nothing at all from her. I think she may have been harmed by those pogroms ordered by those Nazis. Today, the Shabbat (the Sabbath), as I was coming back from the synagogue, the large ominous black letters on a news stand caught my eye: "HITLER DEMANDS DANZIG" It suddenly struck home, not only was sister in grave danger, but now I was becoming distressed, I thought about my wife and my children, the people in my street, will we safe? Could he invade Poland, like he did with Czechoslovakia? What has happened to my sister? SEPTEMBER 1st 1939: I tried to hold back the tears when I heard the news. The German army was coming. Hitler had turned on us jews, now he was turning our country. The news came in the form of a alarmed voice of the newsreader on the wireless. We were all gathered around the radio ever since the rumours on the street had soared that we were in danger from the Nazi invasion. Within an hour of the news breaking there was hysteria outside, people were running about, grasping their few possessions, the sound of screaming children and their crying mothers filled the air, even some men were breaking down after being strangled by the atmosphere of panic; all this done in a vain attempt to escape the onslaught of the reported army. Seeing that there was nowhere no escape since the Germans where coming from the north-east and Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia was to the south we decided to try and hide. Maybe God will help us. SEPTEMBER 3rd 1939: We have remained hidden for three days. The attack part of the Nazi army has passed us by, in a hurry to occupy the whole of the country. I think it is the Nazi way of fighting, Blitzkrieg; lighting war. There was a knock on the door. There was silence. Assuming the inevitable, we dismally gathered our meek possessions together and prepared to disembark. The door was opened. A woman's head could be seen extruding around its burred edges. It was Erika. We leapt in utter ecstasy, she was barley alive but where was her husband? SEPTEMBER 5th 1939: After breaking down on our doorstep due to exhaustion and emotional fatigue. She was covered in cuts and bruises, tears trickled from her ravaged face. We quickly got here to a bed and had nursed her for two days, before she finally came round. Her ensuing tale was permeated with sorrow and anguish. "Julian" she said in a frail voice, "You must leave, they did this to me, they are coming, they drove us from our home with racial violence and torture. I can't quite explain it, the pain, the lament, the violence; they've killed him! Julian, they've killed my husband!!!" With this she collapsed in to a pool of tears. We all were effected by this startling event, our lives would never be the same again as we pondered in fear. The children had become aware of the dire situation, and their reaction was one of great grief and unstability. That evening we gathered together around our lighted Menorah, locked in grief stricken prayer, was this the last time we would see each other? Were we going to be found? Were we doomed to die? Only time would reveal its dark secrets. SEPTEMBER 6th 1939: After being ripped from our sleep, we realised what was happening. Some black dressed Nazi soldiers with double thunderbolt inscriptions on their arms had surrounded and eventually stormed our house. They were the SS. It all happend so fast, too fast. I was nummed with a paralytic fear which seized my prone body. After recovering from the numerous raining blows incurred on me by the SS soldiers, which rendered me unconscious, I sensed open air, I was moving, but what and where? I managed to get to my feet, I was in the back of a truck. The smell was strange, almost a dark evil smell. Upon further inspection I noticed my family was here, except for my sister. Then it hit me. I should have been strong. I could have saved her. Why did I let them knock me out. Why! My wife explained; the SS troops dicovered her ill in bed at the house and just shot her there and then. Why was this happening to me? Had I sinned? Is God punishing me? Maybe I deserve this? SEPTEMBER 9th 1939: It was the beginning of the end. We had journeyed for many days, by truck, by train and sometimes by foot. Then we arrived. I looked up. "AUSCHWITZ" uttered the large sign that hung above my head. I looked forward. The parallel railtracks seemed to melt into the horizion. I looked around me. Walking skeletons everywhere. The rumours were true! Death was only at a breath's distance. Then I saw the trenches. I looked again. "No, those aren't human!" I said to myself in unequivocal trauma, I felt sick, I was sick. They were humans. The lifless bodies gazed up at me. I stared back down. Ten minutes I froze in that position. My sinister contemplations were fragmented by a sound. A hard sound. It was the crack of a revolver. Someone fell. Who fell? I turned. It was my wife. I turned again. I saw. It was the smoking revolver held by a guard which had just obliterate my life. The children. They saw. They were in shock. They clung to their mother's lifeless body. A wave hit me. It knocked me over with a misery. I fell to the groung also cluching my wife, my dear, I had to be strong for the children's sake. How could man be so inhuman to man? I looked up in the sky, the sky looked so calm. I wanted to be there. I began to recite the Kaddish, the Jewish prayer for the dead. I took the kids in my arms, and commanded them to think about God. I pointed to the sky. I saw. We saw. The peace and light filled us. The hail of shots rang out behind us like a death knoll, ripping our backs. Red. I saw red. I am falling. We are falling. The ground. The sky. We are flying. We are going to the sky. We can see God. God. BIBLIOGRAPHY: IF THIS IS A MAN Primo Levi HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY BBC Education video THE TRUCE Primo Levi DIARY Anne Frank HOLOCAUST Britannia Encyclopedia THE EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS History Map BRITAIN AND EUROPE 1848-1980 Martin Roberts EUROPEAN HISTORY 1815-1941 Jack Watson SHINDLER'S LIST Film by Steven Spielburg f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\history essay.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nicki Alpern 9-25-03 Per. 9 History Essay Pericles expresses many features of Athenian society in this funeral oration. According to Pericles, "everyone was equal under the law." He tried to make this true by making lower class citizens eligible for public offices and allowing them to participate in public affairs. Pericles also states that "what counts is no membership in a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses." This means that the class a person is in had nothing to do with their political ability or ideas. He tried to maintain equality between the classes and gave them the same jobs and privileges. This helped more people in Athens attend his assemblies and more Athenians partook to their democracy. Pericles also declared that "the political life was free and open" meaning that everyone had a say in the government and it was related to the Athenian daily life which he also states as "free and open." Besides beginning free and tolerant he states that "we are free and tolerant in out private lives but in public affairs we keep to the law." I think in this he was declaring that there was a difference between a person's private life and a person's political life. Even thought both were considered to be "free" they were free in different ways. The democracy was free because everyone was had a say and anyone could be a part of the political system, but they still followed the laws. Because of the way Pericles ran the government, he states that they system made people more interested in the affairs of the state. This means that the people of Athens were not preoccupied with their lives and business because they were kept informed on the political issues. According to Pericles, his way of government was an "education to Greece." He thought that his state was so ran so well that the other countries should learn from them. Pericles system of government was an overall success because of his features for Athenian society. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\History of Jazz and Classical Music.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ History of Jazz and Classical Music Upon entering a modern record store, one is confronted with a wide variety of choices in recorded music. These choices not only include a multitude of artists, but also a wide diversity of music categories. These categories run the gamut from easy listening dance music to more complex art music. On the complex side of the scale are the categories known as Jazz and Classical music. Some of the most accomplished musicians of our time have devoted themselves to a lifelong study of Jazz or Classical music, and a few exceptional musicians have actually mastered both. A comparison of classical and Jazz music will yield some interesting results and could also lead to an appreciation of the abilities needed to perform or compose these kinds of music. Let's begin with a look at the histories of the two. The music called classical, found in stores and performed regularly by symphonies around the world, spans a length of time from 1600 up to the present. This time frame includes the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Contemporary periods. The classical period of music actually spans a time from of 1750 to 1800; thus, the term Classical is a misnomer and could more correctly be changed to Western Art Music or European Art Music. European because most of the major composers up till the 20th century were European. Vivaldi was Italian, Bach was German, Mozart and Beethoven were Austrian; they are some of the more prominent composers. Not until the twentieth century with Gershwin and a few others do we find American composers writing this kind of art music. For the sake of convention, we can refer to Western Art Music as Classical music. Jazz is a distinctively American form of music, and it's history occupies a much smaller span of time. Its origins are found in the early 1900s as some dance band leaders in the southern U.S. began playing music that combined ragtime and blues. Early exponents of this dance music were Jelly Roll Martin (a blues player) and Scott Joplin (ragtime). The terms "Jazz" and "Jazz Band" first surfaced in the year 1900. Some say this occurred in New Orleans, although similar music was played at the same time in other places. The most prominent exponents of this early music, called Dixieland Jazz, included Louis Armstrong and Sidney Bechet. After World War I, Jazz music had evolved and was aided by the development of the recording industry. The small dance band ensemble grew into the larger orchestra known as the "Big Band". The music of the Big Bands became known as "Swing." Two of the more famous Swing band leaders were Tommy Dorsey and Harry James. In the late 40s and through the 50s, a different kind of Jazz became popular. This music, played by a very small ensemble, was much more sophisticated and complex . Its rich harmonic changes and melodic counterpoint were not conducive to dance. It became known as "Bop," with Charlie Parker and Dizzie Gillespie being the early proponents. In the last twenty years there has been a combination of Jazz with popular music of the US and Latin America. This modern Jazz music has been called "Fusion." Present day exponents include Pat Metheny and Chic Corea. There has also been a return to the sound of Bop in the last ten years by such musicians as trumpeter Winton Marsalis and his brother Branford, a saxophonist. Let's focus on the instrumentation of the two kinds of music. In Classical music, both large orchestras and small ensembles are used. But generally, the greatest and most prominent compositions are for the larger symphony orchestra. The largest part of the orchestra is the string section consisting of violins, violas, cellos and string basses. These instruments were invented very early in medieval times but really matured into their present form during the late 18th century. The wind instruments, comprised of brass and woodwinds, took longer to mature. The brass section in particular did not posses the ability to play chromatically (in all keys) until the advent of valves which allowed the length of the instrument to be changed while playing. This occurred around the middle to late 19th century. Consequently, the brass instruments are less prominent in the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven along with their contemporaries. Late 19th and early 20th century composers make use of a very large orchestra with all the fully developed wind instruments. Some of the master orchestrator/composers of this time were: Wagner, Rimskey-Korsakov, Ravel and Stravinsky. Currently, composers also make use of the full orchestra but with the addition of increasingly larger percussion sections which add many unique and unheard of sounds than in earlier music. Early Jazz music was played in small ensembles making use of clarinet, tuba, cornet, baritone, drums, and piano. Dixieland groups of New Orleans had similar instrumentation. During the Swing era, larger groups were employed to achieve more of an orchestral sound. The Big Bands of the this era were predominantly wind orchestras containing alto and tenor sax sections, trumpet and trombone sections, along with piano and drums. When Bop music arrived, the alto saxophone and trumpet were the preferred instruments of the major soloists who were backed up by piano, string bass and drums. With the advent of Fusion, electric instruments such as the electric guitar and keyboard synthesizer became prominent. How has each of these kinds of music been transmitted to later generations of musicians? Early in the evolution of classical music, a system of notation was gradually developed which for the most part remained stable from the Renaissance on. This gave the composer control over how his compositions were to be played. Throughout the history of Jazz, however, notation was more like a rough sketch. This was because the syncopated rhythms of ragtime and the melodic riffs of the blues were not easily notated. Also, early Jazz musicians were not formally trained; they usually learned by ear. Some songs were transcribed and written down, but not in precise ways. Jazz music became more of a passed on tradition that a musician learned through interaction with other players. In a similar way, the modern Jazz musician must rely on previous recordings to get a feel for the style and technique which he desires to learn from. But in classical music, one composer can learn from an older composer by looking at and analyzing the music that the previous composer wrote down. Likewise, classical musicians can master the parts they must play by practicing the music that has been written or published beforehand. These two approaches to passing on tradition are both valid. However, without the recording medium Jazz music might have developed much differently than it has. The cohesive element that keeps a musical group together is also an interesting contrast. In Classical music, the conductor uses a baton and plays the orchestra as if it were his instrument; he looks at a complete score of all the events happening in the composition and interprets these events based on his knowledge and intuition of what the composer intended. Jazz groups rarely utilize conductors. The swing era employed them for the sake of keeping the larger sized group together but other jazz styles did not and do not to this day. The drummer of the Jazz ensemble provides the beat that keeps the group together but even he is interacting with the other soloists as the song is performed. Perhaps the most interesting point of comparison between the two types of music is in improvisation. Improvisation is the ability to play and compose spontaneously "on the spot" while the music is playing. This has been an important element of Jazz from it's inception. Although improvisation was less prominent during the swing era, it regained importance with Bop and onward. Early Jazz was improvised, using ragtime and blues as a loose structure. In the swing era, popular songs were arranged by an arranger and soloists played improvisations over the repeating sections in order to lengthen the song for dancing. With the advent of Bop, improvisation assumed great importance. The musicians memorized the chord changes to a song, along with the melody, but then played very loosely and in the end substituted new chords along with greatly embellishing the original melody to the point of being unrecognizable. These factors, along with the ability to interact with each other, became important and remains so in the Fusion music of today. In Classical music, modern listeners are mostly unaware of the fact that many of the great composers of the past were not only excellent performers but also great improvisers. Starting with J.S. Bach (1685-1750), the greatest composer of the Baroque era, he in fact made his living through his great skill as an improvisor. It was common for the Lutheran Church organist of his day be able to improvise on choral melodies and Bach was considered one of the greatest at this. There are written accounts of other composers improvisational abilities including Mozart (1756-1791), Beethoven (1770-1829), and Franz Liszt (1811-1886). Yet, as time went on, improvising gave way to the composer's desire to exert complete control over his music. By the late 19th century, improvising was rare and not used at all in public performances of classical music. In summation, we can say that Jazz and Classical music represent two approaches to Art Music. The Classical composer or performer has a long and rich body of music in written form that he uses to learn from while the Jazz musician uses a body of recorded music to learn. Because of it's small size, the modern Jazz ensemble allows loose interaction while the symphony orchestra's large size and diversity of instruments provides many different sounds and wide dynamic range. In classical music the composer strives for control; he uses printed music to guide and direct the musicians through the conductor. In Jazz music, the songs are loosely composed, thus forming a basis for individual expression within an ensemble. When you go to hear a symphony, you hear an orchestra conducted by the conductor playing a composition. When you go to a Jazz club you hear a small jazz ensemble interacting and improvising a song. Both of these kinds of music provide rich expression and detail to the serious listener. They take different paths to reach their final form but give a person equal opportunities to appreciate the creative output of each. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Illuminating the Path of Progress.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Illuminating the Path of Progress Thomas Alva Edison is the most famous inventor in American History. Edison designed, built, and delivered the electrical age. He started a revolution that would refocus technology, change life patterns, and create millions of jobs. He became famous for his scientific inventions, even though he was not a scientist. His real talent was his ability to clearly judge a problem and be persistent in experimenting. He was the master of the trial and error method. Thomas Edison was born on February 11, 1847 in Milan, Ohio. He was the last of seven children born to Samuel and Nancy Edison. Edison's early life was spent in Ohio near the nation's busiest grain port. He spent time exploring the canal and played near his father's shingle business. When Alva was a child, he had scarlet fever. The fever damaged his hearing and delayed his entrance into school. Edison was curious about the world around him and always tried to teach himself through reading and experiments. Alva spent three years in home schooling. He was taught by his mother. He later returned to school but left at age twelve to get a job and help support his family. Edison got his first job selling newspapers and snacks to the passengers on the train between Port Huron and Detroit. Edison bought a used printing press in 1862 and published the Grand Trunk Herald for passengers. It was the first newspaper published on a train. When Edison was fifteen, he was taught Morse code and became a manager of a telegraph office. Edison got the idea for his first invention from working here. His first inventions were the transmitter and receiver for the automatic telegraph. At 21, Edison produced his first major invention, a stock ticker. In 1869, when Edison was twenty-two, he patented his first invention and advertised that he would devote his time to bringing out his inventions. The first patent received by Edison was for a vote recorder. Years later Edison's design was put in use by state legislatures for use by the public in general elections. By the age of twenty-three Edison owned two factories to manufacture telegraphic equipment and had money to pursue his research. On December 25, 1871, Edison married Mary Stilwell. They had three children. Two of his children were nicknamed Dot and Dash after the Morse code. In 1880 Edison made a discovery in science. He noticed that when a metal plate was inserted into a light bulb, the plate became a valve and the current could be controlled. This discovery is known as the "Edison Effect." It is the basis for the whole field of electronics. Edison did not pursue this field. Edison grew tired of the manufacturing side of business and wanted to devote his time to experimenting on new inventions. He moved the laboratory to Menlo Park, N.J., where he directed groups of employees working on various projects. The move to Menlo Park was an important turning point for Edison. He was devoted to improving and inventing useful products. In 1877, inspired by the work he had done on improving Bell's telephone, Edison pursued the idea of not only transmitting speech but recording it. The result was the phonograph. This was the invention Edison was most proud of. Invented in 1877, it used tinfoil and wax cylinders to record the sound. He demonstrated his phonograph for the National Academy of Sciences and to President Rutherford B. Hayes. After Edison conquered sound, he set out to produce electric lighting that would be cheap, safe and reliable. It took Edison just over a year to invent a practical light bulb. One of his bulbs burned for 1,589 hours. He gave a public demonstration of his lighting system by lighting the town of Menlo Park. He later established the Edison Electric Light Company. This would own all of Edison's electrical inventions. Then came the challenge of creating a system for distributing electric power over a wide area from a central generating station. Edison applied for nearly 40 patents to cover the devices he invented for his electricity distribution system. Later that year, New York's first power station was opened. By the end of 1883, Pearl Street was lighting 10,000 lamps for 431 customers. In the summer of 1884, tragedy struck with the sudden death of his wife who died of typhoid fever. Two years later he married Mina Miller. He moved to West Orange, New Jersey and raised a second family. In 1888, Edison invented a kinetoscope, an early form of motion picture camera. The kinetoscope could not put a moving image onto a screen. Edison's attempts to put sound and vision together ended in failure. In 1899 he develops the fluoroscope, but chooses not to patent the invention because of its universal need in medicine and surgery. Edison's main interest during the 1890's was a project to develop a method of extracting iron from low grade ore. Edison spent $2 million trying to develop a method of extracting iron. He spent almost all of the money he had made from his electricity business. He failed to develop a commercial process for magnetic ore separation. In 1898, Edison bought a large area of land and built a cement plant. By 1905 this new venture had become the fifth largest cement works in the United States. His next project took him back to the field he knew best, electricity. He improved the electric battery, making it last longer and ensuring it was less easily damaged when overcharged. With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, invited him to become president of an advisory group of scientists. Edison's contribution came through his scientific work on torpedo detection methods and perfecting sailing lights and periscopes. By the 1920's, Edison was the most famous living American. People in the United States honored Edison's contributions by naming him one of the most important individuals in American history. Among his many honors he was voted the "most useful American" in 1913. In 1971 he ranked third of the ten greatest men in American business history. He was elected to the American Academy of Sciences. In 1928 Congress ordered a special gold medal to be made in his honor for his lifetime contribution to society. In 1927, when Edison was 80, he founded the Edison Botanic Research Company to find a new way of making rubber. After examining 14,000 plants he decided goldenrod offered a source of rubber. The process was too expensive, but the onset of illnesses prevented him from finding a way to make it cheaper. The fiftieth anniversary of the light bulb was celebrated in 1929. Henry Ford set up a museum in Michigan. One of his exhibits was a recreation of Edison's laboratory at Menlo, Park. Edison re-enacts his discovery of the light bulb for this occasion. The government issued a special postage stamp, showing Edison's prototype light bulb. In his 70's he was working sixteen hours a day. He was told by his doctors to slow down. He replied "There will be plenty of time to rest at 100." Edison made his last public statement in 1931. He sent a message of goodwill to lighting engineers who were meeting at a conference. Edison died four months later on October 18, 1931. He suffered from diabetes, Bright's disease and stomach ulcers. On the day of his funeral the torch of the Statue of Liberty was extinguished as a mark of respect. People all across America dimmed their lights in honor of the great inventor. Edison's legacy is not in the machines he invented. It includes his influence on the business of invention. Edison made invention a profession, an occupation rather than a hobby. Edison's commercial success inspired other inventors and businesspeople to copy his methods. Edison's invention of the research and development laboratory continues to be one of America's most important tools. Edison owed his success to hard work. He often said his inventions came from "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration!" He believed in himself and was willing to try different ways of doing things. He worked hard and did not give up. Edison's wealth and scientific accomplishment set him apart from others. However, things that contributed to his fame were things he had in common with many average Americans. Most Americans would find it hard to go through a day without using an invention created by Edison. Neil Gregory f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Immigration .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The first immigrants to the territory now the United States were from Western Europe. The first great migration began early in the 19th century when large numbers of Europeans left their homelands to escape the economic hardships resulting from the transformation of industry by the factory system and the simultaneous shift from small-scale to large-scale farming. At the same time, conflict, political oppression, and religious persecution caused a great many Europeans to seek freedom and security in the U.S. The century following 1820 may be divided into three periods of immigration to the U.S. During the first period, from 1820 to 1860, most of the immigrants came from Great Britain, Ireland, and western Germany. In the second period, from 1860 to 1890, those countries continued to supply a majority of the immigrants; the Scandinavian nations provided a substantial minority. Afterwards the proportion of immigrants from northern and Western Europe declined rapidly. In the final period, from 1890 to 1910, fewer than one-third of the immigrants came from these areas. The majority of the immigrants were natives of Southern and Eastern Europe, with immigrants from Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Russia constituting more than half of the total. Until World War I, immigration had generally increased in volume every year. From 1905 to 1914 an average of more than a million immigrants entered the U.S. every year. With the start of the war, the volume declined sharply, and the annual average from 1915 to 1918 was little more than 250,000. In 1921 the number again rose; 800,000 immigrants were admitted. Thereafter the number declined in response to new conditions in Europe and to the limitations established by U.S. law. The first measure restricting immigration enacted by Congress was a law in 1862 banning American vessels from transporting Chinese immigrants to the U.S.; 20 years later Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act excluding Chinese immigrants.(Immigration) In 1875, 1882, and 1892, acts passed by Congress provided for the examination of immigrants and for the exclusion from the U.S. of convicts, polygamists, prostitutes, persons suffering from contagious diseases, and persons liable to become public charges. The Alien Contract Labor Laws of 1885, 1887, 1888, and 1891 prohibited the immigration to the U.S. of persons entering the country to work under contracts made before their arrival; professional actors, artists, singers, lecturers, educators, ministers, and personal and domestic servants were exempt from this provision.(Immigration) Immigrant skilled laborers, under these laws, were permitted to enter the U.S. to work in new industries. A diplomatic agreement made in 1907 by the U.S. and Japan provided that the Japanese government would not issue passports to Japanese laborers intending to enter the U.S.; under the terms of this agreement, the U.S. government refrained until 1924 from enacting laws excluding Japanese aliens. In 1917 Congress passed an immigration law that enlarged the classes of aliens excludable from the U.S.; its basic provisions were, with some changes, retained in later revisions of the immigration law. It imposed a literacy test and included an Asiatic Barred Zone to shut out Asians. Aliens unable to meet minimum mental, moral, physical, and economic standards were excluded, as were anarchists and other so-called "subversives". The Anarchist Act of 1918 expanded the provisions for the exclusion of subversive aliens.(Immigration) After World War I, a marked increase in racism and the growth of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. led to demands for further restrictive legislation. In 1921 a congressional statute provided for a quota system for immigrants, whereby the number of aliens of any nationality admitted to the U.S. in a year could not exceed 3 percent of the number of foreign-born residents of that nationality living in the U.S. in 1910. The law applied to nations of Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Asian Russia, and certain islands in the Atlantic and Pacific. In 1924, the basic immigration quotas were changed; the new law provided for annual immigration quotas for all countries from which immigranta might be admitted. Quotas were based on the desirability of various nationalities; aliens from northern and Western Europe were considered more desirable than those from southern and Eastern Europe. Immigrants who fulfilled lawful residence requirements were exempt from quotas, as were alien wives, children, and some husbands of U.S. citizens. In 1941 Congress passed an act providing for the denial of visas to aliens whose presence in the U.S. would endanger public safety. Immigration legislation passed after 1941 included repealing the laws barring Chinese from entering the U.S. and allowing their admission to the country in accordance with an annual quota. A federal law passed in 1945 authorized (for a limited time) the admission to the U.S., without regard to quota and physical and other standards, the wives and children of citizens serving in or honorably discharged from the armed forces of the U.S. during World War II. A federal law of 1946 authorized the admission to the U.S., under annual quota, of immigrants from India. Legislation was enacted by Congress in 1948 to permit the immigration before July 1, 1950, of 202,000 European people driven from their homes in the years preceding World War II as a result of political or racial persecution and those forcibly transported from their homes during World War II. Most of the laws relating to immigration were enacted by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Refugee Relief Act of 1953 made an additional allocation of places for the victims of war and disaster. The 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act abolished the national-origin quotas and established an annual limitation of 170,000 visas for immigrants from eastern hemisphere countries.(Immigration) Another law, effective in 1968, provided for an annual limit of 120,000 immigrants from the western hemisphere, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. In 1977 an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act changed the quota to 290,000 immigrants worldwide, with a maximum of 20,000 for any particular country, thus abolishing separate limitations for each hemisphere. At the same time, a system was set up for western hemisphere immigrants, giving preference to those who are related to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens and to workers whose skills were needed in the U.S. The Refugee Act of 1980 reduced the worldwide quota to 270,000 persons, while retaining the preference system. Spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens are exempt from limitation, as are certain categories of special immigrants. In 1992 alone about 700,000 newcomers were accepted in the United States (The New Americans, 17) In the 1980s concern about the surge of illegal aliens into the U.S. has led Congress to pass legislation aimed at curtailing illegal immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 allows most illegal aliens who have resided in the U.S. continuously since January 1, 1982, to apply for legal status. In addition, the law prohibits employers from hiring illegal aliens and mandates penalties for violations. Despite our long history of immigration and constant population flux, many Americans believe that it is time to curtail immigration to the U.S.. The increase in foreign born citizens is too large to ignore. Immigration generates 39 percent of the total population growth (Mandel, 114). Due to this increase, many Americans are becoming uneasy about new immigrants to the U.S.. In a Roper poll conducted by the organization Negative Population Growth, 83 percent of those interviewed favored a lower level of immigration; 70 percent of the people supported a level of 300,000 per year.(Pending Legislation) The largest cause for concern for most Americans appears to be the problem of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration has become the scapegoat for increased unemployment. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe that "new immigrants joining the labor force drive down the wages." (Mandel, 119) However, entry of new immigrants has been shown to increase native wages, sustain the pace of economic growth, and revive some declining sectors. (Rumbaut, 615) Those most likely to benefit from this situation are also those most supportive of more restrictive measures. Higher than average support for a "zero immigration" policy was expressed by those without a high school diploma and incomes below $15,000 per year.(Pending Legislation) Also, curiously enough, the highest level of support for tougher measures against illegal aliens came from Midwesterners (85%). (Pending Legislation) Another popular misconception is that immigrants consume a disproportionate amount of social services. The difference in percentages consumed by natives and immigrants was less than 1% and immigrants actually generated a surplus of $25 to $30 billion (Rumbaut, 617). Despite evidence to the contrary, many Americans still believe immigration to be harmful. This is simply not the case. As stated, legal immigrants provide a benefit not only to themselves, but also to native people. Though the problem of illegal immigration must be addressed, it should be done in such a way as not to discourage legal immigration. America was founded and populated by people from other countries. We must continue this if we expect to survive in the 21st century. B I B L I O G R A P H Y Blotnick, Srully. "Unleashed (Immigrant Professionals)." Forbes 26 Jan. 1987: 108. Mandel, Michael J. "The Immigrants: How They are Helping to Revitalize the U.S. Economy." Business Week 13 July 1992: 114-18. "Immigration," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation. "Pending Legislation", www.usbc.org/surveys/npg-poll.htm Rumbaut, Ruben, "Origins and Destinies: Immigration to the United States since World War II," Sociological Forum 9:4 (1994), pp. 583-621. "The New Americans: Yes, They'll Fit in too." The Economist 11 May 1991: 17-20. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Indians.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Iroquois is a tribe of the Eastern Woodland indians. The Iroquois is one tribe that is seperated into five groups. These groups are called , Seneca , Cayuga , Onondags , Oneida , and Mohawk. In the eigh-teenth century Tuscarora became another one of the five groups. Those are the six Iroquoisan tribe groups. The Iroquois indians are located in the northern part of New York.They are also located by one of the Great Lakes , Lake Superior.Being near Lake Superior can help the tribe. The men can go fishing or hunting. This helps get food. Indians The Iroquois indians lived in long house. The house name is called "longhouse." The longhouse held up to six to seven families at one time. In the longhouses the Iroquois held meeting about making "peace." In a s peace conference they would pick male sachems , or peace chief. I Kris Kleen give away all copyrights to cheathouse f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Iran.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Iran is a country located in the Middle East. The main source of income for the country is oil, the one object that had greatly influenced its history. Iran's present government is run as an Islamic Republic. A president, cabinet, judicial branch, and Majilesor or legislative branch, makes up the governmental positions. A revolution that overthrew the monarch, which was set in 1930, lasted over 15 years. Crane Brinton's book, An Anatomy of a Revolution, explains set of four steps a country experiences when a revolution occurs. Symptoms, rising fever, crisis, and convalescence are the steps that occur. The Iranian Revolution followed the four steps in Crane Brinton's theory, symptoms, rising fever, crisis, and convalescence occurred. Numerous symptoms led to the crumbling downfall of Reza Shah Pahlavi, ruler of Iran until 1978. One of these symptoms is rising expectations which can be seen during the 1960's and 70's. The rich Shah cleared the way for the land reform law, enacted in 1962. The land minority had to give up its land to the government, and among those stripped of land, were the Shi'ah Muslims. Iran's power structure was radically changed in a program termed the "White Revolution". On January 26, 1963, the White Revolution was endorsed by the nation. By 1971, when land distribution ended, about 2,500,000 families of the farm population benefited from the reforms. From 1960-72 the percentage of owner occupied farmland in Iran rose from 26 to 78 percent. Per capita income rose from $176 in 1960 to $2,500 in 1978. From 1970-77 the gross national product was reported to increase to an annual rate of 7.8% ("Iran" 896). As a result of this thriving economy, the income gap rapidly widened. Exclusive homes, extravagant restaurants, and night clubs and streets loaded with expensive automobiles served as daily reminders of a growing income spread. This created a perfect environment for many conflicts to arise between the classes. Iran's elite class consisted of wealthy land owners, intelligencia, military leaders, politicians, and diplomats. The Elite continued to support the monarchy and the Shah. The peasants were victim of unfulfilled political expectations, surveillance by the secret police, and the severe social and economic problems that resulted from modernization. The middle class favored socialism over capitalism, because capitalism in their view supported the elite, and does not benefit the lower classes. The middle class was the most changeable element in the group, because they enjoyed some of the privileges of the elite, which they would like to protect. At the same time, they believed that they had been cheated by the elite out of their share of the industrialization wealth (Orwin 43). About this time, the middle class, which included students, technocrats, and modernist professionals, became discontent with the economy. The key event should have further stabilized the royal dictatorship, but the increase in oil prices and oil income beginning in 1974 caused extreme inflation. This was due to the investment strategy followed by the Shah, which led to a spectacular 42% growth rate in 1974. (Cottam 14). And because of the Shah's support structure which enabled the new rich to benefit from inflation, the government effort to deal with inflation was aimless. Poor Iranians and Iranians with a fixed income suffered major losses in real income. Better standards of living were no longer visible. Thus, the majority of the Iranian people developed a revolutionary predisposition. As the middle class became discontent in Iran throughout the 1970's, the desertion of intellectuals could be found in great excess. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini represented much of the discontent of the religious sector of Iran. For speaking out against the Shah's autocratic rule, Khomeini was exiled to Turkey in 1963. In 1965, Khomeini moved to Iraq where he became the central spokesperson for expatriate opposition to the Shah. On October 6, 1978, Khomeini was expelled from Iraq and moved to Paris, where he was accessible to a larger body of opposition forces. He was also accessible to the Western Press. Khomeini preached that he would displace the Shah and expel the foreigners. He also said he would enforce religious and traditional values, and redirect Iran's wealth away from large industrialization schemes and toward reforms needed by the common people. Throughout the 1970's, Khomeini gained tremendous popularity with the masses, and he became the symbol of the opposition towards the Shah. As Khomeini gained popularity, many religious groups grew in numbers and in status. In the early 1950's, the technocrats had showed core support for Mohammad Mossedeq and Iran's national movement. They saw Mossadeq's overthrow as the removal of the symbolic leader of the Iranian nation by an American directed coup d'etat. Many of his followers formed groups in opposition to the Shah. Leaders of the Freedom Front, one of the groups that grew out of the Mossadeq movement, were a group composed of intellectuals who tended to be centrist in philosophy, more religious, anti-Marxist, and militant (Cottam 13). They recognized Khomeini's large and potentially enormous following, and associated themselves with him The rise of religious opposition groups and Khomeini proved to be a great test for the Shah. As time progressed the weakness of the Shah became apparent. Waves of opposition began building after 1975, due to the formation of the Rastakhiz , the legal political party in Iran, and the banning of opposition political parties. It also became clear that the increased oil revenues following oil price increases, were spent on arms and industrialization. In mid-1977 the religious leaders began demonstrating against the modernization brought on by the Shah. In November, several people were killed when police broke up demonstrations. As time went on, protests became more radical. To try and quiet dissent, the Shah became more of a dictator. As a result, those who had been moderate in demands for reform became more radical. In the fall of 1978, strikes against the oil industry, the post office, government factories, and banks demolished the economy. This pattern continued throughout most of 1978 (Orwin 45). As these protests became more frequent there were more and more people killed. This reflects the Shah's loss of power over his government and his people. In late 1978, the Shah came to the conclusion that he would and could not rule a country in which he had to stand in the flowing blood of his people. In short, he understood that he could not militarily occupy his own country. The Shah's early mistakes had been devastating as the years went on. His forceful actions did not work and it's no wonder that his grip weakened and his mid wavered. These events all led to the march against the government of the Shah, in which eight million Iranians protested on December 10, 1978 (Bill 25). One-fifth of the Iranian government was willing to join in a massive and nonviolent manifestation of opposition even though most of them knew that thousands of their countrymen had been shot in previous demonstrations. The banners and slogans made clear the religious and political essence of the revolutionary movement. This massive demonstration was the turning point from symptoms to rising fever. It clearly reflected the weakness of the Shah, and the inevitability of revolution in Iran. After a year of public demonstrations against him, the Shah of Iran left Tehran on January 16, 1979, for an "extended vacation" (Orwin 46). He left the country in the hands of a regency council and Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar, who was a former member of the National Front. The opposition leader, Khomeini, was to become the new ruler, and he returned to Iran on February 1, 1979. Khomeini occupied preeminent positions among Iran's most respected religious scholars, the Mujahedin-e Khalq.. Although Khomeini wanted a stable government that could cope with the problems of reconstruction, he wanted to eradicate the evil roots of the old system, which he describes as satanic. He denounced the materialism of the recent past and called for a climate in which social justice would prevail. On April 1, 1979, after a landslide victory in a national referendum, Khomeini declared an Islamic republic. This republic consisted of a new constitution reflecting Khomeini's ideals of Islamic government. He was named Iran's political and religious leader for life. Khomeini tapped the deep-seated conservatism of the Muslim fundamentalists by making moderate changes in the law. Women were required to wear the veil, Western music and alcohol were banned, and the punishments described by Islamic law were reinstated. Political vengeance was taken, executing hundreds of people who had worked with the Shah's regime ("Iran" 897). The large moderate center composed of the professional and bourgeois middle class had proved to be ineffective in their leadership abilities. Moderate Bakhtiar, the last prime minister under Pahlavi rule, was very unpopular, and he was unable to compromise with his former National Front colleagues or with Khomeini. He was then forced to flee to France. On April 1, 1979, his replacement, Mehdi Bazergan was appointed by Khomeini (Cottam 15). This 73-year-old engineer was a leader of the Freedom Front, and president of the committee of human rights. The middle and upper middle classes looked to Bazergan to provide stability so the economy would recover and the government services could be restored. Bazergan appointed a cabinet, mainly, from the ranks of the Freedom Front, the National Front, and the religious bureaucracy. Bazergan's position was weak, however, and he steadily lost ground to the due to the attacks from the far right and left. As their base of support narrowed, their dependence on Khomeini intensified. During this time, Iran's relation with the US went downhill. It reached a stage of outright confrontation, when, on November 4, 1979, 500 extremist students seized the US embassy in Tehran. They took hostage 66 citizens at the embassy and the foreign ministry ("The Iranian Revolution" 835). The takeover seemingly sanctioned by Khomeini, continued for the next 444 days, and American-Iranian relations sunk to an all-time low. This led to trade conflicts with the United States and its allies, causing economic problems. During the rising fever stage there is a presence of a dual government. During Bazergan's rule, it became difficult to administer justice with a court system that had been particularly lenient to the royal will. To deal with these problems on a temporary basis. Khomeini set up a system of revolutionary committees presided over by a revolutionary council. Religious leaders clearly predominated in the revolutionary council- committee-courts system, which came to be almost a parallel government. In November, 1979, Bazergan resigned, and in his place Khomeini appointed Abol Hassan Bani Sadr. Bani Sadr was an idealist, a bookworm, and most personally ambitious of all the liberal revolutionaries. Like the other moderates, he was a representative of the professional middle class, who had little skill or patience to build political organizations. Bani Sadr's efforts were fruitless in dealing with the hostage releases. After being elected Iran's first president in January 1980, he and his followers, out of self defense and desperation, formed an alliance with the Mujahedin-e Khalq ("Iran" 897). He also attempted to work hard to establish close relations with the military leaders. He ineffectively tried to appeal to the Iranian people, who had little in common with a Paris trained intellectual. One can see that during this stage of rising fever, moderate control is losing power. The people of Iran became upset with the little change that was taking place, and wanted more extreme measures taken. In mid-1981, leaders of the Islamic Republican Party (IRP) convinced Khomeini that Bani Sadr was plotting against them, and suggested evidence indicating that he was a threat to the revolution. This led to his dismissal on June 20, of position of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. His presidency lasted 17 months. He was arrested and dismissed as president on June 22. Forced into hiding, he fled Iran on July 29, 1981, and was granted political asylum in Paris. On July 24, extremist Muhammad Ali Rajai with substantial IRP backing, won the electoral victory over the moderates. Thus, the period of rising fever ended, and the period of crisis began. In 1981, Khomeini took complete control over Iran and took many extremist measures. He made sure the government completely controlled the media, as well as newspapers, television broadcasts, and radio programs. He had strict control of everything, including the treasury and flow of money to religious leaders. Those who disagreed with him faced severe economic retribution. The crisis had begun and radicals had taken over. Under Khomeini's rule (1981-1989) came a great period of reign of terror. For example, after a speech the Ayatollah made, right wing revolutionary guards fired into a rally of approximately one hundred thousand Muslim leftists outside the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. Five people were killed and more than 300 were wounded. Supporters held food riots in Tunisia, and others held six car bombings in Kuwait. The Islamic Jihad held suicide bombings that killed two hundred-forty one U.S. Servicemen, and fifty-eight French troops in Beirut. These acts were not looked at as being bad acts of terrorism, but rather as acts of patriotic heroes. The reign of terror, the next step in the crisis, brought extremists into complete control. The people of Iran in the early 1980's, had just about enough of all these laws and regulations, and were outraged at their standard of living. People were finally starting to revolt against the way that they have been treated. This period according to Crane Brinton, is known as the civil war. Civil war started in Iran with the conflict with the Kurds. These people were pushed out of their homes, religious temples, and places of business, because of the overpowering radicals. An entire religious group was almost completely annihilated because of the savage behavior of the radicals. It was later found that the Kurdish problem was merely a pretext on Iran's part to engage in meetings and collaborations with two influential middle eastern states, Turkey and Syria. People suffered so that government could gain allies. The poor treatment of the Kurds led to confusion in the nation. Because of all of the chaos in the country, due to different public demonstrations and mass rioting, government groups were forming. The IRP, one of these groups, was in support of a nationalistic movement. Opposed to it was the Hojatieh, and a third party, which represented the Mullahs and the high ayatollahs. This third group thought Khomeini was reckless, so there was great hostility towards the IRP. These groups formed different factions among the people of Iran, and led to a divided nation. In the early 1980's, patriotic fever was bordering on hysteria, and the nationalism was incredible. This patriotic fever fits in to the next part of the revolution, the republic of virtue. Iran's people had a great sense of nationalism inside of them. People held many parades and marches to express their nationalism. During this time, women were forced to wear veils in public, modern divorce laws were repealed, and harsh courts were set up, which set strict laws and harsh penalties. The colliding views of the Iranian groups, as well as the republic of virtue, made it hard for Iran to deal with other countries. During this period, Iran's relationship with Iraq became troubled. The war began with a fight for land and oil and as a result of the personalities of the two leaders. Both Hussein, the leader of Iraq, and Khomeini are headstrong. In addition, they disliked each other (Orwin 42). All of the circumstances that resulted from the war may have contributed in some measure to the outbreak and continuation of the conflict between Iran and Iraq (Iran-Iraq War 77-78). The situation worsened in September of 1980 when Iraq launched an attack on Iran to take control of the waterway that divided the two countries ("Iranian Revolution" p. 835). During the war, industry suffered. Chemical, steel, and iron plants in the war zone were heavily shelled. There have been shortages in electricity, fuel, and spare parts. The available pool of workers has diminished as thousands of men marched off to the front lines to fight. This caused great economic problems throughout the mid-1980's. Iraq attempted to devastate oil economy even further. Tankers and ships 50 miles off the oil terminal were struck. Iran would be deprived of a major source of income (Orwin 41). By 1984 it was reported that there were one million refuges in the Iranian province of Khuzestan. Some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded. Among the injured were Iranian soldiers who sustained burns, blisters, and lung damage from Iraqi chemical weapons (Orwin 47). The war lasted about 8 years and Iran suffered casualties, not only in people, but in economy and leadership as well. Because of the war with Iraq, and the purges going on in Iran, the economy was severely depressed. Besides the enormous human cost, economic losses from the war exceed $200 billion. Agricultural growth has declined as a result of war, also (Orwin 34). During the crisis and during the war with Iraq, industry is plagued by poor labor management, a lack of competent technical and managerial personnel, and shortages of raw material and spare parts. Agricultural suffers from shortage of capital, raw materials, and equipment, and as a result, food production has declined. Also, out of an estimated work force of 12 million, unemployment is up to 3-4 million (Orwin 16). Iran's economy was desperate. In connection with the devastating economy with the war, there was economic suffering through purges, the next step in crisis. Extensive purges were carried out in the army, in the school and university systems, and in some of the departments of government although the Ministries of Justice and Commerce proved significantly more resistant because of the entrenched power of conservative elements there). Additionally, new institutions were created, like the Revolutionary Guards - including the creation of a ministry for them - and the counsel of Guardians, along with a string of other judicial bodies (Akhavi 53). Purges eliminated many qualified personnel, and lowered the morale of the Iranian people. Finally, after about 9 years of crisis and fighting among different groups, there was a breakthrough in the revolution, with the return of conservatives. The Ayatollah Khomeini died in May of 1989, and a new leader by the name of Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani was elected and came to power two months later. This would start the convalescence stage of Crane Brinton's revolution. Rafsanjani has not actually called for a reversal of strict Islamic injunctions, but in oblique ways he is signaling that he favors a more relaxed approach, especially in the enforcement of the hijab (Ramazani 7). Under Rafsanjani, the return of the church has been allowed to occur, which is another step in the theory of a revolution. On August 2, 1991, Iran resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq and had also resolved the issue over the pilgrimage of Iranian Muslims to Mecca, which has been suspended for three years. Inside Iran, the most significant development in the last few months took place in October, when several Iranian leaders teamed up in a maneuver to marginalize opponents (Igram A-10). Twelve years after Khomeini came to power, Iran's Islamic revolution has finally softened around the edges. The signs of fitful change are everywhere. On Tehran's streets women still observe hijab (the veil), the Islamic injunction that women keep themselves covered except for their faces and hands. But some have exchanged their shapeless black chedors for slightly fitted raincoats in colors like green and purple. Women's fingernails are starting to sport glosses, too (Ramazani 32). Obviously, the republic of virtue has been eliminated, which is the next part in the convalescence. After Khomeini's death, many radical groups were weakened. This led to the elimination of radicals. President Rafsanjani, with the support of Khomeini, swiftly eliminated four of his most hard-line adversaries from the political scene by challenging their right to re-election. With Rafsanjani in control, Iranians took a new look at crisis. His pragmatic policies were firmly established, replacing militancy and isolation. Rafsanjani campaigned to decrease the influence of important opponents, therefore improving ties with the western world. As well as attracting foreign trade. The radicals were finally eliminated, and Iran could return to the way it was. Economic problems after a revolution are good. Iran had been in debt from the time the revolution started, and an economic recovery was needed. There was an increase in oil revenue in 1990, since ties with non-oil bearing countries had been replaced. There was also and increase in oil price, as well as other raw materials. Iran did have ten billion dollars froze in American banks, which still partly remain there today. The country's economic problems were starting to be resolved. The return of status quo, is the final step in the convalescence stage. Iran has returned to the status quo. They have many ties, including ties with North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Europe. Trade and friendliness has increased with Russia, as well. Russia currently want to build nuclear reactors in Iran. Commerce opened with Japan, Pakistan, Turkey, and even some allies of Iraq. Rafsanjani wants to end Iran's pariah status in the world community and gain desperately needed aid. He thinks they are in a period of reconstruction (Desmond 32). The Iranian Revolution is over, and the country is back on its feet. Rafasanjani was an incredible help to the economy and the government, and remains in power today. Iran has a great number of allies, which improves its ties with the west. Iran's oil industry is booming, and the country's economy remains stable. Americans are again allowed to be seen on the streets of Tehran, and the foreign debt has reduced. The U.S. still has their problems with Iran (the money in the banks), but these problems are still in the process of being resolved. Iran is progressing steadily, and has recovered from the revolution. The Iranian Revolution follows Crane Brinton's theory on a revolution because the revolution included symptoms, rising fever, crisis, and convalescence, just as the theory states. Works Cited Akhavi, Shahrough. "Institutionalizing New Order in Iran." Current History. Feb. 1987: 53-56, 83. Bill, James A. "The Shah, The Ayatollah, and the U.S." The Economist. June 1987: 24-26. Cottam, Richard W. "Revolutionary Iran." Current History. Jan. 1980: 12-16, 35. Ibram, Youssef. "Standoff in the Gulf: Testing the Waters in Tehran." The New York Times. "Iran." The New Encyclopedia Britanica. Vol. 21 1992: 860- 861, 896-897. Orwin, George. Iran Iraq: Nations at War. New York: Shirmer Books, 1990. Ramazani, R.K. "Iran's Islamic Revolution and the Persian Gulf." Current History. Jan. 1985: 5-8, 32. "The Iranian Revolution." People and Nations. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1993. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Jacques Cartier.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jacques Cartier Tom Jodlowski 09-19-98 History Jacques Cartier Jacques Cartier was born in St. Malo (France) in 1491. Not much is known of his life before 1534, when he departed on his first voyage. He was looking for a passage through or around North America to East Asia, as some had done before him, and many would after him. Though he undoubtedly made a voyage to the New World prior to 1534, probably in Brazil. In 1534, he was given a grant by King Francis I of France to search for the north west passage. Cartier explored the coast of Newfoundland, but found no passage leading westward. He made the crossing of the Atlantic in only twenty days, and landed on an island near the coast of Newfoundland, by then already much frequented by Breton fisherman. He sailed north, and entered the Straight of Belle Isle. He sailed into and named the gulf of St. Lawrence, sailed along the westcoast of Newfoundland, and crossed the Bay to the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island, both of which he thought were part of the mainland. Then he went to Chaleur Bay and Gaspe¢ peninsula which he claimed for the French crown. There he saw 50 canoes filled with Micmac indians, who seemed friendly and greeted him with the words napeu tondamen assurtah (we want to make friendship). The next day the French and the Micmac traded and celebrated. Cartier explored the bay, being disappointed that it was not the straight to China he had hoped it to be. He also met a fishing party of 200 Hurons, led by their chief, Donnaconna. His sons, Domagaia and Taignagny, went to France with Cartier to become interpreters. Cartier explored Anticosti Islands and returned to France. As he had heared of a large river further to the west, and hoped it to be the sought-for northeast passage, Cartier departed on a second voyage in the next year. He sailed through the Strait of Belle Isle again, but this time followed the coast westward, and reached the St. Lawrence. He sailed upriver until the Huron village of Stadacona (at the location of present-day Quebec). Donnacona first greeted him friendly and solemnly, but refused to let him sail further west. Three medicin men dressed up as devils, and warned Cartier not to go further, but Cartier just laughed at it. He went further upriver, leaving the two Huron boys behind. He reached Hochelaga, another Huron village. Again their coming resulted in extensive festivities. Cartier climbed a mountain he called Mount R'eal (royal mountain), and was appointing when he saw the Lachine Rapids a bit upriver, which told him that this was not the passage to China. He spent the winter in Stadacona. During the winter his men suffered from scurvy, less than ten of his 110 men remained strong enough, and had to get food and water for all. Because he was afraid that the indians would attack if they learned that the French were ill, Cartier ordered his men to make noise when they were near. The expedition might well not have survived if it were not for Domagaia. Domagaia had scurvy too, but ten days later Cartier saw him healthy and well. Domagaia told him he had cured from the bark and needles of the white cedar tree. Just over one week later the tree was bare, but all Cartier's men were healthy again. The Hurons told him stories about a land in the north, called Saguenay, full of gold and other treasure. None of this was true of course, but the Hurons liked telling stories, and when they found the French liked stories of riches, they were happy to give them these. Willing to let king Francis I to hear about these stories, Cartier kidnapped Donnaconna and his sons, and took them with him to France. He wanted to make another expedition, this time to look for Saguenay, but because of a war with Spain, and the difficulties of preparing the voyage, he was not able to do so until 1541. This time Cartier would not be the sole leader of the expedition, but had to serve under Jean-Francois de la Rocque, sieur de Robervalas viceroy and commander in chief. He visited Stadacona, and built a fort near the mouth of the Saguenay. His men collected what they thought were diamonds and gold, but in reality were only quartz and iron pyrite (fool's gold). Cartier himself went west, looking for Saguenay, but got no further than Hochelaga. Back at his fort (called Charlesbourg-Royal) he spent the winter. Some thirty-five of his men were killed in sporadical indian attacks (the Hurons had become hostile when they realized the French had come to stay), and Cartier was worried about the fact that Roberval did not show up. The next spring he met Roberval on Newfoundland. Roberval wanted him to return, but Cartier refused, and sneaked back to France. Roberval built a fort near Stadacona, wintered there, went looking for Saguenay but also got no further than Hochelaga, and returned to France. Cartier spent the rest of his life in St.-Malo and his nearby estate, and died in September 1, 1557, age 66. He published an account of his voyages in 1545, which was translated into english by Richard Hakluyt in 1600. In conclusion Jacques Cartier has discovered new land for the French, which sponsored his many voyages (3). He explored the coast of the St. Lawrence river, Mount Royal (Montreal), the coast of the Newfoundland, and Cap Rouge. Even though his goal was to find a northwest passage to china in the westward. Some of his achievements were the French colonies on the St. Lawrence river, the discovery of Montreal, which he called Mount Royal, and the settlement on Cap Rouge. Some setbacks or significant events on his voyage was that less than ten of his one hundred ten of his men suffered from scurvy, a lack of vitamins. Domagaia had found a cure, it was from the bark of a tree as mentioned, the tree went bare at the end of the week, but the crew was healthy again. Another significant event was when he made friends with the indians, and the Benton fisherman, and the Huron village of Stadacona. This explorer shed light to the path of Cabot and Verrazano. Word Count: 1055 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Jays Treaty.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jay's Treaty "If this country is preserved in tranquillity twenty years longer, it may bid defiance in a just cause to any power whatever; such in that time will be its popularity, wealth and resources," stated by George Washington in response to demonstrators over the Jay Treaty. 1 Washington's remark was regarding the public's uproar following the release of information on the status of the discord with Great Britain. The people had just been informed of the contents of the Jay Treaty which were: 1) Britain agreed to give up the fur posts in American territory, 2) Britain also agreed to submit to arbitration the questions of disputed boundaries, the damage done to American shipping, and the debts due to British merchants. Although the people did not like these terms, Washington supported them to prevent us from going to war. Washington made his first move by sending a delegate to England, and furthermore by standing up to congress to get this treaty ratified. He demonstrates again his great moral courage for the welfare of his country. Although Washington himself did not write the treaty he deserves all the credit for initiating it in the first place. The times had become rough with the British, and according to Hamilton the British were a vital part of our economy. He said " ...the tax on imports furnished much of the money for paying off our foreign, domestic, and state debts." 2 Along with the British's impressment of American seamen and their role in our economy Washington knew something had to be done. Washington knew that the tension between America and England had to be thinned out so he decided to send over a special envoy. The individual chosen for the job was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay. John Jay had much experience in this department because he was the former Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the old Confederation. His objective was to make peace between the two countries. He was under instructions to make no commitment in violation of the treaties with France. Fortunately, Washington came to terms to do this, otherwise our infant country may never have grown into what it is today. This indubitably turned out to be one of Washington's bolder moves towards assisting his country. Another powerful move was demonstrated by Washington as he persuaded the Senate to ratify the treaty. The Jay Treaty was signed on November 19th , 1794, but was not ratified by the Senate until seven months later. "President George Washington's signing of the Jay Treaty provoked unimaginable criticism of his character and policies and changed the focus of the debate over the treaty." 3 Some of the Americans wanted to go to war, so essentially George Washington was putting his name on the line to get this treaty ratified. The Republicans in the House attempted to block the treaty by denying the appropriation for enforcing its provisions. The House request for the papers relating to Jay's Treaty was refused by Washington because the concurrence of the two Houses was not required to give validity to a treaty and "because of the necessity of maintaining the boundaries fixed by the Constitution." 4 Again, the people are lucky to have a persistent leader who deserves credit for saving our country. The prominent individual who deserves all the credit in nurturing our country from its young and early days is unquestionably George Washington. The passage of the Jay Treaty was instrumental in allowing the young country to develop economically and ultimately prevent war with Britain. The second influential move he made was to have this treaty ratified. He argued that the country did not need to draw itself into a war with a country that held ninety percent of its imports. Washington had to fight for this with his reputation and even his life. These were the visions of George Washington. As the years went by because of George Washington, the United States and Great Britain were able to settle their differences peacefully. In doing so they followed the precedent of arbitration established in Jay's Treaty and they demonstrated to the world one way of avoiding wars. 5 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\JFK Exposed.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (Part 1 - The first Ricky White News Story) NOV. 22, 1963: ANOTHER STORY BLURS THE FACTS SON OF DALLAS COP SAYS DAD WAS 1 OF 3 WHO SHOT KENNEDY By Andrew Likakis In another bizarre twist to a mystery that has haunted Americans for more than a quarter century, the son of a former Dallas police officer plans to tell the world that his father was one of the assassins of President John F. Kennedy. Ricky White, a 29-year-old, unemployed oil equipment salesman in Midland, says he "had no conception of ever, ever giving this story out" but decided to do so after FBI agents began asking questions in May 1988. "I'm telling you a story that has touched me, not only others, and I feel uncomfortable just telling it to strangers," White said during a recent interview with the Austin American-Statesman. Monday in Dallas, White is scheduled to show reports material implicating his father, Roscoe Anthony White, in the 1963 assassination. It suggests that White, who died in 1971, was a member of an assassination team of three shooters, that he fired two of the three bullets that killed the president, and that he also killed Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit during the manhunt for Lee Harvey Oswald. Among the material: a rifle with telescopic sight that uses the same kind of ammunition as Oswald's gun; records showing that Oswald and White served together in the Marines; three faded messages that appear to be decoded orders to kill someone in Dallas in November 1963; and a son's recollections of his father's incriminating diary - a document that is missing. The press conference is being sponsored by two private groups - the JFK Assassination Information Centre of Dallas and the Assassination Archives and Research Centre of Washington - and some Midland Businessmen. The possibility of Ricky White's story being a hoax - a falsehood concocted either by Ricky or his father - has not been dismissed by the people urging him to publicly talk about the matter. During the last 27 years, many private researchers have claimed to have found evidence of a conspiracy, only to be proved wrong or deceitful. Bernard Fensterwald, executive director of the Assassination Archives and Research Centre, says if there was a conspiracy, Ricky White may have the key. "I think it's our best shot," he says, "and we better take it." J. Gary Shaw, co-director of the JFK Assassination Information Centre, says he hopes White's story will result in an investigation of the assassination by Texas authorities. Two Washington-based probes - the Warren Commission in 1963-64 and the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976-78 failed to resolve the enigma of the Kennedy shooting, Shaw maintains. As with previous conspiracy theories, White's story is tantalizing, the evidence intriguing. Yet, as with other theories, it raises more questions than it answers -- such as: Who issued the orders to the so-called assassination team? Why was the assassination ordered against Kennedy? And why is Ricky White telling this story now? AN OSWALD CONNECTION Using clues discovered in his father's effects and relying on available government records, Ricky White says he has determined that Roscoe White and Lee Harvey Oswald probably met in 1957. Ricky White's mother, Geneva, is gravely ill and unable to be interviewed, family members say. According to Military records, both White and Oswald were among a contingent of U.S. Marines, who boarded the USS Bexar in San Diego that year for the 22-day trip to Yokosuka, Japan. In its final report, the Warren Commission published a photo of Oswald with other Marines in the Philippines. All but one of the Marines was squatting on the ground. Ricky White says his father claimed to have been the standing Marine and claimed to have become acquainted with Oswald in Japan and the Philippines. Military records show that Roscoe White took frequent unexplained trips in the Pacific, and Ricky White says that his father's diary described those as secret intelligence assignments. It has been established in previous investigations that Oswald was discharged in 1959 and defected to the Soviet Union. He returned to the United States in mid-1962, settling first in Fort Worth with his Russian-born wife, then moving to Dallas a short time later. Military records show Roscoe White was discharged in late 1962, joining his wife and two young sons in Paris, Texas. Ricky White says that shortly thereafter, his father moved the family to Dallas and took a job as an insurance salesman. MAN WITH TWO NAMES Ricky White says that two months ago he found several faded messages in a military weapons canister in the attic of Geneva White's parents home in Paris. Ricky believes the messages to be decoded cables in which Mandarin, a name he says his father was known by, was told his next assignment would be "to eliminate a National Security threat to worldwide peace" in Houston, Austin, or Dallas. Another message from the same source - "C. Bowers" of "Navy Intelligence" - identified Dallas as the destination and provided White with a list of contacts. It stated White had a "place hidden within the department." The message was dated September 1963 - the same month that Geneva White began a brief stint as a cocktail hostess at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club in Dallas. Ruby fatally shot Oswald two days after the Kennedy assassination. Dallas police records show that on Oct. 7, 1963, Roscoe White joined the department as a photographer and clerk. He did not become a patrol officer until 1964. A staff member in the police personnel department said recently that White's file contains no job references. Ricky White says his father's diary referred to several trips made during this period to a remote area in the foothills near Van Horn, Texas. There, Roscoe White and several others practised shooting at moving targets, Ricky White says. Although he was younger than 3 years old, Ricky White says he has vague memories of being taken to Van Horn. "My impression was they (others at the Van Horn camp) had been working with my father in the military," Ricky White says, "because they had known each other well when this took place." A FOOTLOCKER AND DIARY Ricky White says that, after his grandfather died in 1982, he was given his father's footlocker, which had been stored in the grandfather's house in Paris. The locker contained military memorabilia, a Marine uniform, a safe deposit box key and a black leather-bound diary with gold trim that detailed Roscoe White's life. As he and his mother read the diary, Ricky White says they found passages that implicated Roscoe White in the Kennedy assassination. "My mother and I cried together," he says, "because it hurt very deeply to learn what I know now. It hurt so much because the man I had known couldn't have fired those shots. It took this investigation to be able to learn it's true. And my family's given a part of themselves to tell the story." From the diary he says he learned the significance of the hunting rifle his father gave him: a 7.65mm Mauser with telescopic sight, an Argentine rifle that shoots round-nose, elongated bullets - projectiles that closely resemble those of a Mannlicher-Carcano, an Italian rifle that Oswald was accused of using. After reading the diary, White says he was convinced his father was one of three assassins who fired six shots from Mauser rifles into the president's open top limousine in Dealey Plaza. Roscoe White shot from behind a fence atop a grassy knoll to the right and front of the limousine, his son says. Two other marksmen were in the Texas School Book Depository and Records buildings behind the vehicle. Three shots struck Kennedy; a fourth wounded Texas Gov. John Connally. Ricky White says the two shots that his father fired both struck Kennedy: the first in the throat; the second, and last of the shots fired, in the head. Oswald, Ricky White says, knew of the plot, but did not fire a shot. He had been instructed to bring his rifle to the Book Depository, where he worked, and to build a sniper's nest of book boxes near the sixth floor window, from which he was accused of firing all the fatal shots, Ricky White says. Ricky White says the diary referred to the other shooters only by code names: Sol in the Records building; and Lebanon in the Texas School Book Depository. The diary indicated each of the three riflemen was accompanied by an assistant who disassembled the rifles after the shooting and carried them out of the area, Ricky White says. According to the diary, Ricky White says, his father was to escape with Oswald by riding to Red Bird Airport in South Dallas in a city police car driven by a friend and fellow officer who did not know what was happening. That officer, Ricky White says, was J. D. Tippit, who was shot to death at 10th Street and Patton Avenue in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas about 45 minutes after Kennedy was shot. Oswald was seen running from the scene of that shooting. Ricky White says his father wrote that, as they drove south, the unsuspecting officer began to realize what White and Oswald were involved in. Oswald panicked and jumped from the car. When the officer insisted on "turning in" White, White got out of the car and shot the officer, Ricky White says. "I killed an officer at 10th and Patton," Ricky White quotes the diary as saying. Less than a half hour later, Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre on West Jefferson Boulevard in Oak Cliff. He had a .38- calibre revolver police said was the murder weapon. Murder charges against Oswald in connection with Tippit's death were filed before he was charged with Kennedy's death. Whether the revolver found in Oswald's possession was actually the weapon that killed Tippit has been a matter of dispute in several government investigations. Ricky White says that shortly after the assassination, his father sent the family to Paris and that he and other members of the assassination team used a "hideaway house" in Dripping Springs. He says that, among his father's effects, he found a third decoded message, dated December 1963, that advised his father to "stay within department, witnesses have eyes, ears and mouths....The men+will be in to cover up all misleading evidence soon." That same month President Lyndon Johnson named Chief Justice Earl Warren to head a commission to investigate the assassination. The Warren Commission concluded in September 1964 that Oswald acted alone in killing both Kennedy and Tippit. Police records show that on Oct. 19, 1965, Roscoe White quit the Dallas Police Department and became manager of a Dallas area drug store. During the next six years, he switched jobs several times, finally working as a foreman at M&M Equipment Co., in East Dallas. FAMILY TROUBLE AND DEATH By early 1970, Roscoe and Geneva White were a deeply troubled couple and sought help, said the Rev. Jack Shaw, their Baptist minister in Dallas. During a recent interview with the American-Statesman, Shaw said Roscoe White told him at the time that he and his family were "in danger." White confessed to leading "a double life," the minister says, "and I knew something was not right, something strange was going on." Shaw says that within the last two years he tape recorded a number of counselling sessions with Geneva White about her recollection of what she believed to be her former husband's role in assassinations. Shaw, who is very guarded in talking about the case, says Ricky White has only a small portion of the full story, which he says "will knock your eyes out." Shaw says he met with the Whites several times in 1970-71, but the Kennedy assassination was not mentioned. In 1971, Roscoe White was fatally injured in an explosive fire at M&M Equipment. Before White died, Shaw talked with him in the hospital. He recalls White saying he didn't think the fire was an accident - that he had seen a man running away just before the fire. After the funeral, Geneva White moved her family back to Paris. There, about four years later, the White home was burglarized and some of Roscoe White's personal possessions were taken, Ricky White says. Police captured the two burglars and returned the possessions which included some of Roscoe White's photos - among them a shot taken by Marina Oswald of her husband Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in the back yard of their Dallas home in 1963. For nearly 15 years after the assassination only two such photos were known. Roscoe White's became the third. In its final report, the House Special Committee on Assassinations identified the photo as coming from the family of a former Dallas policeman. According to Ricky White and an investigator for the House committee, Geneva White had contacted the FBI after the burglary. The FBI informed the committee of the existence of the photo. The matter was not pursued because committee investigators didn't know about White's past relationship with Oswald or Geneva White's brief employment at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. OTHERS FIND OUT Until he discovered the footlocker, Ricky White says he didn't think much about his father or the Kennedy assassination. He grew up in Dallas and Paris, where he went to school, got married and moved to Midland where he and his wife have two children. There he took a job selling oil field equipment. As shocking as the diary was to Ricky White and his mother, Ricky says it was the safe deposit box key that was to draw others into the Roscoe White story. Thinking his father might have left money or valuables in a deposit box, Ricky White tried to find a bank that would recognize the key. By 1988 he was so frustrated in his attempts that he turned to Midland District Attorney Al Schorre for help. Schorre says he and his chief investigator, J. D. Lucky, failed to find the bank. Schorre and Lucky say they repeatedly asked to see Roscoe White's diary after Ricky White mentioned it, but that he told them a relative in the Lubbock area had it. Ricky White says he may have told Schorre the diary was somewhere else but that he had always kept it in his possession. Finally, Schorre, who lacked authority to demand the diary, called the FBI. Ricky White says three agents came to his house and asked him to answer questions in their Midland office. He says he took his father's effects with him and the FBI made copies of all the items except the diary. He says after several hours of questioning he returned home with all his father's effects. Later that same day, White says, FBI agent Tom Farris came to his house to retrieve a notebook he had inadvertently left in the box of Roscoe White's effects. White says he became aware that the diary was missing three or four days later. "I never said that the (FBI agents) took it," he says. "I am just saying he was the last one to leave that box." Agent Farris, who is in the Midland FBI office, transferred inquiries about the diary to his supervisor, Tom Kirspel. Kirspel would neither confirm nor deny that the agents had seen a diary. White says he never asked the FBI if it had the missing diary because he was "scared" of the agents who called at his house. "I don't want to have anything to do with the FBI," he says. Ricky White says FBI agent Ron Butler told him in 1988 that the FBI had determined that Roscoe White was at a crime scene in far Northeast Dallas at the time Kennedy was shot. Butler declined to comment on any conversations with Ricky White. QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY Shaw, the director of the JFK Assassination Information Centre in Dallas, says Ricky White has passed both a polygraph test and a voice stress analysis and passed both tests "with flying colours." However, the authenticity of the messages Ricky White says he found is undetermined. Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman John Wanat says the agency cannot determine whether the messages came from authentic ONI cables without the coded cables. "What they have there is really nothing that we can narrow down as far as who may have generated it or if it's legitimate or whether it's something that was fabricated," Wanat said after viewing texts of the messages. John Stockwell, former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Angola Task Force in Washington, D.C. has seen the messages and sees a "90 to 95 percent probability" that they are genuine. However, he says he cannot discount the possibility the messages are part of "an elaborate hoax." "I've measured it against my own readings and consultations with researchers of the Kennedy thing," says Stockwell, who ended a 12- year CIA career in 1976 after being accused of violating his secrecy agreement with the agency. "I can't see anything in what they have found and what the young man (Ricky White) is saying that is implausible in terms of what our best knowledge of the assassination is now. It all could very well be true, and I would put it at a high probability that it is true." Bob Inman vehemently disagrees. After reading copies of the text, Inman, former naval intelligence director (1974-76) and CIA deputy director (1981-82), says the messages were not ONI- generated. None of the three-digit code names in the heading of the messages means anything, he says. "My reaction is that it's a forgery of some kind or invalid," Inman says. "There is not anything about this format that I have ever seen before. That's not the way messages were set up in those days at all." Less is known about what Ricky White says is a witness elimination list that he found in the canister. Ricky White says there were 28 witnesses on the list, news clippings of each victim and accompanied in some cases by his father's writing. "Ricky White's story is no less logical than what we have been led to believe in 27 years." says Fensterwald. "If just anyone came out of the woodwork and said, 'I shot John Kennedy,' I would be exceedingly cautious about it. But if someone who was in the Marine Corps with Oswald, whose wife worked for Jack Ruby and who knew the Tippit family, crawls out of the woodwork and says I was involved in it, that doesn't stretch my credulity at all. "It does, however, need a lot more investigation by some official body with power to subpoena witnesses. I don't think private citizens can carry it much further." PREVIOUS INQUIRIES ON ASSASSINATION The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas was investigated by two government bodies: The Warren Commission, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded after a nine-month investigation in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, fired two shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, killing President John F. Kennedy and wounding Texas Gov. John Connally. The report conclusions left many skeptics. Since bullets passed through the victims and shattered, investigators were not able to match the rifling on the bullets to the marks that would have been caused by Oswald's rifle. After a three-year investigation, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in early 1979 that Oswald fired two shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally. Scientific acoustical evidence indicated a "high probability" that an unidentified second gunman was firing from the grassy knoll to the front and right of the presidential limousine, but missed. (Part 2 - The post-press conference follow-up story) August 7, 1990 DALLAS COP'S SON ROLLS OUT JFK THEORY MATTOX, CIA, HOLLYWOOD ANSWER CONSPIRACY CLAIM By Andrew Likakis The Texas attorney general, a major Hollywood producer and the Central Intelligence Agency are now being written into the newest chapter in the never-ending mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy. A 29-year-old unemployed oil equipment salesman from Midland stood before scores of reporters in Dallas Monday and implicated his dead father in the assassination. Soon after, Attorney General Jim Mattox said he'd gladly review the evidence, and the CIA issued an unheard of denial. At the same time, the FBI, which had previously refused to comment on Ricky White's story, issued a statement in Washington saying agents had reviewed and dismissed White's story two years ago. And, finally, those who believe White's story is true acknowledge that last weekend, several of them met in Hollywood with producer/director Oliver Stone, presumably to discuss movie rights to the White story. The latest chapter in the Kennedy epic began at a two-hour press conference in which White said his father, Roscoe Anthony White, joined the Dallas Police Department in October 1963 with the express intent of killing Kennedy. During the press conference called by two assassination research groups and several Midland businessmen, White and Baptist minister Jack Shaw talked about incriminating entries in Roscoe White's missing diary, decoded cables, and the relationship that Roscoe White and his wife, Geneva, had with Lee Harvey Oswald, Dallas Officer J. D. Tippit and Jack Ruby. Based on his own memories, his father's diary and effects, and the recollections of his mother, Ricky White told reporters that his father had been one of three shooters on the day Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Although Officer Tippit was a friend of his father's, Ricky White says his father shot Tippit to death in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas about 45 minutes after the assassination, as he and Oswald were trying to get away. Oswald was later accused of killing Tippit. During the press conference, White said his father was following orders to kill Kennedy and that, while he did not know who issued the orders, three messages found among his father's effects have coding that might have come from the Office of Naval Intelligence or, indirectly, the CIA. CIA RESPONSE: 'LUDICROUS' The suggestion of CIA involvement brought a sharp response Monday from agency spokesman Mark Mansfield in Washington: "These allegations - that this was done on CIA orders, that this guy worked for us and that CIA had any role in the assassination of President Kennedy - are ludicrous." Roscoe White never worked for the CIA, Mansfield said, adding: "normally, we never confirm nor deny employment, but these allegations are so outrageous that we felt it necessary and appropriate to respond." Also Monday, the FBI issued a statement saying its agents had considered the Ricky White story in 1988 and had "determined that this information is not credible." Bernard Fensterwald, executive director of the Assassination Archives and Research Centre in Washington, said Monday that Mattox will be given all material that points toward Roscoe White's involvement in the assassination. RUBY, OSWALD MEETING In another curious twist to the case, Mattox said late Monday he is interested in pursing the White story because he was once told by his mother, a waitress at Campisi's Egyptian Restaurant in Dallas, that Ruby frequented the restaurant and that she thought she saw Ruby and Oswald eating dinner there together once. The restaurant owner, the late Joe Campisi, testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 that he didn't see Oswald in his eatery, Mattox said. Mattox said he believes he has jurisdiction in the case, and he would interview White and his associates "to see what they've got and let them explain it to me." "The key to the thing, of course, is, if the FBI acknowledges seeing the diary," Mattox said. "The only thing to do is to get a look at the diary or acknowledgement (by the FBI) that it existed." "This is not a solution to the John Kennedy case," Fensterwald said after Ricky White told his story. "It's information we think is important, and we think it's true. Even if what is said here today checks out, the case is not solved. We still don't know who planned it and paid for it and basically what the shooting was about. The best we can hope for is to get out of this an idea of who the actual assassins were." It may be difficult for Mattox or anybody else to do much with the case without the Roscoe White diary, which disappeared in 1988. The leather bound journal talked about the assassination and the aftermath, said Ricky White, adding that he and his mother read it. Roscoe White died of injuries sustained in an explosive fire in 1971. His widow, Geneva, is critically ill and, according to family members, unable to be interviewed. A 'SILENCED' WIFE According to the Rev. Shaw, Geneva White could help an investigation. Shaw says Roscoe and Geneva White confided in him in 1970-71 when they were having marital problems. And, he says, Geneva White confided in him again during the last year, telling him that she was working as a hostess in Ruby's Carousel Club when she overheard her husband and Ruby discussing "the entire plot of the assassination of the President two months before the shooting. After the assassination, Shaw says, Geneva White was given electric shock treatments and kept sedated so she "would be silenced." Ruby had told her "in no uncertain terms that if she opened her mouth she was dead and her children were dead," Shaw says Geneva White told him. Shaw says Geneva White told him she confronted her husband after an organized crime figure approached her in New Orleans in 1971 and told her to deliver a warning to her husband. According to Shaw, Geneva White was shown nearly a dozen photographs and identified the man in New Orleans as Charles Nicoletti, formerly the number one hitman with the Sam Giancana Mafia family in Chicago. Nicoletti was executed gangland style in 1977, about a year after Giancana also met the same fate. Shaw says that, when she returned to Dallas and told her husband of the ominous meeting in New Orleans, "he told her everything." Shaw says that, as he lay in a hospital dying from burns in 1971 Roscoe White told him that he had been marked for execution by some of his underworld associates and that he believed the fire had been deliberately started to kill him. A HOLLYWOOD INTEREST Ricky White said Monday that, since he found his father's diary, he has been consumed full-time with trying to find out what role his father played in the assassination. He said that for more than a year he has received a "monthly salary" from the Matsu Corp., which was formed by seven Midland oilmen solely to help finance Ricky's investigation into his father's involvement in the assassination. Matsu president Gary Baily said Ricky began receiving financial help from Matsu on a "day-to-day basis" about six weeks ago after getting just expense funds for more than a year. Baily also said Ricky White is negotiating with Hollywood producer/director Oliver Stone for movie rights to his story. Last weekend, Ricky White, his wife and Larry Howard of the JFK Assassination Information Centre in Dallas met in the Los Angeles area with Oliver Stone and toured Universal Studios. "Oliver Stone is interested, but no deal has been made," Baily said. Matsu so far has spent more than $100,000 on the White project, Baily said. If any money is generated by the White story, about 74 percent will go to Ricky White's family. The rest would go to the Matsu Corp., Baily said. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\JFK.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the 35th President of the United States, the youngest person ever to be elected President, the first Roman Catholic and the first to be born in the 20th century. Kennedy was assassinated before he completed his third year as President, therefore his achievements were limited. Nevertheless, his influence was worldwide, and his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis may have prevented the United States from entering into another world war. Kennedy was especially admired by the younger people and he was perhaps the most popular president in history. Kennedy expressed the values of 20th century America and his presidency had an importance beyond its political achievements. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born in Brookline, Massachusetts where he was one of nine children. The Kennedy family was very wealthy and provided means for the Kennedy children to pursue whatever they chose and John F. Kennedy chose politics. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1942 and as a new member Kennedy supported legislation that would serve the interests of his elements. Kennedy usually backed bills sponsored by his party but would sometimes show independence by voting with the Republicans. He also joined with the Republicans in criticizing the Truman administration's handling of China. In China, the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek, which had been supported by the United States, was unable to withstand the advance of Communist forces under Mao Zedong. By the end of 1949 government troops had been overwhelmingly defeated, and Chiang led his forces into exile on Taiwan. The triumphant Mao formed the People's Republic of China. Truman's critics, including Kennedy, charged that the administration had failed to support Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists. Despite Kennedy's wavering within his own party platform, John F. Kennedy easily won reelection to Congress in 1948 and 1950. In 1952 he decided to run against functioning Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Kennedy was little known outside his congressional district therefore he began his campaign two years before the election, meeting with hundreds of thousands of people in Massachusetts. "Kennedy defeated Lodge by 70,000"1 votes despite the fact that Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Presidential candidate, carried the state by just over 200,000 votes. As a candidate for the Senate, Kennedy promised the voters that he would do more for Massachusetts than Lodge had ever done. During his first two years as senator he backed legislation beneficial to the Massachusetts textile, fishing, watch, and transportation industries. In 1953, however, he defied regional interests and supported the Saint Lawrence Seaway project and later in 1955 he was the only New England senator to support renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act that gave the President the power to lower U. S. tariffs, or taxes on import goods, in exchange for similar concessions from other countries. In 1957 Kennedy became a member of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he later won a place on the Senate Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor Management Field. In 1958 he spent many of his weekends campaigning for reelection in Massachusetts senatorial contest. Kennedy wanted the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination, and almost as soon as the 1956 election was over, he began working toward it. Kennedy announced his candidacy early in 1960 and by the time the Democratic National Convention opened in July, he had won seven primary victories. When the convention opened, it appeared that Kennedy's only serious challenge for the nomination would come from the Senate majority leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. However, Johnson was strong only among Southern delegates and Kennedy won the nomination on the first ballot and then persuaded Johnson to become his running mate. Two weeks later the Republicans nominated Vice President Richard Nixon for president and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., for vice president. In the fast-paced campaign that followed, Kennedy made stops in 46 states and 273 cities and towns, while Nixon visited every state and 170 urban areas. The two candidates faced each other in four nationally televised debates. Kennedy's manner, especially in the first debate, seemed to eliminate the charge that he was too young and inexperienced to serve as president, and many believe these debates gave Kennedy the edge he needed for victory. The election drew a record 69 million voters to the polls, but Kennedy won by only 113,000 votes which made it the closest popular vote in 72 years. Because Kennedy won most of the larger states in the Northeastern United States, he received 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. Kennedy was inaugurated on January 20, 1961. In his inaugural address he emphasized America's revolutionary heritage, "The same beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe,"2 Kennedy said. "Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generations of Americans."3 Kennedy called for "a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."4 Kennedy's first year in office brought him considerable success in enacting new legislation. Congress passed a major housing bill, a law increasing minimum wage, and a bill granting federal aid to economically depressed areas of the United States. Kennedy put legislation through Congress which was a bill creating the Peace Corps, an agency that trained American volunteers to perform social and humanitarian service oversees and promote world peace, which was important at the time because of unsettling foreign affairs. In 1959, after several attempts, a revolution led by Fidel Castro finally overthrew the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar. During the next two years, Castro would become increasingly hostile to the United States. When Castro began to proclaim his belief in Communism, Cuba became part of the Cold War, or struggle between the U. S. and its allies and the nations led by the USSR that involved intense economic and diplomatic battles. Many Cubans began to flee to the United States and during the Eisenhower administration the CIA had begun to train Cuban exiles secretly for an invasion of Cuba. In April 1961 more than "1000 Cuban exiles made an amphibious landing"5 in Cuba at a place called the Bay of Pigs. Their plan was to move inland and join with anti-Castro forces to stage a revolt simultaneously, but instead Castro's forces were there to meet the invaders. The revolt in the interior did not materialize, and air support, promised by the CIA, never came. The exiles were defeated and the survivors were taken prisoner. Castro began to demand money for their release but Kennedy refused to negotiate with Castro. Kennedy did take steps to encourage both businesses and private citizens to reach an agreement with Castro and to contribute to the ransom. On December 25, 1962, "1113 prisoners were released in exchange for food and medical supplies valued at a total of approximately $53 million."6 On June 3, 1961, in Vienna, Austria, Kennedy and USSR leader Nikata Khrushchev met and reviewed relationships between the U. S. and the USSR, as well as other questions of interest to the two states. Two incidents contributed to hostility at the meeting, first being the shooting down of a U. S. spy plane in Soviet air space, and the second was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in early 1961. The results of the conference made it clear that Khrushchev had construed Kennedy's failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion as a sign of weakness. No agreements were reached on any important issues and the Soviet premier made it clear that the Soviet Union untended to pursue an even more aggressive policy toward the United States. Amongst other problems President Kennedy faced, none was more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1960 Soviet Premier Khrushchev supplied Cuba with nuclear missiles that would put the eastern United States within range of nuclear missile attack. During the summer of 1962 U. S. spy planes flying over Cuba photographed Soviet-managed construction work and spotted the first missile on October 14. For seven days Kennedy consulted with advisors, discussing the possible responses. On October 22, Kennedy told the nation about the discovery of the missiles, demanded that the Soviet Union remove the missiles, and declared the waters around Cuba a quarantine zone. For several tense days Soviet vessels en route to Cuba avoided the quarantine zone, while Khrushchev and Kennedy discussed the issue through diplomatic channels. Khrushchev, realizing his weak military position, sent one of two messages to Kennedy in which he agreed to remove the missiles. The following day, before the United States could respond to the first note a second was sent by Khrushchev to try and negotiate terms. Kennedy responded to the first message and an agreement was met for the Soviet missiles to be dismantled and removed from Cuba. In return Kennedy secretly promised not to invade Cuba and to remove older missiles from Turkey. This was perhaps Kennedy's greatest moment as president. Many feel that because of Kennedy's aggression that perhaps WWIII was avoided. On November 22, 1963, President and Mrs. Kennedy were in Dallas, Texas, trying to win support in a state that Kennedy had barely carried in 1960. On his way to a luncheon in Dallas, Kennedy and his wife sat in an open convertible at the head of a motorcade. Lyndon Johnson was two cars behind the president, and Texas Governor John B. Connally and his wife were sitting with the Kennedy's. As the motorcade approached an underpass, two shots were fired, one bullet passed through the president's neck and struck Governor Connally in the back, with the other bullet striking the president in the head. The car sped to nearby Parkland Hospital where at 1:00 PM Kennedy was pronounced dead. Less than two hours after the shooting, aboard the presidential plane at the Dallas airport, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as the 36th president of the United States. The bullets that killed Kennedy were fired from a sixth-story window of a nearby warehouse. That afternoon, Lee Harvey Oswald, was arrested in a Dallas movie theater and charged with murder. Two days later, as the suspect was being transferred from one jail to another, Jack Ruby sprang out from a group of reporters and as millions watched on television, fired a revolver into Oswald's left side. Oswald died in the same hospital to which the President had been taken. On November 24, the body of President Kennedy was carried on a horse-drawn carriage from the White House to the Rotunda of the Capitol. Hundreds of thousands of people filed past the coffin of the slain president. A state funeral was held the next day where "representatives of 92 nations attended."7 It has been estimated that as many as "1 million people"8 lined the streets of Washington as the funeral procession made its way slowly to Arlington National Cemetery. The grave was marked by an eternal flame lighted by his wife and brothers. Five days after the funeral, President Johnson appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren chairman of a committee to investigate Kennedy's death. The findings of the commission were announced on September 27, 1964, which stated that investigators had found "no evidence of conspiracy in the assassination."9 Their report concluded that "the shots which killed President Kennedy were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."10 Word Count: 1895 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\JFK1.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ JFK John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the 35th President of the United States, the youngest person ever to be elected President, the first Roman Catholic and the first to be born in the 20th century. Kennedy was assassinated before he completed his third year as President, therefore his achievements were limited. Nevertheless, his influence was worldwide, and his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis may have prevented the United States from entering into another world war. Kennedy was especially admired by the younger people and he was perhaps the most popular president in history. Kennedy expressed the values of 20th century America and his presidency had an importance beyond its political achievements. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born in Brookline, Massachusetts where he was one of nine children. The Kennedy family was very wealthy and provided means for the Kennedy children to pursue whatever they chose and John F. Kennedy chose politics. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1942 and as a new member Kennedy supported legislation that would serve the interests of his elements. Kennedy usually backed bills sponsored by his party but would sometimes show independence by voting with the Republicans. He also joined with the Republicans in criticizing the Truman administration's handling of China. In China, the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek, which had been supported by the United States, was unable to withstand the advance of Communist forces under Mao Zedong. By the end of 1949 government troops had been overwhelmingly defeated, and Chiang led his forces into exile on Taiwan. The triumphant Mao formed the People's Republic of China. Truman's critics, including Kennedy, charged that the administration had failed to support Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists. Despite Kennedy's wavering within his own party platform, John F. Kennedy easily won reelection to Congress in 1948 and 1950. In 1952 he decided to run against functioning Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Kennedy was little known outside his congressional district therefore he began his campaign two years before the election, meeting with hundreds of thousands of people in Massachusetts. "Kennedy defeated Lodge by 70,000"1 votes despite the fact that Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Presidential candidate, carried the state by just over 200,000 votes. As a candidate for the Senate, Kennedy promised the voters that he would do more for Massachusetts than Lodge had ever done. During his first two years as senator he backed legislation beneficial to the Massachusetts textile, fishing, watch, and transportation industries. In 1953, however, he defied regional interests and supported the Saint Lawrence Seaway project and later in 1955 he was the only New England senator to support renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act that gave the President the power to lower U. S. tariffs, or taxes on import goods, in exchange for similar concessions from other countries. In 1957 Kennedy became a member of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he later won a place on the Senate Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor Management Field. In 1958 he spent many of his weekends campaigning for reelection in Massachusetts senatorial contest. Kennedy wanted the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination, and almost as soon as the 1956 election was over, he began working toward it. Kennedy announced his candidacy early in 1960 and by the time the Democratic National Convention opened in July, he had won seven primary victories. When the convention opened, it appeared that Kennedy's only serious challenge for the nomination would come from the Senate majority leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. However, Johnson was strong only among Southern delegates and Kennedy won the nomination on the first ballot and then persuaded Johnson to become his running mate. Two weeks later the Republicans nominated Vice President Richard Nixon for president and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., for vice president. In the fast-paced campaign that followed, Kennedy made stops in 46 states and 273 cities and towns, while Nixon visited every state and 170 urban areas. The two candidates faced each other in four nationally televised debates. Kennedy's manner, especially in the first debate, seemed to eliminate the charge that he was too young and inexperienced to serve as president, and many believe these debates gave Kennedy the edge he needed for victory. The election drew a record 69 million voters to the polls, but Kennedy won by only 113,000 votes which made it the closest popular vote in 72 years. Because Kennedy won most of the larger states in the Northeastern United States, he received 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. Kennedy was inaugurated on January 20, 1961. In his inaugural address he emphasized America's revolutionary heritage, "The same beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe,"2 Kennedy said. "Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generations of Americans."3 Kennedy called for "a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."4 Kennedy's first year in office brought him considerable success in enacting new legislation. Congress passed a major housing bill, a law increasing minimum wage, and a bill granting federal aid to economically depressed areas of the United States. Kennedy put legislation through Congress which was a bill creating the Peace Corps, an agency that trained American volunteers to perform social and humanitarian service oversees and promote world peace, which was important at the time because of unsettling foreign affairs. In 1959, after several attempts, a revolution led by Fidel Castro finally overthrew the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar. During the next two years, Castro would become increasingly hostile to the United States. When Castro began to proclaim his belief in Communism, Cuba became part of the Cold War, or struggle between the U. S. and its allies and the nations led by the USSR that involved intense economic and diplomatic battles. Many Cubans began to flee to the United States and during the Eisenhower administration the CIA had begun to train Cuban exiles secretly for an invasion of Cuba. In April 1961 more than "1000 Cuban exiles made an amphibious landing"5 in Cuba at a place called the Bay of Pigs. Their plan was to move inland and join with anti-Castro forces to stage a revolt simultaneously, but instead Castro's forces were there to meet the invaders. The revolt in the interior did not materialize, and air support, promised by the CIA, never came. The exiles were defeated and the survivors were taken prisoner. Castro began to demand money for their release but Kennedy refused to negotiate with Castro. Kennedy did take steps to encourage both businesses and private citizens to reach an agreement with Castro and to contribute to the ransom. On December 25, 1962, "1113 prisoners were released in exchange for food and medical supplies valued at a total of approximately $53 million."6 On June 3, 1961, in Vienna, Austria, Kennedy and USSR leader Nikata Khrushchev met and reviewed relationships between the U. S. and the USSR, as well as other questions of interest to the two states. Two incidents contributed to hostility at the meeting, first being the shooting down of a U. S. spy plane in Soviet air space, and the second was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in early 1961. The results of the conference made it clear that Khrushchev had construed Kennedy's failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion as a sign of weakness. No agreements were reached on any important issues and the Soviet premier made it clear that the Soviet Union untended to pursue an even more aggressive policy toward the United States. Amongst other problems President Kennedy faced, none was more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1960 Soviet Premier Khrushchev supplied Cuba with nuclear missiles that would put the eastern United States within range of nuclear missile attack. During the summer of 1962 U. S. spy planes flying over Cuba photographed Soviet-managed construction work and spotted the first missile on October 14. For seven days Kennedy consulted with advisors, discussing the possible responses. On October 22, Kennedy told the nation about the discovery of the missiles, demanded that the Soviet Union remove the missiles, and declared the waters around Cuba a quarantine zone. For several tense days Soviet vessels en route to Cuba avoided the quarantine zone, while Khrushchev and Kennedy discussed the issue through diplomatic channels. Khrushchev, realizing his weak military position, sent one of two messages to Kennedy in which he agreed to remove the missiles. The following day, before the United States could respond to the first note a second was sent by Khrushchev to try and negotiate terms. Kennedy responded to the first message and an agreement was met for the Soviet missiles to be dismantled and removed from Cuba. In return Kennedy secretly promised not to invade Cuba and to remove older missiles from Turkey. This was perhaps Kennedy's greatest moment as president. Many feel that because of Kennedy's aggression that perhaps WWIII was avoided. On November 22, 1963, President and Mrs. Kennedy were in Dallas, Texas, trying to win support in a state that Kennedy had barely carried in 1960. On his way to a luncheon in Dallas, Kennedy and his wife sat in an open convertible at the head of a motorcade. Lyndon Johnson was two cars behind the president, and Texas Governor John B. Connally and his wife were sitting with the Kennedy's. As the motorcade approached an underpass, two shots were fired, one bullet passed through the president's neck and struck Governor Connally in the back, with the other bullet striking the president in the head. The car sped to nearby Parkland Hospital where at 1:00 PM Kennedy was pronounced dead. Less than two hours after the shooting, aboard the presidential plane at the Dallas airport, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as the 36th president of the United States. The bullets that killed Kennedy were fired from a sixth-story window of a nearby warehouse. That afternoon, Lee Harvey Oswald, was arrested in a Dallas movie theater and charged with murder. Two days later, as the suspect was being transferred from one jail to another, Jack Ruby sprang out from a group of reporters and as millions watched on television, fired a revolver into Oswald's left side. Oswald died in the same hospital to which the President had been taken. On November 24, the body of President Kennedy was carried on a horse-drawn carriage from the White House to the Rotunda of the Capitol. Hundreds of thousands of people filed past the coffin of the slain president. A state funeral was held the next day where "representatives of 92 nations attended."7 It has been estimated that as many as "1 million people"8 lined the streets of Washington as the funeral procession made its way slowly to Arlington National Cemetery. The grave was marked by an eternal flame lighted by his wife and brothers. Five days after the funeral, President Johnson appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren chairman of a committee to investigate Kennedy's death. The findings of the commission were announced on September 27, 1964, which stated that investigators had found "no evidence of conspiracy in the assassination."9 Their report concluded that "the shots which killed President Kennedy were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."10 Word Count: 1894 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Ku Klux Klan.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Ku Klux Klan " The Ku Klux Klan, or KKK as known today, was started in the spring of 1866. Six Confederate veterans formed a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee. This KKK only lasted a short six years, but left tactics and rituals that later started in generations. (Ingalls, 9) The Klan was a small group very much in secrecy at first. The exact date of the beginning is unknown. Despite all of the secrecy the six KKK members initiated new members to join their social club. (Ingalls, 9) A year after the creation of the KKK, the onetime social club joined the raising campaign against the Republican Reconstruction. The "new" direction of the Klan was well planned and organized. The Klan was now ready to expand to a bigger group. The Klan adopted a prescript. This was an organizational structure permitting the Klan to spread across the south. New members had to be over 18, pay $1, sworn to secrecy, recruits pledged to "protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless, from the indignities, wrongs, and outrages of the lawless, the violent, and the brutal." The highly centralized plan for expanding the KKK, spread so rapidly that most chapters operated alone. The founders of the KKK lost control, and it became impossible to talk about a single KKK. Yet Klan activities still followed a common pattern throughout the south. (Ingalls 11-12) The Klan now started to spread across Tennessee. At first the Klan used tricks to keep blacks "in their place". At first, the Klan would ride around on horses, and with their white robes, and white pointed masks, try to scare blacks. They would try to act like ghost with their white uniforms. Unfortunately, the Klan quickly moved to more violent pranks. (Ingalls, 12) The Klan would now suppress blacks. The Klan leaders proved unable to control their followers. Although the violence was often random, there was a method in the madness. The victims were almost always black or if white, associated with the hatred of the Republican party. The Klan had fear of black equality and sparked attacks on schools setup for freed slaves. The Klan would warn the blacks not to attend school, and would scare the teachers, most from out of state, to leave town. (Ingalls 12-13) Many groups started forming around the south called the Ku Kluxers. The Klan was being noticed as "The Invisible Empire". However and wherever Klan's were formed they all followed the same pattern set by the Tennessee Klan. The Klan became the greatest terror in 1868, when their attacks were against Republicans and elect democrats. Thousands of blacks and whites fell victim to the murders and beatings given by the KKK. (Ingalls, 13) In 1869, General Forrest, the Grand Wizard of the KKK ordered Klansmen to restrict their activities. The Klan was getting out of control, and Congress passed a Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871. By the end of 1872, the federal crackdown had broken the back of the KKK. Because of the restriction and the Act passed violence was isolated but still continued. The KKK was dead, and Reconstruction lived on in southern legend . This would not be the last of the KKK. On the night of Thanksgiving in 1915, sixteen men from Atlanta, Georgia climbed to the top of Stone Mountain and built an altar of stones on which they placed an American flag. They then stood up a sixteen foot long cross and burned it. One week later, this group applied for a state charter making it "The Knights of the KKK, Inc." This was put in effect during the Reconstruction. The new Klan at first received little attention. Only in time, it became the biggest and most powerful Klan in history. Klan membership was limited to native-born, white, Protestant American Men. The Klan message was clearly to appeal to people who were troubled by abrupt changes in American Society. (Ingalls, 16-17) Many believe that the biggest growth of the KKK began when Colonel Simmons, considerably the founder of the new KKK, linked up with Edward Young Clarke and Elizabeth Tyler. In June 1920, Clarke and Simmons signed a contract that guaranteed Clarke a share of Klan profits. Clarke and Tyler would receive a good amount of money for every new KKK member, which the fee would be $10.00, $4.00 went to the Kleagle (an official in the KKK), $1 went to the King Kleagle (state leader of the Klan), $.50 to the Grand Goblin, and $2.50 to Clarke and Tyler. The final $2.00 went to Colonel Simmons. This promotion brought over 85,000 new Klan members, and over $85,000 in Klan profits. The KKK was still due for more publicity, in the 1920s many Americans felt threatened by the variety of recent changes , and in 1920 most Americans were living in cities. Many Americans were scared that cities would be dominated by Jewish and Catholic immigrants. Americans also thought their country was coming apart at the seams. The KKK presented itself as the "100 percent Americanism." This slogan proved popular because it meant everything to the frightened man who flocked into the Klan. By the end of 1922 there were approximately 1,200,000 members in the Klan. This time was supposedly the highest number of Klan members ever. (Ingalls, 24-25) One of the greatest Klan strengths came in 1925 when Klan members from all directions poured into the nations capitol Washington DC on August 8th, 1925 a mammoth parade began. At the head the Imperial Wizard Hirem Wesley Evans, and 40,000 Klan members followed in their robes and hoods, but no masks. 200,000 friendly spectators lined the parade and applauded as the Klan made their way to a rally at the Washington Monument. The impressive demonstration was intended to show the Invisible Empire never lost any of its strengths. (Ingalls 63-64) Even though the parade was grander then expected, it could not conceal the fact that the Klan was diminishing, the empire was collapsing. The peak of the Klan was actually in 1924. The Klan was forced to admit its growing weakness. Time answered quickly, by 1930, the Klan was almost invisible, less than 40,000 members nationally. The story of the collapse is very complicated. (Ingalls, 63) In 1924, Congress responded to the growing hatred to foreigners by restricting immigration into the U.S. Before the restriction, immigrants were pouring in at over 1 million immigrants a year before World War 1. So when the Congress restricted the immigration it was a major reason for the collapse of the KKK. (Meltzer, 60) Another main reason for the collapse was that Klansmen also fought amongst each other. In 1927, Wizard Evans resorted to a lawsuit to quell open in the Realm of Pennsylvania, which was the highest Klan member state in the northeast. This divided the group deeply. The lawsuit that Evans filed was for $100,000 which sent his Pennsylvania opponents into submission. It seemed that the Klan was falling apart in many areas. For example, In New Jersey the Mayor of Atlantic City called for am anti-Klan meeting. 4,000 angry rioters showed for the anti-Klan meeting. Only several hundred Klan members came to support the Klan. The anti-Klan rioters began to maul the Klansmen and beat them so bad the Klan barely escaped. In Chicago a council made up of a Jew, a Catholic, and a black was appointed to recommend legislation on the Klan. Illinois passed a state law saying that no one was allowed to wear a mask in public. In New York there were anti-Klan acts also. However, after all this against the Klan they still managed to stay alive as did their prejudices. (Ingalls, 65 and 69) The Klan fell into what is called the depression years. With the growing poverty in America, Klan members fees became a luxury which only a few Americans could afford. Even though it looked like everything was going all wrong for the KKK they stayed alive again. The north was almost totally diminished with the Klan. There were still some Klan rallies on Long Island, Hudson River Valley, cities in New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan, but only at the most 1,000 Klan members in each area. (Meltzer 64-65) Meanwhile in the south Klansmen still continued to resort to violence. Beating any whites who would cater to blacks. Also to ensure white supremacy, the KKK tried to keep blacks from voting. Klansmen would invade black sections of cities and leave messages on cards for blacks to stay away from the voting polls. (Meltzer, 66) By 1936, the Klan started calling communism the main enemy. During this depression Florida's Realm became the biggest KKK movement, with around 30,000 members and the Klan started to show light of coming back again. In the fall of 1946 the Klan burned its first cross atop Stone Mountain. This was showing a sign of coming back for the Klan. From California to New York the Klan stated showing signs of life. (Meltzer, 55) Since the Klan was coming back it began to meet strong opposition again. Attorney General Tom Clarke of Texas said he would use every law in the book to break up the Klan. In many states and cities laws and ordinaries were designed to hamper the Klan. The Klan continued to be violent by using terrorist acts. They planted bombs in churches and schools there would be used be either Jews, Catholics, or blacks.(Ingalls, 66) After that the Klan went back and forth starting to gain members and then losing them again, starting to rally in certain areas but then dying out again. The Klan always and still does have violent attacks against Jews, Catholics, and blacks. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, whites began to worry about losing their jobs, and special programs were being set up for blacks, and this concern led to new Klan activity which is still in effect today. Today in the Klan there are approximately 10,000 Klan members. (World Book Encyclopedia J-K, 310) In conclusion, the Klan has formed and diminished many times in the past. If the Klan tries to keep adding members, there will always be opponents there to try and stop the Klan. It is a real shame that a social group only made for the purpose to scare freed slaves turned into such a horrible sight today, and will always continue to haunt America. It seems that the Klan will never give up on trying to start up another successful Klan . The U.S. must do something about this in our country today. People have to realize that everyone is equal, and from now on it will always be that way. There will no longer be white supremacy like the KKK is trying to preach along with other groups such as the Skinheads. If the Klan ever starts coming back strong again in the U.S., The U.S. is going to have to worry and set laws so it never happens again. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Lebanon.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Written by: The Prophet Edited by: The Metallian Lebanon, a nation that once proudly called itself the Switzerland of the Middle East, is today a country in name only. Its government controls little more than half of the nation's capital, Beirut. Its once-vibrant economy is a shambles. And its society is fragmented - so fragmented, some believe, that it may be impossible to re-create a unified state responsive to the needs of all its varied peoples. Lebanon lies on the eastern shore of the Mediterranea n Sea, in that part of southwestern Asia known as the Middle East. Because of its location - at the crossroads of Asia, Europe, and Africa - Lebanon has been the center of commerce and trade for thousands of years. It has also been on the route of numerous conquering armies. With an area of 4,015 square miles, Lebanon is one of the smallest countries in the Middle East. It is smaller than every state in the United States except Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Lebanon is sandwiched between Syria in the north and east and Israel in the south. The maximum distance from the nation's northern border to the southern one is only 130 miles. And the maximum distance from the Mediterranean Sea to the Lebanon-Syria border is 50 miles. In the south, along the border with Israel, Lebanon's eastern border is only 20 miles from the sea. Although a tiny land, Lebanon boasts a great diversity in its landscape which makes it one of the most picturesque countries in the world. The coast line is br oken by many bays and inlets of varying size. At some points, the mountains wade silently right into the sea - then climb suddenly tier on tier away from the Mediterranean to the sky. Because of the limitation of flat agricultural land, all but the steepest hillsides have been patiently and neatly terraced and planted with garlands of twisted grapevines. The mountains lend a great variety of hues - pale pink, rosy red, forest green or deep purple - to the landscape. Depending on the time of day, they never appear the same twice, and from time to time whipped white clouds hide all except their snow-capped peaks. Even on the darkest night, the lights of the villages perched on the mountains shine in small clusters as a reminder of their presence. On c loser view, the mountains become a jumble of giant gorges, many of them over a thousand feet deep, with rocky cliffs, steep ravines and awesome valleys. These unassailable bastions have offered a secure hideaway, throughout history, for hermits and persecuted groups seeking refuge. Lebanon has four distinct geographical regions: a narrow - but fertile - coastal plain; two roughly parallel mountain ranges that run the full length of the country - the Lebanon, which rises in the west to an alpine hei ght of 11,000 feet while the eastern range, the anti-Lebanon, is crowned magestically by the snow-capped Mount Hermon at 9,232 feet. The two chains of mountains shelter between them a well-cultivated plateau extending seventy miles in length and fifteen miles in width. This tableland is called the Bekaa. This is a fertile strip of land 110 miles long and six to ten miles wide. Zahle, the third largest city in the country, is in the valley. The country's two most important rivers, the Litani and the Orontes, rise in the northern Bekaa near Baalbek, a city that dates to Roman times. The Litani flows southwest through the Bekaa Valley and then empties into the Mediterranean Sea north of Tyre. Its waters are used for irrigation, so it becomes a mere tr ickle by the time it gets to the sea. The Orontes rises not far from the Litani, but it flows northward between the two mountain ranges, wending its way into Syria. Beyond the Bekaa and the anti-Lebanon mountains, the Syrian desert only stretches east f or about 800 miles to the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This geography has been a determining factor for millenia in keeping Lebanon turned toward the West. The landscape cannot be described without mentioning the most celebrated tree o f Lebanon, the cedar. Called by the Lebanese "Cedar of the Lord," this famed tree retains somewhat of a sacred aura this day. It has become the symbol of Lebanon and appears in the center of the flag, on the coins, and often on postage stamps. Since an cient times the cedar constituted a valuable export which provided King Solomon with timber for the construction of his Temple, the Phoenicians with wood for their seafaring galleys , the Egyptians with lumber for their palaces. Unhappily only a few grov es of these stately trees have survived the ax of the builder, the seeker of fuel, or the hunger of goats. Cedars generally grow on the highest mountain tops so it is not surprising to find an ancient grove of 450 trees nestled under the highest peak. Th is grove, the only remaining large one, may be seen as small dark specks on the bare face of the mountain side from a distance of many miles. A few of the existing trees may be 1,000 years old, and it is estimated that twenty of them have grown for more than 400 years. The largest measure about twelve feet in circumference, eighty feet in height and their branches spread an unbelievable 100 feet. The olive, another tree closely associated with Lebanon, is extensively cultivated, and old gnarled oli ve groves cover many of the lower hills and valleys. For centuries olives have been a staple in the diet while their oil has taken the place of butter among the peasants who still firmly believe in the medicinal benefits of warm olive oil applied to stra ins, sprains and earaches. The diversity of soil and the elevation produce a great variety of other trees including oaks, pines, junipers, firs, cyprus, sycamore, fig, banana, acacia and date palm. Orange, lemon, apple and other fruit trees have been ra ised commercially in recent years. Besides supplying the local market with a great variety of delicious fresh fruit, the harvest is exported to neighboring countries and provides Lebanon with a main source of income. The narrow plain along the Medit erranean coast is the most densely populated part of Lebanon. Here and there the Lebanon Mountains push down to the sea, and thus there is no coastal plain. In other spots the plain is so narrow that there is barely enough room for a road. However, in a number of places the coastal plain is wide enough to accommodate population centers, and it is here, between the foothills of the mountains and the Mediterranean Sea, that two of Lebanon's most important cities - Beirut and Tripoli- are located. Be irut - Lebanon's capital, largest city, and major port - is located at about the midpoint of the country's coastline. Today, much of Beirut lies in ruins. It has been a battlefield on which the contending forces of have warred to see who could cause the greatest destruction. But before 1975, when the civil war erupted, Beirut was the nation's cultural and commercial heart and on of the most beautiful and prosperous cities in the Middle East. Lebanon's second largest city, Tripoli, is also on the c oast, some 40 miles north of Beirut. Because most of the people in this city are Sunni Moslems, it had, until 1983, escaped the destruction brought to Beirut by the Moslem- Christian fighting. But in late 1983, warring factions of the Palestine Liberati on Organization fought their battles in and around Tripoli. Hundreds of Lebanese were killed, buildings were destroyed, and oil-storage tanks were set ablaze. A large part of Tripoli's population fled the battle area, but returned in December 1983 after the PLO forces loyal to Yasir Arafat were evacuated. Other important cities on the coastal plain are Juniye, Sidon, and Tyre. Sidon and Tyre are south of Beirut and have been occupied by Israeli troops since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. In 1984, the population was estimated at 3,480,000 Lebanese (these are estimated because no poll has been officially taken since 1932). Almost all of these people, whether they are Christian or Moslem, are Arabs, and Lebanon is an Arab country. Mo st of the people can speak French or English or both, but Arabic is the national language. However, the national unity that usually comes from a common language and heritage has eluded the Lebanese people. In many ways, the country is less a nation than a collection of fuedal- like baronies based on religious lines. Each religious community has its own leaders and its own fighting force, or militia. It is reminiscent of China during the early years of the twentieth century, when that nation had a weak central goverment and was ruled by various warlords scattered throughout the country, each seeking political and economic dominance. The Moslems, who now constitute more than half the population, are divided into three major sects: the Shiites, the S unnis, and the Druse. The Christians include the Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Orthodox and Catholic Armenians, and Protestants. But neither the Christians nor the Moslems are truly unified; throughout their history Moslem and Christian se cts have fought for political and economic gain. The Moslems, who in 1932 were in the minority, now make up 56 percent of the population in Lebanon. The Shiites, the poorest of the Moslem sects, number about 1 million. They are concentrated in West Beirut and in the city's southern suburbs, as well as in southern Lebanon in and around Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley. The Sunnis number about 600,000 and are concentrated in West Beirut, Tripoli, Sidon, and Akkar, in the northernmost part of the count ry. Rashid Karami, a former Lebanese prime minister, is the leader of the Sunnis in Tripoli and the most influential Sunni in the country. The militia, Morbitun, a force of 5,000 well-trained fighters, is stationed in West Beirut, Tripoli, and other Su nni areas. The Druse, a secretive Moslem sect, number about 350,000, but their influence is greater than these numbers would indicate. The Druse live primarily in the Shuf mountains and in other areas to the south and east of Beirut. They now have close ties to Syria, where there is a large Druse community. The Syrians have supplied the Druse with a large assortment of weapons, including artillery and tanks. The Druse militia numbers about 4,000 men and has joined forces with the Shiite militia i n and around West Beirut to battle the Christian-dominated Lebanese army and the Christian militias. Another major Moslem force in the country - and a constant threat to it - are the 500,000 Palestinian refugees and the remnants of the PLO. Their le ader, Yassir Arafat, and thousands of his troops were forced out of Beirut by the Israelis in 1982 and out of Tripoli by Syrian-backed PLO dissidents in 1983. The dissident PLO forces no longer recognize Arafat as their leader because of his lack of mili tancy in the fight with Israel. The Syrians, in addition to controlling these dissident members of the PLO, also control the 3,500-man Palistine Liberation Army. The Christians, who in 1932 made up a majority of the Lebanese population, are now only about 44 percent of the population. The largest Christian sect - and thus far the dominant one in the nation's political and economic life - are the Maronites. They number about 580,000 and make up 38 percent of the Christian population and 17 percent of the national population. The Phalange party, headed by Pierre Gemayel, is the most important Maronite political group. The Phalangist militia is the largest of the Christian militias. It controls East Beirut, the area along the coast just north of the capital, and some areas in southern and central Lebanon. This militia has been heavily armed by the Israelis. Each of these peoples has played an important role in Lebanese history. Moslems and Christians have lived in harmony for long period s of time, but they have frequently engaged in bitter warfare, much as we are seeing today. For nearly a decade this hapless nation has suffered continuous civil war among its various religious and ethnic groups. It has been invaded twice by Israel, which now controls all of southern Lebanon, and it has been occupied by Syria, which controls most of eastern and northern Lebanon. Nearly 500,000 Palestinians - refugees from the Arab-Israeli wars - live in Lebanon, where they have formed a "state with in a state." And a succession of peacekeeping forces - Arab, United Nations, and Western - have not only failed to establish peace, but have exacerbated the already horrific situation. Why haven't the Lebanese people been able to put aside their sec tarian differences to work toward a stable government that represents all of the people? The complete answer to this question lies deep within the unique history of Lebanon. In 1943, the year that France, which ruled Lebanon as a League of Nations manda te, reluctantly gave the nation its independance. As independence approached, the nation's two most populous and powerful sects, the Maronites and the Sunnis, formulated what is known as the National Pact - an unwritten agreement that spelled out the cou ntry's political makeup as well as its general orientation in foreign affairs. The National Pact allocated political power to Lebanon's religious sects on the basis of population. The census in 1932 showed that the Christians had the majority with j ust over 50 percent of the population. As a result, it was agreed that the President of Lebanon would always be a Maronite Christian and the prime minister would always be a Sunni Moslem. Other important positions were given to other sects. The Preside nt of the Chamber of Deputies, for example, would always be a Shiite Moslem and the defense minister would be a Druse. In addition, the Christians were to have six seats in Parliment for every five seats held by Moslems. This system guaranteed the Maron ite Christians control of Lebanon. This system worked well enough for fifteen years. From 1943 until 1958 the nation's economy boomed and Beirut was transformed into the showcase city of the Mediterranean. The government seemed stable enough, but th ere were problems boiling beneath the surface and in the mid-1950s the system began to come apart. For one thing, the Moslems, especially the poorer Shiites, had a substantially higher birthrate than the Christians; many people believed that the Shiites had surpassed the Maronites in population. But the Christians would not allow a new census to be taken, for this would have meant a reallocation of the nation's political power, with the Moslem sects gaining at the expense of the Christians. With their hopes for political gains dampened, the Shiites became disenchanted. Why is this once prosperous nation on the verge of total collapse? There are a number of reasons, but the primary one is that the Lebanese people belong to at least fifteen differe nt religious sects and their loyalty to these sects is greater than their loyalty to a united Lebanon. Had the people's sense of nationhood been stronger, they would not have suffered the destruction of the past decade. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Leonardo Da Vinci.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Leonardo Da Vinci Leonardo Da Vinci is one of the greatest and most ingenious men that history has produced. His contributions in the areas of art, science, and humanity are still among the most important that a single man has put forth, definitely making his a life worth knowing. Da Vinci, born on April 15, 1452, is credited with being a master painter, sculptor, architect, musician, engineer, and scientist. He was born an illegitimate child to Catherina, a peasant girl. His father was Ser Piero da Vinci, a public notary for the city of Florence, Italy. For the first four years of his life he lived with his mother in the small village of Vinci, directly outside of the great center of the Renaissance, Florence. Catherina was a poor woman, with possible artistic talent, the genetic basis of Leonardo's talents. Upon the realization of Leonardo's potential, his father took the boy to live with him and his wife in Florence (Why did). This was the start of the boy's education and his quest for knowledge. Leonardo was recognized by many to be a "Renaissance child" because of his many talents. As a boy, Leonardo was described as being handsome, strong, and agile. He had keen powers of observation, an imagination, and the ability to detach himself from the world around him. At an early age Leonardo became interested in subjects such as botany, geology, animals (specifically birds), the motion of water, and shadows (About Leonardo). At the age of 17, in about 1469, Leonardo was apprenticed as a garzone (studio boy) to Andrea del Verrocchio, the leading Florentine painter and sculptor of his day. In Verrocchio's workshop Leonardo was introduced to many techniques, from the painting of altarpieces and panel pictures to the creation of large sculptural projects in marble and bronze. In 1472 he was accepted in the painter's guild of Florence, and worked there for about six years. While there, Leonardo often painted portions of Verrocchio's paintings for him, such as the background and the kneeling angel on the left in the Baptism of Christ (Encarta). Leonardo's sections of the painting have soft shadings, with shadows concealing the edges. These areas are distinguished easily against the sharply defined figures and objects of Verrocchio, that reflect the style called Early Renaissance. Leonardo's more graceful approach marked the beginning of the High Renaissance. However, this style did not become more popular in Italy for another 25 year (Gilbert 46). Leonardo actually started the popularization of this style. For this reason Leonardo could be called the "Father of the High Renaissance." Leonardo's leading skills emerged through his paintings and his techniques. Leonardo's talents soon drew him away from the Guild and in 1472 Leonardo finished his first complete painting, Annunciation. In 1478 Leonardo reached the title of an Independent Master. His first large painting, The Adoration of the Magi (begun in 1481), which was left unfinished, was ordered in 1481 for the Monastery of San Donato a Scopeto, Florence. Other works ascribed to his youth are the Benois Madonna (1478), the portrait Ginevra de' Benci (1474), and the unfinished Saint Jerome (1481). Leonardo expanded his skills to other branches of interest and in 1481 Leonardo wrote an astonishing letter to the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza. In this letter he stated that he knew how to build portable bridges; that he knew the techniques of constructing bombardments and of making cannons; that he could build ships as well as armored vehicles, catapults, and other war machines; and that he could execute sculpture in marble, bronze, and clay. Thus, he entered the service of the Duke in 1482, working on Ludovico's castle, organizing festivals, and he became recognized as an expert in military engineering and arms. Under the Duke, Leonardo served many positions. He served as principal engineer in the Duke's numerous military enterprises and was active as an architect (Encarta). As a military engineer Leonardo designed artillery and planned the diversion of rivers. He also improved many inventions that were already in use such as the rope ladder. Leonardo also drew pictures of an armored tank hundreds of years ahead of its time. His concept failed because the tank was too heavy to be mobile and the hand cranks he designed were not strong enough to support such a vehicle. As a civil engineer, he designed revolving stages for pageants. As a sculptor he planned a huge monument of the Duke's father mounted up on a leaping horse. The Horse, as it was known, was the culmination of 16 years of work. Leonardo was fascinated by horses and drew them constantly. In The Horse, Leonardo experimented with the horses' forelegs and measurements. The severe plagues in 1484 and 1485 drew his attention to town planning, and his drawings and plans for domed churches reflect his concern with architectural problems (Bookshelf). In addition he also assisted the Italian mathematician Luca Pacioli in the work Divina Proportione (1509). While in Milan Leonardo kept up his own work and studies with the possible help of apprentices and pupils, for whom he probably wrote the various texts later compiled as Treatise on Painting (1651). The most important painting of those created in the early Milan age was The Virgin of the Rocks. Leonardo worked on this piece for an extended period of time, seemingly unwilling to finish what he had begun (Encarta). It is his earliest major painting that survives in complete form. From 1495 to 1497 Leonardo labored on his masterpiece, The Last Supper, a mural in the refectory of the Monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan. While painting The Last Supper, Leonardo rejected the fresco technique normally used for wall paintings. An artist that uses this fresco method must work quickly. Leonardo wanted to work slowly, revising his work, and use shadows-which would have been impossible in using fresco painting. He invented a new technique that involved coating the wall with a compound that he had created. This compound, which was supposed to protect the paint and hold it in place did not work, and soon after its completion the paint began to flake away. For this reason The Last Supper still exists, but in poor condition (Gilbert 46). Leonardo had at many times merged his inventive and creative capabilities to enhance life and improve his works. Although his experiments with plastering and painting failed, they showed his dissatisfaction with an accepted means and his creativity and courage to experiment with a new and untried idea. Experimentation with traditional techniques is evident in his drawings as well. During Leonardo's 18 year stay in Milan he also produced other paintings and drawings, but most have been lost. He created stage designs for theater, architectural drawings, and models for the dome of Milan Cathedral. Leonardo also began to produce scientific drawings, especially of the human body. He studied anatomy by dissecting human corpses and the bodies of animals. Leonardo's drawings did not only clarify the appearance of bones, tendons, and other body parts but their function in addition. These drawings are considered to be the first accurate representations of human anatomy. Leonardo is also credited with the first use of the cross section, a popular technique for diagramming the human body. Leonardo wrote, "The painter who has acquired a knowledge of the nature of the sinews, muscles, and tendons will know exactly in the movement of any limb how many and which of the sinews are the cause of it, and which muscle by its swelling is the cause of this sinew's contracting" (Wallace 131). In December, 1499, the Sforza family was driven out of Milan by French forces and Leonardo was forced to leave Milan and his unfinished statue of Ludovico Sforza's father, which was destroyed by French archers that used it for target practice. Leonardo then returned to Florence in 1500 (Bookshelf). When Leonardo returned to Florence the citizens welcomed him with open arms because of the fame he acquired while in Milan. The work he did there strongly influenced other artists such as Sandro Botticelli and Piero di Cosimo. The work he was to produce would influence other masters such as Michelangelo and Raphael. In 1502 Leonardo entered the service of Cesare Borgia, Duke of Romagna and son and Chief General of Pope Alexander VI. For this post he supervised work on the fortress of the papal territories in central Italy. In 1503 he was a member of a commission of artists to decide on the proper location for the David by Michelangelo (Encarta). Towards the end of the year Leonardo began to design a decoration for the Great Hall of the Palazzo Vecchio. Leonardo chose the Battle of Anghiari as the subject of the mural, a victory for Florence in a war against Pisa. He made many drawings and sketches of a cavalry battle, with tense soldiers, leaping horses and clouds of dust. In painting The Battle of Anghiari Leonardo again rejected fresco and tried an experimental technique called encaustic. Once again the experiment was unsuccessful. Leonardo went on a trip and left the painting unfinished. When he returned he found that the paint had run and he never finished the painting. The paintings general appearance is known from Leonardo's sketches and other artists' copies of it (Creighton 45). During the period of time that Leonardo spent painting the Palazzo Vecchio he also painted several other works, including the most famous portrait ever, the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa, also known as La Gioconda, (after the presumed name of the model's husband) became famous because of the unique expression on Lisa del Gioconda's face. She appears to have just started to or finished smiling. This painting was one of Leonardo's favorites and he carried it with him on all of his subsequent travels (Clark 133). In 1506, Leonardo returned to Milan to finished up some of his projects that he had to abandon during his hasty departure. He stayed there until 1516 when he moved to Cloux, France, where he stayed with his pupil Melzi. While in Milan he was named Court Painter to King Louis XII of France, who was then residing in Milan. For the next six years he traveled from Milan to Florence repeatedly to look after his inheritance. In 1514 he traveled to Rome under the patronage of Pope Leo X. During this time Leonardo's energy was focused mainly on his scientific experiments. He then moved to France to serve King Francis I. It is here in Chateau de Cloux that he died on May 2,1519 (Wallace 127). Leonardo constantly reworked his drawings, studies and mechanical theories. His observations of the motion of water are amazingly accurate. In Leonardo's Studies of Water Formation, the flow patterns observed are swirling around , then below as it forms a pool. Using modern slow motion cameras' scientists now study the same effects that Leonardo wrote about and observed with his naked eye (Encarta). Another study of water and wind is his Apocalyptic Visions. This is a collected study of hurricanes and storms. In these highly detailed drawings the pen lines so carefully marked explode into action similar to the storms themselves. Leonardo's mathematical drawings are also highly skilled. In a math formula Leonardo proved the theory of perpetual motion false but it still intrigued him. Among his vast notes were small ideas for a perpetual motion machine. His ideas for completing this task involved an unbalanced wheel that would revolve forever, conserving its energy. However these machines were never constructed. Another mathematical drawing was the Polyhedron. This three dimensional figure represented proportions to him "not only in numbers and measurements but also in sounds, weights, positions and in whatsoever power there may be" (Wallace 59). The notebooks of Leonardo contain sketches and plans for inventions that came into existence almost five-hundred years after the Renaissance. Leonardo practiced a technique of writing backwards. It has been postulated that he did this, being left-handed, so that he wouldn't smear the ink by his left hand running across newly-written words. Moreover, the individual words are spelled backwards. In order to read the Notebooks one must hold the pages up to a mirror and it is believed by some that Leonardo did this to keep his writing and theories secret. In any event, contained in the Notebooks are plans and drawings for what we recognize today as the first working propeller, a submarine, a helicopter, a tank, parachutes, the cannon, perpetual motion machines, and the rope ladder. There are perfectly executed drawings of the human body, from the proportions of the full figure to dissections in the most minute detail. It was observed, however, that Leonardo's interest in the human body and his ability to invent mechanical things were actually not as paramount to him as was his fascination and awe of the natural world (Clark 133). Leonardo lived to be 67 years old. He is not known to have ever married or had children. In fact, it was said of him that he only saw women as "reproductive mechanisms" (Clark 134). If there is one quality that characterizes the life of Leonardo da Vinci it would be his curiosity for life and the world around him. Curiosity is the force that motivated him to observe, dissect and document every particle of matter that warranted his attention. From babies in the womb to seashells on the beach, nothing escaped his relentless intellect. The mind of Leonardo transcends the period of the Renaissance and every epoch thereafter. It is universally acknowledged that his imagination, his powers of reason, and his sheer energy surpass that of any person in history. The study of Leonardo is limited only by the inadequacy of the student. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Lessons of the Japanese Economic Miracle for the West.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What The United States Can Learn From Japan Japan and the Four Little Dragons in order to achieve their industrialization goals have a diverse set of policies ranging from limited entitlement programs to a education and government bureaucracy that stresses achievement and meritocracy. But one of the most significant innovations of Japan and the Four Little Dragons is there industrial policy which targets improving specific sectors of the economy by focusing R&D, subsidies, and tax incentives to specific industries that the government wants to promote. The United States could adopt some of these industrial policies to help foster emerging high tech businesses and help existing U.S. business remain competitive with East Asia. In Japan the government both during the Meiji period and the post World War II period followed a policy of active, sector selective industrial targeting. Japan used basically the same model during both historical periods. The Japanese government would focus its tax incentive programs, subsidies, and R&D on what it saw as emerging industries. During the Meiji period Japan focused it's attention on emulating western technology such as trains, steel production, and textiles. The Meiji leaders took taxes levied on agriculture to fund the development of these new industries. Following World War II Japanese industries used this same strategic industrial policy to develop the high-tech, steel, and car industries that Japan is known for today. Some American industries are currently heavily supported by the government through subsidies and tax breaks to farmers, steel producers, and other industries that have been hurt by foreign competition because they are predominantly low-tech industries. But this economic policy of the U.S. is almost a complete reversal of the economic policies of Japan and the Four Little Tigers; instead of fostering new businesses and high tech industry it supports out of date and low tech firms who have political clout. The existing economic policy of the United States fails to help high tech businesses develop a competitive advantage on the world market instead it stagnates innovation by providing incentives primarily to existing business. The structure of U.S. industrial policy like the structure of an advance welfare state has emphasized rewarding powerful lobbying groups and has not targeted emerging sectors of the economy. The current U.S. industrial policy is a distribution strategy and not a development strategy. Instead of this ad-hoc industrial policy the United States should follow Japan's model of strategic targeting of emerging technology. The U.S. instead of pouring its money into subsidies and tax breaks for failing low-tech industries should provide loans, subsidies and R&D money for firms that are producing high technology products. Unfortunately, there are several impediments to copying Japan's model: first, tremendous political pressure from interest groups forces politicians to give corporate welfare to failing established firms and not emerging firms. Second, it is difficult for a government to select which sectors of the economy it will target. But despite these obstacles the U.S. is now confronted with trading powers who have coordinated government programs to foster the development of new technology; in comparison the U.S. governments reliance on individual initiative and a lack of government support for new industries has allowed Japan and the Four Little Dragon's to catch up to the U.S. in the area of high technology. In the coming years the U.S. could not just lose its advantage but fall behind if it fails to redirect government subsidies from failing firms to emerging sectors of the economy copying Japan's industrial development model. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Life In The 1900s.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Life In The 1900s Thesis Life in the 1900's was depressing and was an era filled with extremely hard and strenous work that didn't offer any future for the average canadian in doing better. If you were an average wage earner you would be virtually stuck in the same job for the rest of your life, while rich maintained their wealth mainly caused by the low taxes. Living conditions were poor for average canadians and even worse for the arriving immigrants. At this time some of the modern convienences were just being invented and even if it were for sale only the extremely rich had the option of purchasing the items. Sports being very new, in the aspect of it being organized was small time compared to present day. Travelling required time and was uncomfortable. Only the rich could have the luxurious accomadations for those long journeys. Many jobs were available to most people but you were under constant scrutiny while working and would have to be willing to do any thing the boss wanted. I believe my friends and I would most likely resent and despise it if we had to live in the 1900's. During the 1900's horses played a significant role in the Everyday life. A horse drawn carriage would bring a docter to the house of where a baby would be born. A hearse was pulled by horses to the cemetery when somebody died. Farmers used them to pull their ploughs while town dwellers kept them for transportation around town. Horses puled delivery wagons for businesses such as bakery, dairy, and coal company. Horses pulled fire engines through the streets in a fire emergency. The bicycle was widely accepted by canadians because of its easy maintence compared to a horse. The bike allowed an option of transportation. The bicycle also gave a sense of freedom to virtually anybody willing to learn. Henry Ford revolutionized the world we live in by inventing the "horseless carriage", if it had not been for him, instead of taking the GO bus in the morning we'd be riding a horse named Wanda. Not only did his invention offer a method of transportation to the public, but it helped with our emergency services such as fire engines, police cars, and ambulances. Now we have a large variety of cars to choose from varying in size and price. He also brought a large profitable industry to North America...The car industry. Back then there weren't many problems that they created. Today, we have our deteriorating ozone layer, poisonous chemicals that come from exhaust fumes (CO2)(Carbon Monoxide). Not to mention the traffic accidents, parking problems and traffic jams in downtown Toronto. 11 years previous to WW I Orville and Wilbur Wright made a successful flight in the first airplane at the beach of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Although the flight only lasted 12 seconds it would change the way we see the world. The telephone allowed the houseneeds to be satisfied without leaving they're homes. Women received an oppurtunity to work as a a switch board operator. I don't know if I can stress the importance of Marconi's invention enough. But I can say, that without it not only would there be no T.V. or radio there would be a lot of unemployed people right now(even more unemployed than now!!!). The reason for that is radio provides people with jobs such as DJ's, musical programmers etc. Also, radio is a major form of advertising, without it there would not be as many advertising agencies or as many positions in this field. Without T.V., advertising agencies would also face the same consequences. T.V. provides millions of people with employment in commercials, T.V. shows, and movies. Baseball was the most popular sport in the United States where the World Series began in 1903. Tom Longboat was born in Brantford, Ontario and was known for outrunning a horse over a 19 km coarse. He set a record of 2 hours, 24 min and 24 seconds when he ran the Boston Marathon. Jan 22/1901 Queen Victoria died at the age of 63 years. The Queens reign stretched across the globe. With her death came modernization. In the early 1900's horses were being used extensivley for all transportating duties and some manual labor jobs. A few years later the bicycle hit Canada and presented the Canadians with a better option of transportation mainly because of the simplicity of maintence. During these other discoveries the automobile was being perfected for use by the general public. By the 1920's the automobile was no longer a rich man's toy and was being used by many people. 1903 saw the first succesful flight fo the airplane bh Orville and Wilbur Wright at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. At about the same time Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in Nova Scotia. By the turn of the century telephones had uses increased from ordering household goods to supplying jobs for women and men. 1901, Signal Hill in St.John's Newfoundland Guglielmo Marcone received the first radio signal sent across the Atlantic Ocean. 20 years would elasped before radio broadcasting becomes mass entertainment. First movies were seen in the 19th century. 20 years will pass till speaking films arrive. 1903 the United States had their first World Series. In Canada, Tom Longboat was a famous runner who was famous for running faster than a horse on a 19 km course. Later to be proclaimed the worlds best marathoner. In the early 1900's modern covienences were just being available like bathrooms, electric washing machines, sewing machines, electric hearing aids, vacuum cleaners. The very fortuanate who could afford these items would order them from the Eaton's Catologue. All types of goods could be ordered in the Eaton's Catologue from fence posts to fashionable hats. The time period between 1901 and 1911 almost 2 million people immigrated to Canada from Europe, Britain and the United States. Due to the population growth, in 1905 Alberta and Saskatchewan became apart of the Confederation. The railway boom in 1903-1904 helped elevate the employment. Materials needed to build the railways and the transporting of the materials started the industrialization. Urbanization led to a serious problem of overcrowding. The three economic classes were the rich, average, and the immigrants. With low taxes this allowed the rich to spend on frivalous items such as horse and carriages. In contrast the average would only use their money for the neccessities in survival. At the bottom were the immigrants that were forced to live in unsanitary conditions and dank, damp basements. Not only were there differences of wealth or lack of but there was a difference in women and men's treatment. For example women did not have the freedom to enter pool room's, taverns and even bowling allies. Choices for women were working in stores and factories. Even if you came from a rich family your choices would have been nursing or teaching. Coming from a poor family women tended to just become a domestic servent. Women didn't have the right to vote like the men. In 1876 Dr Emily Stowe formed Toronto Women's Literary Club(TWLC). The purpose of this club was to inform women of their rights and to help secure women's rights. This group persuaded U of T to admit women in 1866. Also improved wages and working conditions. Womens Christian Temperence Union(WCTU) their goal was to combat problems created by alcohol in the society. A great social speaker Nellie Mclung received her start in WCTU to lead in the fight for equal freedom and for womens rights. Conclusion After discovering information about the 1900's I have come to the conclusion that in the 1900's was both good and bad. It was good because of the rising industries thus raising the economy. The main industries working for Canada were the railways, and road building. These industries provided needed jobs and the materials needed to complete these projects helped Canada grow even more. Low taxes meant you could pay for more important expenditures than paying to the government. The bad part of the 1900's was the three living standards in how most people were the poor and very little were rich. The modern convienences were not available to everyone in the early 1900's because these devices would have been very expensive caused by the newness of the products. Even though were guys I can see how women would have despised the fact that you were not able to vote or enter any buildings without checking it if it's not a tavern, pool room, and a bowling alley. Due to these outsanding points that stuck first in my mind I have changed my mind and believe it was both good and bad. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Lizzie Borden.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ L I z z I e B o r d e n A little over a century ago a gruesome double murder was committed, in the 2-1/2 story house at 92 Second Street, in Fall River, Massachusetts. This crime shocked the nation as Lizzie Borden, a 32-year-old Sunday school teacher, went on trial for the murder of her father and her stepmother. An all male jury eventually acquitted her on the accusations. To this day, the murderer of Andrew J. Borden and Abby Gray Borden is still unknown, but in the public mind everyone believes it was Lizzie Borden. Lizzie was born and grew up in Fall River, Mass. She was the youngest daughter of Andrew Jackson Borden, who was a very successful Banker and Sarah Morse Borden. Sarah died when Lizzie was very young and Andrew then married Abby Durfee Gray. Lizzie grew up with an elder sister, Emma. Neither of them has ever married. The sisters hated their stepmother, mainly because of the family's inferior social position. On the day of August 4, 1892, the bodies of Andrew Borden and his wife were found mutilated. As opposed to 40 whacks, in the popular rhyme, 19 blows struck Abby Borden by a hatchet or axe to the back of her head and neck. At the time she was cleaning the guestroom of the family home, at 9:30 am. Andrew Borden, who had returned home around 10:30 am, after his daily business had been attended to, was either napping or reading the newspaper on a couch in the parlor, when he was attacked. 11 blows were rained upon Mr. Borden's head and face, to the point that one eye hung from its socket upon his cheek, and his close friend and physician, Dr. Bowen, couldn't recognize him. There were only two people in or about the house at the time of the killings, Lizzie Andrew Borden and Bridget Sullivan, the Borden's maid. There is some speculation as to others that may have been responsible for these heinous acts. Among the other alleged killers are John Morse, the brother of Andrew's first wife, a secret lover Lizzie was said to have, though never named, Emma Borden, Lizzie's elder sister, and William Borden, who, while legally Andrew's second cousin, was rumored to really be his illegitimate son. Soon after the murders, Lizzie emerged as the prime suspect after John Morse's alibi checked out. She then was arrested and tried on three counts, the murder of Abbey, of Andrew, and of them both and, if found guilty, faced death by hanging. Six days after the murders occurred, she went to court. The all-male jury was put into a difficult position. It was the Victorian Era where women were considered delicate flowers and not capable of killing someone and it was not a common or working class woman they were to judge guilty or innocent, it was a wealthy society lady. After only an hour of deliberating, the jury declared Lizzie to be not guilty. It is said it only took them 15 minutes to decide, but out of respect for the prosecution, they waited another 45 minutes before they informed the court of their decision. What makes the Fall River murders so perplexing is that the motive, the weapon and the opportunity for such a crime are all seemingly absent. When the Fall River constabulary investigated the murders, they found no money or jewelry missing, not even small amounts of change or the packet of bus tickets as were taken in the daytime break-in at the Borden home twelve months earlier. Later, Prosecuting Attorney Knowlton hired a machinist who spent two days cracking open Andrew Borden's safe in hopes of finding a missing will disinheriting both daughters. But Borden died intestate, leaving Lizzie and Emma to inherit his entire fortune. Besides the lack of a clear motive for the murders, there was also the disconcerting lack of opportunity. Fall River found the entire Borden house locked up as usual, and during the two-and-a-half-hour period in which both murders were completed, the maid Bridget was outside the house washing windows and daughter Lizzie was inside the house reading a magazine. Even if one of the two committed the crime, the violent and bloody act should have been noisy enough to attract the attention of the other. Shortly after the trial, Emma and Lizzie each inherited half of their father's estate, about $200,000.00 each, a large sum in those days. Their first purchase was a home on The Hill, at 7 French Street, which Lizzie named Maplecroft. While at the time, Lizzie was said to have never had a thought of moving away from Fall River, in her later years, friends said she had questioned her decision to stay. Lizzie became a social outcast after the trial, with few friends remaining loyal. Her every move was scrutinized: if she appeared solemn in public, it was because she was guilt-ridden because of her crime; if she was happy, it proved she was a heartless monster. Soon, the only shopping trips she made were to the larger cities, such as Boston, Providence and New York. Lizzie refused to give newspaper interviews, in the hope that perhaps the attention that was constantly focused upon her would go away. But people were always hungry for gossip about Lizzie, and the papers were all too happy to print any and all rumors that were circulating about her, and if there weren't one, the paper would create a new piece of gossip. Among these rumors were tales of supposed engagements and accusations of shoplifting. These papers never seemed willing to print tales of her good deeds, such as her many charitable donations, her aide to deserving young people who could not afford a college education. Nor did they print stories of her love of animals, or of the arts. Lizzie enjoyed going to the theatre, and was an avid fan of Nance O'Neil, a stage and silent film actress of the day. It was a party thrown for Nance and the members of her acting troupe that caused Emma to move from Maplecroft in 1905. Emma, being a quiet and timid woman, simply could not abide by the rowdiness of Lizzie's newfound friends. Little has been written about the friendship between Lizzie and Nance, though rumors abound that they were in fact lovers for a brief time. It is nearly impossible to say whether or not this is true. At the same time, however, Lizzie may have become very lonely. How many men were likely to call on a woman that may have killed her father and stepmother? Perhaps out of desperation, Lizzie sought comfort and love in the arms of another woman. By many reports, Lizzie and Emma had little or no communication after Emma left Maplecroft. Emma moved to Newmarket, New Hampshire, and the two sisters never saw each other again. Lizzie died on June 1, 1927, at the age of 67. Emma did not attend the funeral, because on the day of Lizzie's death, she had fallen and suffered a broken hip. Emma died on June 21, 1927 at the age of 76, just ten days after Lizzie. Both were buried in the Borden family plot, in Fall River's Oak Grove Cemetery. Andrew Borden lies between Sarah and Abbey, his wives, while Lizzie and Emma are at his feet. A grant made to the city of Fall River in Lizzie's will pays for the perpetual upkeep of the plot. Word Count: 1251 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Louis Armstrong.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Louis Armstrong Tarenah Henriques Dec. 10, 1998 Period 4 "Louis Armstrong" Born in August 1901 (not Independence Day 1900, as he was always told and believed), Louis Armstrong sang on the New Orleans streets in a boyhood quartet and in 1913 was admitted to the Colored Waifs' home for firing a gun into the air. In the home he learned the trumpet, and within four years was challenging every trumpet king in his home town, from Freddie Keppard to Joe Oliver, his first father-figure, whom he replaced in Kid Ory's band in 1919. In 1922 Oliver (by now King Oliver) invited Louis to join him in Chicago to play second trumpet. Tempting as it is to echo Nat Gonella's incredulous comment, "I can't imagine Louis playing second trumpet to anyone", Oliver was able to teach Armstrong a little. The regular harmonic experience of playing second (his ear, even then, was faultless) and, above all, the importance of playing straight lead in "whole notes", as Oliver did, were lessons that Armstrong was to remember for life. Experience was by now, however imperceptibly, toughening the young man up. His second wife Lil Hardin helped to focus his streak of ambition and he was learning that people could be devious - Oliver, it transpired, was creaming his sidemen's wages. Although he loved Oliver until the end, by 1924 Armstrong had made the jump to New York and Fletcher Henderson's orchestra. It was hot city company for a country boy, but he had the humor and talent to counter mockery ("I thought that meant 'pound plenty'!", he quipped, when the stern Henderson ticked him off for a missed "pp" dynamic); somewhere along the way he decided he was the best, and got ready to defend his title if necessary. "Louis played the Regal Theater in Chicago," remembers Danny Barker, "and they had this fantastic trumpeter Reuben Reeves in the pit. So in the overture they put Reuben Reeves on stage doing some of Louis's tunes. Louis listened - then when he came on he said, "Tiger Rag". Played about thirty choruses! The next show? No overture!" In 1925 Armstrong, already a recording star, began OKEH dates with his Hot Five and Seven (featuring Johnny Dodds, Kid Ory and his wife Lil, until Earl Hines replaced her). The music on masterpieces such as "Cornet Chop Suey", "Potato Head Blues", "Sol Blues" and "West End Blues" turned jazz into a soloist's art form and set new standards for trumpeters world-wide. At the peak of his young form, Armstrong peeled off top Cs as easily as breathing (previously they were rare) and pulled out technical tours de force which never degenerated into notes for their own sake. His singing introduced individuality to popular vocals and, just for good measure, he also invented scat singing, when he dropped the music one day at a recording session. Best of all was his melodic inspiration: his creations were still being analyzed, harmonized and celebrated half a century later. Rather than playing ever higher and harder, Armstrong simplified his music, polishing each phrase to perfection, while keeping his strength for the knockout punch. By 1930 he was a New York star, with imitators all around him, but his business life was at a temporary impasse. Then he found his Godfather-figure, a powerful, often ruthless Mafia operator called Joe Glaser, who was to steer his client's fortunes for 35 years. In 1935, with Glaser's approval, Louis teamed with Luis Russell's orchestra, an aggregation of old New Orleans friends, and for five years he was to tour and record with them: the records are classics, and helped to get Armstrong into films such as Pennies from Heaven (1936) and Artists and Models (1937). In 1940, Glaser's office brusquely sacked the band and Louis put together another containing younger "modernists" such as John Brown (alto), Dexter Gordon (tenor) and Arvell Shaw (bass), a long Louis associate, with Velma Middleton sharing the singing. It lasted until summer 1947, but big bands were on a downward slide and Armstrong found leading a headache. In 1947 promoter Ernie Anderson presented him with a small band (directed by Bobby Hackett) at New York's Town Hall. The acclaim that greeted the move signaled the end of his big-band career, and for the last 24 years of his life, Louis led his All Stars, a six-piece band which featured, to begin with, a heady mixture of real stars ("too many make bad friends", said Armstrong ruefully later), including Jack Teagarden and Earl Hines. It developed into a more controllable and supportive team featuring, at various times, Barney Bigard and Ed Hall (clarinet) and, a strong right arm, Trummy Young (trombone). With his All Stars, Armstrong presented a tightly arranged show which, right down to repertoire and solos, seldom varied in later years, a policy which was sometimes criticized. But great records made with the All Stars, such as Plays W. C. Handy, Plays Fats and At the Crescendo, became jazz anthems, and solos such as Louis and the Good Book and its superior follow-up Louis and the Angels revealed Armstrong at a wonderful late peak. At his own wish the All Stars maintained a crippling touring schedule and in 1959 he had his first heart attack. For his last ten years, amid hit-parade successes, unabated touring and recurring illness, Armstrong gradually slowed down: by 1969, when he visited Britain for the last time, it was noticeable that though his playing was rationed (though still painfully beautiful) and that he was looking older. He died in bed (smiling) on 6 July 1971; his records have all remained in catalogue ever since and in l994 a late Armstrong single, "We Have All The Time In The World" rose high in the pop charts. It's impossible to discuss "Satchmo" without remembering the man: "He was a very joyous host," says Ruby Braff, "even in his dressing room with fifty people standing round." It is time to kill off the legend that Armstrong's big-heartedness was a pose: says Barney Bigard, "There never was any hidden side to him. He came 'as is'." Another legend deserves demolition: that Louis was simply the lucky one of countless talents in and around New Orleans (Jabbo Smith and Punch Miller are two cited contenders): the records prove otherwise. More recently it's been suggested that recurrent lip trouble (which Armstrong certainly suffered) caused a musical decline from the 1930s on: again, his performances demonstrate a continuing achievement. "He left an undying testimony to the human condition in the America of his time": Wynton Marsalis's way of saying, in 1985, that Louis was simply the greatest jazz trumpeter ever and, with Charlie Parker and Duke Ellington, the most influential jazzman of the classic era. Bibliography Bergreen, Laurence. Louis Armstrong: An Extravagant Life. New York : Broadway Books, 1998. Louis Armstrong *censored*http://www.capecodonline.com/primetime/armstrong.htm*censored* Satchmo *censored*http://www.satchmo.com*censored* Woog, Adam. Louis Armstrong. Detroit : Lucent Books, 1995 Word Count: 1151 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Lusitania.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Lusitania It was 2:10 p.m. on May 7, 1915. Leslie Morton, a lookout on the Lusitania, screamed, "Torpedoes coming on the starboard side." Two explosions followed. Within 18 minutes the huge liner, once the largest ever built, sank to the bottom of the Celtic Sea. 1,195 out of the 1,959 people aboard died. Walther Schwieger, commander of the German submarine U- 20, who had fired a single torpedo 750 yards away from the ship, later called it the most horrible sight he had ever seen. The Lusitania entered service between Liverpool and New York on September 7, 1907. Funded by the British Admiralty, the Lusitania, built by the Cunard Steamship Company, was required to double as an auxiliary cruiser in case of war. This was a secret agreement between the Admiralty and Cunard. On May 12, 1913 she was put in drydock to be double plated and hydraulically riveted, as well as modified for the application of guns. War was declared on August 4, 1914, and the ship was sent again into drydock. There she was armed with 12 six-inch guns(Simpson 60). Britain wanted to ship war materials over the Atlantic, but there was an embargo of shipping munitions on passenger ships. America also tended to publish the cargo manifests so that the Allies as well as the Germans would know what is being shipped. Britain found a loophole in this. New cargo added at the last minute did not go on the original manifest, thus a supplementary manifest would be submitted 4 or 5 days later. Also, due to the embargo, munitions were listed as 'sporting cartridges' and stamped with 'Not liable to explode in bulk'(Simpson 63). About a week before the voyage, the New York German community tried to run an ad warning about the trans-Atlantic voyage. But the duty officer at the State department did not approve, so no ads were placed. Later George Vierick, who was in charge of placing the ads, convinced William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, that on all but one of the Lusitania's voyages it carried war materials. Bryan had an advertisement run the morning of departure of May 1, 1915. British Naval Intelligence discovered the ad and gave orders to look out for U-boats, predicting a trap. Turner, Captain of the Lusitania, was told that he would rendezvous with the cruiser Juno about 40 miles west of the southern tip of Ireland. German Intelligence thought that the U-boat lookout order meant that large vessels would be leaving England. U-20 and U-30 were immediately sent to the British Channel and southern Irish waters(Simpson 66-69). On May 5, Winston Churchill attended a meeting concerning the Lusitania and the U-20. They concluded that Juno would need an escort, so assistance would be given, most likely the destroyer Flotilla. But this did not happen. For unknown reasons, Juno was recalled to Queenstown, and no destroyers were sent(Simpson 70). On May 5 and 6 three ships were sunk by the U-20, the last without warning. Alfred Booth, Chairman of Cunard, read about this and sent a message to Captain Turner diverting the Lusitania to Queenstown. Schwieger spotted the ship on May 7, at 1:20 p.m. and figured that it was either the Lusitania or the Mauretania, which he knew carried arms. At 1:35 the ship turned directly towards U-20. Schwieger saw his opportunity and shot a single torpedo at 2:10. Two explosions followed, the second was described in the U-20's log as "an unusually heavy detonation. . . with a very strong explosion cloud." The ship tilted about 15 , making the lifeboats nearly impossible to board. Six out of the 48 lifeboats escaped before the ship completely sank 18 minutes later (Simpson 74). Lord Mersey, the judge conducting the Court of Inquiry, concluded that the Admiralty had tried to falsely blame Captain Turner for the incident. He also found that almost all oaths given by the crew members to all have started with "At the time of sailing the ship was in good order and well found. The vessel was unarmed and possessed no weapons for offense or defense against an enemy and she has never carried such equipment. Boat drill was carried out before leaving New York." He cleared Turner's name and concluded that the explosions came from two torpedoes, and the ship was carrying no contraband(Simpson 80). Why did the ship sink so quickly? It has been thought that the weapons were the second explosion. In 1972 divers "unanimously testify that the bow was blasted by a massive internal explosion"(Simpson 74). It was thought that this was the area which the weapons would have been, but when the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution explored the wreck in 1994 they found no such hole. So what about the contraband? The manifest for the voyage showed that indeed, the Lusitania was carrying illegal war materials, including 4,200 cases of rifle amunition, 1,250 cases of shrapnel, and 18 boxes of percussion fuses(Ballard 80). There was a total of 173 tons of war materials(Simpson 66). If ammunition did not cause the blast, then what did? The expedition leads us to believe that the torpedo struck one of the long coal bunkers. Since most of the coal would have been used up, these bunkers would have contained lot of coal dust. The torpedo would have been cruising about 10 feet below the surface, about where the bunkers were. A lot of coal was also found on the sea floor. The Brittanic, sister ship to the Titanic, is also suspected of suffering a similar explosion(Ballard 80). Today there is a diving ban from Ireland, to protect from looters. Gregg Bemis, a U.S. financier now claims to have purchased the wreck, which the Irish government does not deny. However, they claim that Ireland owns the cargo, including a few priceless paintings by Rubens and Monet. The remains are also rumored to have $350 million in gold bullion, though this has never been proven(Marshall 1). f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\LYNDON B JOHNSON.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [Error] - File could not be written... f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Marco Polo.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Marco Polo Marco Polo is one of the most well-known heroic travelers and traders around the world. In my paper I will discuss with you Marco Polo's life, his travels, and his visit to China to see the great Khan. Marco Polo was born in c.1254 in Venice. He was a Venetian explorer and merchant whose account of his travels in Asia was the primary source for the European image of the Far East until the late 19th century. Marco's father, Niccol?, and his uncle Maffeo had traveled to China (1260-69) as merchants. When they left (1271) Venice to return to China, they were accompanied by 17-year-old Marco and two priests. Early Life Despite his enduring fame, very little was known about the personal life of Marco Polo. It is known that he was born into a leading Venetian family of merchants. He also lived during a propitious time in world history, when the height of Venice's influence as a city-state coincided with the greatest extent of Mongol conquest of Asia(Li Man Kin 9). Ruled by Kublai Khan, the Mongol Empire stretched all the way from China to Russia and the Levant. The Mongol hordes also threatened other parts of Europe, particularly Poland and Hungary, inspiring fear everywhere by their bloodthirsty advances. Yet the ruthless methods brought a measure of stability to the lands they controlled, opening up trade routes such as the famous Silk Road. Eventually ,the Mongols discovered that it was more profitable to collect tribute from people than to kill them outright, and this policy too stimulated trade(Hull 23). Into this favorable atmosphere a number of European traders ventured, including the family of Marco Polo. The Polos had long-established ties in the Levant and around the Black Sea: for example, they owned property in Constantinople, and Marco's uncle, for whom he was named, had a home in Sudak in the Crimea(Rugoff 8). From Sudak, around 1260, another uncle, Maffeo, and Marco's father, Niccol?, made a trading visit into Mongol territory, the land of the Golden Horde(Russia), ruled by Berke Khan. While they were there, a war broke out between Berke and the Cowan of Levant , blocking their return home. Thus Niccol? and Maffeo traveled deeper into mongol territory, moving southeast to Bukhara, which was ruled by a third Cowan. While waiting there, they met an emissary traveling farther eastward who invited them to accompany him to the court of the great Cowan, Kublai, in Cathay(modern China). In Cathay, Kublai Khan gave the Polos a friendly reception, appointed them his emissaries to the pope, and ensured their safe travel back to Europe(Steffof 10). They were to return to Cathay with one hundred learned men who could instruct the Mongols in the Christian religion and the liberal arts. In 1269, Niccol? and Maffeo Polo arrived back in Venice, where Niccol? found out his wife had died while he was gone(Rugoff 5). Their son, Marco, who was only about fifteen years old, had been only six or younger when his father left home:thus; Marco was reared primarily by his mother and the extended Polo family-and the streets of Venice. After his mother's death, Marco had probably begun to think of himself as something of a orphan(Rugoff 6). Then his father and uncle suddenly reappeared, as if from the dead, after nine years of traveling in far-off, romantic lands. These experiences were the formative influences on young Marco, and one can see their effects mirrored in his character: a combination of sensitivity and toughness, independence and loyalty, motivated by an eagerness for adventure, a love of stories, and a desire to please or impress(Li Man Kin 10). Life's Work In 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and a two- or three-year delay while another pope was being elected gave young Marco time to mature and to absorb the tales of his father and uncle. Marco was seventeen years old when he, his father and uncle finally set out for the court of Kublai Khan(Stefoff 13). They were accompanied not by one hundred wise men but by two Dominican friars, and the two good friars turned back at the first sign of adversity, another local war in the Levant. Aside from the pope's messages, the only spiritual gift Europe was able to furnish the great Kublai Khan was oil from the lamp burning at Jesus Christ's supposed tomb in Jerusalem. Yet, in a sense, young Marco, the only new person in the Polos' party, was himself a fitting representative of the spirit of European civilization on the eve of the Renaissance, and the lack of one hundred learned Europeans guaranteed that he would catch the eye of the Cowan, who was curious about "Latins"(Hull 29). On the way to the khan's court, Marco had the opportunity to complete his education. The journey took three and a half years by horseback through some of the world's most rugged terrain, including snowy mountain ranges, such as the Pamirs, and parching deserts, such as the Gobi. Marco and his party encountered such hazards as wild beasts and brigands; they also met with beautiful women, in whom young Marco took a special interest. The group traveled numerous countries and cultures, noting food, dress, and religion unique to each(Li Man Kin 17). In particular, under the khans's protection the Polos were able to observe a large portion of the Islamic world at close range, as few if any European Christians had. By the time they reached the khan's court in Khanbalik, Marco had become a hardened traveler. He had also received a unique education and had been initiated into manhood. Kublai Khan greeted the Polos warmly and invited them to stay on in his court. Here, if Marco's account is to be believed, the Polos became great favorites of the khan, and Kublai eventually made Marco one of his most trusted emissaries(Great Lives from History 16765). On these points Marco has been accused of gross exaggeration, and the actual status of the Polos at the court of the khan is much disputed. If at first it appears unlikely that Kublai would make young Marco an emissary, upon examination this seems quite reasonable. For political reasons, the khan was in the habit of appointing foreigners to administer conquered lands, particularly China, where the tenacity of the Chinese bureaucracy was legendary. The khan could also observe for himself that young Marco was a good candidate. Finally, Marco reported back so successfully from his fist mission-informing the khan not only on business details but also on colorful customs and other interesting trivia-that his further appointment was confirmed. The journeys specifically mentioned in Marco's book, involving travel across China and a sea voyage to India, suggests that the khan did indeed trust him with some of the most difficult missions(Rugoff 25). The Polos stayed on for seventeen years, another indication of how valued they were in the khan's court. Marco, his father, and his uncle not only survived-itself an achievement amid the political hazards of the time-but also prospered(Great Lives from History 1678). Apparently, the elder Polos carried on their trading while Marco was performing his missions; yet seventeen years is a long time to trade without returning home to family and friends. According to Macro, because the khan held them in such high regard, he would not let them return home, but as the khan aged the Polos began to fear what would happen after his death(Hull 18). Finally an opportunity to leave presented itself when trusted emissaries were needed to accompany a Mongol princess on a wedding voyage by sea to Persia, where she was promised to the local khan. The Polos sailed from Cathay with a fleet of fourteen ships and a wedding party of six hundred people, not counting the sailors. Only a few members of the wedding entourage survived the journey of almost two years, but luckily the survivors included the Polos and the princess. Fortunately, too, the Polos duly delivered the princess not to the old khan of Persia, who had meanwhile died, but to his son(Li Man Kin 21). From Persia, the Polos made their way back to Venice. They were robbed as soon as they got into Christian territory, but they still managed to reach home in 1295, with plenty of rich goods. According to Giovanni Battista Ramusio, one of the early editors of Marco's book, the Polos strode into Venice looking like rugged Mongols(Stefoff 17). Having thought them dead, their relatives at first did not recognize them, then were astounded, and then were disgusted by their shabby appearance. Yet, according to Ramusio, the scorn changed to delight when the returned travelers invited everyone to a homecoming banquet, ripped apart their old clothes, and let all the hidden jewels clatter to the table(Great Lives from History 1676). The rest of the world might have learned little about the Polos' travels if fate had not intervened in Marco's life. In his early forties, Marco was not yet ready to settle down. Perhaps he was restless for further adventure, or perhaps he felt obliged to fulfill his civic duties to his native city-state. In any event, he became involved in naval warfare between Venetians and their trading rivals, the Genoese, and was captured. In 1298, the great traveler across Asia and emissary of the khan found himself rotting in a prison in Genoa-an experience that could have ended tragically but instead took a lucky turn. In prison Marco met a man named Rustichello from Persia, who was a writer of romances(Stefoff 21). To pass the time, Marco dictated his observations about Asia to Rustichello, who, in writing them down, probably employed the Italianized Old French that was the language of medieval romances. Their book was soon circulating, since Marco remained in prison only a year or so, very likely gaining his freedom when the Venetians and Genoese made peace in 1299(Rugoff 32). After his prison experience, Marco was content to lead a quiet life in Venice with the rest of his family and bask in his almost instant literary fame. He married Donata Badoer, a member of the Venetian aristocracy. eventually grew up to marry nobles. Thus Marco seems to have spent the last part of his life moving in Venetian aristocratic circles. After living what was then a long life, Marco died in 1324, only seventy years of age. In his will he left most of his modest wealth to his three daughters, a legacy that included goods which he had brought back from Asia. His will also set free a Tartar slave, who had remained with him since his return from the court of the great khan(Li Man Kin 25). Works Cited Great Lives from History. Ancient and Medieval Series. Pasadena, California: Salem Press, 1988. 2: 1675-1680. Hull, Mary. The Travels of Marco Polo. California: Lucent Books Inc., 1995. Li Man Kin. Marco Polo in China. Hong Kong: Kingsway International Publications, 1981. Rugoff, Milton. Marco Polo's Adventures In China. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., 1964. Stefoff, Rebecca. Marco Polo and the Medieval Explorers. Chelsea House Publishers, 1992. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Marxism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I. Introduction II. Marxism A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: Economic Evolution III. Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: The Parliament versus the Crown IV. Institutional Theory A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: Social Change V. Conclusion Human relationships have always been dynamic. Change and adaptability have gone hand in hand with the passage of time for human society. Systems have been developed to regulate, direct and control the resources of this society. The systems are referred to as governments and the resources as the populace or inhabitants and forces of production. A government must be dynamic in its nature reflecting the change in society. At times these systems have resisted the necessity to adapt with its components (Society) creating a deficit between the system and those it regulates. As the deficits develop, they cause instability, and could lead to revolution.1 Theories have been developed to explain the systemic phenomenon called revolution. This paper will discuss three modern theories and apply them to the English revolution of 1640. The first theory, developed by Carl Marx (Marxism), will address the economic evolution in English society. This theory will emphasize and explain how the shift from a feudal/mercantile system to capitalism affected English society. The second, called the Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) developed by Charles Tilly, will explain how the English organizations (the Crown and the Parliament) effectively obtained, amassed and managed resources. Samuel Huntington's, "Institutional Theory", will argue that the existing government at that time was unable to incorporate the demands and personnel that the socio-economic changes created. Marxism was formulated in the 19th century. Carl Marx and his associate Frederick Engels observed the socio-economic changes that were transpiring in Britain. England was the dominant world power and had the largest industrialized economy during the 1800's. The development of the factory and the institution of the assembly line created a large demand for workers. This demand was satiated by migrating peasant from the rural areas in England and Ireland to developing urban centers. As these urban centers or cities evolved using industry as the economic backbone for the population, a large number of factory workers were accumulated to operate the machinery in horrid conditions. These workers, which would be termed as the peasantry under a feudal system, were now the working class or proletariat. They entered cities with hopes of bettering their lives and survival. Though revolution never took place in England during this period, it allowed Marx to study industrialization, urbanization and imperialism. The theory of Marxism has three basic concepts: historic materialism, forces of production and relations of production. Historic materialism is defined as a society's past performance and present capabilities of satisfying the basic means of life. Humankind's basic needs of eating, drinking and shelter need to be met properly. The forces of production (technology, capital, the infrastructure of society, etc.) are important for the simple fact of who ever controls them controls the society. The last aspect of Marxism, the relations of production, deals directly with the relationships between classes of people (the aristocracy, the middle-class and the working class).2 Marxism includes a predictive analysis of socio-economic structures. Using history, logic and the dynamic nature of humankind as guidelines, Carl Marx attempts to map out a sequence of events which will eventually lead to utopia (anarchy). In his work, Das Capital, Marx details the six steps. These steps are primitive socialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism and then anarchy. The evolution of the English economic system during the 16th and 17th centuries points to a shift from feudalism to capitalism. This shift is exemplified by the enclosures. The landlords began to fence their property in the common land areas. The "commons" were large plots of grazing and farmable lands that were used by both farmers and artisans. When the land-owners and manorial lords began to partition these lands the concept of private ownership of property was introduced to the socio-economic system.3 During the time period of the 16th and 17th centuries the crown's economic base began a gradual decline. This economic shrinkage came to a spearhead during the reign of Charles I. The monarchy favored a monopoly market system over a competitive one. The purpose for this position was for taxation and control of the profits. As the artisan and merchant populations increased, the policy of the crown began conflicting with economic growth. This created instability in three areas. First, the English monarchy needed money to support its army which insures social compliance. The second area of contention was the restraints and interference the Crown initiated on the rising middle-class. Thirdly, the rise of the bourgeoisie created competition for the state sanctioned monopolies, reducing its profit. Howard Erskine-Hill refutes Marxism. He states that neither . . . "the 'rise of the gentry' . . . ideas concerning resistance to rulers . . . nor even the narrowing financial base of the Tudor and Stuart monarchy . . .determined the outbreak of the Civil War . . . They are circumstances . . . contributing to an outcome which was not inevitable."4 Jack A. Goldstone, in his work Revolutions, argues that once historical data is carefully examined Marxism falls short. The Marxist reasons for the revolution are factors, but its scope of analysis is to narrow. ". . .the neo-Marxist view. . . with its focus on elite politics and the failings of Charles I run into difficulties when confronted with evidence."5 An example of this "evidence" that Goldstone refers to, are the enclosures. The land owners had support from the farmers who resided on the land. The parties that were affected by enclosure movement were the artisans and merchants. These merchant and artisan, or rather Marxism rising bouroeisie, were the unfortunate targets of this policy. The rising English Bourgeoisie used the land to satisfy there needs for resources (i.e. wood for fire and craftsmanship). Thus, a new theory must be introduced to explain the factors leading to and the Revolution itself. Charles Tilly, in his work, Political Conflict Theory, introduce the theory of "Resource Mobilization"(RMT). The two aspects of RMT are government and those who contend with the government for power. Power is defined as control of the resources. The resources are capital, means of production and personnel. 6 There are three characteristics to the RMT7 that help further explain the revolution. First, two or more organizations (government included) must claim the right to rule and control government. The conflict between the Crown and the Parliament during the 1640's meet this criteria. King Charles I during his rule attempted to close the rift between Catholics and Protestants. This policy was disturbing to the English populace. However, the brunt of this new policy was felt in Scotland and perceived was a direct assault on their religious organizations. The Scots rebelled and amassed a army to invade England an emancipate themselves from Charles I's authority. The King needed to acquire funds to raise an army so he called Parliament into session. After 6 years of silence, Parliament was aggressive against the crown. Instead of strong support for the King, they came with a list of grievances which needed to be addressed.8 It is this aggression which characterizes an organization contending for power in the government. The second characteristic, is the commitment of a significant amount of the population to each organization. In January 1642, the King attempted to arrest five MP's (Members of Parliament). Having failed, the King traveled north to an important port which was also a military stronghold, as well. Parliament denied him access. This was a definite sign of the waning power of the King. Charles I traveled to Nottingham to raise his standard. People began to rally behind the King. Parliament severely underestimated the influence of the Charles I and the idea of the monarchy. A significant amount of people rallied behind the King and the Civil War soon followed9. The third, and the most applicable, is the incapacity of and/or the unwillingness of the government to suppress the challenges for power. The King was desirous to put down the Scots, and eventually Parliament, after it was called into session (long Parliament). He was incapable in raising an army earlier without Parliament's appropriation of the necessary funds to pay an army.10 Therefore, the opponents of the Crown were given space to develop and acquire resources. Resource Mobilization Theory focuses on the leadership of both the revolutionary organization and the government in power. The three above stated characteristics of England in the 1640's, only emphasizes the short term factors for the revolution The fact that Parliament is actually part of the government provides a complication in the application of RMT. However, Parliament was struggling against the King to acquire more control over resources. The King showed himself as a bungling statesman in dealing with parliaments demands and grab for power. This is a classic example that shows what happens when "carrot ideas"11 are implemented without discretion and supervision. It could be argued that Charles I lack of sensitivity to the people was the cause for this lack of discretion. Even with the application of two theories, a satisfactory explanation of both the factors leading to the uprising and the revolution itself are lacking. A third theory must be brought to this case study. Samuel Huntington's, "Institutional theory", argues that there are inherent tensions between political and economic developments. If there are large economic changes in society then there must be political change to guide the modifications which are taking place, as well as, incorporating new social developments.12 England's Crown during the 17th century was lacking in ability to be dynamic. Trade and production began to increase so did the population. This increase created a middle-class in England. The middle-class consisted of artisans, merchants, land owners and landlords (these classifications are not all inclusive). Competition between the middle-class and state encouraged monopolies became evident during this time. There was a definite power shift away from property to the people. 13 Another long term factor lies within the King's policy toward the Catholics. This relaxing of tensions between the Protestants and Catholics was not viewed as favorable by the rising gentry (Middle-class). A form of Protestantism referred to as Puritanism was the main belief system of the gentry. This was an extremely conservative sect of protestantism, religious toleration was not acceptable to them14. This was another social development which Charles I "over-looked". Institutionalization was never a reality in British politics during this period in history. The organizations that existed in the English monarchy during the early 1600's were unable to promote value and stability. The system became rigid and unadapting to the demands for change made by new socio-economic factors. The constant attempts by both the Crown and the Parliament to subordinate one another removed their ability to reach a compromise. Thus, there is not one theory that can be used to satisfy all of the causal factors, institutional developments and socio-economic changes of the English revolution of 1640. Marxism addressed the changes the English economy made creating capitalist markets and free trade. It maps out the general factors which helped lead to capture and execution of the King of England, Charles I. Resource Mobilization Theory argued in more specific terms, defining that the organization which controls the resources has the power. It clarifies the power struggle between the Crown and the Parliament. Short term factors, present before and during the revolution, were emphasized by RMT. The last theory presented by this paper was Institutional Theory. It explained, in long term factors, the causes leading to the revolution by discussing the rise of the gentry, economics and religious intolerance. There is no single theory to explain every relevant factor present in revolution. However, the application of a select number or combination of theoretical approaches, helps to establish a proper framework for analysis of revolutions. Despite all of the ground breaking research and theorizing being done on revolution, it still remains a phenomenon and can not be predicted. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\marxist theory of Re~5AE.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The strengths and weaknesses of the marxist theory of Revolution Bibliography T. Carver Marx's Social Theory Oxford University Press 1982 A C MacIntyre Marxism: An Interpretation SCM Press 1953 K. Post Regaining Marxism MacMillan Press Ltd 1996 P. Worsley Marx & Marxism Ellis Horwood Ltd 1982 J. Townsend The Politics of Marxism Leicester University Press 1996 D. McNally Socialism from Below EMU Press 1986 K. Marx & F. Engels Communist Manifesto (ibid) P. Singer Marx 1980 A S Cohan Theories of Revolution 1975 T. Cliff Permanent Revolution International Socialism 1963 journal first series number 61 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Marxist theory of revolution? The Marxist theory of revolution must be evaluated in two lights in regards to its strengths and weaknesses, first how it was relevant in Marx's era, second how it was relevant after his death. The two conclusions that could be reached by assessing his theories in relation to the two different eras could be expected to reach quite disparate resolutions. Marx had the belief, inherited from Hegel that the evolution of society was a valid philosophical topic, therefore he wrote his utopian ideals of revolution with this in mind. That is the greatest strength of his theory, that it can be altered dependant upon the society of the day. The fact that most of his writings are only relevant to the world as he knew it does not obscure the fact that some of his meta narratives are still relevant and thus strong in theory. However, while some of the salient points in Marx's theory were once relevant and simply became out dated, it could be argued, and has by several authors, that some of his points were never particularly strong, based as they were on inaccurate information. The Manifesto was written on two levels, one which analyses the tendencies of society, the patterns and historical points of interest, where they examine the underlying tendencies of a phenomenon, i.e. world society. This specific analysis was based in economics. The other level of analysis, this one hypothetical, which finds the existence of actual impurities in the model in the form of political and social factors which are in some way independent from, or interact with the economic model. This manner of theory was strong, however it was one which needed constant revision. They themselves in their introduction to the German edition of the Communist Manifesto asserted that its 'general principles' were still correct, although their 'practical application' depended 'everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing'. It could be argued that the need for revision was also it's strength as it remained, at least past the two authors life times, relevant. Even in Marx's time other revolutionary groups, such as the Anarchists, argued that Marx's theories were flawed, but these were his rivals and so their criticisms could in a sense be taken with a pinch of salt; however, they are still worth mentioning. The Anarchists claimed that his revolution would result in a new state and a new kind of class society, with exactly the same values that they were attempting to overthrow. To a certain extent, history has proved them right, in countries where Marxism is still followed, there is indeed two classes of society and a new system. It is not truly accurate to place the blame on Marx's theory, the countries which follow Marxism have generally deviated from his true intent. Marx's writings had a mix of both truth with tangible evidence and some less well founded arguments. For example, his writing: "What I did that was new was to prove..." There was nothing new in what Marx proved, merely his interpretation of the data that was new. This meant that his theories were valid in the sense that they did have the base of solid rationale, but they had Marx's assumptions altering them slightly. For example, Marx showed that classes were shaped by changing social circumstance. However, in order to carry this obvious point to his own conclusion, that class struggle lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat, he could only rely on his own deduction for evidence. As A MacIntyre points out, much of Marx's information and data that he used to write the 'Communist Manifesto' and 'Capital' was gathered from Ricardo and Smith, economists of the time. Whilst Marx took their information verbatim, later critics have mentioned that neither man was considered a good economist. The two economists ignored the economic trend, preferring to study static economy. This meant that the 'communist Manifesto', a pamphlet ideally supposed to be malleable enough to fit to any sociological change, fell down when capitalism altered in an unexpected manner. T Carver considers that Marx's theory was entirely dependant upon this economic data, and therefore totally inaccurate. However, other critics and devotees of Marxism are not so quick to completely disregard the theories. Alex Callinicos , self described as one of the last true Marxists, insists that while Marx's theories were economically based, they are not dependant upon the economic data and therefore relevant even allowing for inaccurate data. Either way, the fact that his theory was so fundamentally flawed is an obvious weakness, however, the fact that Marx's prediction of the downfall of capitalism were correct apart from two major facts suggests that his theory does support the view that communism was not entirely based upon Marx's view of economy. Aside from the theories on the proletariat and economics, Marx's theories on the nature of capitalism were also highly relevant to his overall view of the necessity of communism. He considered that capitalism had the tendency to self-destruct and create the necessary conditions for a socialist society. However, while this was applicable in his era, the world did not alter as he expected. Capitalism developed at different speeds in different countries. It was also more antagonistic and resilient than he had supposed. Plus, the working class did not live up to the hegemonic expectations he had of them. In his expectation of the collapse of capitalism and a proletariat revolution, Marx had not considered either the rise of trade unions or the discovery of new capitalistic markets, colonialism. Both of these factors had a great impact, both upon the manner in which capitalism functioned in society and the manner in which communism functioned in society. Capitalism became more complex and communism suddenly lost one of its major standing points, the role of the proletariat. In Marx's era neither of these was a factor, his initial judgement had been based upon the world as he knew of it. Both of these factors however have been very important in the continuation of capitalism. It could be said that Marx was partially correct in his assessment of capitalism, being proven in the 1929 depression and the subsequent other, smaller, market crashes such as that in the mid eighties. The fact that none of the depressions, the large one in 1929 included, produced a revolution is in part due to the fact that there were two factors involved which Marx had not considered in his theory. The first was that in times of trouble, a nation tends to pull together in nationalistic sympathy, rather than fight each other. The second was that capitalism had advanced to such a point it could actually buy its way out of the depressions and recessions. Although this really was non-existent funds being spent, it succeeded in moving the money around the country once more. Capitalism has not had entirely the effect Marx prophesied on another level. The class system has not been widened further so as too become the masses as the proletariat and only a few rich capitalists. Quite the contrary has occurred with the distinction becoming blurred. How much of this could be accredited to Marx himself is beyond estimate. Whether the degree of blurring would have occurred without Marx's impact there is no telling. Still, it must be argued that Marx failed to take into account in his theory that power becomes more important that profit. Also, Marx failed to take into account the importance of the 'middleman' who makes capitalism work. With the advance of capitalism comes the increase of the middle class, creating the class which actually runs the capitalistic society. Another great weakness of Marx's theory of revolution was his omitting to consider that as a capitalistic society becomes richer, the proletariat profit. The more advanced capitalist countries are also those which have the highest standard of living, which runs directly contrary to Marx's theory. These mistakes in the estimation of capitalism has cost Marxism a great deal of credit. The fact that capitalism still works, granted some theorists, mainly Marxists, propose that the system is in a downward spiral, eventually to destroy itself, means essentially that Marx was wrong, his theory was too weak. This viewpoint however would be inaccurate, much of what Marx prophesied in his era would have occurred, should the situation have remained static. If the system were ever to break down to such a level as it was in Marx's time, it would be safe to speculate that Marx's theories would at least in part have some tangible evidence to back them up. Marx only considered the human factor in his theories in an abstract sense. The proletariat only became a factor in his theory of revolution quite late on in his writings and philosophical life. The fact that Marx was writing his manifesto for the proletariat, not the majority of the populace at the time, suggests one of two things. The first was that he perhaps changed his view that economics was the most important dynamic factor in the evolution of society, affecting the people and instead began to consider that the proletariat was in fact the dynamic force; or there is another more substantiated theory. The fact that the 'Communist Manifesto', as previously mentioned, was not written for a proletariat majority, must have been recognised by Marx. It could be assumed therefore that Marx felt that in order to restore balance to the socialist movement, he must focus completely on one aspect and not deviate. In that sense, the theory was very strong, as he indeed did not deviate from his views even in the face of evidence against them. The manner in which Marx wrote the 'Communist Manifesto' could be considered evidence of a strength, he judged his readers well. It was written in an emotive manner, designed to imbue the proletariat with, as J Townsend comments, 'a confidence in, and an awareness of, its own historic destiny' As AJP Taylor comments, the theory of revolution ignores cases where rivalry occurs between nations or factions of more or less equal strength. The proletariat could work against each other in much the same manner as the capitalists worked against each other. Marx seemed to consider that conflicts only appeared between classes, thus forming a revolution. He never considered that conflict could also arise within a class. This ran counter to all the economic experience, save that of Ricardo and Smith. One of the greater faults at the basis of Marx's theory was his lack of understanding of nationalism, he instead sought to discredit those backing national freedom, his revolutionary rivals. The main strengths of Marx's argument for revolution is that history has proven him correct on two counts. His foretelling of capitalism and the proletariat were both accurate. The fact that he failed to grasp the complexity is not really relevant. In his era he was correct simply because the complexities did not occur then. Capitalism was a simple as his theory. The manner in which capitalism worked in Marx's day was indeed doomed. The employer believing he could only survive by paying his employees a very low wage for many hours work is used only in the poorer countries. The advances that capitalism has taken were completely beyond Marx's theory. Although Marx's theory is seriously flawed, as the above shows, there were also some very significant strengths. The greatest evidence of this is that Marxists still follow his philosophies and his thoughts are taken seriously, granted with some modification. The strengths of his theory are mostly based in the historical sense, where it can be shown he was right for his era or mostly right by today's standards. All politics is now tinged with Marxism, free schooling is more or less directly Marx's work. One on four people live in a government that describes itself as a Marxist government. While these are in the poorer countries, this is not necessarily a sign that Marxism would not work; Marx himself stated that communism and socialism could only be achieved in a society which was sufficiently rich. One of the greatest strengths, and weaknesses, of Marx's theory of revolution, as the above has shown, is how translatable to the readers ideal it is. The fact that several disparate governments, both historically and contemporary consider themselves to follow the bible that is the 'Communist Manifesto' shows this. Marx's theory of revolution is open to interpretation, its true meaning is often difficult, if not impossible, to divulge, especially with his later works. In the end only speculation can determine what the true strengths and weaknesses of Marx's theory of revolution are; whether Marx would have ultimately been right had his era continued as he foresaw, and only the future can prove whether he will be right should capitalism collapse under its own weight. Word Count: 2242 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Medieval Castles.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Medieval Castles In 1494 the armies of the French king, Charles VIII, invaded Italy to capture the kingdom of Naples. They swept through the country and bombarded and destroyed many castles. This invasion signaled the end of the castle as a stronghold of defense. For centuries it had been the dominant fortification in Western Europe for the defense of kings, nobility, and townspeople. Ancient cities were often walled to keep out invaders, and within the walls there was usually a citadel, a strongly built fortification occupying the highest or militarily most advantageous position. A castle is much like such a walled city and its citadel contracted into a smaller space. Castles were basically fortified locations. The word itself comes from the Latin castellum. Up to the 6th century fortifications were primarily communities in which most of the population lived. But in the middle of the 6th century, the armies of the Byzantine Empire began to build strong forts as defensive positions. For the next few centuries this castle building was confined to the Byzantine Empire, but later hordes of Islamic warriors who swept out of Arabia to conquer the Middle East, North Africa, and much Byzantine territory also started building such forts. Western Europe, in the depths of the Dark Ages from the 5th through the 9th century, had no such works. But late in the 9th century, as local lords and kings began to consolidate power, castle building began probably in France. Once begun, castle building spread rapidly to other areas. But it was not until the 12th and 13th centuries, after the Crusaders returned from their wars against Islam in Palestine, that castles as imposing as those of the Byzantine or Islamic empires were constructed in Europe. Many of the stone castles of the late Middle Ages still stand. Some are tourist attractions, in various states of repair, along the Rhine River from Mainz to Cologne in Germany, dotted about the French countryside, or perched on hilltops in Spain. The original French castles had been built on open plains. Later ones, however, were situated on rocky crags, at river forks, or in some position where advancing enemies would find approach extremely difficult, if not impossible. The fortifications became more elaborate with time, with considerable attention paid to making the living quarters more comfortable. A typical castle was usually guarded on the outskirts by a surrounding heavy wooden fence of sharp-pointed stakes called a barbican.. It was intended to prevent surprise attacks by delaying the advance of assailants and giving those within the castle compound time to prepare to resist and attack. Inside the barbican stretched the lists, or wards: strips of land that encircled the castle. The lists served as a road in time of peace and as a trap in war; once within the barbican the enemy was in the range of arrows shot from the castle walls. In peacetime the lists also served as an exercise ground for horses and occasionally as tournament grounds. Between the lists and the towering outer walls of the castle itself was the moat, usually filled with water. Across it stretched a drawbridge, which was raised every night. At the castle end of the drawbridge was the portcullis, a large sliding door made of wooden or iron grillwork hung over the entryway. It moved up and down in grooves and was raised every day and lowered at night. In times of danger it blocked the way to the heavy oak gates that served as doors to the castle compound. These gates were so large that they were rarely opened except on ceremonial occasions. A smaller door was built into one of them to provide easy entrance and exit for those who lived in the castle.. A person known as the chief porter was charged with the responsibility of making sure that only friends passed through. The outer walls of most castles were massively thick, sometimes as much as 15 feet. At intervals were high towers, each a small fort in itself with provisions to withstand a long siege. When an attack was expected, wooden balconies were hung over the outer edges of the wall. During an attack, large stones were thrown or boiling oil poured from the balconies onto anyone trying to climb the wall. The wall and the towers had hundreds of narrow openings through which defenders could shoot arrows and other missiles. Inside the walls was the bailey, or courtyard. At intervals around the bailey were the stables, a carpentry shop, the shop of the armorer and blacksmith, barracks for the men-at-arms and for servants, a chapel, and a storehouse. There was also an oven room where the bread was baked, a kitchen, a kennel for dogs, and a well and drinking fountain.. The largest building along the wall was the castle owner's home. It contained the apartment for the master and his family and a great hall. This great hall was the center of social life such as wedding feasts, banquets, and knighting ceremonies. Within the walls there was another structure called the keep, or donjon (dungeon).. The keep was the focal point of the castle, the place to which, in times of attack or siege, the whole population of the castle retired if the outer defenses were failing. The keep had its own walls and was often protected by a moat as well. It contained private apartments, service rooms, weapons supplies, and a well to provide water. Most keeps were rectangular structures from two to four stories high. The entrance doorway was often on the second floor, with access by a stairway protected by a wall or forebuilding. In the Middle East the Crusaders from Europe found keeps that were built with round or multiangular towers to defend them more easily against an enemy coming from any direction. The round keep became common in Europe after the 12th century. Some later castles were built in a square and enclosed by one or two lines of walls. At each corner of the inner line of walls was a strong tower. Powerful gateways took the place of the keep, and great care was taken in building the outerworks to make access to the castle difficult. The castles of Conway and Caernarvon in Wales are both of this type. The terms castle and palace have often been used interchangeably, but they are not the same. Castles are fortifications, while palaces have been built for centuries as residences for kings and nobles.. But as castles began to lose their defensive role, they became residences; and to them were added the customary luxuries. As early as the 15th century, imposing residential tower houses, designed more for elegance than defense, were built within castles, such as those at Vincennes near Paris and Tattershall in England. Historically the palace antedates the castle by several centuries. Although the word derives from the Palatine Hill in Rome, where the emperors built their residences, palaces were built for the pharaohs of ancient Egypt as early as the 16th century BC. Much larger than the Egyptian palaces were those built in Assyria, which today is Iraq. The palace at Khorsabad of Sargon II, who ruled from 721 to 705 BC, extended over more than 25 acres. In Rome more than 1 million square feet of the Palatine Hill were devoted to splendid residences of such emperors as Augustus, Tiberius, and Septimius Severus. Palace building declined in Europe during the Middle Ages until prosperity and a measure of safety returned during the Renaissance. Then, in Italy, every prince and wealthy family had its palazzo. Many are still standing: the Pitti and Medici palaces in Florence and the palaces along the Grand Canal in Venice. London has three notable palaces: Buckingham, Whitehall, and St. James. Many German cities notably Wurzburg and Munich have impressive palaces. Among those most recently built are those of Ludwig II of Bavaria in the 19th century. The most famous and most frequently pictured is Neuschwanstein, located near Fussen. But for many the most appealing is the small Linderhof, a jewel of rococo design near Oberammergau. Ludwig's Herrenchiemsee palace on an island in the lake named Chiemsee was modeled after Louis XIV's magnificent edifice at Versailles, near Paris. Versailles has other imitations, including the beautiful Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna. Palaces will probably be built for as long as there is wealth enough to pay for them. In the 1980s the sultan of Brunei, Sir Muda Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzaddin Waddaulah, opened his new palace. Named New Istana, it contains 1,788 rooms, making it one of the grandest palaces anywhere. Although castles are no longer readily built, because of the lack of money or just the lack of need, they will always be appreciated for their beauty, architecture, and most importantly the land that they helped to defend. .Smith, Beth. Castles. p.18. New York: Franklin Watts, 1988. .Macaulay, David. Castle. p.54. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977. .Clements, Gillian. The Truth about Castles. p.9. Minneapolis: Carolrhoda Books, Inc., 1990. .Macaulay, David. Castle. p.13. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977. .Smith, Beth. Castles. p. 23. New York: Franklin Watts, 1988. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Middle East Term Paper 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Works Cited Page 1. Bernards, Neal. The Palestinian Conflict. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1990. 2. Dudley, William. The Middle East Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1992. 3. Findley, Paul. Deliberate Deceptions. New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1995. 4. Hubbel, Stephen. "U.S. Intervention Does Not Benefit the Middle East." Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Oct. 2003 5. Ojeda, Auriana. The Middle East. San Deigo:Greenhaven Press, 2003. 6. Peace and Solidarity Commision. "The Israel- Palestinian Conflict: Prospects for Peace." CPUSA Online. 21 Jan. 2002. 20 Oct. 2003. . 7. Pelletreau, Robert. "The U.S. Should Maintain an Active Role in the Middle East." Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Oct. 2003 . 8. Rogers, Paul. " Israel, the U.S. and the World: A Conflict of Perceptions." Open Democracy. 24 June 2002. Global Network. 20 Oct. 2003.. 9. Russel, Malcom. The Middle East and South Asia 2002. Maryland: Stryker- Post, 2002. 10. Petras, James. "Israel and the U.S. : A Unique Relationship" Rebellion. 23 Jan. 2002. Turner Network. 10 Oct. 2003 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Middle East Term Paper.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Works Cited Page 1. Bernards, Neal. The Palestinian Conflict. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1990. 2. Dudley, William. The Middle East Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1992. 3. Findley, Paul. Deliberate Deceptions. New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 1995. 4. Hubbel, Stephen. "U.S. Intervention Does Not Benefit the Middle East." Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Oct. 2003 5. Ojeda, Auriana. The Middle East. San Deigo:Greenhaven Press, 2003. 6. Peace and Solidarity Commission. "The Israel- Palestinian Conflict: Prospects for Peace." CPUSA Online. 21 Jan. 2002. 20 Oct. 2003. . 7. Pelletreau, Robert. "The U.S. Should Maintain an Active Role in the Middle East." Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 10 Oct. 2003 . 8. Rogers, Paul. " Israel, the U.S. and the World: A Conflict of Perceptions." Open Democracy. 24 June 2002. Global Network. 20 Oct. 2003.. 9. Russel, Malcom. The Middle East and South Asia 2002. Maryland: Striker- Post, 2002. 10. Petras, James. "Israel and the U.S.: A Unique Relationship" Rebellion. 23 Jan. 2002. Turner Network. 10 Oct. 2003 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\midway.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Battle of Midway in the Pacific Nothing distinguished the dawn of June 2, 1942, from countless other dawns that had fallen over tiny Midway atoll in the North Pacific. Nothing, that is, except the tension, the electric tension of men waiting for an enemy to make his move. On Midway's two main islands, Sand and Eastern, 3,632 United States Navy and Marine Corps personnel, along with a few Army Air Force aircrews, stood at battle stations in and near their fighters, bombers, and seaplanes, waiting for the Japanese attack they had been expecting for weeks. The carrier battle of Midway, one of the decisive naval battles in history, is well documented. But the role played by the Midway garrison, which manned the naval air station on the atoll during the battle, is not as well known. Midway lies 1,135 miles west-northwest of Pearl Harbor, Oahu. The entire atoll is barely six miles in diameter and consists of Sand and Eastern islands surrounded by a coral reef enclosing a shallow lagoon. Midway was discovered in 1859 and annexed by the United States in August 1867. Between 1903 and 1940, it served both as a cable station on the Honolulu­ Guam­Manila underwater telegraph line and as an airport for the Pan American Airways China Clipper (Miracle 5). In March 1940, after a report on U.S. Navy Pacific bases declared Midway second only to Pearl Harbor in importance, construction of a formal naval air station began. Midway Naval Air Station was placed in commission in August 1941. By that time, Midway's facilities included a large seaplane hangar and ramps, artificial harbor, fuel storage tanks and several buildings. Sand Island was populated by hundreds of civilian construction workers and a defense battalion of the Fleet Marine Force, while Eastern Island boasted a 5,300-foot airstrip. Commander Cyril T. Simard, a veteran naval pilot who had served as air officer on the carrier USS Langley and as executive officer at the San Diego Air Station, was designated the atoll's commanding officer. Along with the naval personnel manning the air station was a detachment of Marines. The first detachment was from the Marine 3rd Defense Battalion; it was relieved on September 11, 1941, by 34 officers and 750 men from the 6th Defense Battalion under the command of Lt. Col. Harold D. Shannon, a veteran of World War I and duty in Panama and Hawaii. Shannon and Simard meshed into an effective team right away. World War II began for Midway at 6:30 a.m. December 7, 1941, when the garrison received word of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. At 6:42 p.m., a Marine sentry sighted a flashing light out at sea and alerted the garrison. Three hours later, the Japanese destroyers Sazanami and Ushio opened fire, damaging a seaplane hangar, knocking out the Pan American direction finder and destroying a consolidated PBY Catalina flying boat. The Japanese retired at 10:00 p.m., leaving four Midway defenders dead and 10 wounded. On December 23, 1941, Midway's air defenses were reinforced with 17 SB2U-3 Vought Vindicator dive bombers, 14 Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo fighters, and pilots and aircrews originally intended for the relief of Wake Island. The Buffaloes and Vindicators were cast-off aircraft, having been replaced by the Douglas SBD-2 Dauntless dive bombers and Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat fighters on U.S. aircraft carriers. The Buffaloes became part of MarineFighter Squadron 221 (VMF-221), while the Vindicators were put into Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 241 (VMSB-241), both making up Marine Air Group 22 (MAG-22) under Lt. Col. Ira B. Kimes. Midway settled into a routine of training and anti-submarine flights, with little else to do except play endless games of cards and cribbage, and watch Midway's famous albatrosses, nicknamed gooney birds, in action (Stevens 56). Then, in May 1942, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, commander in chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet, came up with a plan, called Operation Mi, to draw out the U.S. Pacific Fleet by attacking Midway. Using Midway as bait and gathering a vast naval armada of eight aircraft carriers, 11 battleships, 23 cruisers, 65 destroyers and several hundred fighters, bombers and torpedo planes, Yamamoto planned to crush the Pacific Fleet once and for all. Alerted by his code-breakers that the Japanese planned to seize Midway, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief, Pacific Command, flew to the atoll on May 2, 1942, to make a personal inspection. Following his inspection, Nimitz took Simard and Shannon aside and asked them what they needed to defend Midway. They told him their requirements. "If I get you all these things, can you hold Midway against a major amphibious assault?" Nimitz asked the two officers. "Yes, sir!" Shannon replied. It was good enough for Nimitz, who returned to Oahu (Robertson 58). On May 20, Shannon and Simard received a letter from Admiral Nimitz, praising their fine work and promoting them to captain and full colonel, respectively. Then Nimitz informed them that the Japanese were planning to attack Midway on May 28; he outlined the Japanese strategy and promised all possible aid. On May 22, a sailor accidentally set off a demolition charge under Midway's gasoline supply. The explosion destroyed 400,000 gallons of aviation fuel, and also damaged the distribution system, forcing the defenders to refuel planes by hand from 55-gallon drums. All the while the Marines continued digging gun emplacements, laying sandbags and preparing shelters on both islands. Barbed wire sprouted along Midway's coral beaches. Shannon believed that it would stop the Japanese as it had stopped the Germans in World War I. He ordered so much strung that one Marine exclaimed: "Barbed wire, barbed wire! Cripes, the old man thinks we can stop planes with barbed wire" (Miracle 27)! The defenders also had a large supply of blasting gelatin, which was used to make anti-boat mines and booby traps. On May 25, while the work continued, Shannon and Simard got some good news. The Japanese attack would come between June 3 and 5, giving them another week to prepare. That same day, the light cruiser St. Louis arrived, to deliver an eight-gun, 37mm anti-aircraft battery from the Marine 3rd Defense Battalion and two rifle companies from the 2nd Raider Battalion. On May 26, the ferry USS Kittyhawk arrived with 12 3-inch guns, 5 M-3 Stuart light tanks, 16 Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless dive bombers, and 7 Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters, along with 22 pilots--most of them fresh out of flight school, May 29 saw the arrival of four Martin B-26 Marauder medium bombers from the 22nd Bomb Group. These planes were specially rigged to carry torpedoes and led by Captain James Collins. That same day, 12 Navy PBY-5A Catalinas joined the 12 PBY-5s stationed on Midway. Beginning on May 30, Midway's planes began searching for the Japanese. Twenty-two PBYs from Lt. Cmdr. Robert Brixner's Patrol Squadron 44 (VP-44) and Commander Massie Hughes' VP-23 took off from Midway lagoon, then headed out in an arc stretching 700 miles from Midway in search of the Japanese. Midway got further air reinforcement on June 1 when six new Grumman TBF torpedo bombers, commanded by Lieutenant Langdon K. Fieberling, arrived. None of the TBF pilots had ever been in combat, and only a few had ever flown out of sight of land before. The TBF would later be named Avenger in honor of its combat introduction at Midway. By June 1, both Sand and Eastern islands were ringed with coastal defenses. Six 5-inch guns, 22 3-inch guns and four old Navy 7-inch guns were placed along the coasts of both islands for use as anti-aircraft and anti-boat guns. As many as 1,500 mines and booby traps were laid underwater and along the beaches. Ammunition dumps were placed all around the islands, along with caches of food for pockets of resistance and an emergency supply of 250 55-gallon gasoline drums. Midway had practically everything it needed for its defense. Along with the 121 aircraft crowding Eastern Island's runways, Midway had 11 PT-boats in the lagoon to assist the ground forces with anti-aircraft fire. A yacht and four converted tuna boats stood by for rescue operations, and 19 submarines guarded Midway's approaches. Even with those preparations, there were problems. The air station's radar, an old SC-270 set installed on Sand Island, showed many blips that were more often albatrosses than aircraft. Also, there was no plan for coordinating Midway's air operations, which were dependent on a mixture of Army Air Force, Navy and Marine pilots and crews. With that in mind, Midway's commanders believed their only chance was to attack the Japanese carriers when they were located, in the hope of catching them with their planes on deck. "This meant exquisitely precise timing, a monumental dose of luck, or both," Admiral Nimitz explained. "Balsa's [Midway's] air force must be employed to inflict prompt and early damage to Jap carrier flight decks if recurring attacks are to be stopped...." By June 2, the Pacific Fleet's three aircraft carriers--Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown--were in position northeast of Midway, but only a few key officers were aware that Midway's defenders would be supported by them. Midway's Navy pilots were told not to "expect any help from the U.S. carriers; they're off defending Hawaii." Midway's only chance was for Nimitz's carriers to take the Japanese by surprise. Early on the morning of June 3, the PBYs of VP-44 and VP-23 took off on their 700-mile search missions, joined by B-17 Flying Fortresses on their own search and attack missions. The remaining aircraft on Midway were armed, fueled and waiting for orders to take to the air once the Japanese carriers were located. At 9:04 a.m., Ensign Charles R. Eaton, patrolling 470 miles from Midway, sighted three ships and got a burst of anti-aircraft fire for his trouble. Eaton quickly radioed Midway with the first enemy ship contact report of the battle. Seven hundred miles west of Midway, Ensign Jack Reid flew his PBY-5A across a largely empty ocean, nearing the end of the outward leg of his patrol. He found nothing of interest and started to turn back. Just as he did, Reid saw some specks on the horizon 30 miles ahead. At first he thought they were dirt spots on the windshield. Then he looked again and shouted to his co-pilot, Ensign Gerald Hardeman, "Do you see what I see?" "You're damned right I do," Hardeman replied (Miracle 49). At 9:25 a.m., Reid radioed, "Sighted main body," to Midway and began tracking the Japanese ships. Midway ordered Reid to amplify his report, and at 9:27 he radioed, "Bearing 262 degrees, distance 700." At 10:40 he reported, "Six large ships in column..." At 11 a.m., "Eleven ships, course 090 degrees, speed 19." At 11:30, Reid was ordered to return to Midway (Stevens 96). At 12:30, a flight of nine B-17 bombers, each armed with four 600-pound bombs and led by Lt. Col. Walter C. Sweeney, took off (Lucas 28). Three-and-a-half hours later, the B-17s found the Japanese ships 570 miles from Midway and attacked from out of the sun. Sweeney reported seeing two ships burning after the strike. In reality, Sweeney's B-17s scored no hits on the Japanese ships, and the return flight to Midway proved every bit as harrowing as the attack itself. With their fuel almost exhausted, the B-17s came within sight of Eastern Island at 8:30 p.m. The last Flying Fortress landed at 9:45 p.m. While Sweeney's B-17s returned from their attack, another strike of four PBY Catalinas, each armed with a torpedo and led by Lieutenant W.L. Richards, left Midway at 9:15 p.m. to attack the Japanese. All four PBYs returned safely, claiming three torpedo hits. One torpedo hit the bow of the tanker Akebono Maru, killing 13 sailors and wounding 11; the transport Kiosumi Maru lost a few crewmen to strafing. June 4 began for Midway's defenders at 3:00 a.m. with reveille. All gun positions on both islands were manned as pilots and aircrews stood by their planes. At 4:00 a.m., six F4F Wildcats from Major Floyd B. "Red" Parks' VMF-221 took off on combat air patrol. They were followed by 11 PBYs from VP-44, searching for the Japanese carriers, and 16 B-17s led by Sweeney that were to attempt another attack on the Japanese transports. At 4:30 a.m., the carriers of Vice Adm. Chuichi Nagumo's First Striking Force--Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu--launched their aircraft. Fifteen minutes later, 36 Nakajima B5N2 Kate torpedo bombers, 36 Aichi D3A1 Val dive bombers and 36 Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero fighters were on their way to Midway. At 5:30, Lieutenant Howard P. Ady emerged from a cloud bank and spotted Nagumo's carriers. Ady radioed Midway, "Carrier bearing 320 degrees, distance 180." Ady ducked back into the clouds and circled the Japanese fleet, radioing again, "0553, Two carriers and main body of ships, carriers in front, course 135 degrees, speed 34." Fifteen minutes after Ady's sighting, Lt. j.g. William Chase, flying south of Ady's sector, saw a formation of Japanese fighters and bombers. Chase quickly radioed: "Many enemy planes heading Midway bearing 320 degrees, distance 150." On Midway, radar on Sand Island picked up the approaching Japanese planes at 5:53. Air raid sirens wailed, and all personnel raced to their dugouts and gun positions. Major Parks' 21 Buffaloes and six Wildcats scrambled into the air, followed by Lieutenant Fieberling's six TBFs and Captain Collins' four B-26s. Major Henderson's dive bombers were last to take off. By 6:16, all 66 of Midway's aircraft were airborne. While the bombers headed toward the Japanese carriers, Parks led six Buffaloes and three Wildcats to intercept the 108 oncoming Japanese planes. Captain John Carey, leading the three Wildcats in Parks' flight, was first to sight the Japanese. "Tallyho! Hawks at angels twelve!" Carey radioed. The Japanese bombers flew in a large V formation, trailed by gaggles of Zeros. Carey rolled his Wildcat and screamed into the V, blowing a Kate apart with his four.50-caliber machine guns, then zoomed up for another attack. Japanese rear gunners raked his Wildcat, riddling Carey's legs. Second Lieutenant Clayton M. Canfield followed Carey into his attack, destroying a Kate. Canfield saw Zeros diving on him. A 20mm cannon shell damaged his Wildcat, and he pulled up into the clouds and lost his pursuers. Coming out of the clouds, Canfield joined Carey and led him back to Midway. Captain Marion E. Carl, flying the third Wildcat, was jumped by several Zeros after attacking the Kates and was forced to break off his attack. While the Wildcats fought for their lives, Parks led his six Buffaloes in an attack on the Kates. The Marines managed one pass before they were overwhelmed by the Zeros. Parks and four other Marines were killed. Only Lieutenant Daniel J. Irwin survived. He managed to fly his damaged Buffalo back to Midway with Zeros after him all the way. "Their gunnery was very good," Irwin reported, "and I doubt if on any run they missed hitting my plane." VMF-221's 12 reserve fighters, led by Captains Daniel J. Hennessy and Kirk Armstead, also attacked the Japanese planes (Lucas 104). Hennessy's six Buffaloes smashed into the bombers and were jumped by the escorting Zeros, which destroyed four of them. Only two of Hennessy's men survived. Armstead's Buffaloes intercepted the Japanese a few miles from Midway and downed three Kates before the rampaging Zeros destroyed three of them. Observing the dogfight from the ground, Lieutenant Charles Hughes said that the Buffaloes "looked like they were tied to a string while the Zeros made passes at them." The Japanese pushed relentlessly toward Midway. To Marine Pfc Phillip Clark at D Battery on Sand Island, the Japanese formations looked like "three wisps of clouds far out on the horizon." On Sand and Eastern, the Marines and sailors waited for the attack. An observer marveled at the "very calm...lackadaisical air" with which the defenders waited for the strike, "as though they had been living through this sort of thing all their lives"(Stevens 98). "Open fire when targets are in range," 6th Battalion headquarters notified all guns at 6:30 a.m. One minute later, Midway's guns opened fire. A Kate erupted into flames and dove straight down. A second Kate crashed into the lagoon, missing the PT-boats. The remaining Kates struck Sand Island, destroying three oil tanks and setting fire to a seaplane hangar. The attack on Eastern Island began with an unforgettable incident. "Suddenly the leading Jap plane peeled off," an eyewitness wrote. "He dove down about 100 feet from the ground, turned over on his back and proceeded leisurely flying upside down over the ramp." The Marines watched for a few seconds, then opened fire and shot him down. Val dive bombers struck VMF-221's arming pit, killing four mechanics and exploding eight 100-pound bombs and 10,000 rounds of .50-caliber machine-gun ammunition. Another Val demolished Eastern's powerhouse, disrupting Midway's electricity and water distillation plant. Japanese efforts to render Eastern's runways useless were unsuccessful; only two small craters were left on the landing strips. Midway's defenders fought back with everything they had. Major Dorn E. Arnold of the 6th Defense Battalion fired a Browning Automatic Rifle at the enemy; a sailor on Sand Island used a Colt .45. Second Lieutenant Elmer Thompson and another Marine fired a .30-caliber machine gun from a crippled SB2U. The Japanese attack ended at 6:48 a.m. The all-clear sounded on Midway at 7:15, and the process of picking up the pieces began. Kimes ordered VMF-221's fighters to land. Six Buffaloes staggered in. Including four aircraft that landed during the raid, only 20 U.S. fighters had survived. Of those, only one Wildcat and a single Buffalo were fit to fly. Fifteen Buffaloes and two Wildcats were shot down, and 13 pilots were killed. Eleven Japanese aircraft were downed by the fighters and anti-aircraft fire, while 53 were damaged. Colonel Shannon's trenches, bunkers and revetments proved effective. Only 11 of Midway's ground defenders were killed and 18 wounded. None of Midway's planes were caught on the ground except for an old utility biplane and a decoy plane made of crates and tin roofing called the "JFU" (Jap fouler-upper)(Robertson 15). While Midway repaired its damage and its defenders licked their wounds, the aircraft that were sent out to attack the Japanese carriers made contact. Lieutenant Langdon Fieberling's six TBFs reached the Japanese fleet at 7:10, dropped to low altitude and bore on toward the carriers. So many Zeros swarmed around the vulnerable torpedo planes that the fighters got in each other's way. Two TBFs were destroyed in the first attack, followed by three more. Realizing that he could not reach the carriers, Ensign Albert K. Earnest loosed his torpedo at a cruiser, then broke away with two Zeros after him. Earnest flew his shot-up TBF back to Midway, navigating "by guess and by God." Close behind the TBFs, Captain James Collins led his four B-26 Marauders into a gauntlet of anti-aircraft fire and six Zeros. Collins led his planes down to 200 feet above the water and, followed by Lieutenant James P. Muri, pressed on toward the carrier Akagi. Collins released his torpedo 850 yards from the carrier and pulled away. Muri released his torpedo at 450 yards, then turned and flew down the middle of Akagi's flight deck. Once Muri's B-26 was clear of Akagi, the Zeros attacked with a vengeance, wounding two crewmen and riddling the landing gear, fuel tanks, propeller blades, radio and the top of one wing. Despite that punishment, Muri and Collins were the only survivors of the four-plane B-26 group. Then, at 7:48, the TBF and B-26 attacks were followed by VMSB-241's 16 Dauntless and Vindicator dive bombers led by Major Lofton Henderson. Henderson had divided the squadron into two flights, leading the SBDs himself while Major Benjamin W. Norris led the Vindicators. As Henderson led the squadron northwest, the faster Dauntlesses soon left the Vindicators behind. Henderson's SBDs got their first look at the Japanese carriers at 7:25, and he radioed his Dauntless pilots, "Attack the two enemy CV on the port bow." Henderson had led his squadron down to 4,000 feet when the Japanese combat air patrol attacked. The Dauntlesses also met with heavy anti-aircraft fire from the Japanese ships. Henderson's plane was hit, and his port wing caught fire. He tried to keep his burning Dauntless in the lead, but finally lost control and plunged into the sea. Captain Elmer C. Glidden quickly took command of the Dauntlesses. "Fighter attacks were heavy," he wrote, "so I led the squadron down through a protecting layer of clouds"(Stevens 102). The Zeros followed the Marines into the clouds. Glidden came out of the clouds and found two Japanese carriers, Kaga and Hiryu, 2,000 feet below. The 10 remaining Dauntlesses dived to 500 feet or lower before releasing their bombs, then sped away at full throttle, hounded by Zeros. Three SBDs crashed at sea near Midway. Their crews were later rescued. The remaining six, some badly shot up, reached Midway. Eight SBDs, including Henderson's, were lost, with the Japanese sustaining no damage. Sweeney's 15 Flying Fortresses arrived over Nagumo's fleet at 8:10, as the Dauntlesses finished their attacks. Seen from 20,000 feet, the Japanese fleet was "an astonishing sight," recalled B-17 pilot Don Kundinger. "A panoramic view of the greatest array of surface vessels any of us had ever seen--they seemed to stretch endlessly from horizon to horizon." Each three-plane B-17 element attacked on its own. Lieutenant Colonel Brooke Allen's element unloaded its bombs on the carrier Soryu, but all fell short. Sweeney targeted Kaga, bracketing her stern with, he believed, "one bomb hit...causing heavy smoke" (Robertson 22). Three Zeros ganged up on Captain Cecil Faulkener's bomber, riddling its fuselage and wounding the tail gunner. Another Zero dueled with Captain Paul Payne's Fortress but never closed in. "The Zeros barely touched the B-17s," Captain Paul Gregory reported. "Enemy pursuit appeared to have no desire to close on B-17E modified"(Young 25). The B-17s finished their attack by 8:20 and returned to Midway. Sweeney believed his B-17s had hit at least one of the Japanese carriers. In reality, they had not. Shortly after the B-17s left, Major Benjamin Norris' 11 Vindicators arrived and Zeros swarmed over them(Miracle 45). Norris, with no illusions about his old "Vibrators," decided not to press on toward the carriers. He led his men into some clouds. Coming out of the cloud cover, Norris discovered a battleship below. It was Haruna, supposedly sunk in December 1941. "Attack target below," Norris radioed, and he led the Vindicators into a high-speed glide. Anti-aircraft guns on Haruna opened fire with an "extremely heavy and troublesome but inaccurate barrage"(Stevens 121). Only two of Major Norris' Vindicators were lost during the attack. Three ditched at sea near Midway because of battle damage. Despite reports that they had scored two direct hits and three near-misses, the Vindicator pilots had not even scratched Haruna. If the Battle of Midway had ended with the return of VMSB-241's Vindicators, it would have been another victory for the Japanese. Midway had sent 52 aircraft against the Japanese and lost 19 without scoring a single hit. "From the time of the attack and the known position of the enemy carriers, we estimated they would be back in three or four hours," Kimes wrote (Stevens 54). Only six Dauntlesses, seven Vindicators, one Buffalo and a single Wildcat were left to oppose the Japanese. The defenders of Midway steadied themselves for another air raid. Nothing happened. The only aircraft to show up were 11 Dauntlesses from the carrier Hornet at 11:00 a.m. Some Marine gunners, believing they were Japanese planes, opened fire on the SBDs before recognizing their silhouettes. The Dauntlesses were refueled and back in the air by 2:00 p.m. At 3:58, Midway's defenders received an indication that the Japanese were taking a beating when a PBY pilot reported "three burning ships." At 5:45 he reported, "The three burning ships are Jap carriers." The stricken vessels--Akagi, Kaga and Soryu--were the victims of SBD Dauntlesses from the American carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. At the same time out at sea, B-17s from Midway, along with six more Flying Fortresses from Hawaii, attacked the Japanese carrier Hiryu, which had been damaged and set afire by dive bombers from Enterprise and Hornet. The B-17s claimed hitting the burning Hiryu, as well as a cruiser and battleship, and sinking a destroyer. In fact, the land-based bombers were no more successful in the afternoon than they had been in the morning. With all four of Nagumo's carriers destroyed, Yamamoto decided he could not proceed with his plan to occupy Midway, and ordered his fleet to withdraw. Midway's defenders, however, still expected the Japanese to invade. Captain Simard dispersed his PBYs, evacuated nonessential personnel and warned his PT-boats to expect a night attack. At 1:20 a.m., the Japanese submarine I-168 opened fire on Midway with its 5-inch deck gun. Batteries B and E on Eastern Island, along with Battery D on Sand Island, returned fire with their 3- and 5-inch guns, lobbing 42 shells at I-168, which lobbed eight shells back. The brief exchange resulted in no damage to either side. Most of I-168's shells fell in the lagoon. The submarine submerged at 1:28, the Marine gunners ceased firing and Midway settled back into uneasy silence (Miracle 68). June 5, 1942, began for Midway's defenders at 4:15 a.m., after Sand Island's radio picked up a report from the submarine USS Tambor of a large enemy force possibly within striking distance. The Midway garrison still had every reason to believe that an invasion was imminent. Within 15 minutes, eight B-17s took off from Eastern Island to counter the threat. The Army pilots could not locate the enemy ships in the early morning fog, and by 6:00 a.m. the B-17s were circling nearby Kure Atoll waiting for information. At 6:30, a Midway-based PBY reported, "Sighted 2 battleships bearing 256 degrees, distance 125 miles, course 268 degrees, speed 15." Two minutes later the PBY added, "Ships damaged, streaming oil." The Japanese ships were retreating, and the island's defenders breathed a collective sigh of relief. Marine Aircraft Group 22 sent up two flights from VMSB-241, six Dauntlesses under Captain Marshall A. Tyler and six Vindicators led by Captain Richard E. Flemming, to attack the two "battleships," actually the heavy cruisers Mikuma and Mogami, damaged in a collision the night before. Forty-five minutes later, the Marine pilots spotted the oil slick left by the damaged cruisers and followed it to Mogami and Mikuma. Tyler led his six Dauntlesses into an attack on Mogami amid heavy anti-aircraft fire. The Marines dropped their bombs, scoring a few near-misses. At 8:40, minutes after Tyler's attack, Flemming led his Vindicators out of the sun, through heavy flak from the Japanese ships, against Mikuma. Captain Leon M. Williamson, a pilot in Flemming's flight, saw Flemming's engine smoking during his dive. As Flemming pulled out, his Vindicator burst into flames. Flemming--either by accident or design--crashed his blazing Vindicator into Mikuma's aft 8-inch gun turret. The crash started a fire that was sucked into the cruiser's starboard engine room air intakes, suffocating the engineers. After the Marines finished their attacks, the eight B-17s from Midway, led by Lt. Col. Brooke Allen, appeared and dropped their bombs, scoring a near-miss on Mogami. The damaged cruisers continued limping westward, and Mikuma sank at sunset the next day after attacks by aircraft from Enterprise and Hornet. At 10:45 on June 6, 1942, Captain Simard dispatched 26 B-17s from Midway in search of Japanese cruisers reported heading southwest. The bombers did not locate the cruisers, but six B-17s dropped their bombs on what they thought was a Japanese ship. The pilots reported that they had hit a cruiser, which "sunk in seconds." It was actually the submarine USS Grayling, which submerged when the Flying Fortresses dropped their bombs. While Midway's bombers continued attacking the retreating Japanese, Simard had his PBYs and PT-boats searching for downed pilots. Between June 4 and 9, Midway's PBYs picked up 27 airmen. By June 7, it had become apparent that Midway was secure. The island's garrison, for all the damage it had suffered, had contributed its fair share to the victory over the Japanese. This Battle had ended the Japanese offensive in the pacific ocean. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\MLK and Malcolm X.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X grew up in different environments. King was raised in a comfortable middle-class family where education was stressed. On the other hand, Malcolm X came from and underprivileged home. He was a self-taught man who received little schooling and rose to greatness on his own intelligence and determination. Martin Luther King was born into a family whose name in Atlanta was well established. Despite segregation, Martin Luther King's parents ensured that their child was secure and happy. Malcolm X was born on May 19, 1925 and was raised in a completely different atmosphere than King, an atmosphere of fear and anger where the seeds of bitterness were planted. The burning of his house by the Klu Klux Klan resulted in the murder of his father. His mother later suffered a nervous breakdown and his family was split up. He was haunted by this early nightmare for most of his life. From then on, he was driven by hatred and a desire for revenge. The early backgrounds of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were largely responsible for the distinct different responses to American racism. Both men ultimately became towering icons of contemporary African-American culture and had a great influence on black Americans. However, King had a more positive attitude than Malcolm X, believing that through peaceful demonstrations and arguments, blacks will be able to someday achieve full equality with whites. Malcolm X's despair about life was reflected in his angry, pessimistic belief that equality is impossible because whites have no moral conscience. King basically adopted on an integrationalist philosophy, whereby he felt that blacks and whites should be united and live together in peace. Malcolm X, however, promoted nationalist and separatist doctrines. For most of his life, he believed that only through revolution and force could blacks attain their rightful place in society. Both X and King spread their message through powerful, hard-hitting speeches. Nevertheless, their intentions were delivered in different styles and purposes. "King was basically a peaceful leader who urged non-violence to his followers. He travelled about the country giving speeches that inspired black and white listeners to work together for racial harmony." (pg. 135, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Freedom Movement) Malcolm X, for the most part, believed that non-violence and integration was a trick by the whites to keep blacks in their places. He was furious at white racism and encouraged his followers through his speeches to rise up and protest against their white enemies. After Malcolm X broke away from Elijah Mohammed, this change is reflected in his more moderate speeches. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King's childhoods had powerful influences on the men and their speeches. Malcolm X was brought up in an atmosphere of violence. During his childhood, Malcolm X suffered not only from abuse by whites, but also from domestic violence. His father beat his mother and both of them abused their children. His mother was forced to raise eight children during the depression. After his mother had a mental breakdown, the children were all placed in foster homes. Malcolm X's resentment was increased as he suffered through the ravages of integrated schooling. Although an intelligent student who shared the dream of being a lawyer with Martin Luther King, Malcolm X's anger and disillusionment caused him to drop out of school. He started to use cocaine and set up a burglary ring to support his expensive habit. Malcolm X's hostility and promotion of violence as a way of getting change was well established in his childhood. Martin Luther King lived in an entirely different environment. He was a smart student and skipped two grades before entering an ivy league college at only the age of 15. He was the class valedictorian with an A average. King paraded his graduation present in a new green Chevrolet before his fellow graduates. He was raised in the perfect environment where dreams and love were generated. King and X's childhoods are "a study in polarity." (pg. 254, Reflecting Black) Whereas, Malcolm X was raised in nightmarish conditions. King's home was almost dream-like. He was raised in a comfortable middle-class home where strong values natured his sense of self-worth. Sure, many have admired Malcolm X and Martin Luther King for the way that they preached. "Both King and Malcolm X promoted self-knowledge and respect for one's history and culture as the basis for unity." (pg. 253, Reflecting Black.) Other than the fact that they were similar in some ways, they also had many differences that people admired, both in belief and speech. Malcolm X, in many ways, was known to many as an extremist. For most of the time that he spent as an Islamic minister, he preached about separatism between blacks and whites. He also preached about black nationalism, and as some would call it, "black supremacy," (reporter from Malcolm X movie). Malcolm X had been misled all through his life. This can be shown especially at the time when he broke away from the black Muslim party, because he realised that they were misleading him by telling him that separatism between blacks and whites is the only way to go. They also misled him by telling him that separatism is a part of the Islamic religion. Malcolm X's life was known to many as a nightmare because he was abused and haunted by both blacks and whites. Malcolm X blamed many of the conditions that blacks in the United States lived in on the whites. He also talked about how the white man still sees the black man as a slave. Martin Luther King appeared to many as calm and idealistic. Many say his calmness came from his peaceful, middle-class life. For instance, King preached about equality for blacks and whites. He also preached about getting this equality through a non-violent way. King's popularity was more than any other black leader's popularity. "King urged blacks to win their rightful place in society by gaining self-respect, high moral standards, hard work and leadership. He also urged blacks to do this in a non-violent matter," (pg. 255, Reflecting Black) The difference is in Malcolm X and Martin Luther King's backgrounds had a direct influence on their later viewpoints. As a black youth, Malcolm X was rebellious and angry. He blamed the poor social conditions that blacks lived in on the whites. "His past ghetto life prepared him to reject non-violence and integration and to accept a strong separatist philosophy as the basis for black survival," (Internet, Malcolm X anniversary). He even believed at one time that whites were agents of the devil. As a result, "Malcolm X recommended a separatist and nationalist strategy for black survival," (pg. 57, Malcolm X: The man and his times) He believed that only through violence would conditions change. He saw no evidence that white society had any moral conscience and promoted the role of the angry black against racist America. King's philosophies presented a sharp contrast to those of Malcolm X. He believed that through hard work, strong leadership, and non-violent tactics, blacks could achieve full equality with whites. His belief in non-violence even extended to a woman who nearly killed him. He was reported as saying, "don't persecute her, get her healed," (pg. 52, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Freedom Movement). Near the end of their lives, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X's beliefs became more similar. Malcolm X corrected himself after his break with the black Muslim movement. He now emphasised unity and change through black pride and respect for oneself rather than through hate and revenge. King, on the other hand, became somewhat angry at the lack of progress made on equality. He started promoting non-violent sabotage, which including blocking the normal functioning of government. At one time, Malcolm X actually wanted "to join forces with King and the progressive elements of the Civil Rights Movement," (pg. 262, Malcolm X: The man and his times). To many, King and Malcolm X were heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. However, many have also seen that King was more pessimistic, while Malcolm X was more optimistic about separatism for most of his life. Some have said that later on in their lives, they had taken the opposite roles and changed. The speeches of King and X reflected both men's visions on improving America. Both men believed that if blacks were to attain freedom, they first needed to achieve self-respect. However, Malcolm X's speeches were delivered in a revolutionary tone which could incite his listeners to hatred of white America. Malcolm X used direct and to the point language which could be understood by all levels of society. "He had mastery in language and could project his ideas," (Internet, Remember Malcolm X) This creativity in language helped build the Black Muslim Movement in the United States. In his "Definition of a Revolution" speech, delivered in November 1963, Malcolm X openly justifies violence as a way of gaining equality. "And if it is right for America to draft us and teach us how to be violent in defence of the country, then isn't it right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country," (pg. 253, Malcolm X: The man and his times). He encouraged blacks to hate white America and to revolt against them. "Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way," (pg. 255, Malcolm X: The man and his times). In his speech "God's Judgement of White America", delivered on December 1, 1963, Malcolm X again promoted his separatist philosophy. "America must set aside some separate territory here in the Western Hemisphere where the two races can live apart from each other, since we certainly don't get along peacefully while we are here together," (pg. 287, Malcolm X: The man and his times) After Malcolm X's pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964, he reappraised white America and modified somewhat his racist and anti-white beliefs. This change is reflected in his "Communication and Reality" spoken to the American Domestic Peace Corps. "I am against any form of racism. We are all against racism. I believe in Allah. I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I do not believe in the brotherhood with anybody who does not want brotherhood with me," (pg. 289, Malcolm X: The man and his times) Martin Luther King was an equally strong speaker. However, most of his speeches were given to encourage white and black people to work together for racial harmony. He especially wanted to teach impressionable black youth that equality could be gained through non-violent methods. These ideals are reflected in his famous "I have a dream" speech, where King addressed to over 250 000 people. In this speech, King urges black people to never forget their dreams. King preaches that in the eyes of God, the blacks are as good as any other race and should be treated as equals. "I have a dream that one day every valley will be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places shall be made straight, and the glory of the lord shall be revealed, and all shall see it together," ( Internet, Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech) Unlike Malcolm X, King does not incite his followers to riot and hate, but encourages his followers to remember that all people are God's children and that hopefully one day all American can join together to sing "My country tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing..." King's eventual disillusionment became because of the lack of success the blacks were making in America. This discomfort is reflected in his "A time to break the silence" speech. In this speech, he openly condemns American involvement in the Vietnam war. He preaches that America should solve its own racial and social problems before sending vulnerable young men, especially black men, to fight other country's battles. "So we have been respectfully forced with the cruel irony of watching Negroes and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to sit them together in the same schools," (Internet, A time to break the silence speech) Malcolm X and Martin Luther King are both remembered as leaders who fought for a difference in black America. Both tried to bring hope to blacks in the United States. They also tried to instil within blacks power and strength so they could rise above all the hatred that surrounded them, but both of them had very different ways of promoting their message. Malcolm X had a much more extremist approach. Many say that this approach came from his neglectful childhood and early adulthood. King had a much more calm approach. Some have said that this non-violent approach came from his safe, middle-class environment. Even though they were different in addressing their messages about black respect and pride, they both had the same goal in mind. That goal was to achieve equality between all races. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Modern European History.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ These are essay question for History. Question are already written out for you convenience. Copyrighted by George Smith. Modern European History 1. What did Paul Valery mean in saying that the mind of Europe doubted itself profoundly? Before 1914, people in Europe believed in progress, peace, prosperity, reason, and rights of individuals. During that time, people began to believe in the Enlightenment, industrial developments were just starting and scientific advances began to take place. People then really believed in progression and further developments. Unfortunately, World War I broke out. Nevertheless, the optimistic people of Europe still did not doubt the outcome and were so convinced that it was not going to have any long term effects. They looked toward happier times and hoped life will go back to where it was before. But little did they know, as a result of the war, total war broke out and crushed all the hopes and accomplishments that the people had established. This shocking reality was unbearable and uncomprehending to the people's hopes and dreams. And as this lasted over the years, the age of anxiety was created. People didn't know or what to expect anymore. They did not know what was going to happen after the war. They're so devastated by the war that many who were still alive lost faith and all hopes. Many intellectuals began to doubt the Enlightenment and even the future of Western civilization. This state of uncertainty and unpredictability brought out many modern philosophers of that time. One of them was a French poet and critic Paul Valery. He stated that "Europe was looking at its future with dark foreboding." In his writings, he said that "The storm has died away, and still we are restless, uneasy, as if the storm were about to break." The storm in this case was the war. People were so terrified by it that they were still in shock and unsure of its outcome and consequence and the possibility that it might cause another war to break out. Valery saw that many people suffered from anxiety. He argued that the people looked at the future with great unease and discomfort for what the war had done and what the war will cause. He also suggested that "Europe doubted itself profoundly" because of all the lost of all optimistic ideas and accomplishments. People did not have to strength or will to believe in themselves anymore. They were too devastated by the war. They also saw no hope and thus doubted themselves for making any more progress. 2. Why do you think many veterans felt that they were part of a lost generation? Veterans during the war were just realizing what the war is all about. They saw what the war had done to people's lives and body parts. They sometimes couldn't even believe that such shattered bodies were once human beings lived happily among them. Most of them grew up in the war knowing nothing of life but despair, fear, death, and sorrow. These veterans felt that they were part of a last generation upon whom which the war was caused by. Now these young man must carry on the blood shed and fight for their fathers and country. Most of them didn't even know what the war was about and why they were fighting. And yet it didn't not stop them from innocently slay one another obediently. I don't think they know how to stop the war and not knowing what will happen next. 3. What reasons can you think of why many Germans were attracted to paramilitary organizations immediately after the war? Germans were attracted to paramilitary organizations immediately after the war. The war had brought violence, pleasure, and the excitement of survival for thousands of soldiers. During these years of excitements, soldiers began to gain new ideas of life and moral judgements. After returning home from the war they were bored just sitting around not fulfilling their thirst for more blood shed and adventure. It was the war that held them together as a union, that never discharged them, that will always provide a home and excitement for them. The Germans saw a great opportunity and gain their gasp on these soldiers. They knew that these soldier couldn't resist the excitement of war and thus posted appeals on the street corners for volunteer units to defend Germany's eastern borders. In a way, the soldiers fulfilled both Germany and themselves. 4. How did Sigmund Freud describe the prevailing mood in Europe just prior to the war. How did the war alter this mood and create a "legacy of embitterment"? Life prior to the war was full of joy and happy things to look forward to. People were making progress, developments were taking place, and western civilization was beginning to make some real progress and establishments. But as the war broke out, people lost all hope and dreams. They couldn't rely on either other which once united them together. They didn't know what to think anymore being terrified to learn the shocking truth of the reality of the war and what it has done to their society, people and accomplishments. People suffered from great anxiety and a "legacy of embitterment" was created. The enjoyment of common civilization was no more and total war was declared. Peace from among men were no existent. And those bonds will be impossible to establish for a long duration. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Montezuma Ruler of the Aztecs.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Montezuma Montezuma was the ruler of the Aztecs. Aztecs lived in Mexico around the 1400's to 1500's. They were an advanced civilization. Their religion seemed brutal to us but normal to them. Their clothes and customs have changed. Aztecs lived where southern Mexico is today. Tenochtitlan was their capital until Spain came around. Due to their religion and customs, Hernando Cortez, leader of the Spanish Conquest, was believed to be a white god. He made Montezuma prisoner and captured Tenoctitlan and renamed it Mexico City. Sacrificing people to gods was a normal thing. They would sacrifice slaves and prisoners. That is why they waged war with people. Usually they cut the heart out of a living victim. They thought if you ate someone's flesh, you obtained their courage. Every 52 years, they had a new beginning. They would light a fire on someone's chest who is alive, then people put their blood on it so they could become part of it. Very much do you hear of their culture today and very few people can speak their language. Their clothes and ways have changed. Their culture was advanced, large and successful for a period of time. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Moral Force Protest Vs Physical Force Protest.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ * Moral force protest has a greater chance to succeed that physical force protest. Discuss in relation to our contemporary world. In the modern world today, there is an immense diversity of global issues which are constantly being dealt with. Moral force protest as well as physical force protest are used, in hope of achieving a purpose and proving a point. For both of these acts of protest, there must be a substantial amount of facts and evidences backing it up. Both protests, no matter how it's done, are in some way seeking for the support of the 'leaders', most of the time, the 'leaders' being the government. Moral force protest involves logical convincing speeches which are fighting for a cause within the boundaries of law. It's possible to legally get enough support for a cause and eventually win by never once using any sort of violence. In some cases, hunger strikes by the 'victims' are also done. Aside from well constructed speeches and hunger strikes, the refusal to obey certain laws and the passive resistance, that is, resisting to incoming violence usually from the government, are other ways to morally protest without any physical violence. Sometimes due to the refusal to abide to certain laws the supporters may find abusive, the moral force protest supporters might find themselves confronting the law, and perhaps even acting illegally. In recent years, certain countries which hadn't previously given women the right to vote changed their decision by receiving strong moral force protest; this right was gained, and nowadays in those countries women possess the right to vote. Physical force wasn't in any way used in this case. The opposing way to support some strong cause can be through physical force protests. This involves violent protests which may harm people purposely. Destructive attitude from the people supporting a cause by using physical force is indeed very common. In most cases violence is used in hope of getting attention and media publicity. Physical force protest, has a very distinctive difference from moral force protest; one of the most important ones being that, by violence, these supporters are terrorising the general public, and trying to get the government to recognise their terrorism, and give in. Moral force protest is not even remotely linked with terrorism. Not in any way, do the supporters practising moral force protest adapt to terrorism like do these physical force supporters. By terrorising the general public and the government itself, these supporters think they'll create such an intolerable situation that the government will give in to their extreme and sometimes unnecessary violence. Now, if any government is prepared to give in their monopoly of violence over to a group supporting an intelligent and important cause through physical force protest, the situation is most likely to deteriorate rapidly. The government's monopoly of violence should constantly remain intact, under no circumstance should it be put at risk, no matter how threatening a situation they are facing. Violence should remain their monopoly. A few examples of physical force protest can be seen in recent IRA bombings; the purpose of the IRA being to gain independence for Northern Ireland from Britain. So far, these bombings have proved to be counter productive, nevertheless, the IRA seem to be relentless. Therefore they continue to terrorise society and sometimes wound or even kill innocent people. Although not impossible to answer, the issue of whether which protest is more successful, moral or physical, it is a very complex and contradiction filled subject to discuss and come to a logical and correct conclusion to. The acceptance of either form of protest can be in many ways extremely contradictory. Due to the sea of information that surrounds this issue, many valid arguments can be cleverly twisted in order to support or go against either side. While some people may see their own argument as being absolutely valid and completely true in favour of moral protest force, someone else can easily turn around that same argument and use it against moral force protest, and in favour of physical force protest, still seeing the argument and reasons as a definite truth. After all, truth is the real state of things, according to each individual. A reasonable speech clearly justifying any reasons backing up a specific cause may be a lot more effective than acting upon blatant violence to gain the needed attention to support a global cause. If the fight for a cause consists of thoughtful and intelligent reasons, it is likely that the case stated will be heard attentively; more so than if any kind of physical force was used. Valid facts and accurate statistics and information that act within the law have a high chance of achieving their goal due to the fact that there are no illegalities being used, no crime is committed, no panic should be feared. Martin Luther King Jr. fought with all his might and power in favour of the blacks of the United States; never once using force, his speeches and protests were tremendously well received, and always heard. He is in fact, most remembered for his "I have a dream" speech, which caused many Americans to stop and think about the cause being fought. By purely using moral force protest, Luther King ended racism in the US of A, although there are still some cases of extreme racism there, Luther King's fight clearly decreased it greatly. Nevertheless, his fight was hard and long, and in more ways than none, incredibly successful, therefore very much worth it. Hunger strikes such as the ones used by the people under the leadership of Gandhi in India, could prove to be extremely effective if done right. Gandhi was fighting for the independence of India, he wanted freedom from the English, and was prepared to do everything he could within the limits of moral force protest. By refusing to stand for violence, some people under his leadership were prepared to lay down on the ground and block the way for tanks to pass. In some ways, this could be considered illegal, and the government has the right to even arrest them, but then again, they are technically not doing anything wrong by obstructing the path for these tanks to come; or more innocently put, by simply lying on the street. The refusal to obey the law can be considered illegal, but to a certain extent, some laws for being blatantly abusive to the general public, can and probably will be ignored by some people, understandably so. Physics force protest has been recently used in Israel and in the UK. The Arabs with their 'suicide bombers' are killing needlessly and coldly to show their discontent with the peace process started by the Israelis. Violence to show one's discontent in the way a country is going about trying to bring peace, is undoubtfully ironic and almost unexplainable. By destroying the human race and trying to terrorise the Israelis, the Arabs aren't gaining anything at all, they're simply gaining publicity which shouldn't be given to them in the fist place, for their acts are simply monstrous. The IRA is also a very good example of supporters fighting for a strong and just cause by means of violence. The cause the IRA are constantly fighting for is actually one that could indeed be expressed in moral force protest and perhaps maybe even justified. By turning to violence, the IRA as well as the Arabs are immediately ruling out any possibilities of winning their causes. They are, in the long run, doomed to failure. Today's world has enough violence and terrorism surrounding its environment to even consider using any sort of inadequate violence to fight for a cause, no matter how important. When so many progress can be acquired by simply using one's intelligence and logic and supporting a cause following moral force protest, why should anyone even stop to consider opting for useless and wasteful violence is completely beyond me. No government will ever give in to violence used in order to gain popularity and create havoc for any global issue. The quest to terrorise their way through, by any supporters using physical force protest, is in fact, counter productive, for it's never actually proven to have worked. Moral force protest can usually be very effective and successful. It should be strongly considered, specially since we are now living in a time when violence seems intent on destroying us. Keep the peace. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\MotivesforExploration.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motives For Exploration Until the late 1400's, Europeans did not know the existence of the two American continents ( North and South America ). To the European explorers, exploring the other side of the Atlantic was like exploring an entire different world, hence the name- the New World. In 1492, Christopher Columbus unknowingly discovered the new continent. His original motives for exploring was to find an easier route to Asia but instead, he discovered the New World. Thus; Spain, France and England began sending out conquistadors and explorers to the uncharted terrains of the new continent. Motives for the Spanish, French, and English explorers varied greatly, however, they were similar in some ways. The motives of the Spanish explorers were acquisition of mineral wealth, spread of Christianity, search of El Dorado, search of Northwestern Passage, and thrill of adventure. The treasures that Columbus brought back to Spain enticed many adventurous explorers and sent them searching for gold and silver. Missionary clergymen sought to serve God by converting the natives to Christianity. By 1634, the area of present-day Florida and Georgia was home to 30 Spanish missionaries, 44 missionary stations, and 30,000 Indian converts to Catholicism. Within a few decades, Spanish explorers became familiar with the northern coast of South America, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic shore of North America, the Isthmus of Panama, the Gulf of Mexico and conclusively- the general outlines of the New World. Despite their knowledge, the Spanish persisted in searching for a Northwest Passage. Some individuals were attempting to escape from religious, political, economic oppression and the seemingly endless number of wars in Europe. The New World offered ownership of land and thrill of adventure. During the 16th century, a great deal of exploring was spent on searching for the fabled 'El Dorado,' which is defined as a place of vast riches or abundance. Like the Spanish power, France was impelled by a desire to spread Christianity, to find wealth, and to counter the efforts of other nations. France also hoped to find a new water route to the East through the North American Continent. French explorers sailed down the St. Lawrence, across the waterways of Canada, through the Great Lakes, and finally to the Mississippi River and its vast drainage system. They did not find the Northwestern Passageway but found endless forests filled with fur-bearing animals and Indians eager to trade instead. Using the animals as a resource, the French became prominent in the New World mainly with fur trade. Unlike explorers such as Soto and colonizers at Roanoke, the traders realized the importance of dealing with the Indians and was consequently more successful. And from the fur trade, trading posts were established. The friars brought Christianity to the Indians. The French missionaries had a less lasting influence on the native population than the Spanish. They did not find any major missions but instead had many temporary mission stations, where priests read masses and performed sacraments. Motives for English explorers were the Northwest Passage, riches from colonization, and more land. Many of them were escaping from the religious wars that basically took over England in the 17th century. Unique to the English were the motives of the need for more land for England's surplus population and colonization. Because of all the knowledge of the New World paved out already, England explored for the best possible places to colonize and was ready to establish settlements. Of all the European influences on the United States, those of the English were the most substantial and enduring. Like Spain and France, England was also searching for the Northwest Passage. During the period 1576-1578 , Martin Frobisher made three voyages to the northernmost part of the New World and it was thought that he had found, at long last, the Northwest Passage to the Orient. But after the failure of two more expeditions, the Company of Cathay went bankrupt. After England defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, England became the leader of the three major European countries. Motives for the Spanish, French, and English were alike in that they all wanted to find the Northwest Passage and they all had the curiosity of what the New World held. However there were more differences in their motives than there were likenesses. Spain was motivated by gold and silver, spreading Christianity, El Dorado, and the thrill of adventure. France was motivated by the successful fur trade and trading posts. England's motivation was riches from colonization, religious and political freedom and more land. From the search for gold and silver to wanting more land, it all boiled down to the countries being greedy. They all knew that they would profit, whether it be from gold ( Spain ), trading ( France ) , or colonies ( England ). But from these three countries, America has been enriched by their heritage. A source of strength, this heritage still lives today - centuries after the initial European exploration and settlement - a distinctive American civilization has been created. Word Count: 831 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\My Grandfathers Life.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My Grandfather, although he moved around a lot when he was a kid, grew up fairly well. He has lived in California, Texas, Wisconsin and many others. He traveled to many places because of his first career. Grandpa was born in Salt Lake City, Utah. He lived there for the first three months of his life. He then moved to Texas where he lived in the suburbs of Dallas. He then moved to California and moved back to Texas to live with his grandparents for times when his mother couldn't have him stay with her. His mother married a man named John and they moved to New Mexico. There he lived on a dude ranch his step-father was building, and he got to ride horses a lot. His chores there were to strip trees to help build buildings, and he took care of the horses. He later did chores around the house. He moved out of New Mexico after John got killed by lightning. They lived in the poor part of the city. The thing he remembers most about his mother is that she was a free spirit. His dad left when he was three because he couldn't take care of any one, not even himself. He recalled that John told lots of tall stories; something that grandpa does often. His first school was in California and it was a two room school house. He had to walk home and there were water snakes in the gutters. One time when he got home, his favorite toy, a refrigerator handle, was missing. Then he noticed that the two trees that were in front of the house were gone. He called the police. When the police got there, the baby-sitter was there and said the owner had taken the trees out. When the police officer found out that a handle was all that was missing, he gave my grandpa a lecture about only calling the police in an emergency. He never found the handle. My grandpa liked chorus the most, and he hated the rest of the classes. He remembers something Mr. Banks, a math teacher, said to him. "Well Ronnie, it's just a little to little, and a little to late." He is the most proud of graduating college after twenty years. He regrets not having a teacher tell him about the importance of education. When he was in middle school, he his favorite thing to do with his friends was not go to school. His best friend was Eddie Boucher. He met him in grade school. He went to Eddy's house on the weekends, because they had good food. He helped clean up Eddy's fathers restaurant and they got to eat whatever they wanted. They played snooker in the back yard on the pool table, and they went on bike rides all over the San Fernando Valley. My grandfather's career started n the U.S. Air Force. He joined it because it was an adventure. He did not have any preparation to join. He was the NCOIC (non commissioned officer in charge) of the refrigeration shop on the bases. After twenty years of service to the Air Force, he left that and has been working with RCDD (residential care for the developmentally disabled). The greatest challenge is working for these people, and that is also the reward. The thing he most wants to accomplish is to see me graduate from college. He does not suggest joining the Air Force, but RCDD if you have the correct nature for the job. He does not have a set schedule, because of his job. He likes any part of the day as long as he does not have to do hard things. He likes any season without ice and snow. His worst experience with ice and snow is when John got killed by lightning. He likes to take care of his health so he keeps moving - not die. His least favorite food is liver. He appreciates the shower most of all modern appliances. His favorite hobbies are using the computer and watching sports on TV He reads lots of books and appreciates good literature. He has traveled all over the world because of his service in the Air Force. He enjoys being with his family the most of all. His favorite experience is opening a new computer box. He believes that people get along by being tolerant. He said the greatest people of this century are F. D. R., Einstein and Gandhi. The greatest people of earlier centuries are Plato, Aristotle, Christ, Buddha and Newton. The most significant technologies are rocket science and space travel. The worst invention this century is the atom bomb. He believes a person need to be adaptable to changes in society. The biggest problem is the inability of the human race to take care of the world. People can help by paying attention and helping to solve the problem. Arts and crafts are parts of good living and he enjoys good art, literature, and good music. He believes that, "To thy own self be true." The thing he learned from his parents is that all living things have value. Be active in the world around you. In conclusion, my grandfather has lived a varied life. He started out slow but he sped up on the way and turned out well. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Napoleon The Russian Conflict.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Napoleon "The Russian Conflict" Napoleon was one of the greatest military leaders of all time. By 1812 Napoleon had expanded the territory of France all over Europe including Spain, Italy, Holland, and Switzerland. The countries that Napoleon did not directly control, he was usually allied with. The turning point of Napoleon's career also came in 1812 when war broke out between France and Russia because of Alexander I's refusal to enforce the continental $ Even the French nation could not provide all the manpower and supplies needed to carry out the Emperor's grandiose plan for subduing Russia. Throughout 1811, he worked to mobilize the entire continent against Russia. He not only levied the vassal kingdoms in Spain, Italy, and Germany but also summoned Austria and Prussia to furnish their share of men and goods. Altogether, Napoleon could count on nearly 700,000 men of 20 nationalities of whom more than 600,000 crossed the border. Grown far beyond its original intended size, the army was difficult to assemble and hard to feed. Between Tilsit and Moscow, there lay over 600 miles of hostile barren countryside. Because of lack of supplies and the difficulty to feed the large army, Napoleon's plan was simple: bring about a battle, defeat the Russian army, and dictate a settlement. Apparently neither he nor his soldiers, who cheerfully began crossing the Nieman River, thought beyond the immediate goal. Already 300 miles into Russia, Napoleon had not yet found a way to exploit his advantage. In the Emperor's programming the resources necessary to achieve his objective, he had anticipated fighting a battle within a month after crossing the Nieman. Toward the end of that month Napoleon began to realize that events were disproving the validity of his estimates. Dying horses littered the roads and the advanced guard found little forage as Russians everywhere abandoned their homes. Napoleon knew that he needed to fight. At Smolensk, he set up for a battle and waited but the Russians, afraid of a trap steadily withdrew their troops from Smolensk and continued to retreat deeper into Russia. The only major battle in the Russian campaign proved that something was definitely lacking in Napoleon's judgment. Borodino was a battle of legendary proportions. Before the battle Napoleon proclaimed, "Soldiers, here is the battle you have so long desired!" However, the fight was inconclusive. At its end, Napoleon found himself the possessor, not of a victory, but of a barren hillside and an increasingly compelling commitment to advance further into the east. Well into the battle, the French had almost cracked the left side of the Russian Army. Several French generals had requested that Napoleon would commit the guard infantry into battle. This would create the final blow and insure the Russian defeat. After 14 hours of intense combat, the fighting died out at nightfall, and Mikhail Illarionovich Kutusov, the Russian general, gratefully began to retreat his troops. The guard infantry had remained unused. After the Battle of Borodino, in which losses on both sides totaled ! over 70,000 men, Napoleon had 100,000 effectives remaining, while Kutusov probably had no more than 55,000. Both sides claimed a victory, whereas actually, both sides had lost. While the Russian army filed disconsolately toward Moscow, the Emperor of the French rationalized his indecision at Borodino by contenting himself with the capture of the city. On September 14, Napoleon rode into Moscow at the head of a fraction of the Empire's military strength. Meanwhile, Napoleon's opponent had made a decision that was to shape the remainder of the campaign. Kutusov made up his mind not to fight another battle in defense of Moscow. Kutusov ordered the city's population out into the countryside, released all inmates from the city jails, and destroyed the city firefighting equipment. Napoleon and his army of 100,000 arrived only to find a handful of the original inhabitants and several hundred criminals and lunatics freely roaming and plundering the streets. That night, fires sprang up all over the city. Fire swept through the city for several days and by morning it was apparent that most of the city had been consumed by the flames. Left with no choice, Napoleon sent peace proposals to Alexander, but Alexander refused to even discuss the concept of peace while the French remained on Russian soil. Napoleon was given an opportu! nity to evacuate Moscow by acting like he was reinforcing his brother-in-law's troops. Napoleon's plan was to march to Kaluga and Bryansk. By returning along an untraveled route, he hoped to find forage for the horses, avoid the appearance of a retreat, and eventually settle the army in winter quarters somewhere between Smolensk and Minsk. There appeared to be a good chance to reach his destination before the first frost. It was imperative to do so. The horses were not shod for heavy snow, nor had the troops been issued any winter gear. On October 31, Napoleon and the guard reached Vyuzma; Davout (his general) had cleared Borodino. One week later a heavy snow fell and, with it, the morale of the French. On icy roads it was impossible for the starving horses to pull their loads. Tired men dropped in their tracks and pushed to the side of the road, were lost forever. Artillery pieces, loot, and many of the wounded were left behind. November was an unending catastrophe! for the decimated French army. Men began to fight for scraps of bread and frozen horseflesh. As the army began to fragment, there were extraordinary acts of individual heroism. Mere survival itself required unending strength of will. Many men fell and simply refused to rise again and go on. Marching out of Smolensk, the ragged, frozen and famished group of men knew that they must sooner or later fight the Russians as well as the winter. On November 16, Kulusov blocked the French escape routes. The Russians made many attacks on the French. And because of the health of the French soldiers, there was little opposition for the Russian's attacks. Napoleon had returned to France to preserve his empire. With his desertion marking the end of the war. A lengthy bulletin had appeared in The Moniteur on the return of Napoleon. Until November 6, the weather was good, and the movement of the army was executed with success, but on the 7th the cold commenced. French officers and soldiers had fought bravely, and their General had led expertly. The Russian winter, not the Russian army, had defeated him. Electronic Arts EA 3D Atlas 1995, N.Y. New York Grolier Incorporated Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1994 N.Y. New York SoftKey Infopedia 2 1996 N.Y. New York Webster New World Dictionary 1984 N.Y. New York Word Count: 1107 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Napoleon The War Hero.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Napoleon was born on August 15, 1769 in Ajaccio, Corsica, and was given the name Napoleone Buonaperte. He was the second of eight children of Carlo and Letizia Buonaperte, both of the Corsican-Italian gentry. Before Napoleone, no Buonaparte had ever been a professional soldier. His father Carlo, was a lawyer who had fought for Corsican independence, but after the French occupied the island in 1768, he served as a prosecutor and a judge and entered the French aristocracy as a count. Through his father's influence, Napoleone was educated at the expense of King Louis XVI, at Brienne and the Ecole Militaire, in Paris. Napoleone graduated in 1785, at the age of 16, and joined the artillery as a second lieutenant. After the revolution began in France, he became a lieutenant colonel (1791) in the Corsican National Guard. However, when Corsica declared independence in 1793, Buonaperte, a Republican, and a French patriot, fled to France with his family. He was assigned, as captain, to an army besieging Toulon, a naval base that was aided by a British fleet, while in revolt against the republic. It was here that Napoleone Buonaperte officially changed his name to Napoleon Bonaparte, feeling that it looked "more French". It was here too that Napoleon replaced a wounded artillery general, and seized ground where his guns could drive the British fleet from the harbor, and Toulon fell. As a result of his accomplishments, Bonapatre was promoted to brigadier general at the age of 24. In 1795, he saved the revolutionary government by dispersing an insurgent mob in Paris. Then in 1796 he married Josephine de Beauharnais, the mother of two children and the widow of an aristocrat guillotined in the Revolution. Early in his life Napoleon was showing signs of militaristic geniuses and knowledge for formidable strategy. It was through the application of his skills, and a revolutionary style of spontaneous fighting styles than gave Napoleon the opportunities, which he jumped at, making his the great military leader he is known as today. Latter in1796, Napoleon became commander of the French army in Italy. He defeated four Austrian generals in succession, each at impossible odds, and forced Austria and it's allies to make peace. The Treaty of Campo Formio provided that France keep most of its conquests. In northern Italy he founded the Cisalpine Republic, and straightened his position in France by sending millions of francs worth of treasure to the government. In 1798, to strike at British trade with the East, he led an expedition to Turkish-ruled Egypt, which he conquered. His fleet, however, was destroyed by the British admiral Horatio Nelson, leaving him stranded. Undaunted, he reformed the Egyptian government and law, abolishing serfdom and feudalism and guaranteeing basic rights. The French scholars he had brought with him began the scientific study of ancient Egyptian history. In 1799 he failed to capture Syria, but won a smashing victory over the Turks at Abu Qir. France, meanwhile, faced a new threat, the coalition of Austria, Russia, and the lesser powers allied with Britain. Bonaparte, being no modest soul, decided to leave his army and return to save France. In Paris, he joined a conspiracy against the government. In the coup d'etat of November 9th -10th , 1799, he and his colleagues seized power and established a new regime-the Consulate. Under its construction, Bonaparte, as his first consul, had almost dictatorial powers. The constitution was revised in 1802 to make Napoleon consul for life and in 1804, it made him emperor. Each of these changes received overwhelming assent of the electorate. In 1800, he assured his power by crossing the Alps and defeating the Austrians at Marengo. He also concluded an agreement with the pope, which contributed to French domestic tranquillity and ended the quarrel with the Roman Catholic church that had arisen during the Revolution. In France, the administration was reorganized, the court system was simplified, and all schools were put under centralized control. French law was standardized in the Code Napoleon, (the civil code) and six other codes. They all guaranteed the rights and liberties won in the Revolution, which included equality before the law and freedom of religion. Considering Napoleon, being the greatest general of his time, with the intentions of France in mind it is clear how the French people respected him, held him in high regard, and even praised him. With that same clarity that we can see how those "enemies of the state", and others not living in France feared Napoleon, and saw him as a power hungry mad man. Opposing generals fueled by hate attempted on many occasion to stop the momentum that Bonaparte and his French empire was gaining. The view by others that he was a ruthless and sadistic leader, who created war for his personal gain was well expressed by Guillamme de Prosper-Barante, "He never wished to be justified. He killed, he killed according to Corsican traditions, and if he sometimes regretted this mistake, he never understood this as a crime" (I, pg.38). Another feeling of resentment towards Bonaparte was that he was unorganized, sloppy, and basically lucky. Finally, many people felt that Napoleon was only interested in his own image and power, and essentially used France and its resources as an outlet to achieve this. Napoleon himself would prove all this wrong. By taking the position which France was in at the time, re- vamping the entire political system, and giving equality and freedom to all of France he quickly showed his loyalties. As for being unorganized, sloppy and very lucky, time after time, Napoleon would prove his military superiority in all aspects. Lastly, if Napoleon had used France to gain his personal goals he would not have taken the time to change the politics, to protect the rights of the citizens, or to make sure France was a good place to live, "France has more need for Napoleon, then he for France" (II, pg.243). In April 1803 Britain, provoked by Napoleon's aggressive behavior, resumed war with France on the seas. Two years after this Russia and Austria joined the British in a second coalition. Napoleon then abandoned plans to invade England and turned his armies against the Austro-Rusian forces, defeating them at the battle of Austerlitz on December 2nd, 1805. In 1806 he seized the kingdom of Naples and made his elder brother Joseph king, converted the Dutch Republic into the kingdom of Holland for his brother Louis, and established the Confederation of the Rhine of which he was the protector. Prussia then allied itself with Russia and attacked the confederation. Napoleon destroyed the Prussian army at Jena and Auerstadt (1806) and the Russian army at Friedland. At Tilsit in July of 1807, Napoleon made an ally of Czar Alexander I and greatly reduced the size of Prussia. He also added new states to the empire: the kingdom of Westphalia, under his brother Jerome, the duchy of Warsaw, and others. Through Napoleon experience through these battles he became more of a leader, and was becoming more effective in motivating his soldiers, "There are but two lever for moving men, interest and fear" (II pg. 67) Outside of his military life Napoleon characterized his regime above all with a strong executive under the control of a single charismatic figure who appointed and dismissed ministers, generals, prefects, and bishops, commanded armies, directed foreign policy, saw to the codification of laws, and reorganized the systems of education, worship, and administration. Meanwhile Napoleon had established the Continental System (a French-imposed blockade of Europe against British goods, designed to force bankruptcy what he called "the nation of shopkeepers"). In 1807, Bonaparte seized Portugal. In 1808, he made his brother Joseph, the king of Spain. Napoleon then awarded Naples to his brother-in-law, Joachim Murat. Joseph's arrival in Spain touched off a rebellion there, which became known as the Peninsular War. Napoleon appeared briefly and scored victories, but after his departure the fighting continued for five years, with the British backing the Spanish armies and guerrillas. The Peninsular War cost France 300,000 casualties and incredible sums of money and contributed to the eventual weakening of the Napoleonic empire. In 1809, Napoleon defeated the Austrians again at Wagram, annexed the Illyrian Provinces (modern day Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, and Montenegro), and abolished the Papel States. He also divorced Josephine (who was his current wife) and in 1810 he married Habsburg archduchess, Marie Louise, who was the daughter of the Austrian emperor. By this linking his dynasty with the oldest ruling house in Europe, he hoped that his son, born in 1811, would be the more readily accepted by established monarchs. Also in 1810, the empire reached its widest extension with the annexation of Bremen, Lubeck, and other parts of north Germany, together with the entire kingdom of Holland, followed the forced abdication of Louis Bonaparte. The impact of Napoleon on the political and social structure of Europe was not everywhere the same. It was greater in territories that were annexed than in satellite states, and greater in satellite states than in those which were occupied only with difficulty and by force of arms. Where French Revolutionary armies had passed before, overturning feudal and ecclesiastical institutions, there Napoleonic rule had a firmer grip. French military support for local rulers enabled them to undertake by 'revolution from above' what as minor enlightened despots in the eighteenth century they had failed to achive. But Napoleon was above all a dynast and conqueror: what he required from subject territories was men and money. If they could be provided without administrative reforms, so much the better. Some states which remained sovereign imitated Napoleon's methods in order to weaken traditional elites or to strengthen state-power. Far more common however was resistance to Napoleon, whether blind peasant hostility to taxes and conscription, the defence of aristocratic, ecclesiastical, and corporative privileges, or liberal opposition to arbitrary, bureaucratic, and foreign rule. In all the new kingdoms created by the emperor, the Code Napoleon was established as law. Feudalism and serfdom were abolished, and freedom of religion established (excluding Spain). Each state was granted a constitution, providing for universal male-suffrage and a parliament and containing a bill of rights. Napoleon who felt that constitutions were the mark of a great society said "Constitution's should be short and obscure" (III pg. 124). French-style administration, and free public schools were envisioned. Higher education was opened to all who qualified, regardless of class or religion. Every state had an academy or institute for the promotion of the arts and sciences. Incomes were provided for eminent scholars, specifically scientists. Constitutional government remained only a promise, but progress and increased efficiency were widely realized. Not until after Napoleon's fall did the common people of Europe, alienated from his governments by war taxes and military conscription, fully appreciate the benefits that he had given them. It was evident through these actions of Napoleon that he not only wanted the land for France but he wanted to spread a common lifestyle throughout Europe. In 1812, Napoleon, whose alliance with Alexader I had begin to disintegrate, launched an invasion of Russia that ended in a disastrous retreat from Moscow. (Thereafter all of Europe united against him, although he fought on brilliantly, the odds were impossible.) In April 1814, his marshals refused to continue the struggle. They had felt Napoleon disrespected his army, and said they were not given the privileges they desired. [ Napoleon, although he lived his life with one theory regarding his men, ("When soldiers have been baptized in the fire of the battlefield, they have all one rank in my eyes...") (IV pg.15) therefore felt that his marshals shall be given no special treatment.] Latter allies had rejected his stepping down in favor of his son, Napoleon was abdicated unconditionally and was exiled to the Mediterranean island of Elba. Marie Louise and his son were put into custody of her father, the emperor of Austria. Napoleon never was to see either one of them again, but he himself soon made a dramatic comeback. In March 1815, he escaped from Elba, reached France, and marched on Paris winning over the troops sent to capture him. In Paris, he promulgated a new and more democratic constitution, and veterans of his old campaigns flocked to his support. Napoleon asked peace of the allies, but they outlawed him, and he decided to strike first. The result was a campaign into Belgium, which ended in a defeat in the Battle of Waterloo on June 8th, 1815. In Paris crowds begged him to fight on, but the politicians withdrew their support. Napoleon then fled to Rochefort, where he surrendered to the captain of the British battleship Bellerophon. He was then exiled to Saint Helena, a remote island in the south Atlantic Ocean, where he remained until he died from stomach cancer on May 5th, 1821. The cult of Napoleon as the "man of destiny" began during his lifetime. In fact, he has begun to cultivate it during his first Italian campaign by systematically publicizing his victories. As first consul and emperor, he had engaged the best writers and artists of France and Europe to glorify his deeds and had contributed to the cult himself by the elaborate ceremonies with which he celebrated his rule, picturing himself as the architect of France's greatest glory. He maintained that he had preserved the achievements of the Revolution in France and offered their benefits to Europe. His goal, he said, was to found a European state- a "federation of free peoples" (V pg. 15). Whatever the truth of this, he became the arch-hero of the French and a martyr to the world. In 1840 his remains were returned to Paris at the request of King Louis-Philippe and interred with great pomp and ceremony on the Invalides, where they still lie. Napoleon's influence is evident even in France today. Reminders of him dot Paris-the most obvious being the Arc de Triomphe, the centerpiece of the city, which was built to commemorate his victories. His spirit pervades the constitution of the Fifth Republic; the country's basic law is still the Code Napoleon, and the administrative and judicial systems are essentially Napoleonic. A uniform state- regulated system of education persists. Napoleon's radical reforms in all parts of Europe cultivated the ground for the revolutions of the 19th century. Today, the impact of the Code Napoleon is apparent in the law of all European countries. Napoleon was a driven man, never secure, never satisfied. "Power is my mistress" (VI pg. 176), he said. His life was work-centered; even his social activities had a purpose. He could bear amusements or vacations only briefly. His tastes were for coarse food, bad wine, and for cheap tobacco. He could be hypnotically charming for a needed purpose of course. He had intense loyalties to his family and old associates. Even so, nothing or nobody, were allowed to interfere with his work. Napoleon was sometimes a tyrant and always an authorian. But one who believed, however in ruling by mandate of the people, expressed on plebiscites. He was also a great enlightened monarch-a civil executive of enormous capacity who changed French institutions and tried to reform the intuitions of Europe and give the Continent a common law. Few historians deny that he was a military genius. At St. Helena, he said "Waterloo will erase the memory of all my victories." (VII pg.345) he was wrong; for better or worse, he is best remembered as a general, not for his enlightened government, but surely the latter must be counted if he is justly to be called "Napoleon the Great". f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\NAPOLEON.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NAPOLEON The main controversy over Napoleon is if he was a friend or enemy to the French people. Napoleon's prosecutors said that he destroyed the civil liberties of the French people. They also think that he started unnecessary wars of aggression. Another argument is that he ruled above the law like a absolute monarch. People on the defending side of Napoleon say that he saved France from a near anarchic situation in France. He extended the French territory to bring glory to the French people, and the rights of the revolution to the in Europe. Also Napoleon did more to help the people than to harm them. Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15, 1769 to Carlo and Letizia Bonaparte. No Bonaparte except for Napoleon became a professional soldier. His father Carlo fought for Corsican independence, but after the French occupied the island he served as a prosecutor and judge and entered the French aristocracy. Napoleon had an excellent education and excellent military training. His father secured a scholarship for him to the French military school at Brienne. When he was in school he put all his time and effort into his studies. Then in 1794 at age 15 he graduated 42nd in his class of 58. For more education after he graduated he spent a year at the Military Academy in Paris. Then he was commissioned a second lieutenant in artillery. Napoleon commanded an artillery brigade at the siege of Toulon where there was a British fleet. The British were driven out, and Napoleon was rewarded with a promotion to General of Brigade. In February of 1794 Napoleon was assigned to the French army in Italy. On October 5, 1795 a revolt broke out in Paris because of protesting the new constitution introduced by the Convection. Napoleon was ordered to defend the convection and was aided by Joachim Murats cannons. He was able to stop the revolting within four months. He was rewarded by the Directory, with the appointment as commander of the army of the interior. In March of 1796 Napoleon began a series of operations to divide and defeat the Austrian and Sardinian armies in Italy. He defeated the Sardinians at Mondovi, Forcing them to conclude a separate peace by which Savoy and Nice were ceded to France. Then with excellent leadership Napoleon was able to win Lombardy from the Austrians. On May 19, 1798 he sailed with an army of more than 35,000 troops and 350 ships to Alexandria Egypt. Then he occupied Alexandria and Cairo. There he guaranteed Islamic law, and began to reorganize the government. Napoleon liked the ideals of the Enlightment. He used some of those ideals in his law making and reforms. For example he believed in the equality of all citizens. Also he thought that everyone should have the freedom of occupation and freedom of religion. Napoleon thought that there shouldn't be any kind of slavery in France, because it defied the rights of the people. The coup d' etat was an act by Napoleon and Emmanuel Sieyes to overthrow the Directory. The Directory was a new form of government that was established in 1795. It consisted of five members that were elected by both houses of the legislature. This form of government was proved even less effective than the Legislative Assembly and the national convention. Within the Directory there was incompetence and corruption that was putting France in a major debt. It didn't do much to solve the financial problems and military problems in France. Attacks on the republic and other conservatives increased. Rising prices and disrupted production drove some groups in France to armed protests. And foreign hostility to France continued. Then when Napoleon, Sieyes, and their followers got their chance they executed the coup d' etat. Armed soldiers forced legislators from their chambers, and abolished the directory. Then they proclaimed a new form of government that Napoleon called the Consulate.! It was headed by three consuls, and Napoleon was the first consul. Then Napoleon Bonaparte made many reforms that helped France. One major reform was the Napoleonic Code, Which was a series of laws that some people thought was his greatest achievement ever. This code granted equality to all the citizens of France before the law. It confirmed the end of serfdom and slavery in France. It also gave people the freedom of occupation and the freedom to practice their religion. But, it reduced the rights of some groups including women. There were many other forms as well that strengthened the state. He initiated the Concordat with Pope Pius VII, Which reestablished Roman Catholicism. Napoleon lowered the national debt, restored the value of French bonds, balanced the budget, established the Bank of France, and established a new and fairer system of taxation. Also, he improved the public education system which raised the educational standards for France. There were many reasons for why Napoleon crowned himself emperor of France in 1804. France needed a strong and powerful leader to keep everything under control. Napoleon loved France and he wanted to do good for France. If he became Emperor then he would have more power to make France better. He would be able to liberate France and keep it in order easier. Napoleon also wanted to liberate other countries. To be able to liberate those lands he would need the power to make a big and powerful army. Once he got this new grand army he was able to conquer and destroy the armies of the lands. For example in 1805 Britain organized the Third Coalition against France, but Napoleon's army swept through Germany into Austria destroying both the Austrian and Russian armies. There were a couple of foreign policies that Napoleon set up. One Treaty was the Treaty of Tilsit, it was signed at the East Prussia town of Tilsit. The Treaties forced Prussia to give all its territory west of the Elbe river to Napoleon , and he used that land to create the kingdom of Westphalia. Prussia also had to give up their polish territory, out of that Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw. Another policy was the Continental System. This policy prevented Great Britain from trading with any European Nations. From September 1814 to June 1815 the Congress of Vienna assembled to reestablish the territorial divisions of Europe. Representatives of all European powers except for Turkey assembled at the congress. At the congress there were many changes to the divisions of Europe. Here are some of those changes. All the territory conquered by Napoleon was taken away from France. Russia received the major part of the former Duchy of Warsaw. Prussia Received West Prussia,Posen, The Northern half of Saxony, and the greater part of the provinces of the Rhine and West Phalia. And Austria Got back most of the territory that it had lost. The congress took an important step in condemning the slave trade. It provided the freedom to navigate rivers that formed boundries between states. Also the congress reestablished the balance of power among the countries of Europe. Napoleon never really abused his power he remained a fair leader to the people of France. Napoleon has been referred to as the "first modern dictator," because he didn't abuse his power compared to other leaders in western civilization. Napoleon cared more about the well being of the French people, and didn't care about getting money from the government or getting tons and tons of power. I think that Napoleon's achievements and goals should be evaluated in a good way. Because he wasn't a tyrant, he achieved those goals in a civilized way. Napoleon was one of the more fair, and better leaders than the ones that came earlier in history. Word Count: 1284 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Narmers Palette.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Narmer's Palette As Egypt grew and flourished to a powerful and rich nation, it left behind for today's historians, clues and artifacts of a once distinctive, well established and structured society. Proof of this is clearly depicted in king Narmer's Palette. This Palette shows historians the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, which signified the beginnings of a civilized era centred around the Nile. The unification of Egypt occurred around 3100 B.C., under the First Dynasty of Menes(3100-2850 B.C.). This age is commonly know as the Protodynastic era, which is known for the establishment of a firm political structure of the land which was unified in the hands of the king. The glorification of Lower and Upper Egypt uniting was portrayed in Narmer's Palette, which was found in the ancient southern capital of Hierakonpolis. The general function of Narmer's Palette was to commemorate a victory over his human foes. With Narmer's victory, the Palette also depicts his successful claim and conquest of all of Egypt, thus establishing unification of Lower and Upper Egypt under his rule. The dominant them however, is the victory of the god incarnate over the forces of evil and chaos. The Narmer Palette, while depicting several social aspects and tendencies of the Egyptian society, also reveals and emphasizes their structured positions within a hierarchy of command. Both sides of the Palette reveal, at the top, the name of king Narmer, which first documents, in the written history of Egypt, that we now are dealing with a civilized state. When the scribes wanted to write king Narmer's name, they placed a small fish called a 'nar' over a chisel, pronounced 'mer'. This combination of the words gave them 'Narmer'. The Palette also depicts king Narmer(probably the legendary Menes) wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt and the White Crown of Aphroditopolis, which represented Upper Egypt. Since Narmer had claimed victory over the northern king, thus becoming the first Pharaoh, the unification of Egypt was completed. The reverse of the Palette portrays Narmer clubbing a foeman. Narmer is then followed by his foot-washer, which should be noted is shown on a smaller scale and standing on a separate register line, as suited to his relative rank and position in Egypt's hierarchy. Narmer stands before the supreme sky-god Horus, of whom Narmer is also an incarnation, represented as a falcon with a human arm holding a papyrus thicket. On the obverse of this palette, Narmer inspects a battlefield near Buto, with several decapitated bodies of his foemen. Narmer is then preceded by his four standard-bearers and his priest. The middle register of this highly organized recording shows two long- necked lionesses and their attendants, symbolizing the newly established unification of Egypt. In the lower register Narmer is in disguise of a bull, which is destroying a fortified fort and killing any opponents in his path. The Narmer Palette reveals several important social aspects about how the Egyptians lived and were structured. The Palette also shows their value in recording historical events - with such items of war and political power struggles being 'newsworthy' events. It would be a mistake however, to read the Narmer Palette as a mere tale of conquest. Through military conquests however, Narmer was able to lay the political foundations of the kingship which endured thereafter as long as a Pharaoh wore the two crowns of Egypt. The actual finding of a Palette proves that Egyptians had established a written form of communication, which is today called hieroglyphic script. The Palette however, was depicted by Egyptian scribes using a complex combination of ideograms and phonetic signs. While king Narmer's name appears as hieroglyphic labels at the top of the Palette, it emphasizes that Egypt at this time was structured and had firmly established a civilized state. The entire Nile, now under the control of one king, was able to be utilized as the most important form of transportation. It was used for military campaigns, economic trading, and as a form of communication via boats. The Nile also provided a rich soil base which encouraged farmers to build huts and plant their crops along the river bank. Egyptian agriculture and the farmers' practices in irrigation revealed that the Egyptians had the man power and capabilities to divert water to particular fields for their crops. Although each community along the Nile was divided into districts, each governed by a man appointed by Narmer, each practised the same methods of collecting and diverting water. Also each man appointed to a particular district saw to it that taxes were collected and that the fields were drained and properly irrigated. The most significant piece of evidence that suggests that Egypt was indeed a civilized state was a special calendar with a 365-day year, as well as keeping records of special events and a system of standard measures for surveying fields and dividing produce. While Egyptians were basically confined to the Nile valley, they were able to draw many strengths from their isolation. From the beginning the Egyptians looked to a central authority in the person of a king, or god, which was all held together and related to the Nile river. While king Narmer was able to bring economic growth and political stability to the newly formed Egypt, he was unable to control the external pressures which would eventually break up Egypt and lead to the collapse of the ruling Pharaohs. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Native Americans.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Native Americans The Indians were the main focus of the history of New France, and influenced the Europeans in the period before 1663. The Indians, being numerous compared with the Europeans, came into frequent contact with them. The Indians and Europeans traded items with one another, which led to various events and actions that contributed greatly to the history of New France. The Europeans who arrived after the Indians had already settled were exposed to the native people's way of life, from which techniques for survival were acquired. Later, the Europeans depended on the Indians, some of whom acted as middlemen and who had items which were valuable to them. Various Indian personalities were also observed and admired by Europeans particularly the Jesuits. The Native Indians were among the first people to enter North America. They entered America through the passage of the Bering Strait, a location which is the midpoint of Alaska and Siberia. As time passed, they settled on various pieces of land and hunted, fished and grew crops. Alfred Bailey mentions that, "It had been suggested that Siouans, the Iroquoians and Algonquians were among the first to enter America."1 Before the Europeans arrived, there were many native tribes that were already settled. By the time Europeans arrived in North America, they found natives occupying large amounts of land.2 The Indians helped start the history of New France. Since the natives arrived early in North America, their population started to increase quite rapidly. With the combination of migration as well as the birth rate, the Indians inflated their population to a large size. "In 1663, there were only still 3000 Europeans living in New France, no more people than constituted a small Iroquoian tribe."3 The Indians were in the majority before 1663. Surrounding the area of New France there were two main native groups who spoke different languages. These groups were the Algonquian and the Iroquoian. The Algonquians were primarily involved in trading and fishing. These people remained in groups called bands, which included relatives such as parents, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Algonquians primarily hunted, and so would develop groups to hunt in different areas. They travelled around frequently and would take everything they needed while on their hunting journey. In the winter, they used snowshoes; in the Summer, they used the canoe. The Algonquians were always moving from one location to another; because of their hunting they never stayed in one location for a long period of time. The Iroquoians were mainly occupied with agriculture. This group established themselves near land which could be farmed upon. They remained in this area until the land was exhausted and nothing more could be cultivated upon it. After the land was worthless it was abandoned and another piece of land was selected upon which to plant at another location. Their villages were known as Longhouses. These Longhouses were quite large and supported more than five families in them. The men were mainly the people who constructed the Longhouse. While the men were busy during the summer, hunting, trading, or engaging in war, the women would care for the crops. The Iroquoians helped contribute to agriculture by being one of the first to grow crops. While trading with the Europeans, the Indians were faced with many instances that were devastating and other cases which helped them profit. Trade in New France was so prominent that France decided to create a monopoly to bring the trade under control. Two provisions had to be met: Firstly, the private fur trading company had to promote colonization. Secondly, it had to send Roman Catholic missionaries to Christianize the Indians.4 On the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Tadoussac, became the chief trading centre for the Europeans. The trade route surrounding Tadoussac contained connections from Hudson Bay to New England. Some negative aspects of the fur trade were that: The Fur Trade at first enriched traditional Indian life, but later increasing competition for pelts generated conflicts that led to the dispersal of many Indian groups. Indian wars grew out of long standing rivalries or developed as a result of Indian disputes over furs.5 An outcome of trading with the Europeans that devastated the Indians, was the epidemics which the Europeans presented. These epidemics destroyed a large percentage of the Indian population, which they did not deserve and which were calamitous to the population. Certain groups, such as the Hurons, abandoned agriculture and focused on trading. This reveals that trading had an enormous impact on Indians and their heritage. The Indians were still in control of exchanging furs, since Indians controlled the supply of beaver pelt sought by the Dutch and French traders, who waited at ports on Hudson Bay or St. Lawrence River for Indians to bring them in.6 Some Trading relationships continued for a long time and other affiliations did not last long at all. The trading relationships which took place included: French and Hurons traded till 1649, trading between Dutch and Iroquois lasted till 1664, between the French and Ottawas after 1650, and trading between the English and Iroquois after 1664.7 This illustrates that trading relations involving Hurons were practically diminished soon after the Europeans had arrived. Regardless of the misfortunes that occurred, trading benefitted both the Indians and the Europeans. During the fur trade some Indians played the role of the middlemen, helping out with the flow of the trade. These middlemen had located themselves so they could cover the areas where tremendous amounts of the trading done. The Hurons, who were middlemen, mainly traded with the Algonquians and the French. The Hurons traded furs and in their canoes transported native as well as European goods. The middlemen had some influence on the Europeans, for the reason that after the fall of Huronia, the Coureurs de Bois took over the role of the middlemen. These Coureurs de Bois stayed and lived with the Algonquians who helped them carry out their role effectively. Algonquians at some point also played the role of middlemen while they were exchanging goods with the Dutch. The middlemen were helpful in controlling the trading that developed in New France, and the Indians effectively carried out their roles competently. During the fur trade many items were traded between the Indians and the Europeans. The main item of trade that the Europeans desired from the Indians was fur. Conversely, the main article sought by the Indians from the Europeans were metal goods. In 1534, the fur trade industry became the most popular and dominant industry in New France. For the Europeans, the most popular method to accumulate furs was to trade with the Indians. In return for furs, Indians acquired European tools which made their work easier and more productive. These tools also lasted longer and could be transported easily because of their light weight. The particular items traded that were of use to the Indians were as follows: iron axes, hatchets, which were useful outdoors and for construction; cooking pots, steel knives, and needles helped the Indian women who cooked and sew. Another item which had a large impact was the kettle: "The Kettle was the most revolutionary article which came within the sphere of the women."8 Foodstuffs and clothing were also acquired from the Europeans. Among the clothing were summer capes which the Europeans wore, and for the winter, blankets for beds were traded for furs.9 Other articles which were traded but did not have a positive impact on the Indians were liquor and tobacco. In 1640 Dutch traders sold guns to Mohawks, and private traders sold guns to the Iroquois for furs.10 These items were particularly useful when in combat against the enemy, and they were more powerful than any other weapons the Indians were accustomed to. Items that were traded, especially metal goods, helped the Indians with their way of life and made their tasks more easy. Christianization of the Indians was a laborious task, but the effort of the Jesuits led to some successful outcomes. Champlain had considered that the task of converting Indians was of equal importance as gathering wealth in the Fur Trade or extending French influence in North America.11 The first missionaries who attempted to convert the Indians were the Recollets. They tried to make the Indians adapt to the European lifestyles with great effort, but were quite unsuccessful. A reason for their difficulty in converting the Indians was that there was a language barrier which separated the two. To overcome this barrier, the Jesuits who followed, had to learn the native tongue. Similarities in religious beliefs between both the Indians and the Jesuits were helpful in converting the Indians, since these beliefs helped the Indians relate to the missionaries' sermons, and the Indians were influenced by the lectures that they addressed. The Jesuits, while staying with the Indians during the process of conversion to Christianity, were required to adapt to the Indians' ways of life and saw many qualities of Indians, some of which the priests admired and found virtuous. In conflict with the missionaries, some native groups were very fearful of the Jesuits. The reason was that people who were baptized, fell ill and soon died. This view led them to believe that the Jesuits were associated with all the misfortunes and evil which they feared. The Jesuit's endless attempts to Christianize the Indians were nevertheless a significant gesture which clearly influenced the Indians and their ways of life. Indians possessed qualities which were superior in helping them survive and that Europeans found very appealing. The Indians had good experience in the resources available which helped in adapting to the country. One articulate characteristic was that they "Highly valued politeness and good manners in dealing with one another."12 Indians tried not to force a person into actions because "It was immoral to make someone do something against his will."13 If there was plenty of food, sharing was encouraged: "Indians considered it wrong to let someone starve while others had more than they needed."14 Therefore the Indians maintained equality among all individuals and tried to conform with other fellow human beings. On the topic of diseases, A.G. Bailey states, "The early travellers found that certain ailments which were current among Europeans at the time were absent from the native society. The diseases suffered by the Indians were quite few in number."15 This demonstrates that the Indians were healthy and adapted well to their environment. The Indians could survive the ruthless climate surrounding them, and even developed snowshoes to help them endure the terrain when it was covered with snow. R.J. Surtees claims that, "In virtually all instances, the Indians greeted newcomers with friendship, guidance and assistance."16 That is a good example of their unselfish and invitingly friendly attitude to other humans, even if they were of a different creed. In agriculture, "These natives, even though they seemed so primitive, had mastered agriculture in corn, melon, squash, and beans. They had achieved hunting skills with crude weapons and appeared robust enough."17 Even though they did not have very good tools, they still made the most of whatever they had and used it to their full advantage. The natives possessed qualities and traits which are essential for survival in demanding conditions and for developing strong relationships. While trading with the Europeans, the Indians became almost possessed by the European goods they desired. "With the decline in food resources in the country, the Eastern Algonquians lost a measure of self-reliance and became increasingly dependent upon Europeans for their supplies."18 Since the Europeans had superior metal items, the craving of the Indians would force them to go to the Europeans to acquire them: "Indians didn't have copper, iron, hemp, wood or manufactured articles and resorted to the French for them."19 The European goods helped the Indians out by making their tasks easier to cope with so that "They grew dependent on goods and allied with whites, who could provide for them."20 This explains how the Indians lost some of their heritage by relying too heavily on the European goods. The Europeans greatly depended on the Indians as the Indians contributed to the Europeans survival in a land which was new to them. R.J. Surtees claims that "Iroquois people probably saved Cartier's party from complete extinction during the winter of 1535 and 1536, by teaching the Frenchmen a cure for scurvy."21 The Indians, being the only other human beings and the most welcoming in New France, were the only ones who could help the perplexed Frenchmen: "Indians were the only available teacher who could show the newcomer how to live in a harsh climate, to forage for food, paddle and build a canoe, to travel on snowshoes and to build shelters."22 In agriculture, the Indians introduced Europeans to plants such as potatoes, corn, peanuts, pumpkins, peppers, tomatoes, and beans.23 Because the Indians had furs that the Europeans desires so critically, "Both French and Dutch traders tried to conduct themselves in a manner that would please the Indians and encourage the Indians to trade"24 This statement clearly displays that the Indians were the main motive for trading, and without them there would not have been any trade taking place at all in New France. As the Indians were superior in hunting, the French needed assistance from the Indians, who did help them. "The French were dependent on native food supply, especially game, in pursuit of which they were novices."25 According to some historians, As late as 1643, Quebec was almost entirely dependent on Indians hunting for its meat supply. Algonquians taught the French how to grow corn, beans, pumpkins, and squash. From the Indians, they learned how to make maple sugar and gather wild berries. Algonquians also trained the first Frenchmen how to survive the interior.26 The native people were independent in agriculture as well as survival, but still helped the disoriented Europeans with some of their skills."The Indians taught Europeans how to hunt, travel, farm and subsist in their new environment."27 Prior to 1663, the Indians clearly influenced the Europeans and the history of New France. With fur as their main trading item, they obtained European goods which they desired that helped make their everyday lives easier. Using techniques of survival in the outdoors, they clearly set a trend for the Europeans to follow, so that they could reside in this unpredictable country. The Europeans, soon after discovering the natives, depended on them as their source of various techniques which were mandatory for survival, such as hunting for food. The Indians were the primary, contributing factor to the history of New France and without their influence, Europeans could not have progressed to where they are at this point in Canada. Endnotes 1. Alfred G. Bailey, The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures (University of Toronto Press, 1969),p.2. 2. Bruce G. Trigger. The Indians and the Heroic Age of New France (Canadian Historical Review-Booklet 30, 1978), p.4. 3. Bruce G. Trigger. Natives and Newcomers (McGill-Queens University Press, 1985),p.17. 4. R.D. Francis, Richard Jones, Donald B. Smith, Origins: Canadian History To Confederation (Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Limited, 1988),p.41. 5. R.J. Surtees, The Original People (Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Limited,1971),p.22. 6. Ibid., p.19. 7. Ibid., p.20. 8. Bailey, The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, p.24. 9. Ibid., p.12. 10. Trigger, The Indians and the Heroic Age Of New France, p.18. 11. Surtees, The Original People, p.34. 12. Trigger, The Indians and the Heroic Age of New France, p.6. 13. Ibid., p.6. 14. Ibid., p.6. 15. Bailey, Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, p.27. 16. Surtees, The Original People, ix. 17. Ibid., p.1. 18. Bailey, Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, p.56. 19. Ibid., p.11. 20. Surtees, The Original People, p.21. 21. Ibid., ix. 22. Ibid., p.19. 23. Ibid., p.19. 24. Trigger, Indians and the Heroic Age of New France, p.22. 25. Bailey, Conflict of Europeans and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, p.117. 26. Francis, Jones, Smith, Origins : Canadian History To Confederation, p.47. 27. Surtees, The Original People, p.ix. Bibliography Bailey, A.G. The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures. Toronto. 1969. Francis, R.D., Jones Richard, Smith D.B. Origins : Canadian History To Confederation. Toronto. 1988. Francis, R.D., Jones Richard, Smith D.B. Readings In Canadian History : Pre-Confederation. Toronto. 1990. Morton, D. New France and War. Toronto. 1983. Skeoch, E. Album of New France. Toronto. 1986. Surtees, R.J. The Original People. Toronto. 1971. Trigger, B.G. Natives and Newcomers. Montreal.1985. Trigger, B.G. The Indians and The Heroic Age of New France. Ottawa. 1978. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\NAZISM.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NAZISM The National Socialist German Workers' Party almost died one morning in 1919. It numbered only a few dozen grumblers' it had no organization and no political ideas. But many among the middle class admired the Nazis' muscular opposition to the Social Democrats. And the Nazis themes of patriotism and militarism drew highly emotional responses from people who could not forget Germany's prewar imperial grandeur. In the national elections of September 1930, the Nazis garnered nearly 6.5 million votes and became second only to the Social Democrats as the most popular party in Germany. In Northeim, where in 1928 Nazi candidates had received 123 votes, they now polled 1,742, a respectable 28 percent of the total. The nationwide success drew even faster... in just three years, party membership would rise from about 100,000 to almost a million, and the number of local branches would increase tenfold. The new members included working-class people, farmers, and middle-class professionals. They were both better educated and younger then the Old Fighters, who had been the backbone of the party during its first decade. The Nazis now presented themselves as the party of the young, the strong, and the pure, in opposition to an establishment populated by the elderly, the weak, and the dissolute. Hitler was born in a small town in Austria in 1889. As a young boy, he showed little ambition. After dropping out of high school, he moved to Vienna to study art, but he was denied the chance to join Vienna academy of fine arts. When WWI broke out, Hitler joined Kaiser Wilhelmer's army as a Corporal. He was not a person of great importance. He was a creature of a Germany created by WWI, and his behavior was shaped by that war and its consequences. He had emerged from Austria with many prejudices, including a powerful prejudice against Jews. Again, he was a product of his times... for many Austrians and Germans were prejudiced against the Jews. In Hitler's case the prejudice had become maniacal it was a dominant force in his private and political personalities. Anti-Semitism was not a policy for Adolf Hitler--it was religion. And in the Germany of the 1920s, stunned by defeat, and the ravages of the Versailles treaty, it was not hard for a leader to convince millions that one element of the nation's society was responsible for most of the evils heaped upon it. The fact is that Hitler's anti-Semitism was self-inflicted obstacle to his political success. The Jews, like other Germans, were shocked by the discovery that the war had not been fought to a standstill, as they were led to believe in November 1918, but that Germany had , in fact, been defeated and was to be treated as a vanquished country. Had Hitler not embarked on his policy of disestablishing the Jews as Germans, and later of exterminating them in Europe, he could have counted on their loyalty. There is no reason to believe anything else. On the evening of November 8, 1923, Wyuke Vavaruab State Cinnussuiber Gustav Rutter von Kahr was making a political speech in Munich's sprawling Bürgerbräukeller, some 600 Nazis and right-wing sympathizers surrounded the beer hall. Hitler burst into the building and leaped onto a table, brandishing a revolver and firing a shot into the ceiling. "The National Revolution," he cried, "has begun!" At that point, informed that fighting had broken out in another part of the city, Hitler rushed to that scene. His prisoners were allowed to leave, and they talked about organizing defenses against the Nazi coup. Hitler was of course furious. And he was far from finished. At about 11 o'clock on the morning of November 9--the anniversary of the founding of the German Republic in 1919--3,000 Hitler partisans again gathered outside the Bürgerbräukeller. To this day, no one knows who fired the first shot. But a shot rang out, and it was followed by fusillades from both sides. Hermann Göring fell wounded in the thigh and both legs. Hitler flattened himself against the pavement; he was unhurt. General Ludenorff continued to march stolidly toward the police line, which parted to let him pass through (he was later arrested, tried and acquitted). Behind him, 16 Nazis and three policemen lay sprawled dead among the many wounded. The next year, Röhm and his band joined forces with the fledgling National Socialist Party in Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch. Himmler took part in that uprising, but he played such a minor role that he escaped arrest. The Röhm-Hitler alliance survived the Putsch, and Öhm's 1,500-man band grew into the Sturmabteilung, the SA, Hitler's brown-shirted private army, that bullied the Communists and Democrats. Hitler recruited a handful of men to act as his bodyguards and protect him from Communist toughs, other rivals, and even the S.A. if it got out of hand. This tiny group was the embryonic SS. In 1933, after the Nazi Party had taken power in Germany, increasing trouble with the SA made a showdown inevitable. As German Chancellor, the Führer could no longer afford to tolerate the disruptive Brownshirts; under the ambitious Röhm, the SA had grown to be an organization of three million men, and its unpredictable activities prevented Hitler from consolidating his shaky control of the Reich. He had to dispose of the SA to hold the support of his industrial backers, to satisfy party leaders jealous of the SA's power, and most important, to win the allegiance of the conservative Army generals. Under pressure from all sides, and enraged by an SA plot against him that Heydrich had conveniently uncovered, Hitler turned the SS loose to purge its parent organization. They were too uncontrollable even for Hitler. They went about their business of terrorizing Jews with no mercy. But that is not what bothered Hitler, since the SA was so big, (3 million in 1933) and so out of control, Hitler sent his trusty comrade Josef Dietrich, commander of a SS bodyguard regiment to murder the leaders of the SA. The killings went on for two days and nights and took a tool of perhaps 200 "enemies o the state." It was quite enough to reduce the SA to impotence, and it brought the Führer immediate returns. The dying President of the Reich, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, congratulated Hitler on crushing the troublesome SA, and the Army generals concluding that Hitler was now their pawn--swore personal loyalty to him. In April 1933, scarcely three months after Adolf Hitler took power in Germany, the Nazis issued a degree, ordering the compulsory retirement of "non-Aryans" from the civil service. This edict, petty in itself, was the first spark in what was to become the Holocaust, one of the most ghastly episodes in the modern history of mankind. Before he campaign against the Jews was halted by the defeat of Germany, something like 11 million people had been slaughtered in the name of Nazi racial purity. The Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. Millions of Russians, Poles, gypsies and other "subhumans" were also murdered. But Jews were the favored targets--first and foremost. It took the Nazis some time to work up to the full fury of their endeavor. In the years following 1933, the Jews were systematically deprived by law of their civil rights, of their jobs and property. Violence and brutality became a part of their everyday lives. Their places of worship were defiled, their windows smashed, their stores ransacked. Old men and young were pummeled and clubbed and stomped to death by Nazi jack boots. Jewish women were accosted and ravaged, in broad daylight, on main thoroughfares. Some Jews fled Germany. But most, with a kind of stubborn belief in God and Fatherland, sought to weather the Nazi terror. It was forlorn hope. In 1939, after Hitler's conquest of Poland, the Nazis cast aside all restraint. Jews in their millions were now herded into concentration camps, there to starve and perish as slave laborers. Other millions were driven into dismal ghettos, which served as holding pens until the Nazis got around to disposing of them. The mass killings began in 1941, with the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Nazi murder squads followed behind the Wehrmacht enthusiastically slaying Jews and other conquered peoples. Month by month the horrors escalated. First tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands of people were led off to remote fields and forest to be slaughtered by SS guns. Assembly-line death camps were established in Poland and train loads of Jews were collected from all over occupied Europe and sent to their doom. At some of the camps, the Nazis took pains to disguise their intentions until the last moment. At others, the arriving Jews saw scenes beyond comprehension. "Corpses were strewn all over the road," recalled one survivor. "Starving human skeletons stumbled toward us. They fell right down in front of our eyes and lay there gasping out their last breath." What had begun as a mean little edict against Jewish civil servants was now ending the death six million Jews, Poles, gypsies, Russians, and other "sub-humans" Uncounted thousands of Jews and other hapless concentration-camp inmates were used as guinea pigs in a wide range of medical and scientific experiments, most of them of little value. Victims were infected with typhus to see how different geographical groups reacted; to no one's surprise, all groups perished swiftly. Fluids from diseased animals were injected into humans to observe the effect. Prisoners were forced to exist on sea water to see how long castaways might survive. Gynecology was an area of interest. Various methods of sterilization were practiced--by massive X-ray, by irritants and drugs, by surgery without benefit of anesthetic. As techniques were perfected, it was determined that a doctor with 10 assistants could sterilize 1,000 women per day. The "experimental people" were also used by Nazi doctors who needed practice performing various operations. One doctor at Auschwitz perfected his amputation technique on live prisoners. After he had finished, his maimed patients were sent off to the gas chamber. A few Jews who had studied medicine were allowed to live if they assisted the SS doctors. "I cut the flesh of healthy young girls," recalled a Jewish physician who survived at terrible cost. "I immersed the bodies of dwarfs and cripples in calcium chloride (to preserve them), or had them boiled so the carefully prepared skeletons might safely reach the Third Reich's museums to justify, for future generations, the destruction of an entire race. I could never erase these memories from my mind." But the best killing machine were the "shower baths" of death. After their arrival at a death camp, the Jews who had been chosen to die at once were told that they were to have a shower. Filthy by their long, miserable journey, they sometimes applauded the announcement. Countless Jews and other victims went peacefully to the shower rooms--which were gas chambers in disguise. In the anterooms to the gas chambers, many of the doomed people found nothing amiss. At Auschwitz, signs in several languages said, "Bath and Disinfectant," and inside the chambers other signs admonished, "Don't forget your soap and towel." Unsuspecting victims cooperated willingly. "They got out of their clothes so routinely," Said a Sobibor survivor. "What could be more natural?" In time, rumors about the death camps spread, and underground newspapers in the Warsaw ghetto even ran reports that told of the gas chambers and the crematoriums. But many people did not believe the storied, and those who did were helpless in any case. Facing the guns of the SS guards, they could only hope and pray to survive. As one Jewish leader put it, "We must be patient and a miracle will occur." There were no miracles. The victims, naked and bewildered, were shoved into a line. Their guards ordered them forward, and flogged those who hung back. The doors to the gas chambers were locked behind them. It was all over quickly. The war came home to Germany. Scarcely had Hitler recovered from the shock of the July 20 bombing when he was faced with the loss of France and Belgium and of great conquests in the East. Enemy troops in overwhelming numbers were converging on the Reich. By the middle of August 1944, the Russian summer offensives, beginning June 10 and unrolling one after another, had brought the Red Army to the border of East Prussia, bottled up fifty German divisions in the Baltic region, penetrated to Vyborg in Finland, destroyed Army Group Center and brought an advance on this front of four hundred miles in six weeks to the Vistula opposite Warsaw, while in the south a new attack which began on August 20 resulted in the conquest of Rumania by the end of the month and with it the Ploesti oil fields, the only major source of natural oil for the German armies. On August 26 Bulgaria formally withdrew from the war and the Germans began to hastily clear out of that country. In September Finland gave up and turned on the German troops which refused to evacuate its territory. In the West, France was liberated quickly. In General Patton, the commander of the newly formed U.S. Third Army, the Americans had found a tank general with the dash and flair of Rommel in Africa. After the capture of Avranches on July 30, he had left Brittany to wither on the vine and begun a great sweep around the German armies in Normandy, moving southeast to Orleans on the Loire and then due east toward the Seine south of Paris. By August 23 the Seine was reached southeast and northwest of the capital, and two days later the great city, the glory of France, was liberated after four years of German occupation when General Jacques Leclerc's French 2nd Armored Division and the U.S. 4th Infantry Division broke into it and found that French resistance units were largely in control. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\NevilleBrody.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Neville Brody Neville Brody is an internationally known British graphic designer and typographer, who is best known for his work on magazines, most notably 'The Face.' This magazine transformed the way in which designers and readers approach typography and layout. In addition to his magazine work, he designed record covers for such independent record companies as Fetish, Hannibal, and Phonogram Records in the 1980s. Along with his other work, Brody created a vast amount of type faces throughout his career. A few of these types are Arcadia, Industria, and Insignia. Brody was born in 1957 and grew up in Southgate, which is a suburb of North London. He commented that he does not remember a time in his life when he was planning to do anything other than art or painting. In 1975, Brody attended the Fine Art Foundation Program at Hornsey College of Art. The school was extremely conservative and at this time Brody decided to pursue a career in graphics instead of the Fine Arts. He says "why can't you take a painterly approach within a printed medium?" In the autumn of 1976, Brody started a three-year BA course in graphics at the London College of Printing. Brody says he hated his time there, but that it was necessary to his development as a designer. "I wanted to communicate to as many people as possible, but also to make a popular form of art that was more personal and less manipulative. I had to find out more about how the process worked. The only way possible was to go to college and learn it," His work was often considered too experimental. At one stage he was almost thrown out of the school for putting the Queen's head sideways on the design of a postage stamp. "If tutors said they liked something I was doing, I would go away and change it, because such approval then made me think there must be something wrong with the work. I think that was a very positive and healthy attitude." Brody's attitude on computers has changed a lot since he first started using them. His view had been that if you could do something by hand, you should not use a machine. In 1987, Brody forced himself to play around with a friend's computer. He says learning to use the Macintosh computer was a slow process. But in the end Brody acquired his skills with the mouse by playing a game called Crystal Quest for hours, instead of working. He realized all the ways that he could manipulate his work on a computer that he absolutely could not have done any other way. Although he still believes that hands on experience is definitely necessary, he realizes that computers open up a whole avenue that would not be possible without their development. Dadaism and pop art have largely influenced Brody's work. Although he says he never sought to copy these styles, he took from them a sense of dynamism and humanism and a non-acceptance of the traditional rules and values of art. These elements can be seen in Brody's typefaces, which are have a very original and expressive design. All along the line, Neville Brody has tried to create and use typefaces that go against the grain of contemporary fashion. Others that have influenced Brody are Man Ray and Lazlo Maholy-Lazlo's photography. Both of these men were able to stretch the limits of their fields, by inventing and manipulating techniques as never before. After his graduation, in the late 1970s, Brody began to design record covers for British punk music companies such as Fetish and Hannibal. The punk music scene then was more concerned with the ideas behind the music than with the actual music. Brody's outrageous cover designs were readily accepted by these companies. Cabaret Voltaire and 23 Skiddo were two bands that he worked extensively for on album covers. In 1981, Brody began working for a magazine called 'The Face.' During this time he questioned the traditional structure of magazine design. "Why be inhibited by the edges of the page?"says Brody. His main concerns were to encourage people to have to look twice at a page and to make the magazine as visually interesting as possible. Brody worked at 'The Face' until 1986. Brody also worked with 'City Limits' and 'New Socialist,' both 1980's magazines out of London. Brody became well known around the world in 1988, when his biography was published and he displayed his work in several large art exhibitions. There was a period between 1987 and 1990, when Brody was working for the magazine 'Arena,' when he designed mostly minimalistic non-decorative typefaces. Brody felt his work had been ripped off too much. As a result of this he did not want to make anymore new statements what-so-ever. He began to create simple fonts and avoided creating anything too exotic for a period of time. Since 1987 Brody has had his own London studio. He found that overseas clients were more supportive of his work intentions -- to embrace the potential of the computer and to provide companies with the templates that they wanted from his own studio. Commissions from Haus der Kulturen der Welt Berlin, Men's Bigi and Parco in Japan, and the opportunity to design postage stamps for the Dutch PTT were followed by two major television graphics projects. The transition to working with electronic images was reflected by Brody's involvement with digital type. In 1990 he opened FontWorks with a coligue named Stuart Jenson. Neville Brody became the director of FontShop International, with whom he launched the experimental type magazine called FUSE. Neville Brody has not only changed the world of typography, but that of graphic design as well. His ideas of creating typefaces that are more concerned with being graphically oriented, rather than contemporary or simply readable, have affected both typography and graphic design. Bibliography Jon Wozencoft, The Graphic Language of Neville Brody, c 1988 by Rizzoli International Pub. Inc. Takenobu Igarashi, Designers on Mac, c 1992 by Graphic-sha Pub. Co., Ltd. http://www.contrib.com/fuse95/fuse-talk/brody.html Word Count: 1007 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\New Deal.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The New Deal During the 1930's, America witnessed a breakdown of the Democratic and free enterprise system as the US fell into the worst depression in history. The economic depression that beset the United States and other countries was unique in its severity and its consequences. At the depth of the depression, in 1933, one American worker in every four was out of a job. The great industrial slump continued throughout the 1930's, shaking the foundations of Western capitalism. The New Deal describes the program of US president Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1933 to 1939 of relief, recovery, and reform. These new policies aimed to solve the economic problems created by the depression of the 1930's. When Roosevelt was nominated, he said, "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people." The New Deal included federal action of unprecedented scope to stimulate industrial recovery, assist victims of the Depression, guarantee minimum living standards, and prevent future economic crises. Many economic, political, and social factors lead up to the New Deal. Staggering statistics, like a 25% unemployment rate, and the fact that 20% of NYC school children were under weight and malnourished, made it clear immediate action was necessary. In the first two years, the New Deal was concerned mainly with relief, setting up shelters and soup kitchens to feed the millions of unemployed. However as time progressed, the focus shifted towards recovery. In order to accomplish this monumental task, several agencies were created. The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was the keystone of the early new deal program launched by Roosevelt. It was created in June 1933 under the terms of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The NRA permitted businesses to draft "codes of fair competition," with presidential approval, that regulated prices, wages, working conditions, and credit terms. Businesses that complied with the codes were exempted from antitrust laws, and workers were given the right to organize unions and bargain collectively. After that, the government set up long-range goals which included permanent recovery, and a reform of current abuses. Particularly those that produced the boom-or-bust catastrophe. The NRA gave the President power to regulate interstate commerce. This power was originally given to Congress. While the NRA was effective, it was bringing America closer to socialism by giving the President unconstitutional powers. In May 1935 the US Supreme Court, in Schechter Poultry Corporation V. United States, unanimously declared the NRA unconstitutional on the grounds that the code-drafting process was unconstitutional. Another New Deal measure under Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 1933, the Public Works Administration (PWA), was designed to stimulate US industrial recovery by pumping federal funds into large-scale construction projects. The head of the PWA exercised extreme caution in allocating funds, and this did not stimulate the rapid revival of US industry that New Dealers had hoped for. The PWA spent $6 billion enabling building contractors to employ approximately 650,000 workers who might otherwise have been jobless. The PWA built everything from schools and libraries to roads and highways. The agency also financed the construction of cruisers, aircraft carriers, and destroyers for the navy. In addition, the New Deal program founded the Works Projects Administration in 1939. It was the most important New Deal work-relief agency. The WPA developed relief programs to preserve peoples skills and self-respect by providing useful work during a period of massive unemployment. From 1935 to 1943 the WPA provided approximately 8 million jobs at a cost of more than $11 billion. This funded the construction of thousands of public buildings and facilities. In addition, the WPA sponsored the Federal Theater Project, Federal Art Project, and Federal Writers' Project providing work for people in the arts. In 1943, after the onset of wartime prosperity, Roosevelt terminated the WPA. One of the most well known, The Social Security Act, created a system of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, which is still around today. Social security consists of public programs to protect workers and their families from income losses associated with old age, illness, unemployment, or death. The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) established a federal Minimum Wage and maximum-hours policy. The minimum wage, 25 cents per hour, applied to many workers engaged in interstate commerce. The law was intended to prevent competitive wage cutting by employers during the Depression. After the law was passed, wages began to rise as the economy turned to war production. Wages and prices continued to rise, and the original minimum wage ceased to be relevant. However, this new law still excluded millions of working people, as did social security. However, a severe recession led many people to turn against New Deal policies. In addition, World War II erupted in September 1939. Causing an enormous growth in the economy as war goods were once again in great demand. No major New Deal legislation was enacted after 1938. The Depression was a devastating event in America, and by regulating banks and the stock market the New Deal eliminated the dubious financial practices that had helped precipitate the Great Depression. However, Roosevelt's chief fiscal tool, deficit spending, proved to be ineffective in averting downturns in the economy. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\NorthernInfluenceonSpanishPaintingintheGoldenAge.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Northern Influence On Spanish Painting In The Golden Age : The Golden Age of Spanish painting is not confined only to painters of its native soil, as Spain was connected to both Italy and Flanders in various respects. Spain may have dominated the political world of Europe, however it itself was artistically dominated by the cultures of Italy and Flanders. Although Spain is not simply a regional school of either one, as it always retained its own mark of originality, it owes a great deal to these two regions which were major centers of art during the time. Considering the influence of Titian on El Greco, or Carravaggio on Velázquez, for instance, it is no mystery why of the two regions, Italy is considered to have had the strongest impression on Spanish art. The Italian influence may be more easily and apparently traced, however the Northern impression was incorporated into Spanish art in a much more subtle and interesting manner. The effects of Flemish art can be felt throughout Spain ranging from the late 15th century to the early 17th century. In the 15th century, the political ties between Flanders and Spain had an effect on painting. Under the unison of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, due to Isabella's notable collection of Flemish paintings, Northern art and artists became well known in Spain, especially in Castile. Seeing as the Low Countries and Castile were incorporated under a single ruler, the contacts between the two regions were increased. According to Brown, "the importance of Flemish art in Spain was intensified" (36) as a result. The Flemish style consisted of very careful drawings of meticulous detail and a glazing technique that yielded remarkably realistic figures. For example, the glazing techniques of Flemish painter Jan Van Eyck captivated artists in Spain. Jan Van Eyck's visit to Spain in 1428 prompted Spanish painters to visit Flemish cities and artists. Flemish subject-matter and techniques were thus eventually being passed on to Spanish artists such as Bermejo, Huguet, and Gallego. *From 1474 to 1555, the Italian Renaissance basically dominated Europe, however, and arrived in force on the Iberian Peninsula. During this time, it was the styles of Italian masters that were chiefly studied and copied in Spain. The 16th century heralded a new era for painting in the Netherlands and Germany. Northern artists were influenced by the great innovations in the South; many artists traveled to Italy to study; and the Renaissance concern for bringing modern science and philosophy into art was also evident in the North. There was, however, a difference of outlook between the two cultures. In Italy change was inspired by Humanism, with its emphasis on the revival of the values of classical antiquity. In the North, change was driven by another set of preoccupations: religious reform, the return to ancient Christian values, and the revolt against the authority of the Church. Juan de Flandes (active 1496-1519), otherwise known as 'John of Flanders' moved to Spain near the beginning of the 16th century, to work for the court. He paid service to Queen Isabella, whose collection inspired several of her Castilian courtiers despite the strong Italian influence. In his works, Juan de Flandes demonstrates a preference for clearly articulated space and refined color schemes. Characteristic of painters from the city of Ghent, charming narrative vignettes frequently enlivened the backgrounds of Juan's pictures. In Christ Carrying The Cross (1509-18), Juan presents a refined, painstaking execution filled with specific details. Near St. Veronica, for instance, at the right, is a basket of laundry, which is intended to explain why she had a cloth nearby to wipe the brow of Christ as He made His way up Mount Calvary. This use of specific narrative detail is a derivative of the Northern style of painting. In Juan's The Temptation Of Christ (@1500), this Northern narrative detail is also present, emanating an effect of profound realism. Here, the dramatic encounter is set in a landscape typical, not of the biblical wilderness described in the Gospels, but of a Northern town. Juan de Flandes. The Temptation Of Christ. @1500 Ostentatious decoration is less evident in the painters, whose austere style, carried to the point of harshness, was inspired by Flemish artists. A distinctive drawing and modeling, sober and sometimes hard colors, an insistence on realism and a certain solemnity of tone give the works of Fernando Gallegos, for example, an essentially Spanish character. The impact of Schongauer's engravings together with Flemish influences can be seen in the work of the Master of Avila and even more directly in Toledo in the work of the Master of the Sisla. In 1508, Alejo Fernández (active 1510-1540) settled in Seville, where he was considered the almost unchallenged master for the next 37 years. Although his true heritage is basically unknown, his father was considered to be of Northern origin, and his mother of Spanish descent. Fernández's early works "indicate his familiarity with Italian as well as Flemish art" (Brown 28). For instance, in The Last Supper (1505), the figure types used point towards Northern inclinations. Brown claims that they "could only have been painted by an artist trained in the Netherlands" (28). Also, The Adoration Of The Magi (1508) "in fact is based on a print by Martin Schongauer, the first of hundreds of paintings by Sevillian masters of the Golden Age to rely on Northern prints for their compositional sources" (Brown 28). At the end of the century, with the coming of the Renaissance, the influence of Italian art joined that of Northern art in Spain in the painting of Pedro de Berruguete. Pedro de Berruguete (1450's-1503), a Spanish painter working in the late 15th century, was initially influenced by Flemish artists. He is considered to have been "grounded in the Hispano-Flemish manner, a forceful, somewhat brittle Spanish interpretation of mid 15th century Netherlandish painting" ( Brown 12). This is evident in The Holy Man Of St. Bernard (@1500), in which the three vignettes, portraying an image of the Inquisition, present a typically Northern use of narrative detail. Also, in Berruguete's The Beheading Of The Baptist (1490), the stylized figures and faces prove that he has taken on an innately Flemish character in his painting. Next, Luis de Morales (1520-1586), a Spanish painter working in the mid 16th century, was influenced by artists from Lombardy and Antwerp, in the North. Spain was becoming more artistically organized around this time. Philip moved the court to Madrid, from which Morales was isolated. Thus, because he was outside of that sphere of influence, his style was very personal and devotional, and was generally more Flemish in origin than Italian. Also known as 'El Divino', Morales's forms are drawn out and sharpened by his emotionalism. In his Pieta (@1550), which is accurately considered a chiefly Spanish piece, a trace of Northern detail is apparent in the agitated, meticulously portrayed hands of the figure. In fact, according to Brown, "his way of painting the human figure in no way relates to central-Italian painting of the early 16th century, and is much closer to Flemish painting of the period" (52). In addition, Brown suggests the hypothesis that Luis de Morales may have learned to paint in Seville, perhaps studying with Pieter Kempeneer. Pieter Kempeneer (1503 -1580), a Northern painter from Brussels, was known in Spain as 'Pedro de Campaña'. He was both influenced by, and influenced Spanish painters. As part of the school of Northern painters whose renascent Mannerism succeeded in expressing the Spanish sense of religious tragedy, he basically helped to introduce the Mannerist style in Seville. Working with elongated forms and passionate subjects, his deep shadows portrayed tragedy very intensely. In fact, it is said that he painted so well in the popular Spanish style that his works were part of the beginning of the great Baroque movement of the 17th century. His Northern heritage, however, is revealed in works such as The Descent From the Cross (@1550). In this artwork, the specificity, detail, and overall linear quality is indicative of work being done by Flemish artists at the time. Also, his angular depiction of the figure of Christ points to his Northern tendencies. Furthermore, Kempeneer's Purification Of The Virgin (1555), based on a print by Dürer, is also deemed a "fine example of Flemish portraiture" ( Brown 46). Kempeneer's Northern realism and Sevillian figure type can also be seen in Pedro de Villegas's Visitation (1566). By the end of the 16th century, the work of Northern painters such as Martin de Vos and Martin van Heemskerck resulted in a mixture of Flemish and Italian elements. The resulting synthesis of these two styles became a main mode of expression until well into the 17th century (Brown 118). It is initially apparent in the work of Alonso Vázquez. Alonso Vázquez (1564-1608) was a Spanish painter working within the mid to late 16th century. In The Last Supper (1588-1603), there are several Northern qualities. For instance, the facial types, the figure types, the specificity and the balance of composition all point towards Northern propensities. Vázquez's correspondence to the paintings of Heemskerck, de Vos, and Cornelis Cort (Northern late Mannerists), is "close enough to suggest that Vázquez had been able to study their works, perhaps in the collections of the resident Flemish community, if not in Flanders itself " ( Brown 118). Heemskerck. Faith Washes The Heart Of People In Blood Of Jesus Christ. 1559. Also during this time, the court painter Antonis Mor (1519-1576), also known as 'Antonio Moro', was imported by the King from Utrecht into Spain. His Dutch sense of character affected the development of the court portrait in Spain, setting the standard for the next 150 years. Recent cleaning of his Portrait Of Alessandro Farnese (1561) has further revealed the alert, intelligent expression and focused gaze of this unknown sitter. The man's posture and countenance convey a strong personality. Equally impressive is the depiction of the clothing. The painter clearly distinguished a range of textures, including the leather of the gloves, the white linen of the collar and cuffs, and shimmery black silk of the jacket. His "physiognomic accuracy" and "dazzling exactitude" of costume and jewelry are obviously due to his Northern roots in detail, realism and startling specificity (Brown 98). Mor is also said to have "prepared the way for Alonso Sánchez Coello". At court, from the most illustrious of the school of portraiture, founded by Mor, evolved Coello (his student). This cold objective school, which produced aristocratic and distinguished effects by the use of grays, later influenced Velázquez's palette. Antonis Mor. Portrait Of Alessandro Farnese. 1561. Alonso Sánchez Coello (1531-1588), had a characteristically Northern eye for light and texture. In Prince Don Carlos (1565), the tactile opulence of the portrait, although somewhat idealized, is clearly a Northern trait. Coello also borrowed the use of extreme detail from the North, as seen in his The Infant Don Diego (1577), in which he demonstrates a desire to replicate the child's face exactly. During this next phase, roughly between 1550 and 1630, King Philip II broadened the artistic boundaries of Spain. As an important patron of the arts, he imported distinguished painters from both Italy and Flanders, thus introducing new styles into Spain. Under the reign of Philip III, the Italian influence still ruled, but the doorway had been opened to new styles. King Philip IV followed through this doorway, collecting works by the Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens. Having introduced Rubens to Spain, eventually a new phase was inspired. According to Brown, "a revolution was underway in which Flemish painting captured the attention of painters in Madrid and Seville, the remaining centers of major artistic ability" (3). In Castile, the Flemish influence was also predominant. Pictures imported from the Low Countries by the court and by other patrons of art, and Flemish works sold in the fairs of Medina del Campo, helped, as did German prints, to spread the taste for Northern art, to which the local workshops now adapted themselves. According to Brown, "until the end of the century, which brought a new dynasty to the Spanish throne and with it another radical shift of taste, the painters of Madrid and Seville found novel ways to interpret Rubens' energetic style of painting" (Brown 3). In addition, the unremitting realism during the first half of the 17th century may also be credited, at least in part, to Northern art and artists. By completing the fusion of the realistic tradition of Flemish painting with the imaginative freedom and classical themes of Italian Renaissance painting, Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) fundamentally revitalized and redirected Northern European painting. In 1609, Rubens was engaged as court painter to the Austrian archduke Albert and his wife, the Spanish infanta Isabella, who together ruled the Low Countries as viceroys for the king of Spain. The number of pictures requested from Rubens was so large that he established an enormous workshop in which the master did the initial sketch and final touches, while his apprentices completed all the intermediary steps. Besides court commissions from Brussels and abroad, the highly devout Rubens was much in demand by the militant Counter Reformation church of Flanders which reguarded his dramatic, emotionally charged interpretations of religious events as images for spiritual recruitment and renewal . His initial roots in the Northern tradition is apparent in works such as Self Portrait With Isabella Brandt (1609-1610). The emphatic use of excrutiating detail in this piece derives from his Northern descent. In 1628 Rubens was sent to Spain by the Flemish viceroys. While in Madrid he received several commissions from King Philip IV of Spain, who made him secretary of his Privy Council. Rubens also served as a mentor to the young Spanish painter Diego Velázquez. Although the great Flemish master did not have a direct impact on the style of the younger painter, their conversations almost certainly inspired Velázquez to visit the art collections in Italy that were so much admired by Rubens. During this final decade he continued executing commissions for the Habsburg monarchs of Austria and Spain. Dating from around the late 1630's and early 1640's, Rubens painted pictures of personal interest, especially of his wife and child and of the Flemish countryside. In other words, Rubens turned more and more to portraits, genre scenes, and landscapes. These later works, such as Landscape with the Chateau of Steen (1636), reflect a masterful command of Northern detail and an unflagging technical skill. The genre painting basically originated in the Netherlands, mostly amongst the Protestants, who were more simple-minded than the Catholics and did not necessarily adapt to the Baroque style of painting. In the 1650's, Spanish painter Juan Carreño de Miranda is said to have been strongly influenced by Rubens. According to Brown, Carreño's Assumption Of The Virgin "stems from prints after Ruben's Assumption in Antwerp Cathedral" (237). Although Diego Rodríquez de Silva y Velázquez (1590-1660) may not have been directly influenced by the Northern Rubens, he did pick up on a few things. In The Triumph Of Bacchus (1629), for instance, Velázquez's Northern antecedence is evident. This scene of revelry in an open field, picturing the god of wine drinking with ruffian types, testifies to the artist's interest in Northern realism. In fact, this piece has been considered to have been influenced by Rubens, and by Northern etchings being circulated at the time (Class lecture 03/18/98). Velázquez. The Triumph Of Bacchus. 1629. Word Count: 2559 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Origin of Korean War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Origin of Korean War Origins of Korean War Korean War started on the 25th June 1950, but do you know how and why it happened? When someone mentions the Korean War, everyone knows that it was a civil war between the North and the South Korea. But, do you know the origin of how it actually got started? There are lot of things that happened, before the North Koreans decided to cross over the 38th parallel. Korean civil war was just a small part of the whole war. The war also included more then just Koreans. What people don't know is that there were other countries that took a huge part in the start of the Korean War such as Japan, China, Russia, and United States. In the nineteenth century, Korea was just a small peasant society that paid tribute to the Chinese. This small Korean society was nothing more then a part of an inward-looking pre-capitalist Chinese world (MacDonald 3). But when the Russia and Japanese imperialism made a huge effect on the China, Korea was able to come out of its isolation. By the end of the century, Korea had become a prize in a three-way contest between China, Russia and Japan. In 1894, Japan defeated China, thus eliminating them from the contest. Then in 1905, Japan defeated Russia, making them the dominant power in Korea. In 1910, Japan took over Korea and made them into a Japanese colony. As soon as Korea became a Japanese colony, Korea became the Japans expansion into the Northeast Asia. Though Japan tried to pursue a program of modernization, Japans rule was generally unpopular. This created a Korean group called KPG. KPG was a Korean Provisional Government in Shanghai in 1921. This was a self-constructed group that later came to be known as the main source of resistance to Japanese rule in 1930. Man named Kim Il Sung was one of the members of the KPG who stood out amongst the rest. He later becomes the president of North Korea. After struggling for forty years as a Japanese colony, Korea now had to struggle as a pawn in the newly created Cold War (Hastings 25). The Americans decided to land troops to occupy Korea at the end of the war as soon as they found out that the Russia was interested in overtaking the Korea as their sphere of interest. A Soviet Unions occupying Korea would create and entirely new strategic situation in the Far East. Though Pentagon decided that interest towards Korea was not going to be a long-term interest to the US, their view changed drastically within three weeks. Washington's view of both the desirability and feasibility to deny at least a small part of Korea changed. On August 10, 1945, dropping of the Nagasaki bomb finalized the participation of the US occupation in Korea. Unexpected by the United States, Soviet Union agreed to accept the 38th parallel as their limit of advance(Hastings 27). Russia and United States met in Potsdam and decided that it would be for the best if they were to accept the surrender of the Japanese forces in Korea by dividing the country at the 38th parallel. This event took place during the summer of 1945. As in Europe, 38th parallel became permanent, violating the US and Russia's sphere of interest. Russia and the US tried to define the parameters of change, only to find out that they both supported the different sides. While Russia took the left, US took the alliance with the right. This placed the conservatives in control of the security device that was granted by the defeated Japanese. Russia accepted the Japanese surrender in August, and United States accepted the Japanese surrender in September. Through this, Korea had unexpectedly found themselves separated. North Korea was now set up to work as an satellite state for China and South Korea was to become a free nation prepared by the United States. By the year of 1950, the North Korea People's Army was trained and equipped by the Soviet Union. North Koreans were now heavily trained and now had an aggressive military force. They were well equipped with Russian small arms, artillery, armor, and propeller-driven fighter aircraft(Knox 3). By 1950 the balance power was moved drastically towards the North Koreans, making the South Koreans in a venerable situations. In late spring of that year, the North Koreans had 150 Russian-built T34 tanks, the South Koreans had no tanks; the North Koreans had three types of artillery, the South Koreans one, and in actual numbers of divisional artillery pieces, the NKPA(North Korean People's Army) exceeded the ROK(Republic of Korea) Army three to one; the North Koreans had a small tactical air force, the South Koreans had none; the North Koreans had seven full-strength combat divisions, the South Koreans four; the North Koreans had 89,000assault troops, the South Koreans 65,000(Knox 4). North Korea decided to unify Korea by direct military action hoping that United States would not interfere. North Korea felt that United States would have too much too lose by interfering, so they went and decided to confront South Korea. During the period of June 15th through the 20th , North Koreas secretly moved close to the 38th parallel with seven infantry divisions, one armored brigade, one separate infantry regiment, one motorcycle regiment, and one border constabulary brigade(Knox 4). North Korean Forces invaded Republic of Korea territory at 4 AM crossing the 38th parallel in the city of Onjin area, Kaesong area, and Chunchon area. North Korean forces consisted of seven divisions and five brigades, with an air force of 100-150 Soviet-made planes. The main attack was down the Pochon-Uijongbu-Seoul corridor(Knox 5). North Korean tanks participated in the operation, closing in on Chunchon. By 9 AM, city of Kaesong was caputred with some ten North Korean tanks participating in the operation. From the nature of the attack and the manner in which it was launched, it constituted an all-out offensive against the Republic of Korea. When the North Korean troops crossed the 38th parallel on the 25th of June, it was more then just a struggle amongst Koreans. It was actually a clash between Russia and the United States. When a man named Kim Il Sung, a communist leader of North Korea led north Korean troops across the 38th parallel, it was a bloody Sunday for the South Koreans. This war lasted until the year of 1953, finally coming to an end with the General Mark W. Clark signing the armistice "with a heavy heart." Korean War wasn't just a war that between the North Korea and the South Korea. There were many different influenced that led to the crossing of the 38th parallel by the North Koreans. When you break down the Korean War and see it for what it actually is, you can have a better understanding of what happened that let to the crossing of the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950. Though the actual civil war only lasted for 3 years, you have to take into account that it was the territorial fight against the other counties such as Japan, China, Soviet Union and United states that led to the civil war on the June 25, 1950. The whole war took from late 18th century to the mid 19th century. Korea basically became a target and a victim of the geographical and territorial reasons of the other countries. Word Count: 1234 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Origins of Progressivism.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Origins of Progressivism I. The Origins of Progressivism A. A Spirit of Reform in the late 1800's 1. Henry George believed that poverty could be eliminated by using land productively by everyone. Also taxing the nonproductive more than the productive. 2. Edward Bellamy believed that the government should create a trust to take care of the needs of the people rather than profit. 3. Many groups wanted change for the majority of people such as the socialist, the union members and members of municipal or city government levels. 4. Municipal reforms in the late 1800's and early 1900's that gave cities limited self-rule rather than state rule are known as Home Rule. B. Progressivism Takes Hold 1. Progressivism aspects of reform from many programs and other movements. 2. Because they were afraid of losing their high standard of living, progressives' were afraid of revolution. 3. Progressives believed that the government should play a bigger role in regulating transportation and utilities. 4. Develop better social welfare programs. 5. The suffrage movement became a big issue among women. 6. Child labor laws as well as many other things were brought about by government regulations. C. Progressive Methods 1. Journalist also helped create support by alerting the public to wrong doing or muckrakers. 2. Investigating the issue then publicizing the results putting pressure on legislators to take action is known as Systematic manner. D. Florence Kelley 1. Kelley was recommended for investigating the labor conditions around Chicago. 2. Kelley earned a law degree so that she could prosecute violators of child labor laws as well as regulations in sweatshops. 3. Kelley believed in municipal reforms after a political favor placed another inspector in her place. 4. 1899 National Consumers League was organized (NCL) II. Progressivism: Its Legislative Impacts A. Urban Reform 1. Reform began mostly at the city level 2. Some machine politicians worked with reformers to improve voter registration, city services, established health programs and enforced tenant codes. 3. By 1915 two out of three cities owned utilities. 4. Welfare services were put into effect. 5. Hazen Pingree put in parks, baths, and put into effect a work-relief program. B. Reforms at the State Level 1. Progressive governors also got involved with the movement. 2. LaFollette brought about a direct primary in which voters elect nominees for upcoming elections. 3. Employers and employees negotiating differences as well as workers accident insurance became major reforms in the work place. 4. The Supreme Court said that it was illegal to set maximum hours for workers because it violated the individuals right to make a contract with the employer - 1905 Lochner vs. New York. 5. The Supreme Court upheld a decision that limited women's work hours to 10 hours per day - 1905 Muller vs. Oregon. 6. The National Child Labor Committee convinced about 30 states to abolish Child Labor by 1907 . 7. In 1912 minimum wage for women and children was put into effect in Massachusetts. 8. Women were replaced with men because they would work longer for less wages 9. Women's push for voting rights was stifled by the belief that females are physically weaker. D. Reforms at the Federal Level 1. The United Mine Workers called a strike lasting until Teddy Roosevelt insisted that both sides submit to arbitration - May, 1902. 2. A process in which an impartial third party decides on a legally binding solution is known as arbitration. 3. Teddy Roosevelt threatened to use the army to take over the mines if the owners didn't accept the agreement. 4. "Square Deal" reduced miner's hours from 10 to 9 and gave the miners a 10% raise while not officially recognizing the minor's union. 5. The Hepburn Act authorized the IEC to limit rates if the shippers complained them unfair - 1906. 6. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act required accurate labeling of ingredients, strict sanitary conditions, and a rating system for meats - 1906. 7. Holding companies are corporations that hold the stocks and bonds of numerous companies thus achieving a monopoly. 8. John Muir and John Wesley Powell urged congress, in 1872, to establish Yellow Stone as the United States first national park. 9. Yosemite in California became a national park in 1890. 10. A National Reclamation Act (1902) aimed at planning and developing irrigation projects aroused controversy between city residents and farmers over use or water. 11. 1912 the United States government set up a Children's Bureau within the Department of Labor. 12. Women's Bureau was also established in 1920. 13. Mary Anderson and Julia Lathrop were the first women Bureau heads in the federal government. 14. Prohibition was thought to protect society from poverty and violence associated with drinking. 15. Women's support for prohibition caused brewery and liquor interests to oppose women's suffrage. 16. Prohibition became the 18th amendment in 1919 until its repeal in 1933. III. Progressivism: Its Impact on National Politics A. The Presidency After Roosevelt 1. Teddy Roosevelt hand picked William Howard Taft as the next Republican presidential nominee. 2. On the Democratic Side William Jennings Bryan also ran (for the third time) 3. Taft won the election and promised to carry on the progressive movement. 4. A rebel movement arose because Taft wouldn't lower the tariffs on imports. 5. Gifford Pinchot opposed Taft's agreement to allow several million acres of Alaskan public lands that had rich deposits of coal be sold by Richard A. Ballinger. Pinchot was fired. 6. Upset House Republicans rebelled against Taft and joined Democrats in initiating an investigation into Ballinger's actions-he eventually resigned. 7. Rebels took action against the Republican old guard who blocked much reform legislation. 8. Rebels changed the committee's membership by making it elective and excluding the powerful. House Speaker, Joseph Cannon, a republican reform opponent. 9. Teddy Roosevelt began speaking out about the need for more federal regulations of business, welfare legislation, and progressive reforms such as stronger work place protections for women and children, income and inheritance taxes, direct primaries, and the initiative , referendum, and recall. This was called New Nationalism. 10. Taft supported the Mahn-Elkins Act(1910) that placed telephone and telegraph rates under control of the Interstate Commerce Commission rather than big business. B. The Election of 1912 1. The progressive party was formed after Teddy Roosevelt's supporters walked out of the RNC when Taft accused Teddy Roosevelt of fraud. They became known as the Bull Moose Party. 2. Bull Moose Party's platform included tariff reduction, women suffrage, more regulation of business, an end to child labor, an eight-hour work day, a federal worker's compensation system, and the popular election of senators. 3. Teddy Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson ran a vigorous campaign. 4. A four way election 5. Four men sought presidency in 1912. Wilson-Democrats, Taft-Republicans, Eugene Debs-Socialist, and Roosevelt-Bull Moose Party. 6. Wilson ran on a reform platform too, but unlike Roosevelt, he criticized both big business and big government. 7. Wilson, calling this policy New Freedom, promised to enforce antitrust laws without threatening free economic competition. 8. The Democrats won over both Houses of Congress. 9. Wilson created a Federal Trade Commission in 1914 to be sure business complied with federal trade regulations. 10. Also in 1914 the Clayton Antitrust Act spelled out specific activities big businesses couldn't do in restraint of trade-strengthening United States antitrust laws. 11. The Clayton Antitrust Act exempted union's activities from antitrust lawsuits unless they led to "irreparable injury to property." 12. Wilson lowered tariffs and instituted major financial reforms. 13. 1913 Wilson helped establish the Federal Reserve System. 14. The Federal Reserve System let banks borrow money to meet short-term demands, helping to prevent bank failures. 15. Wilson also established the Federal Farm Loan Board (1916). 16. Wilson opposed women's suffrage because his platform had not approved it. 17. A Controversial Appointment 18. Wilson nominated a progressive lawyer named Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court in 1916. 19. Named "the peoples' lawyer" Brandeis had fought for many public causes without pay. 20. Brandeis, being Jewish caused many problems as well as his "radical" approach to reform. 21. Brandeis' appointment to the Supreme Court marked the peak of progressive reform at the federal level. 22. Wilson was reelected in 1916. C. The Legacy of Progressive Reform 1. A Limited View of Progress 2. The African Americans of this era felt that progressives weren't doing enough to concern themselves with race relations during this time. 3. 1912 Roosevelt refused to seat the southern African American delegates for fear of alienating white southern progressives. 4. Some supporters of women's suffrage did so only to double the "white vote" in the United States and exclude the African Americans. 5. African Americans fell further behind because of their smaller population and the effectiveness of voting restrictions in the South. 6. Progressives also focused on cities leaving out tenant and migrant farmers and non-unionized workers in general. 7. Some progressives supported immigration restrictions and literacy test. 8. Progressives also supported the imperialistic adventures of the day. 9. They believed in "civilizing" under-developed nations, no matter what the residents of those nations wanted. 10. The End of the Progressive Coalition 11. August 1914, a war broke out in Europe 12. Americans worried how long they could stay uninvolved in the conflict. 13. By 1916, the reform spirit had ended whit the exception of women's suffrage. IV. Suffrage at Last: A Turning Point in History A. Suffrage at the Turn of the Century 1. In August 1920, Tennessee had to make a huge decision, whether or not to ratify the 19th amendment. 2. Carrie Chapman Catt directed the lobbying effort for the "suffs". 3. The National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) was established. 4. Women's Rights 5. Women had won many rights. Married women could buy, sell and will property. 6. Myra Bradwell of Chicago was denied a state license to practice law in 1869. She appealed to the Supreme Court where her denial was upheld. (Bradwell vs. Illinois 1873). 7. By 1900's women were becoming more involved in unions, picketing, voluntary organizations, and getting arrested. 8. The Opposition Mobilizes 9. Anti-suffragists made two arguments: a. women were powerful enough without voting b. giving women the vote would blur the distinction between the sexes and make women seem more masculine. 10. Anti-suffragists said that women would quickly establish prohibition. B. Suffragist Strategies 1. Suffragists followed two paths toward their goals: a. pressing for a constitutional amendment b. encouraging states to approve women's suffrage. 2. In 1878 Congress adopted the wording of suffrage leader Susan B. Anthony in the "Anthony Amendment". 3. The Anthony Amendment didn't resurface until 1913. 4. The movement heats up in the 1910's 5. The suffrage movement was becoming more widely accepted in the 1900's. 6. Carrie Chapman Catt- Systematized NAWSA techniques. 7. Alice Paul formed the Congressional Union (CU). 8. A collision over strategy 9. Different strategies caused the suffrage movement to be torn into two. 10. The CU wanted an all-out national campaign for the constitutional amendment. 11. The NAWSA felt that the CU was premature in some of their actions. 12. Catt's "winning plan" was to work full time to get congress to propose the federal amendment. 13. By 1917 NAWSA had over 2 million members. 14. In the fall of 1917 New York finally passed the amendment. 15. Impact of the war 16. The United states entered WWI in April 1917 17. Women took over jobs that men left behind as well as volunteering for other jobs. 18. Congress adopted the 18th amendment. C. The Final Victory for Suffrage 1. 1918 Congress proposed the suffrage amendment. 2. Ratification 3. Harry Burn of Tennessee was the tie breaking vote in Tennessee's legislature. 4. Burn voted "yes" because his mother had written to them saying to vote "yes" for her. 5. The speaker tried to stall the bill by reconsidering it. 6. On August 24, Tennessee's governor signed the suffrage bill. 7. On August 26, the 19th amendment was ratified. 8. A hard-won victory 9. Women's suffrage wasn't totally given to them. They fought for their right to vote. 10. The ratification of the 19th amendment marked the last major reform of the progressive era and was the turning point in American History. Word Count: 2041 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Overview of the 60`s.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Overview of the 60`s Many social changes that were addressed in the 1960s are still the issues being confronted today. the '60s was a decade of social and political upheaval. in spite of all the turmoil, there were some positive results: the civil rights revolution, john f. Kennedy's bold vision of a new frontier, and the breathtaking advances in space, helped bring about progress and prosperity. however, much was negative: student and anti-war protest movements, political assassinations, and ghetto riots excited american people and resulted in lack of respect for authority and the law. The decade began under the shadow of the cold war with the soviet union, which was aggravated by the u-2 incident, the berlin wall, and the cuban missile crisis, along with the space race with the ussr. The decade ended under the shadow of the viet nam war, which deeply divided americans and their allies and damaged the country's self-confidence and sense of purpose. Even if you weren't alive during the '60s, you know what they meant when they said, "tune in, turn on, drop out." you know why the nation celebrates Martin luther king, jr.'s birthday. all of the social issues are reflected in today's society: the civil rights movement, the student movement, space exploration, the sexual revolution, the environment, medicine and health, and fun and fashion. The Civil Rights Movement The momentum of the previous decade's civil rights gains led by rev. Martin luther king, jr. carried over into the 1960s. but for most blacks, the tangible results were minimal. only a minuscule percentage of black children actually attended integrated schools, and in the south, "jim crow" practices barred blacks from jobs and public places. New groups and goals were formed, new tactics devised, to push forward for full equality. as often as not, white resistance resulted in violence. this violence spilled across tv screens nationwide. the average, neutral american, after seeing his/her tv screen, turned into a civil rights supporter. Black unity and white support continued to grow. in 1962, with the first large-scale public protest against racial discrimination, rev. Martin luther king, jr. Gave a dramatic and inspirational speech in washington, d.c. After a long march of thousands to the capital. the possibility of riot and bloodshed was always there, but the marchers took that chance so that they could accept the responsibilities of first class citizens. "the negro," King said in this speech, "lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity and finds himself an exile in his own land." King continued stolidly: "it would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the negro. this sweltering summer of the negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality." when King came to the end of his prepared text, he swept right on into an exhibition of impromptu oratory that was catching, dramatic, and inspirational. "I have a dream," King cried out. the crowd began cheering, but King, never pausing, brought silence as he continued, "i have a dream that one day on the red hills of georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." "I have a dream," he went on, relentlessly shouting down the thunderous swell of applause, "that even the state of mississippi, a state sweltering with people's injustices, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have dream," cried King for the last time, "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Everyone agreed the march was a success and they wanted action now but, now remained a long way off. president kennedy was never able to mobilize sufficient support to pass a civil rights bill with teeth over the opposition of segregationist southern members of congress. but after his assassination, President Johnson, drawing on the Kennedy legacy and on the press coverage of civil rights marches and protests, succeeded where Kennedy had failed. However, by the summer of 1964, the black revolution had created its own crisis of disappointed expectations. rioting by urban blacks was to be a feature of every "long, hot, summer" of the mid-1960s. In 1965, King and other black leaders wanted to push beyond social integration, now guaranteed under the previous year's civil rights law, to political rights, mainly southern blacks' rights to register and vote. King picked a tough alabama town to tackle: selma, where only 1% of eligible black voters were registered to vote. the violence, the march, the excitement all contributed to the passage of the second landmark civil rights act of the decade. even though there was horrendous violence, rev. king announced that as a "matter of conscience and in an attempt to arouse the deepest concern of the nation," he was "compelled" to lead another march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. The four-day, 54-mile march started on the afternoon of Sunday, March 21, 1965, with some 3500 marchers led by two nobel prizewinners, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. And ralph bunche, then u.n. Under secretary for special political affairs. in the march, whites, negroes, clergymen and beatniks, old and young, walked side by side. president johnson made sure they had plenty of protection this time with 1000 military police, 1900 federalized alabama national guardsmen, and platoons of u.s. Marshals and FBI men. When the marchers reached the capital of alabama, they were to have presented a petition to then governor george wallace protesting voting discrimination. however, when they arrived, the governor's aides came out and said, "the capital is closed today." About this same time, the term, "black power" was coming into use. it was meant to infer long-submerged racial pride in negroes. Martin luther king, jr. Specifically sought to rebut the evangelists of black power. "it is absolutely necessary for the negro to gain power, but the term black power is unfortunate, because it tends to give the impression of black nationalism. we must never seek power exclusively for the negro, but the sharing of power with white people," he said. Unfortunately, the thing that really moved the civil rights movement along significantly was the murder of rev. Martin luther king, jr. In late 1965. cruelty replaced harmony with nightmarish suddenness. rioting mobs in the negro suburb of watts, california, pillaged, burned and killed, while 500 policemen and 5000 national guardsmen struggled in vain to contain their fury. hour after hour, the toll mounted: 27 dead at the week's end, nearly 600 injured, 1700 arrested, and property damage well over $100 million. The good that came out of all of this, is that thousands of negroes were flocking to register in the nine counties in alabama, louisiana, and mississippi where the government posted federal examiners to uphold the voting law. in four days, 6,998 negro voters were added to the rolls in counties where there had previously been only 3,857. In that time of sorrow and guilt when King was murdered, there was an opening for peace between the races that might otherwise never have presented itself. president johnson pleaded, "i ask every citizen to reject the blind violence that has struck dr. King." he went on to say that to bring meaning to his death, we must be determined to strike forcefully at the consciences of all americans in order to wrest from tragedy and trauma, the will to make a better society. The Student Movement Americans who were young in the 1960s influenced the course of the decade as no group had before. the motto of the time was "don't trust anyone over 30." another, "tell it like it is," conveyed a real mistrust of what they considered adult deviousness. Youthful americans were outraged by the intolerance of their universities, racial inequality, social injustice, the vietnam war, and the economic and political constraints of everyday life and work. one group that formed during this time was s.d.s. (students for a democratic society). opposed to "imperialism," racism, and oppression, the s.d.s. found the american university guilty of all three. they did do some good at the beginning like organizing northern ghetto dwellers in projects such as chicago's jobs or income, now (join). but the viet nam war led to a change in their tactics. they became an independent radical force against society. the deluge of disorders made it harder and harder for most americans to keep events in perspective. they tended to forget that most of the nation's 6,700,000 collegians were studying hard at school and not causing trouble. an underlying pattern emerged in the american university. The university suddenly became a political arena. the students wanted to address the national problems of war, race, and poverty. as a result, the university lost some of its neutrality. students created a new u.s. institution: the political university. However, another element among youths was also emerging. They were called hippies. this movement marked another response to the decade as the young experimented with music, clothes, drugs, and a "counter-culture" lifestyle. in 1967, hippies preached altruism and mysticism, honesty, joy and nonviolence. they had a child-like fascination for beads, blossoms, and bells, strobe lights, ear-shattering music, exotic clothing and erotic slogans. they wanted to profess "flower power" and love. they were predominantly white, middle-class, educated youths, ranging in age from 17 to 25. Perhaps the most striking thing about the hippie phenomenon, is the way it touched the imagination of the "straight" society. hippie slang entered common usage and spiced american humor. boutiques sprang up in urban and suburban areas to sell the "psychedelic" color clothes and designs that resembled art nouveau. A major development in the hippie world was the "rural community," where nature-loving hippie "tribesmen" escaped the commercialism of the cities in an attempt to build a society outside of society. another development was the illicit use of drugs, creating the slogan, "tune in, turn on, drop out." "better living through chemistry" was another advertising slogan that was a sly joke to the young, but a real worry f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Pakistan.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Steve Olker Core 132 Pakistan Pakistan is a country that, since its creation, has been rooted in turmoil. The recent years are no exception to this. Since 1988, power has been divided among the president, the prime minister and the military. Tensions between the three, however, have led to eight changes of government and three elections. No elected leader has ever completed a full term in office. Benazir Bhutto, who was dismissed by the president in August 1990 after only twenty-one months in office, is the only Pakistani leader to be given a second chance at ruling (Newberg 19). On October 6, 1993 a general election was held in Pakistan. The Pakistan People's Party (or PPP) received a majority of the vote and as a result Benazir Bhutto once again became prime minister. This time however, she has a pliant president in the form of an old friend. On November 13, 1993, Farooq Leghari was elected the country president. Yet even with this unique opportunity for agreement within the ruling circle reforms have not taken place (The Europa World Year Book 2460). Despite the PPP's success in the 1993 election they still faced uncertainty. They lack not only a parliamentary majority but unity within their own ranks. One of the biggest problems was a bitter family feud between Benazir Bhutto and her mother, Begum and brother, Murtaza. Murtaza had returned from exile to claim a seat in the Sind provincial assembly, but was immediately arrested for alleged terrorist activity. In late December 1993, Benazir removed her mother as PPP co-chair after she had endorsed Murtaza's claim that he was the rightful heir to his father's political legacy. However, in September 1994, the family feud seemed to end during a visit of the prime minister to her mother (Banks 717). In Pakistan the end of the cold war had not brought on new, pragmatic thinking on foreign policy that could make Pakistan less reliant on Western support and allow it to develop closer ties with its neighbors. After the cold war, many third world countries were abandoned by their protectorates- the U.S. or the former soviet Union. However Pakistan's elite has yet to fend for itself (Rashad 158). Pakistan's relations with India worsened. Since the creation of Pakistan, relations with India have dominated foreign affairs. These relations reflect a centuries old rivalry between Hindus and Muslims. The reason for the tensions today is allegations that each side was on the verge of conducting nuclear tests (Year Book 2462). Much of Pakistan's problems stem from a legacy of rule by a small group of around 300 families. Through blood ties, marriage, and business, they have dominated the military, the bureaucracy, and the political elite. Since 1988, when the new era of democratic civilian rule began, patronage rather than policies has dictated economic development, politics, and even foreign policy. (Rashad 159) Many political analysts and even some politicians now view the feudal political elite as a dying class. Economists report that Pakistan can no longer raise the necessary revenues to maintain a country in which eighty-one percent of the budget goes to defense and the repayments of foreign debts. (Banks 718) Since 1993 the country has undergone the deepest economic recession in its history, with high unemployment and inflation. The economy grew only four point seven percent between 1994 and 1995, compares to a 30 year average of six percent. The Karachi stock exchange has lost more than fifty percent of its value in the last eighteen months, and industrial production in Karachi (which accounts for sixty percent of the country's total) has fallen an estimated twenty-five percent. Foreign exchange reserves in December fell to one point one billion, less than half of what they were in June 1995. (Hunter 1004). Plans to privatize many state-owned businesses have been stopped due to the anarchy plaguing the country and to the political fighting between Bhutto and former prime minister Sharif. Also, the feudal elite has been reluctant to introduce much needed reforms, such as taxing itself and agriculture. Only one percent of the total population pays income tax, and over three billion dollars borrowed by the feudal elite from the state-run banking system has never been repaid. (Rashad 160) Bhutto's promises to reform the judiciary, the bureaucracy, and the police have not materialized. Instead, she has made these institutions more political by making appointments based on loyalty and favoritism. For a price, many police officer and bureaucrats can get postings, transfers, and promotions they want. Corruption is so prominent in Pakistan that it was recently listed by Transparency International, an international watch group, as the third most corrupt nation in the world after China and Taiwan. (Year Book 2464) However, not everyone can seek favors and some receive worse. Political opponents of Bhutto will often be jail or exiled. In March of 1996, forty army officers and civilians were arrested for "supposedly" trying to over throw the government. After time had gone by, only four officers were left for trial. Many in Pakistan doubt that even the government had a right to hold these few. (Banks A5) However, the corruption is only seen by those who live in Pakistan. When Mrs. Bhutto is speaking to other countries, such as the United States, she seems to have goals. She speaks of over coming poverty, equality for women, and free expression. Yet this is far from the truth. At home, she retains the laws that use Islam to repress women and arrests opponents. It is the corruption of her government that most think will thwart her dreams. (Newberg 18) Western Diplomats admit that Pakistan is high in the list of those countries where an Islamic movement is possible in the near future unless the country's ruling class mends its ways. Pakistan's Islamic Movement is being driven by poor social conditions and a breakdown of law and order rather than by ideology. The growing gap between rich and poor, the economic crisis, massive corruption, and widespread disillusionment with the major political parties are the main problems with Pakistan today. (Rashad 161) Pakistan's survival into the future and into the next century depends on a greater distribution of political and economic power from the center to the provinces and cities. At the same time the feudal elite must be forced to provide room to professionals from urban middle calls and allow a wider representation in the National Assembly from the population. (Rashdad 164) It is also this feuding political class, which has been described as "a culture of corruption and injustice," that will be the downfall of Pakistan due to its obsession with political vendettas and self-enrichment (Burns A7). Works Cited Banks, Arthur, Alan Day, Theral Muller, eds. Political Handbook of the World 1995- 1996. New York: CSA Publications, 1996. Burns, John F. "In Pakistan, Coup Trials Mostly Yield Skepticism." New York Times 2 April 1996: A5. - - - - . "Hospital Blast In Pakistan; Political Feud is Heating Up" New York Times 15 April 1996: A7. The Europa World Year Book 1996. Vol. II. London: Europa Publications Limited, 1996. Hunter, Brian, ed. The Statesman's Year-Book 1996-1997. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996. Newberg, Paula R. "The Two Benazir Bhuttos." New York Times 11 Febuary 1995: 19. Rashid, Ahmed. "Pakistan: Trouble Ahead, Trouble Behind." Current History v 95 (April 1996) : 158-164. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Palestinian Liberation Organization.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Palestinian Liberation Organization 1. Can the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) justifiably claim to be 'the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.'? The PLO was set up in 1964 by an Arab League decision in response to growing signs of Palestinian unrest. The Palestinians desired to reclaim the lands occupied by Israel, which they felt belonged to them, as said in the Bible. In 1964 the Arab states created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). While it was supposed to represent the Palestinians, in reality it represented the views of President Nasser of Egypt, who guided the formation of the PLO. Its first leader made wild and irresponsible threats to drive Israelis into the sea, and had little support among Palestinians for he was seen as a puppet of the Egyptians. In the 1960s Palestinian students began to form their own organizations independent of control by Arab governments (although the Syrians, Libyans, and Iraqis continued to fund and control particular groups). Yasser Arafat founded an independent Palestinian-run party called Fatah. He is said to have the backing, for most of the recent past, of about 80% of the Palestinian people. The position of the Arab governments was that a PLO under Arab League supervision would be the best way of satisfying the demands made by an emerging Palestinian national consciousness. Also, it was felt that through such an organization Arab governments could control Palestinian political activities. Ten years after its founding, the PLO was raised to the status of government. And in 1988, the PLO's status was to be raised again, this time to a state in exile. After several negotiations, Arafat became a Terrorist leader and administrator of self-rule in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the 1967 Six Day War, the Arab armies did very badly against Israel, losing 67,000 square kilometres of land. Palestinians came to believe that if they were ever to have their land, they would have to do it themselves. After the 1967 war, the situation changed drastically. The resistance activities of various guerrilla organizations, in particular the Al-Fatah and the PFLP, gained the increasing support of the Palestinians. With Arafat at the helm from 1969 and a resistance-oriented leadership, the PLO was more effective and played a central role in mobilizing the Palestinians and in expanding its basis of support both at the local and international level. The PLO became an umbrella organization for the various guerrilla groups. This increase in support was made possible because of the Al-Fatah's ability to access to the growing numbers of volunteers from refugee camps which were freshly swollen due to the 1967 war. Most of these refugees suffered the frustration of having been displaced twice in a lifetime. This generated, especially among the young, a mood of defiance, as they were ready to question the credibility of the idea of relying on Arab governments to liberate Palestine. Furthermore, as a consequence of the war a large proportion of the Palestinian community became territorially united. This brought the possibility of direct interaction between the various sections of the Palestinian community that had previously remained isolated from each other. On the other hand, the inability of the PLO's conservative leadership to promote any effective resistance operations culminated in the eventual transfer of power to the armed-struggle orientated guerrilla organizations. Thus initially, the PLO had a broad base of support and represented the desires of the majority of the Palestinian people. The origins of the Al-Fatah can be traced back to the mid-1950s to a group of Palestinians that had neither relinquished their national identity nor their belief in the necessity of liberating Palestine via Palestinian means, rather than relying on other Arab states. Yet, throughout the 1950s the attitude of the Palestinians remained largely skeptical if not uncommitted to Al-Faith's ideology. It was in the 1960s that the situation began to change, enabling Al-Fatah to expand its organizational structure and base. Under the leadership of Arafat, Al-Fatah pursued an ideology which simply stresses the nationalist struggle to liberate Palestine without dwelling too deeply on any theoretical speculations about the nature and form of the future Palestinian society. This tactic was essential in gaining support against other movements, and aided the rise of Al-Fatah to become the dominating faction within the PLO. Militarily, the PLO has a broad base of human resources for recruitment, almost half a million. The PLO has established across-the-board conscription for all the Palestinian men between the ages of 18 and 30. As a result, the PLO is able to maintain three military forces. It could be said then that physically, it did indeed represent a cross-section of the population. However, even if they were significant in number, these lower-level members were not politically potent, and did not have their voices heard. Arafat continued on his policies, tending to brush aside differing opinions, leaving many disenchanted with his autocratic rule. Even before the PLO was declared a state in 1988, it functioned much like one. This was reflected in much of the powers it possessed. The PLO has been able to exert what amounts to sovereign powers over the Palestinian people in war situations. The PLO represented the Palestinians in wars with Jordan and Lebanon, and during various incursions into Israel. The PLO also exercises extradition powers, as on many occasions Arab governments have turned over to the PLO Palestinians charged with criminal activities. They were tried and sentenced by the PLO judicial system. In these ways, it was supposed to represent the people. But various problems within the PLO undermined its legitimacy as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat's ascendancy to power on the Palestinian issue had naturally provoked rivals to try the same tack in their own interest. As a result, maintenance of his supremacy within the PLO became Arafat's full time preoccupation. Far from laying the basis for secular or democratic institutions that one day might serve as a nation, Arafat recruited Sumni Muslims like himself into a body known as Fatah, loyal to him on confessional lines. Unity itself was a mere appearance, a show for the sake of recovering honour. Far from uniting behind the Palestinian cause as words might indicate, every Arab state in practice discriminated against Palestinians living in its midst and had differing slants upon the PLO. This was due to its nature as an umbrella organization, the PLO comprises a number of resistance organizations. These organizations entered the PLO as groups retaining their ideological and organizational identity. Consequently, PLO institutions are structured to reflect proportional representation of each organization in addition to the few independent members. This has turned PLO politics into coalition politics. The flux of events between 1967 and 1982 offered Palestinians several chances to demonstrate en masse in favour of the PLO, if they had been so inclined. But they refrained, not due to fatalism or cowardice, but because they may be willing to pay lip service to Arafat, not much more than that. Whether Palestinians outside the Occupied Territories would in fact accept the legitimacy of the PLO as their representative was put to test in Jordan in 1970. Jordanian frontiers were the result of British map-making, which left half of the country's inhabitants Palestinian by origin. The rapid financing and arming by Arab power holders of Arafat's mercenaries offered these Palestinians in Jordan a chance to repudiate King Hussein and declare themselves nationalists for the new cause. Unexpectantly, Arafat's power challenge threatened to replace King Hussein with a PLO state in Jordan. After 18 months, while tensions were running high, the PFLP hijacked international airliners, three of which were brought at gunpoint to Jordan. Taking advantage of this anarchic jockeying between rival Palestinian groups, King Hussein ordered his army to subjugate the whole movement. Palestinians in Jordan and on the West Bank gave evidence of their real feelings by denouncing the PLO and PFLP activists to the authorities and occasionally even helping to round them up. David Pryce-Jones observed that "wherever they live, they observe for themselves that the PLO is a means to enrichment and aggrandizement for the unscrupulous few, but death and destruction for everyone else". Everywhere Palestinians have little alternative but to cling to this identity, as they continue to seek what freedom they can from power holders of different identity. In Syria, any Palestinian who attempted to form some independent grouping would be seen as a dangerous conspirator and summarily disposed of. This left many with no choice but to remain silent. Fatah itself was split by power struggles initiated by a growing number of young Fatah activists who were trying to gain positions of power in local society, in the process challenging the older generation of Fatah leaders. They felt entitled to positions in the structures Arafat was trying to create. The newest generation of people not only refuse to be cajoled or coerced, but also have acquired political organizing and networking skills in neighbourhoods, refugee camps, Israeli jails, and above all, in the political bodies created during the Intifada (uprising). The problem of factionalism has plagued the PLO from its formation. However, instead of adopting a policy of inclusion to accommodate the general goals of the people, he excluded not only the opposition but also the local Palestinians who had acted as his proxies before his return. He had promised he would be the leader of all Palestinians, but acted only like the President of his trusted lieutenants. Instead of speaking of tolerance and political pluralism, he spoke of respect for his authority. On top of this, Arafat's leadership was questioned. Arafat was criticized for filling his posts with loyalists whose professional qualifications are below average and whose reputations are tarnished. Other appointments brought more and more Palestinians to the conclusion that Arafat was mired in the past, and that he would continue to follow the policy plans he had formed long ago. The Chairman's primacy within the PLO had been seriously compromised as a result of the secret negotiations that had led to the September 13, 1993 agreement with the Rabin government. The relationship with the masses that the charismatic Arafat had enjoyed was diminished by the concessions he made to Israel. In modern day politics, he still remains a symbol of Palestinian nationalism, as does the PLO. But he faces much opposition. On the left various socialist groups think Arafat is too close to business and banking interests and too willing to negotiate with Israel or cooperate with America. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is one of these. It is led by George Habash, a Christian doctor. It opposes any negotiations. On the right some Islamic groups feel the PLO is too willing to cooperate with socialists and is too willing to negotiate with Israel. They feel there should be a united Palestine where Jews could live but which would not be governed by Jews. The largest of these groups is called HAMAS, the Islamic Resistance Movement. Several Palestinian radicals have their own military organizations. Abu Nidal is one of these. He is bitterly and violently opposed to the PLO for what he sees as its moderate positions. He has carried out airplane bombings and attacks on civilians and has tried to assassinate Arafat. He opposes any negotiation with Israel. He is probably funded by Iraq. In the latest turn of events, Yasser Arafat has decided to scrap the anti-Israeli section of the PLO charter calling for its destruction. Some have said that this is due to Israeli pressure in the peace process, which demanded the change before new talks and settlements. Shimon Peres has called it the "most important ideological change of the century", but it is sure to upset the Islamic fundamentalists, and those in the PLO who desire a completely pro-PLO solution. While there is so much contention and opposition to PLO decisions, the PLO cannot be called the sole representative of the Palestinian people, although it has a large following. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. David Pryce-Jones: The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs Harper Perennial, New York, 1991 2. Peter Calrocovessi: World Politics since 1945 (5th Ed) Longman Group, New York, 1987 3. Kamal Kirisai: The PLO and World Politics Frances Pinter, London, 1986 4. Muhammad Muslih : Arafat's Dilemma Mr Kwok's notes f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Panama Canal.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Panama Canal In 1825, a group of American businesspeople announced the formation of a canal building company, with interests in constructing a canal system across the Isthmus. This project was to take place in an area now called Panama. The endeavor was filled with controversy. Though the canal itself was not built until the early 1900's every step toward the building and ownership, was saturated with difficulty. Walter LaFeber illustrates the dilemmas in a historical analysis. In his work he states five questions that address the significance of the Panama Canal to United States. This paper will discuss the historical perspective of the book's author, address pertinent three questions and give a critique of LaFeber's work, The Panama Canal. For proper historical analysis one must understand the importance of the Canal. The Panama Canal and the Canal Zone (the immediate area surrounding the Canal) are important areas used for trade. Even before the canal was built there were to large ports on both sides of the Isthmus. Large amounts of cargo passed through the Isthmus by a railroad that connected the two ports. The most important cargo was the gold mined in California before the transcontinental railroad was completed in the United States. It has strategic significance because of its location, acting as a gateway connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This allows for rapid naval deployment between fleets in either ocean. These two facets make the Panama Canal very important in the region. LaFeber notes that Panamanian nationalism played a large role in the creation of the canal and, consequently, the cause for the area's constant instability. The first expression occurred in the late 1800's with Panamanian struggle for independence from Columbia. The United States eager to build the canal, and control its operation, used and backed Panamanian nationalist. During the Roosevelt administration, not only did the United States manipulate factors isolating Panama from other world powers through the Monroe Doctrine; but it committed troops aiding the revolutionaries against another sovereign state. The reason this is a surprise is because the Roosevelt administration normally held a position favoring stability. The United States had no legal right to use force against Columbia. Nationalism came back to haunt the United States. With the treaty signed and a 99-year lease given to the United States, the Canal was built. Since then, the United States has varied on its stance of ownership and the principles of sovereignty concerning the Canal. The ever persistent debate of who owns the Canal and who should have sovereign control over it, has not been solved. The United States has occasionally attempted to "claim" the Canal zone through various methods such as military occupation, exclusion of Panamanians for important jobs in Canal operations and even through the customary aspect of international law. However, each time the Panamanians have managed to maintain claim to the Canal despite the United State's imperialistic posturing to get it. The most recent and notorious of the United States' attempts to annex the Canal Zone was during the Reagan administration. President Reagan said that the Canal Zone could be equated as a sovereign territory equal to that of Alaska. The question here is, was he correct? LaFeber points out that, "the United States does not own the Zone or enjoy all sovereign rights in it." He uses the treaty of 1936 in Article III that states, "The Canal Zone is the territory of the Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States." The entire topic was summed up neatly by Ellsworth Bunker, a negotiator in the region, when he said, "We bought Louisiana; we bought Alaska. In Panama we bought not territory, but rights." A second important question, is the Canal a vital interest to the United States? LaFeber gives three points suggesting that it is not. First, the importance of the Canal decreased after 1974, because of the end of the Vietnam War and all related military traffic ceased. Second, is the age of the antique machinery dating back to 1914. Inevitably the machinery will need to be replaced. Lastly, the size of the new tankers and cargo ships. The capacity of the canal is too small to handle such a large amount of tonnage. These are viable factors; however, the first argument is concerning whether a war is taking place. It is circumstantial in providing a solid reason for increased traffic through the Zone. This can easily change through and emergence of a new conflict or trading habits of other countries. Thirdly, why have the Panamanians insisted on assuming total control of the Canal. The Panamanians are making millions of dollars annually and the United States run the Canal efficiently. LaFeber points in the direction of economics as the principal factor and nationalism as secondary. The Panamanians fear the amount of reliance they have on U.S. investments. The fear is enhanced by the large dependence of their national economy on MNC's, American banks and mining companies. LaFeber continues saying that Panamanians find it difficult to cross the Zone because of check points and resent their country being split in half. Continuing he asserts that perhaps if the Panamanians were to have complete control the Zone the amount of revenue would increase. Panamanians could also develop spinoff industries such as drydocks and ship building creating an increase in profits. Walter LaFeber develops a persuasive argument for the interpretation of historical events surrounding the creation of the Panama Canal. As is consistent with other LaFeber's works, his research and fact finding technique in The Panama Canal is complete if not exhaustive. He presents an objective outlook on issues surrounding the Canal. He uses a historical approach in presenting his contribution to a subject that is lacking in information and scholarly examination. In conclusion, this paper has addressed the historical perspective that the author of the book used. A discussion also included three important questions concerning the Canal, its importance and the relationship between the United States and Panama. Furthermore, this paper examines the effectiveness and usefulness of LaFeber's, The Panama Canal. Word Count: 1008 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Pearl Harbor.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pearl Harbor My report is about the attack on Pearl Harbor. In this report I will explain what happened and why it happened. So you know, Pearl Harbor is located on Oahu island, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor was the operating base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The Japanese pulled a surprise attack on the U.S. on December 7, 1941 at 7:50 A.M. during the beginning of World War II. On November 26 a powerful Japanese task force, under the command of vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, left the Kuril Islands; on December 2 it received a coded message issuing the attack order. The undetected Japanese force arrived off the Hawaiian Islands on the morning of December 7. In two successive waves more than 350 Japanese bombers, torpedo planes, and fighters struck. More than 75 U.S. warships(including battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and auxiliaries) were based at this "Gibraltar of the Pacific." All U.S. aircraft carriers were elsewhere. Observing radio silence, it reached a launching point at 6 AM, December 7. At 7:50 AM, the first wave of Japanese planes struck Pearl Harbor, bombarding airfields and battleships moored at the concrete quays. The U.S. totally taken off guard had to defend themselves in pajamas. They used anti-aircraft guns in an attempt to stop the Japanese. A second wave followed. The surprise attack was over before 10 AM. The results were devastating; 18 U.S. ships were hit, and more than 200 aircraft destroyed or damaged. The battleship Arizona was a total wreck; the West Virginia and California were sunk; and the Nevada was heavily damaged. Approximately 2,400 Americans were killed, 1,300 wounded, and 1,000 missing. Japanese losses were fewer than 100 casualties, 29 planes, and 5 midget submarines. The Japanese totally destroyed the U.S. naval power in the Pacific. The attack was, however, a colossal political and psychological blunder, for it mobilized U.S. public opinion against the Japanese and served as the catalyst that brought the United States into the war. "December 7, 1941," said President Franklin D. Roosevelt, is "a date which will live in infamy." A monument has been built across the hull of the sunken U.S.S. Arizona; it was dedicated as a national memorial in 1962. The next day President Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress that December 7 was "a date which will live in infamy." Congress voted to declare war on Japan. A small boat rescued seamen from USS West Virginia after the surprise Japanese air attack. There are different reasons why the Japanese were able to pull a surprise attack on the United States biggest military base. One is that when the U.S. received the message from the Japanese saying that they were going to declare war the guy who was receiving the message reported that it was a false alarm. The real reason is not known why but Pearl Harbor will always be remembered. They should have known not to mess with the U.S. because after that little stunt they pulled we really set off and got into World War II. In this report I hope that you have learned a little more about that battle that we fought. Now the U.S. and Japan get along just fine and we trade with them. Lots of business deals go on and we get products from them like tv's, camcorders, and computers. We've even promised to defend them if China or any other country tries to attack them. They better remember one thing and that is they better never double cross us again. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Pierre Trudeau.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pierre Trudeau Pierre Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, was once described as "A French Canadian proud of his identity and culture, yet a biting critic of French-Canadian society, determined to destroy its mythology and illusions". He has also been identified as "A staunch, upholder of provincial autonomy holding the justice portfolio in the federal government". Such cumulative appraisal and observation made by past fellow bureaucrat provides high testimonial for the ex-Democratic Socialist. This critique will establish and dispute the prime directives that Trudeau had advocated in his own book written during the years 1965 to 1967. The compilation of political essays featured in his book deal with the diverse complexities of social, cultural and economical issues that were predominant in Canadian politics during the mid 1960's. However, throughout my readings I was also able to discover the fundamental principles that Trudeau would advocate in order to establish a strong and productive influence in Canadian politics. Born in 1921, Trudeau entered the world in a bilingual/bicultural home located in the heart of Montreal, Quebec. His acceptance into the University of Montreal would mark the beginning of his adventures into the Canadian political spectrum. Early in his life, Trudeau had become somewhat anti-clerical and possessed communist ideologies which were considered radical at the time. Graduating from prestigious institutions such as Harvard and The School of Economics in England, Turdeau returned to Canada in 1949 and resumed his social science endeavors. At this time in Quebec, the province was experiencing tremendous cultural and political differences with the rest of the country. The Union Nationale had taken possession of political matters in Quebec and was steadily dismantling the socialist essence imposed on the province by the Federal government. The current Prime Minister, Maurice Duplessis, found himself battling a religious nationalist movement that corrupted the very fabric of political stability in Quebec. The Duplessis faction maintained their conservative approach towards political reform but failed to sway the majority of the population into alleviating with the demands of the Canadian government. The citizens of Quebec revered their clerical sector as holding 'utmost importance' towards preserving French cultural values and this did not correlate with the Federal government's policies and ideals. Francophones were under the impression that their own Federal government had set out to crush and assimilate what had remained of their illustrious heritage in order to accommodate economic and political tranquility. Trudeau himself had decided to join the nationalist uprising with his advocation of provincial autonomy. Ultimately, he and other skilled social scientists attempted to bring down the Duplessis party in 1949, but failed miserably in their efforts. Duplessis buckled underneath the continuous pressure of French patriotism and was rewarded for his inept idleness by winning his fourth consecutive election in 1956. Although nothing of significance had been accomplished, Quebec has solidified its temporary presence in confederation at such a time. This prompted Trudeau to involve himself in provincial diplomacy as he would engage in several media projects that would voice his displeasure and disapproval with the ongoing cultural predicament in Canada (this included a syndicated newspaper firm, live radio programs). "If, in the last analysis, we continually identify Catholicism with conservatism and patriotism with immobility, we will lose by default that which is in play between all cultures...". By literally encouraging a liberal, left-wing revolution in his province, Trudeau believed that Democracy must come before Ideology. Gradually, his disposition would attract many politicians and advocates of Socialism, and thus it allowed him to radiate his ideology onto the populace of Quebec. Trudeau makes it clear in his book that during the early years of the Duplessis government, he was a staunch admirer of provincial autonomy, but with the archaic sequence of events following the conflicts that arouse between Federal and Provincial matters in Quebec, he had taken a stance on Federalism that involved security, economic prosperity and centralized authority. It wasn't until 1963 when the newly appointed Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque, warned that there must be a new Canada within five years or Quebec will quit confederation. It was not until 1965 that a man named Pierre Trudeau entered politics. It is at this point in his anthology that I was able to surmise the radical and unorthodox political convictions that the soon-to-be Prime Minister would incorporate into Canada. His thesis is focused around pertinent issues which demanded attention at the time. After he elaborates on the importance of Federalism and how it is associated with Quebec, the reader begins to interpret the resolutions he offers and then finds himself comprehending the dilemma that French Canadians face in Canada. In the wake of a constitutional referendum, such knowledge can be viewed as ironically significant. A defender of civil rights and freedoms, Trudeau, even as a teenager, was adamantly opposed to supporting any political theory based on ethnic tendencies; he makes this clear on an essay in the book entitled: "Quebec and the Constitutional Problem". He was convinced that not only the divided jurisdiction of a federal state helped protect the liberty of its citizens but also that in fact the economic, social and cultural goods of Quebec can best be achieved with a Canadian federal state. It seemed that an archetypal Trudeau Federal infrastructure would be one where each level of government would function on its own jurisdiction. In doing so, Trudeau would voice his admiration for the Bill of Rights and how he would concentrate on developing a Federal government for the individual. It was not until 1962 that Trudeau actually began defending Federalism for what it represented to the average labourer, but the fact that Quebec seemed to convert provincial autonomy into an absolute forced him to reconsider his political stance. Joining the struggling Liberal party in 1965, his only coinciding proposition with that of his party was the advocation of an open Federal system. Nonetheless, it marked the beginning of a political career that would take him to the heights of power in his dominion. "My political action, or my theory - insomuch as I can be said to have one - can be expressed very simply: create counter- weights". The measure of a man can be traced to his ideological convictions, and in doing so, I have only started to realize the prominent role that Trudeau has played in Canadian politics. He was heralded as a radical, somewhat of a usurper and definitely a socialist mogul, but what was clear about Trudeau was his respect and admiration for liberties of the common man and how they were preserved from the clutches of Federal policies. This respect would not be replaced at any cost during his tenure and as he forecasted the ensuing constitutional dilemma with a very impartial, non-partisan outlook, he would primarily concentrate on two factors (economic and linguistic) which offered practical conclusions without chaotic implications. Trudeau envisioned himself in power, speculating two choices he would offer to Quebec; full sovereignty or maximized integration into the American continent. But what Trudeau avoided treading upon was the infringement of state policies on the individual's rights and freedoms. Many members of the Federal government believed that Trudeau did not speak on behalf of French Canadians but that he substituted their cultural plight with his own theories. This generated the following response: "If the party does not agree with my opponents, it can repudiate me; if my constituents do not, they can elect someone else". Trudeau maintains that he dedicated his anthology in order for others to understand the problems that French Canadians faced in terms of cultural progress, and I am compelled to conclude that his involvement with the Federal regime may have saved the country for twenty years...unfortunately, he was unable to complete the affirmation of his ideology into the French Canadian scope and thus Canada today is contemplating the outcome of another constitutional referendum. His failure to absolve the constitution of any future repercussions with the masses should not be viewed as a political error, but as an ideological truth which he exhibited since 1965 (the addition of the "notwithstanding" clause). Trudeau's book covers an immense amount of historical and idealistic content. Published in 1965, it is fascinating to read and discover how intently and closely he would follow his ideologies as he would eventually ascend to the position of Prime Minister. His reliability would be questionable at the time (based on limited experience as a politician) but the fact that he had submerged himself into a field which required innovative and pragmatic thought led me to believe that his Federalist stance would eventually be justified in Canadian history. With a superlative writing style, his use of vocabulary and terminology aided the reader in understanding his convictions. Not even this reader expected such a barrage of political jargon. Recent events in Canada have somewhat curtailed the ambience dealing with this critique in respects to the opinions exhibited on behalf of the author and reviewer. Trudeau takes obvious pride in his ideological perspective of multicultural Canada, and in doing so one might expect a partisan, biased array of resolutions. This, however, is not the case. This book leaves room for educational prowess without any noticeable weaknesses. Federalism and the French Canadians is an insightful, ideological anthology that could be found especially useful to other politics students who wish to examine the importance of cultural and social values in a country missing a stable political doctrine (and perhaps a leader, no less). f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Plato.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plato LIFE Plato was born to an aristocratic family in Athens, Greece. When he was a child his father, Ariston, who was believed to be descended from the early kings of Athens died, and his mother, Perictione married Pyrilampes. As a young man Plato was always interested in political leadership and eventually became a disciple of Socrates. He followed his philosophy and his dialectical style, which is believed to be the search for truth through questions, answers, and additional questions. After witnessing the death of Socrates at the hands of the Athenian democracy in 399 B.C., Plato left Athens and continued to travel to Italy, Sicily, and Egypt. (Internet) In 387 B.C. Plato founded the Academy in Athens otherwise known as the first European university. The Academy provided a wide range of curriculum including subjects such as astronomy, biology, philosophy, political theory, and mathematics. Aristotle was the Academy's most outstanding student. (Internet) The internal affairs of the academy ruled the next 20 years of Plato's life and he wrote nothing. Many Greek youths were attracted to the new school. Plato then went to Syracuse to supervise the education of the ruling prince. Plato was not certain about the success of this adventure although he felt he could not refuse this opportunity of putting his ideas to a test. It did not work out for Plato and he returned to Athens in 360 B.C. He then devoted himself to teaching and lecturing at the Academy. He died at age 80 in Athens in 348 B.C. Before his death Plato completed the Sophist, the Politicus, the Philebus, the Timaeus and finally the Laws. (Internet) DIALOGUES The Symposium is the most widely read of Plato's dialogues with the exception of the Republic and it is with good reason. It's literary merit is outstanding with philosophical and psychological sources (Allen) ANAYA--2 THE EARLY DIALOGUES In the early dialogues Socrates always played the leading roll. In all of them, Plato was trying to keep the spirit of Socrates alive. There are also early dialogues that portray Socrates in whimsical moods but always with a serious purpose. (Allen) The Republic was the most revealing of all Plato's early writings. Plato believed that one could not seriously construct a political theory without a metaphysics. Therefore, we find an outline of human life as it should be lived according to nature. (Allen) THE LATER DIALOGUES In the later dialogues Soctates does not always play the leading role. He does not enter into the conversation of Laws. More interest was shown in the possibilities of politics. Law and legal government were stressed and it greatly influenced Aristotle. It is clear that in later years Plato became more aware of the difficulties in attempting to combine science with government. Plato's main interest at the end of his life was to guide human effort as indicated in his last dialogues, the Laws. (Allen) Many students of the Academy were reaching into positions of power in the Greek world. Plato planned a trilogy at the end of his life, the Timaeus, the Critias, and the Hermoncrates. (Allen) THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE Plato's theory of knowledge can be found in the myth of the cave. The myth describes people chained within a cave. The only images they see are the shadows of objects and animals held in front of a fire that is behind them that reflects on the cave walls in front of them. That is all they had ever seen so that is what they believe to be real. One day a man escaped the cave and went outside. With the sun he saw what was real in the world and realized all he ever saw were just shadows. He went back to the men in the cave and told them all this. He told them that they ANAYA--3 too could see the outside if they broke free of their chains but they didn't believe him. The environment of the cave to Plato symbolizes the physical world of appearances. Escaping into the sun-filled world means the transition into the real world that is full and perfect being the world of forms, which is the proper object of knowledge. (Hare p.39) NATURE OF FORMS The theory of Forms may be understood best in terms of mathematical entities. This theory was his way of explaining how the same universal term can refer to so many particular things or events. An individual is human to the extent that they resemble or participate. In the Form "humanness" if "humanness" is defined in terms of being a rational animal and human being to the extent that he or she is rational. An object is beautiful to the extent that it participates in the Idea, or Form of beauty. Everything in the world of space and time is, what it is by virtue of it's resemblance to, or participation in, it's universal Form. The supreme Form is the Form of Good, which like the sun in the myth of the cave, illuminates all the other ideas. The theory of Forms is intended to explain how one comes to know and also how things have come to be the way that they are. (Internet) ETHICS Plato's ethical theory rests on the assumption that virtue is knowledge and can be taught, which has to be understood in terms of his theory of Forms. One of his famous arguments is that to "know the good is to do the good". Along with that he states that anyone who behaves immorally does so out of ignorance. He also says that a truly happy person is a moral person and they become individuals and always desire their own happiness. They always desire to do that which is moral. (Dolan p.76) ANAYA--4 TRUTH Plato illustrates truth by telling the well-known story of Gyges. Gyges one day stumbled upon a chasm in the opening of the earth after a heavy rainfall. He came upon a horse made of bronze which had a door on the side of it. He opened it up and saw the body of a man of superhuman stature, wearing a gold ring. He took the ring off the finger of the body and placed it upon his own. He later realized that if he turned the bezel of the ring inwards in the direction of the palm of his hand he would become invisible. He would use the ring to his advantage many a time. He would kill off anyone that stood in his way and he got whatever he wanted without anyone suspecting him. He even quickly rose to be the King of Lydia. Now, think of the same ring in the hands of a wise man. He would not consider that it would give him the right to do wrong any more than if it did not belong to him. For to act secretly is not what a good man aims at, it is what he wants to do to act rightly. (Grant 172,173) WORKS Plato's writings were in dialogue form. The earliest collection of Plato's work includes 35 dialogues and 13 letters. It is still disputed if some of them are authentic or not. The works of Plato can be split up into 3 groups. The earliest dialogues represent his attempt to communicate the philosophy and style of Socrates, many of the dialogues take the same for of the writings from him. (Internet) PLATO'S ACHIEVEMENTS Plato's actual achievements in his field was great. He had a greater claim than anyone else to be called the founder of philosophy. What is unique about Plato is the progress towards a much tougher, more precise logical and metaphysical theory, a moral philosophy and a philosophy of language. Through discussion and criticism, they shaped the entire future of philosophy. (Hare) ANAYA--5 Plato's development of the topic "The one and the many" sought an explanation of the variety of things on reason. The search started with the question "What were their origins" and "What are they all made of ". Scientists went on asking this question and answering it. Plato grasped the truth that understanding is different from science and just as imporant. (Hare) INTERVIEW One of Plato's most famous ideas is the idea that the world is a rational place and that we are all here for a reason. People are good because they want to be good not because they will be punished if they are not and rewarded if they are. Plato works from top to bottom with his philosophy as opposed to bottom to top. It is shown by his work that you do not run into as many problems doing it the reverse way that he does. Rationality is used to eliminate the feeling in a person. It is the complete opposite of emotion, rationality is used in all views. Emotion causes more problems because none of the acts such as hate, love, murder, lust, fear....are rational. This idea of reason usually conflicts with the ideas of the bible but in Plato's case the views were quite similar. Art is a form that is not looked upon as highly in society as rationality because there is so much emotion put into it. One of the best examples is love love is not a rational thought and with art love is expressed a lot throughout important pieces. "Rational thought" is known to be able to start government and lifestyles, although not all lifestyles can be controlled. Take for instance an alcoholic is an alcoholic because they are not being rational and it is not that they can't stop drinking it is that they don't have enough willpower to stop. It all comes down to lack of control and lack of reason. Most of what we do is not based on rational thought and even though we know that it should be we too do not have the willpower to change our lifestyles around. First of all, we wouldn't be able to survive because it would mean getting rid of all emotional thoughts and feelings and that is close to impossible. Second to live like that would seem so far out and unreal that no one would even try to attempt it. No one can live life without love, lust, hate, and ANAYA--6 fear they are things that every human being is born with and will die with. Plato always presumed that rational was good, and right, but to us in this world rational is impossible. (Swanson) BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, R.E. The Dialogues of Plato, Volume II. London: Yale University Press Publisher, 1991. Grant, Michael. Cicero, Selected Works. Blatimore: Penguin Books Publisher, 1960. Dolan, John P. The Essentials Erasmus. New York: The new American Library Publisher, 1964 Internet. Plato (circa 428-C.-347 B.C) Plato Page. http://www.connect.net/ron/plato.html. Hare, R.M. Plato. London: Oxford University Press, 1892 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\polish immigrant.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Journey Across America Many people have tried to do what Meriwether Lewis has done, but have failed. Lewis was born Augest 18, 1774. His family had a history of Hipochondria (depression). As a boy his father died and he inherited a 2,000 acre plantation, 520 pounds in cash, 24 slaves, and 147 gallons of whiskey. By the time he became a teenager Lewis had become an alcoholic. As he became older he joined the army and helped put down the whiskey rebelloin. The whiskey rebellion started because the govornment put a tax on whiskey, and many of the frontiersman couldnt pay it. On Febuary 23, 1801 Thomas Jefferson asked Meriwether Lewis to be his secretary. The job paid $500 a year. This was much less than he made at the plantation but he still accepted. As Thomas Jefferson and Meriwether Lewis became friends Thomas Jefferson taught Meriwether Lewis to read. Thomas Jefferson wanted to explore America so he asked Lewis to lead an expidition to the Pacific coast and back. He agreed but he knew it would be long and hard and that they would need many supplies. Meriwether bought 15 Pennsylvania Rifles, colapsable boat, tackle, lead, ink powder, 30 steels, mosquito netting, and oilskin bags. He also bought many presents for the Indians: 5 pounds white glass beads, 20 pounds red assorted beads, 144 scissors, 288 brass thimbles, many blue beads, silk, paint, vermilion, and 288 knives. On July 5, 1803 Lewis set out for Pittsburgh. Upon arriving at Pittsburgh they discover the colapsable boat is not even close to being done. So they cant leave for the Pacific coast yet. On August 31, 7:00 A.M. the last nail was driven into the boat. But by that time the river was at a record low. On September 1st they left Pittsburgh and went Down the Ohio river. In some places the river was only 6 inches deep. There were a lot of mosquitoes and fog on the way down the river. In late October George Rogers Clark Accepted his invitation to go along on the expidition. The voyage picked him up at Clarksville. On November 13 the expidition set out for fort Mastic, on the Mississippi river. From November 20, 1803-March 1804 the expidition stayed the winter in St. Louis. There they bought corn, flour, biscuits, salt, pork, lard, and Indian goods from local traders. On May 2nd they started their way up the Missouri. At the end of July they had made it 640 miles up the river. The expidition Met their first Indians, the Ottoes, on August 2. Soon after their confrontation they held a council on Council Bluff. The expidition continued on its way and soon met the Sioux. A disagreement came about between the two parties because the Sioux wanted a canoe load of gifts. This almost started a fight but the Sioux finally let the expidition continue. The Arikaras met the expidition on October 18. The expidition was very generous to the Arikaras with gifts. Here Fort Mandan was built so the expidition could stay the winter. The blacksmiths proved to be very valuable because they made battle axes and sold them to the Indians for corn. During the stay at Fort Mandan the expidition would be there from Dec 21, 1804-April 7, 1805. On April 7 the expidition continued their journey on the Missouri. The expidition came to the junction of the Marias and the Missouri river on June 3. The captains were not sure which river was the Missouri. The party split up and explored a part of each river. On June 16 they met back at the junction. They decided the south fork was the Missouri. They started to build the colapsable boat but they didnt have any pitch, so they made a sealant out of beeswax and charcoal. When they put it in the water it leaked so badly they decided not to use it. Instead they made some canoes out of cottonwood trees. They started up the Missouri again on June 16. They made it to the three forks of the Missouri on July 27. At that time Clark had been leading some men up ahead of the rest of the party. Clark decided to go up the left fork, but not before leaving Lewis a message to go up the right fork. Before Lewis got a chance to go up the right fork Clark had come back down the river and met Lewis because he had become ill. As soon as Clark became well enough Lewis went up the Jefferson River and Clark went up the Wisdom river. They met back at the forks after 2 days. Private Shannon had been sent up the Wisdom river to hunt but had not returned. The whole party went up the river to find him. On August 9 Shannon was found. They saw an Indian on August 11 but he ran away. On August 13 they met 2 Indian woman and an Indian man from a tribe of Shoshones. They met the chief and became friends. Sacagaweans, the interpreter, family was part of the Indian tribe. This is probably the reason the Indians decided to guide the Americans over the Rocky Mountains. Many horses were purchased from the Shoshonas. When the expidition got over the Rocky Mountains they met the Nez Pierce on September 10, 1805. Their chief, Twisted Hair, sold roots to the expidition. The expidition Started descending down the Columbia River October 7. On the way down they met the Chinooks and found out they were thieves. When they got to the coast they met the Clatsop Indians and traded with them. Here they built Fort Clatsop. On march 23 the expidition left Fort Clatsop and started back up the Columbia River. On the way home they met the Nez Pierce again at the end of April. They crossed the Lolo Trail From June 10, 1806-July 2, 1806. The captains decided to explore the Marias from July 3-July 28. During the exploration of the Marias their was a conflict between the Blackfeet and the party and a few indians died. On September 23 the party finally made it back to the president. And that concludes my book report on the book Undaunted Courage. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\PopulistParty.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Populist Party The Populist Party, a third political party that originated in America in the latter part of the nineteenth century, derived as a result of farmer discontent and economic distress. This was caused by the country's shift from an agricultural American life to one in which industrialists dominated the nation's development. The public felt as if they were being cheated by these "robber barons," a term given to those who took advantage of the middle and lower classes by "boldly stealing the fruits of their toils" (Morgan, 30). These corporate tycoons' conduct was legal, however ethically dubious it was. Cornelius Vanderbilt, a well-known railroad baron, reportedly once said, "Law! What do I care about the law? Hain't I got the power?" (Morgan, 30) The change from agrarian to industrial had a profound effect on everyone's life. Ignatius Donnelly, a leader in the Populist Party wrote, "We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench . . . A vast conspiracy against mankind has been organized" (Tindall, 957). As a result of this significant transformation, along with several different perspectives of peoples' mores, several reform movements were commenced, such as prohibition, socialism, and the Greenback Labor Party. Each of these movements was launched by different coalitions in hopes of making a difference either for themselves or for the good of the country. The farmers, specifically, were unhappy for four particular reasons: physical problems, social and intellectual concerns, economic difficulties, and political frustrations. The physical concerns the climate of the time period. Following 1885, there was a large drought on the American prairie, thus causing this land to become known as the "Dust Bowl." Furthermore, there were extreme blizzards resulting in innumerable deaths of cattle and livestock. Also, farms were very isolated causing the women and children to lead a life of solitude and boredom. They demanded change. In fact, the women were the ones to start libraries and other meeting places for themselves and their children. This isolation made schooling for children quite difficult. Most kids who lived on the farm did not receive a proper education, or one of any kind for that matter. Farmers' economic problems are more intricate. Events baffled the farmer. They believed that deflation was the cause of their problem. The farmers produced more at a lower price due to improved fertilizers and new machinery, yet was making less than previously. In fact, in 1894, growers received less income from 23 million acres of cotton than from nine million in 1873. The exorbitant prices of shipping their goods to markets worsened their situation. The railroads overcharged farmers so that they were able to grant large rebates to large industrialists to ensure the continuance of their business. These railroads united to form trusts that raised farmers' prices. One Kansan said in 1891: "At the age of 52 years, after a long life of toil and self-denial, I find myself and family virtually paupers. With hundreds of hogs, scores of good horses, and a farm that rewarded the toil of our hands with 16,000 bushels of golden corn we are poorer by many dollars than we were years ago. What once seemed a neat little fortune and a house of refuge for our declining years, by a few turns of the monopolistic crank has been rendered valueless" (Morgan, 157). Lastly, farmers are outraged at their own victimization by businessmen who utilize their wealth and influence to secure unfair fiscal advantages. As politicians increasingly paid more attention to industrial interests, the agrarians' resentment intensified. They recognized that their influence was dwindling. The politicians were ignoring them and their pleas for help. The Populist Party was the result of a movement that begun with the Granger movement, which was, in fact, a social movement. It organized various activities for women and children, established a mail-order program, and took an interest in education. The Grange united the farmers, who started to participate in politics through different independent third parties. As the Granger Movement fell apart, the Farmers' Alliance was established. This, unlike the Granger Movement, was a political movement. There were two branches of this alliance, a southern one and a northwestern one. The southern alliance, in contrast to the northwestern one, held back from plunging into politics. The members did not want to be deemed outcasts and traitors by their neighbors, who continued their support of the Democratic Party. As a result, they decided to meet in secret, along with the Colored Alliance, at which time they would agree upon a Democratic candidate that held views most similar to their own. These candidates, however, if elected, quickly abandoned their sympathies for the farmers. The northwestern alliance took a more radical approach; they were thinking about starting a third political party. These members supported inflation and Macune's "sub-treasury plan." The sub-treasury plan allows farmers to store their crops in government warehouses and receive government loans for up to 80% of their crops' value at one-percent interest. This does two things: gives them immediate credit and the opportunity to hold their crops until the market improves. Both the Grange and the Alliance endorsed social and educational programs, but the Alliance did two things differently; it was a political, rather than just a social movement, and it proposed an economic program, the sub-treasury plan. The Populist Party, although concentrating on a few issues, adopts several others to improve their chances of winning an election. They expected by endorsing these issues, they would receive support from the northeast. Their platform included: free and unlimited coinage of silver at the 16:1 ratio; inflation at a rate of $50 per capita; transportation, telephone, and telegraph; implementation of the sub-treasury plan; wanted excess lands given to railroads; direct election of senators; child labor laws; mandatory education; eight-hour work day; one-year terms for president; and an income tax for the middle and upper class. Populists wanted the government to take over the railroads, telephones, and telegraphs and regulate these services. The industrialists who owned and ran these services were cheating the public and overcharging. Populists wanted to reduce "special privilege." Also, the farmers wanted the government to take back all the land the railroads were given that it doesn't need. These lands should then be given, or sold at very cheap prices, to farmers. The Populists ran James Weaver in 1892. Weaver polled over 1 million votes and received a total of 22 electoral votes. The Populists expected to do well in the 1894-midterm elections due to the devastating business panic under Cleveland's administration in 1893. However, the Populists were disappointed as they emerged from the elections in 1894 with six senators and seven representatives. They looked forward to the 1896 presidential election with great optimism. However, when the election came, the lines between Democrats and Republicans were clearly drawn. Republicans chose McKinley, who supported the gold standard. Democrats nominated Bryan, a silverite who made the famous "Cross of Gold" speech that ensured him the spot on the democratic ticket. The Populists, instead of splitting the silver ticket with the Democrats, decided to support Bryan. McKinley won, meanwhile crushing the hopes of the Populist Party. Populism continued on the edge of politics until the turn of the century, but it took a fatal blow from the election of 1896. It died out for several reasons. One, the voters preferred the soundness of the two major political parties. Voters identified the party with the violence caused by Coxey's Army, which was a protest group lead by Jacob Coxey that demanded the federal government provide jobs for the unemployed. And the: "Voters' repudiation of Cleveland's party opened the way for new Democratic leadership that would neutralize or enfold Populist appeal . . . Cries for free coinage seemed dangerous to both property owners and wage workers. Populists' disinterest in tariff protection, which Republicans used brilliantly, also unnerved voters seeking prosperity. And the income tax, sub-treasury and other economic panaceas seemed illogical and dangerous amid depression" (Morgan, 169). The party also dies out because it does not win any elections. One noted historian declared, "A number of important Populist leaders . . . sought something that no American political party has achieved before or since: a political coalition of the poor whites and the poor blacks of the south" (Hart, 266). The Populists appealed to a low class in society, which made it nearly impossible to have a successful party. It is also hard to accomplish anything when a political party resembles that of a labor union and its formation arises because of economic despair. A prosperous period would immediately cause the party to split up, which was the case with the Populists. The Populist movement was the most dramatic reform movement of several late nineteenth century reform efforts, and although it did not last long, it had a profound effect on the country. Populism became so influential quite rapidly because the country was in a transitional phase, which included major industrialism and overproduction and a large influx of immigrants. The lower class was fighting for a cause they felt very passionately about, their lives and their well being. It is hard to imagine farmers, known as being very conservative, could endorse a platform so radical, but it was their "quick fix" solution to their problems. The Populists movement was quite successful, even though it did not prevail in a presidential election. It caused the "fissures" in the two major parties to widen, and in so doing, helped solidify the two major parties, and made their differences obvious. The other parties adopted many of their programs as well. The Populist Party signaled the passing of an agricultural American life, and it is often agreed that their ideas helped in the formation of the Progressive movement. Word Count: 1648 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Presidential election of 1856.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Title: The Contenders For the presidential election of 1856, the Democrats nominated James Buchanan and John Breckenridge, the newly formed Republican party nominated John Fremont and William Drayton, the American [or Know-Nothing] party nominated former president Millard Fillmore and Andrew Donelson, and the Abolition Party nominated Gerrit Smith and Samuel McFarland. Buchanan started his political career as a state representative in Pennsylvania, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1821, appointed minister to Russia in 1832, and elected US Senator in 1834. He was appointed Secretary of State in 1845 by President Polk and in that capacity helped forge the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War. He was appointed by President Polk as minister to Great Britain in 1853. As such, he, along with the American ministers to Spain and France, issued the Ostend Manifesto, which recommended the annexation of Cuba to the United States. This endeared him to southerners, who assumed Cuba would be a slave state. He was one of several northerners supported over the years by southern Democrats for being amenable to slaveholders' interests, a situation originating with Martin van Buren. Buchanan's two major rivals for the nomination, Franklin Pierce and Stephen Douglas, were both politically tainted by the bloodshed in Kansas. Buchanan was untainted, since he had been abroad during most of the controversy. Even so, he did not secure the nomination until the seventeenth ballot. Fremont was best known as an explorer and a war hero. He surveyed the land between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, explored the Oregon Trail territories and crossed the Sierra Madres into the Sacramento Valley. As a captain in the Army, he returned to California and helped the settlers overthrow Mexican rule in what became known as the Bear Flag Revolution, a sidebar to the Mexican War. He was elected as one of California's first two Senators. The infant Republican party was born from the ashes of the Whig party, which had suffered spontaneous combustion as a result of the slavery issue. The party's convention was a farce; only northern states and a few border slave states sent delegates. Sticking to their Whig roots, they nominated a war hero, albeit a minor one. William Drayton's runner-up for the VP slot was Abraham Lincoln. Fillmore, having been the thirteenth president following the death of Zachary Taylor, found himself representing the American party after many northern delegates left the convention over a rift caused by the slavery issue. Their objection was that the party platform was not strong enough against the spread of slavery. The party's vice presidential nominee was a nephew of Andrew Jackson and the editor of the Washington Union. The party, also known as the Know-Nothings, was extremely antagonistic towards immigrants, Catholics and other assorted minorities. The party was born in 1850, when several covert "Native American" societies joined together, their secret password being "I know nothing." Smith was nominated by the Abolition party in New York, which had nominated Frederick Douglass for New York secretary of state the year before under the label New York Liberty Party. The Campaign: Neither Buchanan nor Fremont campaigned themselves. Republicans declared Buchanan dead of lockjaw. Fremont, however, had a splendid campaign substitute, his beautiful wife Jessie, prompting "Oh Jessie!" campaign buttons. The Democrats tried desperately to avoid the slavery issue altogether, opting instead to pursue the conservative effort to preserve the Union. The Republicans, on the other hand, actively attacked slavery. Their campaign slogan was "Free Soil, Free Men, Freedom, Fremont". [Shields-West, pgs 78 & 80] The self-serving efforts of Stephen Douglas did more to mold the campaign of 1856 than did any other single event. Although he did not intentionally destroy the North-South balance created by the Compromise of 1850, his focused quest for the White House caused him to make some foolish choices. Douglas coveted a rail head in Chicago for the new transcontinental railroad. This would make Chicago a major trade center for the country, not unlike New York City when the Erie Canal was completed. He knew increased economic power for his home state would translate as increased political power for him. The South, on the other hand, wanted the rail head located in St. Louis, or even New Orleans. In order to secure southern support for his plan, Douglas chose to win them over by proposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a bill that would divide the Nebraska Territory into two separate territories, each having popular sovereignty. This would amount to nullification of the Missouri Compromise. Using the power of his new southern allies, Douglas wheeled and dealed the Kansas-Nebraska Act through Congress. By doing so, Douglas alienated his northern colleagues. The anti-slavery movement had become a formidable force in northern politics. Douglas mistakenly believed popular sovereignty had become more acceptable to the general public than it actually had. In July of 1856, 'Conscience Whigs", northern Democrats and Free Soilers met in Jackson, Michigan, to form the Republican party for the specific purpose of opposing slavery. In the meantime, pro-slavery factions, many from across the Missouri border, held a bogus election in the newly formed Kansas Territory, adopting a pro-slavery constitution and electing a pro-slavery state government. When anti-slavery citizens learned what had happened, they organized their own elections. President Pierce, in a serious error of judgement, recognized the first government as the official one, prompting widespread bloodshed throughout the territory. This new territory, born of such dubious beginnings, became known as "Bleeding Kansas". Pierce and Douglas, from that moment forward, would be scarred politically. Buchanan ultimately won the election in the electoral college, although he did not garner a popular majority. It was an uneasy victory, with sectionalism clearly present in the vote tallies. Normally, a period of relative calm follows a presidential election, but the political rhetoric of this campaign and the unrelenting tension between the North and the South would not allow it. On December 1, Pierce sent a bitter and highly partisan message to Congress. He pointedly blamed the continuing Kansas problems on northern propogandists and outside "agents of disorder". He accused the Republicans of preparing the country for civil war. Many in Congress were understandably outraged, reversing the charges of sectionalism right back at Pierce. Some blamed the Kansas situation directly on the outgoing president. In all, it was an unnecessarily unmagnanimous annual message. The Buchanan Presidency: In their attempt to find a non-controversial presidential candidate, the Democrats instead found themselves with a weak president. Buchanan tried to appease both sides by appointing a mix of northern and southern politicians to his cabinet, but each side accused him of favoring the other for the important positions. Buchanan never married, so the social duties of the White House were handled by his niece, Harriet Lane. During a state visit by the Prince of Wales, an orchestra performed the premiere of a new song dedicated to Miss Lane, titled "Listen to the Mockingbird." [Saturday Evening Post, pg 57] Two significant events took place shortly after Buchanan's inauguration, both of them having a terrible affect upon the nation and neither one attributable to Buchanan. Two days after taking office, the Taney supreme court handed down its infamous Dred Scott decision, or rather non-decision. The supreme court basically decided that slaves were property and, therefore, had no rights in the court system. The court cited the Fifth Amendment in refusing to meddle in disputes involving slaves. In the larger sense, though, the ruling declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Buchanan supported the decision. The second event was the Panic of 1857. Though not as severe as the Panic of 1837, it did cause widespread unemployment. A drop in crop exports to Europe, caused by the unexpected end to the Crimean War, caused a glut on the US market with corresponding price drops. Bank failures led the way, starting with the Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Company, which was actually one of the most respected financial institutions in the country. Lack of specie on hand led to many more bank closures. Secretary of the Treasury Cobb had another $4 million in gold coins minted to increase the supply, but the effort was fruitless. [Stampp, pgs 223-4] The industrialized Northeast was hardest hit by the depression and northern manufacturers and bankers naturally blamed southern Democrats. Sectionalism continued to worsen. The Kansas controversy continued to plague the Buchanan administration. He favored the admission of Kansas as a slave state. The territorial government [the pro-slavery one recognized by Pierce] held a statehood constitutional convention in Lecompton, which anti-slavery factions refused to recognize. As a result, the pro-slavery forces won control with only about ten percent voter participation. Anti-slavery forces regained control of the territorial legislature in the next election and voted down the document. [Brinkley, pg 375] Buchanan, against clear evidence to the contrary, decided to side with the Lecompton proposal. Stephen Douglas, in another bizarre moment of political suicide, argued against the Lecompton document. The statehood constitution was ultimately submitted to the general population of Kansas, who overwhelmingly defeated the illegitimate document. However, Kansas was not admitted to the union, as a free state, until the closing days of the Buchanan administration. By then several southern states had already seceded. Buchanan had failed. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bergman, Peter M. The Chronological History of the Negro in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Black, Earl and Black, Merle. The Vital South: How Presidents Are Elected. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Brinkley, Alan. American History, A Survey, Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. Meltzer, Milton. Milestones to American Liberty: the Foundations of the Republic. New York: Cromwell, 1961. Saturday Evening Post. The Presidents. Indianapolis: Curtis Publishing, 1980. Shields-West, Eileen. World Almanac of Presidential Campaigns. New York: Pharos Books, 1992. Stamp, Kenneth M. America in 1857. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Prisoners of War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ST. ROBERT'S CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL "PRISONERS OF WAR" BY: Presented to: Mrs. Provato ENG 2A0-04 Wednesday December 8, 1993 PRISONERS OF WAR Dear: The International Red Cross I am writing a letter to you today to mention how the prisoners of war were treated throughout the second world war. If you have never been a Prisoner of War (POW), you are extremely lucky. The prisoners of war during the World War II, (1939-1945) were treated poorly with no respect or consideration and were given the living conditions worse than animals. It was an extremely bad situation that no human being could survive. They were mistreated, manhandled, beat and even shot defending their country. No one wanted to go to war, but for those men who did, and for those who survived as POWs will always regret it. The Prisoners of War were kept in concentration camps, where it was day to day constant dying and suffering and separation of the family with unconditional weather. 1 They had no real shelter, and kept busy by working, and the odd time even got a chance to play baseball, soccer or some athletic game to stay in shape. 2 They were surrounded by twenty-four hour guard surveillance in the middle of nowhere, so it would be quite useless to attempt to escape, especially at the risk of being gunned down at any given time. The POW were always having to turn their back and keep an eye out for one another. They were considered to be "hostages" and were treated like the enemy. The concentration camps were not very large but were numerous. They contained about 500-600 warriors and were divided into groups of under sixteen, older than sixteen, and of course by gender (Male and Female). 3 This caused many problems with the POWs as they were split from their families, and in a lot of cases, never saw one another again. The Prisoners of War were killed by the hundreds as malnutrition and hygiene eventually caught up with them. They were put to work for lengthy periods of time, and we treated harshly for volunteering to go to war. Once caught, they were taken and placed in a camp, and it was the beginning of the end for the ally. It is not like a prisoner in today's society. The prisoners had to live with leftover scraps of food, dirty water, and no hope of exiting, plus the constant shooting. They were not prisoner whom had committed a crime, rather brave warriors whom stood up to defend us. 4 It is a life no one wants to encounter, and we pray no one does, and we remember how they were abused and how they suffered to protect us. This special day is called Remembrance Day and is celebrated the eleventh day of the eleventh month. BIBLIOGRAPHY WORLD WAR II, "Prisoners" Marshall Cavendish Ltd, New York, Vol VIII. 940.53 WORLD WAR II, "Prisoners of War" Marshall Cavendish Ltd, New York, Vol III. 940.53 WORLD WAR II, "Prisoners of War" Marshall Cavendish Ltd, New York, Vol X. 940.53 Gosselin, Luc. PRISONS IN CANADA, Montreal, Quebec: Black Rose Books, 1982 ENDNOTES f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Quebecs Quiet revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Quebec's Quiet revolution: What is it? How has it changed Quebec's society? How has it affected Confederation? The English-French relations have not always been easy. Each is always arguing and accusing the other of wrong doings. All this hatred and differences started in the past, and this Quiet revolution, right after a new Liberal government led by Jean Lesage came in 1960. Thus was the beginning of the Quiet Revolution. Lesage had an excellent team of cabinet ministers which included Rene Levesque. The Liberals promised to do two things during the Quiet Revolution; one was to improve economic and social standards for the people of Quebec, and the other was to win greater respect and recognition for all the French people of Canada. The Liberals started a program to take control of hydro- electric power companies. French-Canadian engineers from all over Canada returned to Quebec to work on the project. Slogans during these times were "we can do it" and "masters in our own homes". The government also started to replace programs the Church previously ran, which included hospital insurance, pension schemes and the beginning of Medi-Care. For these programs, the Quebec Liberals had to struggle with Ottawa for a larger share of the tax dollars. One of the greatest reforms was the modernization of the entire school system. The Church used to own the schools of Quebec. Most of the teachers were Priests, Nuns and Brothers. They provided a good education but Quebec needed more in business and technology. Lesage wanted a government-run school system that would provide Quebec with people in engineering, science, business and commerce. With the new freedom of expression, lots of books, plays and music about French culture were all developed in Quebec. French contemporary playwrights were very famous during that time. However, not all was going well in Quebec. The French-English relation was going bad. Many studies showed that French-Canadian Quebecers were earning the lowest wage in all of the ethnic groups in Canada. Other complaints were that the top jobs in Quebec were given to English speaking Canadians. Canada was going through the worst crisis in its history, and unless equal partnership was found a break-up would likely happen. Some Quebecers thought that separation was the only solution. They thought that as long as Quebec was associated with the rest of Canada, French-Canadians would never be treated equal. The FLQ (Front De Libération Du Québec) was founded in 1963. It was a smaller, more forceful group of separatists. They were a collection of groups of young people whose idea was to use terrorism to achieve independence for Quebec. The ALQ (L'Armée de Libération de Quebec) was even more of a violent separatist group. Some of their actions included robbing banks in order to get money. For their ammunition they had to raid arms depots of the Canadian Armed Forces. There were many Federalists that believed that separatism had no future and that French-Canadians could play a role in a bi-lingual Canada. There were three Quebec men that believed in Federalism. These men were Liberals and their names were Pierre Trudeau, Jean Marchand and Gérard Pelletier. The President of France, General De Gaulle came to Quebec in 1967 and gave speeches to separatist groups that deemed him an enthusiast of the thoughts of the separatists in the struggle to fight for the liberation of Quebec. The Prime Minister at the time, Lester B. Pearson, criticized De Gaulle's remarks and said that Quebec belonged to Canada and there was no need for their liberation. In 1970, British Trade Commissioner James R. Cross was kidnapped by FLQ and wanted in return for Cross, 23 political prisoners. Quebec Labour Minister, Pierre Laporte was also kidnapped which started a Quebec crisis. After a few months Cross returned when Laporte was assassinated. The Quebec crisis ended several years of violence in Quebec. This crisis made many Quebecers upset because Ottawa sent the army into Quebec. Therefore English- French turmoil did not end. Rene Levesque was a leader who became very popular in Quebec with his views on independence. In 1976, Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois won the Provincial election. Now many Quebecers thought he could build up Quebec. Since many French were lower then English in status, Quebecers thought the Parti Quebecois could do something about it. Then the two languages became a major issue. Many businesses had a sign in French only, and doctors and nurses had to speak French. These were all effects on Bill 101 by the Parti Quebecois. Immigrants were educated only in French. Businesses accused the Parti Quebecois of practising economic blackmail. Quebec Nationalists wanted an independent state so that they could have full control over their territory. But many top authorities in Canada say it is not legal for a Province to leave. Levesque said that he wanted a Quebec that was independent but joined Canada in the market. Levesque wanted to protect Quebec culture. Many people in Quebec opposed the separation. An organization called the Positive Action Committee was formed to help fight the separation dispute. Quebec was not the only Province that wanted more political power for themselves. Canada was working an a new Constitution and wanted to replace the BNA Act of 1867. If a new Constitution was made, Quebec might remain a part of Canada. The Constitution had to make all the Provinces happy. It would have to recognize the partnership between the French and the English in the history of Quebec. The Federal Liberals probably helped tip the balance in favour of the no vote. The referendum campaign in the early 80's was intense. Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque and the PQ desperately wanted the vote to be a resounding "oui". The referendum was a critical test for the PQ government. The PQ's (Parti Quebecois) was elected out of the separatist platform. Their party represented the bone of forming independence of Quebec. In order for the independence movement to take greater strides, the Parti Qubecois would have to encourage an "our" vote in the Referendum. There were intense battles to win the opinion and admiration of the Quebec population with ads in newspapers, magazines, on T.V and radio. With a resounding "no vote" in the makings, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was prepared to bring on the Constitution. Trudeau made a speech on May 14th, which was a sincere commitment to a new Canada. He was determined that Canada would have a new Federal system of government. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Quebecs silent revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Quebec's Quiet revolution: What is it? How has it changed Quebec's society? How has it affected Confederation? The English-French relations have not always been easy. Each is always arguing and accusing the other of wrong doings. All this hatred and differences started in the past, and this Quiet revolution, right after a new Liberal government led by Jean Lesage came in 1960. Thus was the beginning of the Quiet Revolution. Lesage had an excellent team of cabinet ministers which included Rene Levesque. The Liberals promised to do two things during the Quiet Revolution; one was to improve economic and social standards for the people of Quebec, and the other was to win greater respect and recognition for all the French people of Canada. The Liberals started a program to take control of hydro-electric power companies. French-Canadian engineers from all over Canada returned to Quebec to work on the project. Slogans during these times were "we can do it" and "masters in our own homes". The government also started to replace programs the Church previously ran, which included hospital insurance, pension schemes and the beginning of Medi-Care. For these programs, the Quebec Liberals had to struggle with Ottawa for a larger share of the tax dollars. One of the greatest reforms was the modernization of the entire school system. The Church used to own the schools of Quebec. Most of the teachers were Priests, Nuns and Brothers. They provided a good education but Quebec needed more in business and technology. Lesage wanted a government-run school system that would provide Quebec with people in engineering, science, business and commerce. With the new freedom of expression, lots of books, plays and music about French culture were all developed in Quebec. French contemporary playwrights were very famous during that time. However, not all was going well in Quebec. The French-English relation was going bad. Many studies showed that French-Canadian Quebecers were earning the lowest wage in all of the ethnic groups in Canada. Other complaints were that the top jobs in Quebec were given to English speaking Canadians. Canada was going through the worst crisis in its history, and unless equal partnership was found a break-up would likely happen. Some Quebecers thought that separation was the only solution. They thought that as long as Quebec was associated with the rest of Canada, French-Canadians would never be treated equal. The FLQ (Front De Libération Du Québec) was founded in 1963. It was a smaller, more forceful group of separatists. They were a collection of groups of young people whose idea was to use terrorism to achieve independence for Quebec. The ALQ (L'Armée de Libération de Quebec) was even more of a violent separatist group. Some of their actions included robbing banks in order to get money. For their ammunition they had to raid arms depots of the Canadian Armed Forces. There were many Federalists that believed that separatism had no future and that French-Canadians could play a role in a bi-lingual Canada. There were three Quebec men that believed in Federalism. These men were Liberals and their names were Pierre Trudeau, Jean Marchand and Gérard Pelletier. The President of France, General De Gaulle came to Quebec in 1967 and gave speeches to separatist groups that deemed him an enthusiast of the thoughts of the separatists in the struggle to fight for the liberation of Quebec. The Prime Minister at the time, Lester B. Pearson, criticized De Gaulle's remarks and said that Quebec belonged to Canada and there was no need for their liberation. In 1970, British Trade Commissioner James R. Cross was kidnapped by FLQ and wanted in return for Cross, 23 political prisoners. Quebec Labour Minister, Pierre Laporte was also kidnapped which started a Quebec crisis. After a few months Cross returned when Laporte was assassinated. The Quebec crisis ended several years of violence in Quebec. This crisis made many Quebecers upset because Ottawa sent the army into Quebec. Therefore English-French turmoil did not end. Rene Levesque was a leader who became very popular in Quebec with his views on independence. In 1976, Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois won the Provincial election. Now many Quebecers thought he could build up Quebec. Since many French were lower then English in status, Quebecers thought the Parti Quebecois could do something about it. Then the two languages became a major issue. Many businesses had a sign in French only, and doctors and nurses had to speak French. These were all effects on Bill 101 by the Parti Quebecois. Immigrants were educated only in French. Businesses accused the Parti Quebecois of practising economic blackmail. Quebec Nationalists wanted an independent state so that they could have full control over their territory. But many top authorities in Canada say it is not legal for a Province to leave. Levesque said that he wanted a Quebec that was independent but joined Canada in the market. Levesque wanted to protect Quebec culture. Many people in Quebec opposed the separation. An organization called the Positive Action Committee was formed to help fight the separation dispute. Quebec was not the only Province that wanted more political power for themselves. Canada was working an a new Constitution and wanted to replace the BNA Act of 1867. If a new Constitution was made, Quebec might remain a part of Canada. The Constitution had to make all the Provinces happy. It would have to recognize the partnership between the French and the English in the history of Quebec. The Federal Liberals probably helped tip the balance in favour of the no vote. The referendum campaign in the early 80's was intense. Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque and the PQ desperately wanted the vote to be a resounding "oui". The referendum was a critical test for the PQ government. The PQ's (Parti Quebecois) was elected out of the separatist platform. Their party represented the bone of forming independence of Quebec. In order for the independence movement to take greater strides, the Parti Qubecois would have to encourage an "our" vote in the Referendum. There were intense battles to win the opinion and admiration of the Quebec population with ads in newspapers, magazines, on T.V and radio. With a resounding "no vote" in the makings, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was prepared to bring on the Constitution. Trudeau made a speech on May 14th, which was a sincere commitment to a new Canada. He was determined that Canada would have a new Federal system of government. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Revolution in Cuba.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Revolution in Cuba The revolution in Cuba was not a result of economic deprivation, nor because of high expectations in the economy, it was the political factors and expectations which evoked the civilians to revolt. The Cuban economy was moving forward at the time before the rebellion but the dominant influence of the sugar industry made the economy "assymetrical" and encouraged no "dynamic industrial sector". Because of the dependance on sugar, the unemployment rate ranged between 16 and 20% rising and falling with sugar prices, ebbing and flowing as the season changed. The rural wage levels were incredibly unsteady and unpredictable; the standard of living was low. Dependance on the sugar industry did not retard the economy of Cuba, just the wages of its workers. It was the leaders of the nation who reaped profit from this dependance, and it was the leaders of the nation who insisted on keeping the nation the way it was. By the mid 1950's, however, the middle class had expanded to 33% of the population. Democracy, as we know it, broke down: the large middle class did not assert democratic leadership, there was no social militancy in the working class ranks, and the people found order preferable to disarray. Batista could no longer legitimize his regime . Failure in the elections of 1954 showed the discontent of the people, and failure in communications with the United States illustrated its discontent. Finally, opposing forces confronted Batista's power: there were street protests, confrontations with the police, assault, sabotage, and urban violence. This began the revolution in Cuba. America, with its stubborn ideas and misjudgements of character, forced Castro to turn to the Soviets for alliance and aid. When Castro visited the United States in April, 1959, there were different respected individuals holding different views of him and his future actions. Nixon believed Castro to be naive, some others thought him a welcome change from Batista, still others called him an "immature but effective leader, without a well formed view of how to lead a revolutionary movement and not overly concerned with abstract of philosophical matters" (p. 55). Why, then, did the United States impress nit-picky ideals like "there should not be communists in the Army or in labor", or "Cuba's approach to the Batista trials is totally unacceptable, too casual, too nonchalant" on this "forming" leader? Castro was like an inexperienced murderer with a gun in his hand: any rustle in the background could set off his nervous trigger finger causing death, destruction, and liaisons with the U.S.S.R. When America expressed dislike of the trial procedures Castro was holding, of course he (Castro) would try to prove he was able to run his country by himself and snub the U.S. ambassador. The United States had so much invested in Cuba that it was stupid to think that Cuba could not retaliate when the U.S. cut off sugar imports. America was just too sure of itself thinking it could get away with criticism and acts like that when an "immature" leader was in control. Cuba was not totally dependant on the United States and proved itself so. If Cuba could not find help and support in America, it sought elsewhere for those who smiled on its actions and ideals. Castro found friends in Russia; the United States made this so. Succeeding and failing have alot to do with judgement. For the United States, the revolution was a failure because the result was a communist nation in the Carribean. For the revolutionarie s in Cuba, the revolution accomplished many of their goals: capitalism was abolished and socialism installed eroding class distinctions and eliminating private property, the working conditions improved, women's rights improved, labor unions were recogniz ed, the military became more modern and advanced, political order was restored, the status of the country improved from dependant to independant, and many more. For the people of Cuba, therefore, the revolution can be viewed as a success (if communism ca n be seen as acceptable), but for America, the result was a failure. Latin America is one of the poorest and underdeveloped sections of the world. Because of this fact, it is difficult for its nations to compete and thrive in the world market with modern nations as they struggle to industrialize and improve their status. Capitalism, as a basis for an economy, means that each man has to struggle to make a living, that each man may fail and starve, and that each man may get a lucky break and thrive. We saw this struggle of the lower classes clearly in Mexico during their industrialization. With communism, a man may not become of greater status than he is born with, but then again that status is no better than his neighbors; this man is, however, guaranteed a certain amount of land, for example, and a certain home and a certain salary. To the poor, those threatened by the extreme of starving, this idea is very appitizing. To a nation undergoing change, where there are many poor and these poor co uld get hurt by the industrialization, communism is appealing in every way. The United States has to learn that it is not in total control. We cannot go around condemning countries which hold procedures different than our own. The developing count ries in Latin America must struggle through economically and politically hard times to reach their own maturity; this means experimentating with different styles of government to find out which is best for the specific country. If America wants democrac y to reign over the Carribean, Central, and South America, it should make the idea appealing, show these countries that it can work. America should support strong democratic leaders, encourage capitalistic moves they (the countries) make, and advise the nations when they need or ask for it. Mexico is an example where democracy worked, in Cuba, it didn't. Force will get us nowhere in preventing the spread of communism, either will cutting off relations with countries who are still debating U. S. A. or U . S. S. R. America has too many interests in Latin America to force it into alliance with the Soviets. If America is supportive and acts like a friend--not a dictator--these nations will develop naturally and see that democracy is the best for them. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\RISE AND FALL OF THE HITLER REICH.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RISE AND FALL OF THE HITLER REICH The Rise and Fall of Hitlers Reich Feeling that all was lost, Hitler shot himself on April 30, 1945. By orders formally given by him before his death, SS officers immersed Hitler's body in gasoline and burned it in the garden of the Chancellery. Soon after the suicide of Hitler, the Germ On Easter Sunday April 20, 1889, at an inn called the Gasth of Zum Pommer, the wife of an Austrian Customs official gave birth to a son, Adolf Hitler. He was the fourth child to the parents of Alois and Klara Hitler of Austria. Hitler was a good student. One of the teachers in his high school classified young Hitler as "notorious, cantankerous, willful, arrogant, and irascible. He has an obvious difficulty in fitting in at school." He did well enough to get by in some of his courses but had no time for Adolf saw no real reason to stay in high school. He left school at age sixteen without a leaving certificate. In September 1907, Hitler left home taking with him all the money left to him by his father, who had died a few years earlier. The money would preliminary examination, the applicant was asked to submit drawings. Biblical drawings were most preferred. Hitler's drawings were returned saying they were "too wooden and too lifeless." He was rejected. He tried three months later and did not get pa Hitler moved into an apartment with his friend in Vienna. He pretended to be a student living off his relatives money. He read many books and sat in on the Austrian government sessions . Hitler speaks of his life in Vienna as "five years in which I had In 1913, Hitler moved to Munich. Life was not much better there until the First World War started in 1914. While many people were frightened and sad at the thought of a world war, Hitler was delighted. He held the rank of corporal, and in forty-seven b On October 13th 1918, a month before Germany surrendered to the Allies, his good luck ran out. When Hitler and his fellow dispatch runners were waiting in line for their food rations, British troops began lobbing high explosive shells nearby. Some of th Hitler soon regained use of his eyes, but as he was about to rejoin his regiment, he got the terrible news of Germany's surrender. "Once again, everything went black before my eyes, and I tottered and groped my way back to the place where we slept and bu As part of Hitler's job, he investigated a party called "the German Workers' Party." He was disgusted how the group had no organization, although he was in favor of many of the party's ideas. To follow up with his job, he joined the group to make sure t Hitler finally found his talent as a great orator. He first became aware of his talent while teaching at the University of Munich. When he talked, he held his audiences spellbound. He would sometimes lose five pounds a night by getting so active in his He persuaded the other party members to rent one of the largest halls in Munich_one that seated at least 2,000 people. There Hitler made of list of demands to the German government. Point twenty-five said, "For modern society, a colossus with feet of cl Ernst Rohm, a friend of Hitler's, organized a group of storm troopers for Hitler. The German name for storm troopers was Storm Abtcilung, or SA for short. They first beat and killed hecklers at Nazi speakings. When there were no hecklers, they found Je By the summer of 1923, the Nazi party had grown to 150,000 members. With the Nazi movement growing so rapidly, Hitler knew it was time to make a move on Germany. November 11, 1923 seemed like a perfect time for Hitler to make the grab for power. It was Hitler captured the government leaders and forced them to join him. His 3,000 men then marched to Berlin in an attempt to take it over. The German police were waiting. Shots were fired and sixteen nazis and two policemen lay dead. Hundreds more were w The trial was a "political circus". Hitler was allowed to speak for hours at a time. During one of his speeches he said, "It is the External Court of History _ That court will judge us _ as Germans who wanted the best for their people and their fatherla Hitler served only nine months of his five-year sentence. The guards gave him a suite of several adjoining rooms where guests could come or go as they pleased. He was sent many gifts and grew visibly fatter. He wrote a book called Mein Kampf, or My Str The government banned the Nazi party after the revolt. There were also many reasons for lack of Nazi activity. The Allies had loosened their grip on the German economy. The French had left the Ruhr leaving Germany's industries intact, and the United St The depression in America caused the economic system in Germany to plummet. Because of the harsh times, Nazis got two million more votes then the Communist party. The election put them just under the Democratic party and gave them 107 more seats in the House. Hitler was planning on running for President of Germany against Paul Von Hinderburg, a social democrat. Hitler campaigned frequently, going to every major city and town. He was the f By 1932 the SA troops numbered 400,000. The SA's goal was to make people afraid, and they accomplished that with ease. One of the most popular chants of the SA troops is as follows: "Sharpen the knives on the sidewalk so that they can cut the enemy's bo In the election of 1932, Hitler could not beat out the eighty-five year old President Hindenburg. However, 230 Nazi candidates held seats, and Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany. It was the second highest position in the German government. With only Hitler still was not elected to the Presidency. Using force, Hitler got Hinderburg to pass a law that abolished freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly. Hitler then brought before the court the Enabling Act. This law gave Hitler the power of a After the bills were passed, the German military feared that when Hitler took full leadership of the country, they would lose control, and the SA would take over. Hitler assured the military that this was not true. To gain their trust, he gave them a li In August of 1934 President Hindenburg died. Hitler's last obstacle in his quest for complete power was removed. Using his unlimited powers, he combined the offices of president and chancellor. To everyone in Germany he was now Der Fuhrer, the leader. Avoiding capture by the approaching forces, Hitler shot himself on April 30, 1945. The world was never the same again. Hitler's Reich was over, and millions of jews were dead. Quite rightly, the world asked questions: How could this have happened? f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Rise of the Superpowers.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rise of the Superpowers (USA & USSR) from events prior to and during WWII World War II: the process of superpowerdom It is often wondered how the superpowers achieved their position of dominance. It seems that the maturing of the two superpowers, Russia and the United States, can be traced to World War II. To be a superpower, a nation needs to have a strong economy, an overpowering military, immense international political power and, related to this, a strong national ideology. It was this war, and its results, that caused each of these superpowers to experience such a preponderance of power. Before the war, both nations were fit to be described as great powers, but it would be erroneous to say that they were superpowers at that point. To understand how the second World War impacted these nations so greatly, we must examine the causes of the war. The United States gained its strength in world affairs from its status as an economic power. In the years before the war, America was the world's largest producer. In the USSR at the same time, Stalin was implementing his 'five year plans' to modernise the Soviet economy. From these situations, similar foreign policies resulted from widely divergent origins. Roosevelt's isolationism emerged from the wide and prevalent domestic desire to remain neutral in any international conflicts. It commonly widely believed that Americans entered the first World War simply in order to save industry's capitalist investments in Europe. Whether this is the case or not, Roosevelt was forced to work with an inherently isolationist Congress, only expanding its horizons after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. He signed the Neutrality Act of 1935, making it illegal for the United States to ship arms to the belligerents of any conflict. The act also stated that belligerents could buy only non-armaments from the US, and even these were only to be bought with cash. In contrast, Stalin was by necessity interested in European affairs, but only to the point of concern to the USSR. Russian foreign policy was fundamentally Leninist in its concern to keep the USSR out of war. Stalin wanted to consolidate Communist power and modernise the country's industry. The Soviet Union was committed to collective action for peace, as long as that commitment did not mean that the Soviet Union would take a brunt of a Nazi attack as a result. Examples of this can be seen in the Soviet Unions' attempts to achieve a mutual assistance treaty with Britain and France. These treaties, however, were designed more to create security for the West, as opposed to keeping all three signatories from harm. At the same time, Stalin was attempting to polarise both the Anglo-French, and the Axis powers against each other. The important result of this was the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, which partitioned Poland, and allowed Hitler to start the war. Another side-effect of his policy of playing both sides was that it caused incredible distrust towards the Soviets from the Western powers after 1940. This was due in part to the fact that Stalin made several demands for both influence in the Dardanelles, and for Bulgaria to be recognised as a Soviet dependant. The seeds of superpowerdom lie here however, in the late thirties. R.J. Overy has written that "stability in Europe might have been achieved through the existence of powers so strong that they could impose their will on the whole of the international system, as has been the case since 1945...." At the time, there was no power in the world that could achieve such a feat. Britain and France were in imperial decline, and more concerned about colonial economics than the stability of Europe. Both imperial powers assumed that empire-building would necessarily be an inevitable feature of the world system. German aggression could have been stifled early had the imperial powers had acted in concert. The memories of World War One however, were too powerful, and the general public would not condone a military solution at that point. The aggression of Germany, and to a lesser extent that of Italy, can be explained by this decline of imperial power. They were simply attempting to fill the power vacuum in Europe that Britain and France unwittingly left. After the economic crisis of the 1930's, Britain and France lost much of their former international standing--as the world markets plummeted; so did their relative power. The two nations were determined to maintain their status as great powers however, without relying on the US or the USSR for support of any kind. They went to war only because further appeasement would have only served to remove from them their little remaining world standing and prestige. The creation of a non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany can be viewed as an example of imperial decline as well. Stalin explained the fact that he reached a rapprochement with Germany, and not one with Great Britain by stating that "the USSR and Germany had wanted to change the old equilibrium... England and France wanted to preserve it. Germany also wanted to make a change in the equilibrium, and this common desire to get rid of the old equilibrium had created the basis for the rapprochement with Germany." The common desire of many of the great European powers for a change in the world state system meant that either a massive war would have to be fought; or that one of the great powers would need to attempt to make the leap to superpower status without reaping the advantages such a conflict could give to the power making the attempt. Such benefits as wartime economic gains, vastly increased internal markets from conquered territory, and increased access to resources and the means of industrial production would help fuel any nation's drive for superpowerdom. One of two ways war could have been avoided was for the United States or Russia to have taken powerful and vigorous action against Germany in 1939. Robert A. Divine, holds that "superpowerdom gives a nation the framework by which a nation is able to extend globally the reach of its power and influence." This can be seen especially as the ability to make other nations (especially in the Third World) act in ways that the superpower prefers, even if this is not in the weaker nation's self interest. The question must then be raised, were the United States and Russia superpowers even then, could coercive, unilateral actions taken by them have had such significant ramifications for the international order? It must be concluded that, while they were not yet superpowers, they certainly were great powers, with the incredible amount of influence that accompanies such status. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union possessed the international framework necessary to be a super power at this time. It is likely that frameworks similar to Nato or the Warsaw Pact could have been developed, but such infrastructures would have necessarily been on a much smaller scale, and without influence as the proposed Anglo-American (English speaking world) pact was. At this time, neither the United States nor Russia had developed the overwhelming advantages that they possessed at the end of the war. There are several factors that allowed them to become superpowers: a preponderance of military force, growing economies, and the creation of ideology-backed blocs of power. The United States, it seems, did not become a superpower by accident. Indeed, Roosevelt had a definite European policy that was designed from the start to secure a leading role for the United States. The US non-policy which ignored Eastern Europe in the late thirties and forties, while strongly supported domestically, was another means to Roosevelt's plans to achieve US world supremacy. After the war, Roosevelt perceived that the way to dominate world affairs was to reduce Europe's international role (vis-à-vis the United States, as the safest way of preventing future world conflict), the creation of a permanent superpower rivalry with the USSR to ensure world stability. Roosevelt sought to reduce Europe's geopolitical role by ensuring the fragmentation of the continent into small, relatively powerless, and ethnically homogenous states. When viewed in light of these goals Roosevelt appears very similar to Stalin who, in Churchill's words, "Wanted a Europe composed of little states, disjointed, separate, and weak." Roosevelt was certain that World War Two would destroy continental Europe as a military and economic force, removing Germany and France from the stage of world powers. This would leave the United States, Great Britain, and the USSR as the last remaining European world powers. In order to make it nearly impossible for France to reclaim her former world position, Roosevelt objected to De Gaul taking power immediately after the war. Roosevelt defended the Allies "right [to] hold the political situation in trust for the French people." He presented General Eisenhower control of France and Italy for up to a year, in order to "restore civil order." As British foreign minister Anthony Eden stated, "... Roosevelt wanted to hold the strings of France's future in his hands, so that he could decide that country's fate." It seems inexcusable that Roosevelt desired to hold an ally's nation in trust, comparable to Italy, who was a belligerent. It could be argued, however that they were taking the reigns of power, not from the resistance, but from the hands of the Vichy French. It might be asked why Roosevelt did not plot the fall of the British Empire as well. A cynical answer to this is that Roosevelt understood that the United States was not powerful enough to check the Soviet Union's power in Europe by itself. It made sense that because the United States and Britain are cultural cousins, the most commodious solution would be to continue the tradition of friendliness, set out in the Atlantic Charter earlier. As far as economic or military competition, Roosevelt knew that if he could open the British Empire to free trade it would not be able to effectively compete with the United States. This is because an imperial paradigm allows one to sell goods in a projectionist manner, finding markets within the Empire. This allows a nation to have restrictive tariffs on imports, which precludes foreign competition. A nation, that is primarily concerned with finding markets on the other hand, is in a much better position for global economic expansion, as it is in its interest to pursue free trade. The more generous, and likely the correct interpretation is that Roosevelt originally planned to have a system of three superpowers, including only the US, the UK, and the USSR. This was modified from the original position which was formed before the USSR joined the allies, that held for Great Britain to take a primary role in Europe, and the United States to act as a custodial in Asia. Later, after it was seen that either the Germans or the Russians would dominate Eastern Europe, the plan was forced to change. The plan shifted from one where the US and Great Britain would keep order in Europe, to one where Great Britain and the USSR would keep order in Europe as local superpowers, and the US would act as an impartial, world wide mediator. Roosevelt hoped for the creation of an Anglo-American-Russo world police force. However, Roosevelt, underestimated the power of the Russian ideology. He believed that the Russians would back away from communism for the sake of greater stability and union with the West. Roosevelt saw the Soviet Union as a country like any other, except for her preoccupation with security (the safety corridor in Eastern Europe that Stalin insisted on), but he thought that that this could be explained by the cultural and historical background of Russia. It was not thought unreasonable to request a barrier of satellite states to provide a sense of security, given that Russia and the USSR had been invaded at least four times since 1904. It was felt that granting the Soviet Union some territory in Eastern and Central Europe would satisfy their political desires for territory. It was only after experiencing post World War II Soviet expansion, that the Soviet quest for territory was seen to be inherently unlimited. Roosevelt felt that the position in Eastern Europe, vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, was analogous to that of Latin America, vis-à-vis the United States. He felt that there should be definite spheres of influence, as long as it was clear that the Soviet Union was not to interfere with the governments of the affected nations. The reason that Roosevelt did not object to a large portion of Eastern Europe coming under the totalitarian control of the Soviet Union was that he believed the weakness in the Soviet economy caused by the war would require Stalin to seek Western aid, and open the Russians to Western influence. Many historians feel that Roosevelt was simply naive to believe that the Soviet Union would act in such a way. Arthur Schlesinger saw the geopolitical and ideological differences between the United States and the Soviet Union. He stressed however, the ideological differences as being most important. "The two nations were constructed on opposite and profoundly antagonistic principles. They were divided by the most significant and fundamental disagreements over human rights, individual liberties, cultural freedom, the role of civil society, the direction of history, and the destiny of man." Stalin's views regarding the possibility of rapprochement between the USSR and the West were similar. He thought that the Russian Revolution created two antipodal camps: Anglo-America and Soviet Russia. Stalin felt that the best way to ensure the continuation of communist world revolution was to continually annex the countries bordering the Soviet Union, instead of attempting to foster revolution in the more advanced industrial societies. This is the underlying reason behind the Soviet Union's annexation of much of Eastern Europe, and the subjugation of the rest. The creation of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe did not come as a total surprise. Roosevelt thought that America's position after the war, vis-à-vis the rest of the world, would put him in a very good position to impose his view of the post-war world order. The Joint Chiefs of Staff however, predicted that after the German defeat, the Russians would be able to impose whatever territorial settlement they wanted in Central Europe and the Balkans. World War II caused the USSR to rapidly evolve from a military farce, to a military superpower. In 1940 it was hoped that if the Soviet Union was attacked, that they could hold off the Germans long enough for the West to help fight them off with reinforcements. In 1945 the Soviet Army was marching triumphantly through Berlin. Was this planned by Stalin in the same way that Roosevelt seems to have planned to achieve world supremacy? The answer to this question must be a somewhat ambivalent "no." While Stalin desired to see Russian dominance in Europe and Asia if possible, he did not have a systematic plan to achieve it. Stalin was an opportunist, and a skilful one. He demanded that Britain and America recognise territory gained by the Soviet Union in pacts and treaties that it had signed with Germany, for instance. Stalin's main plan seemed to be to conquer all the territory that his armies could reach, and create to socialist states within it. From this it can be seen that one of the primary reasons for the superpower rivalry was Roosevelt's misunderstanding of the Soviet system. Roosevelt and his advisors thought that giving the Soviet Union control of Central and Eastern Europe, would result in the creation of states controlled somewhat similar to the way in which the United States controlled Cuba after the Platt Amendment. The State Department assumed that the USSR would simply control the foreign policy of the satellite nations, leaving the individual countries open to Western trade. This idea was alien to Soviet leaders. To be controlled by the Soviet Union at all was to become a socialist state; freedom to decide the domestic structure, or how to interact with the world markets was denied to such states. Stalin assumed that his form of control over these states would mean the complete Sovietization of their societies, and Roosevelt was blind to the internal logic of the Soviet system which in effect required this. Roosevelt believed that the dissolution of Comintern in 1943, along with the defeat of Trotsky, meant that Stalin was looking to move the Soviet Union westward in its political alignment. While Stalin might have been primarily concerned with "socialism in one country," communist revolution was a "paramount, if deferred policy goal." Roosevelt's desire for a favourable post-war settlement appears to be naive at first glance. The post war plan that he had created was dependant upon the creation of an open market economy, and the prevailing nature of the dollar. He was convinced that the Soviet Union would move westward and abandon its totalitarian political system along with its policy of closed and internal markets. When seen from such a perspective, Roosevelt's agreement to let the Soviet Union dominate half of Europe does not seem as ludicrous. His fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Soviet state can be forgiven, once it has been allowed that an apparently peaceful nature was apparent at the time, and that it had existed for a relatively short time. While the United States wanted to "eschew isolationism, and set and example of international co-operation in a world ripe for United States leadership," the Soviet Union was organising its ideals around the vision of a continuing struggle between two fundamentally antagonistic ideologies. "The decisive period of the century, so far as the eventual fate of democracy was concerned, came with the defeat of fascism in 1945 and the American-sponsored conversion of Germany and Japan to democracy and a much greater degree of economic liberalism...." Such was the result of America attempting to spread its ideology to the rest of the world. The United States believed that the world at large, especially the Third World, would be attracted to the political views of the West if it could be shown that democracy and free trade provided the citizens of a nation with a higher standard of living. As United States' Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, "To the extent that we are able to manage our domestic affairs successfully, we shall win converts to our creed in every land." It has been seen that Roosevelt and his administration thought that this appeal for converts would extend into the Soviet sphere of influence, and even to the Kremlin itself. The American ideology of democracy is not complete without the accompanying necessity of open markets. America has tried to achieve an open world economy for over a century. From the attempts to keep the open door policy in China to Article VII of the Lend-Lease act, free trade has been seen as central to American security. The United States, in 1939, forced Great Britain to begin to move away from its imperial economic system. Cordell Hull, then Secretary of State, was extremely tough with Great Britain on this point. He used Article VII of the Lend-Lease, which demanded that Britain not create any more colonial economic systems after the war. Churchill fought this measure bitterly, realising that it would mean the effective end of the British Empire, as well as meaning that Great Britain would no longer be able to compete economically with the United States. However, Churchill did eventually agree to it, realising that without the help of the United States, he would lose much more than Great Britain's colonies. American leadership of the international economy--thanks to the institutions created at Bretton Woods in 1944, its strong backing for European integration with the Marshall Plan in 1947 and support for the Schuman Plan thereafter... (both dependent in good measure on American power) created the economic, cultural, military, and political momentum that enabled liberal democracy to flourish in competition with Soviet communism. It was the adoption of the Marshall Plan that allowed Western Europe to make its quick economic recovery from the ashes of World War II. The seeds of the massive expansion of the military-industrial complex of the early fifties are also to be found in the post war recovery. Feeling threatened by the massive amount of aid the United States was giving Western Europe, the Soviet Union responded with its form of economic aid to its satellite counties. This rivalry led to the Western fear of Soviet domination, and was one of the precursors to the arms-race of the Cold War. The foundation for the eventual rise of the Superpowers is clearly found in the years leading up to and during World War II. The possibility of the existence of superpowers arose from the imperial decline of Great Britain and France, and the power vacuum that this decline created in Europe. Germany and Italy tried to fill this hole while Britain and France were more concerned with their colonial empires. The United States and the Soviet Union ended the war with vast advantages in military strength. At the end of the war, the United States was in the singular position of having the world's largest and strongest economy. This allowed them to fill the power gap left in Europe by the declining imperial powers. Does this, however, make them Superpowers? With the strong ideologies that they both possessed, and the ways in which they attempted to diffuse this ideology through out the world after the war, it seems that it would. The question of Europe having been settled for the most part, the two superpowers rushed to fill the power vacuum left by Japan in Asia. It is this, the global dimension of their political, military and economic presence that makes the United States and the USSR superpowers. It was the rapid expansion of the national and international structures of the Soviet Union and the United States during the war that allowed them to assume their roles as superpowers. Bibliography Aga-Rossi, Elena. "Roosevelt's European Policy and the Origins of the Cold War" Telos. Issue 96, Summer 93: pp.65-86. Divine, Robert A. "The Cold War as History" Reviews in American History. Issue 3, vol. 21, Sept 93: 26-32. Dukes, Paul. The Last Great Game: Events, Conjectures, Structures. London: Pinter Publishers, 1989 Le Ferber, Walter. The American Age: US Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad 170 to the Present. New York: W.W. Norton Company, 1994. Morrison, Samuel Elliot. The Two-Ocean War. Boston, MA: Atlantic Little, Brown, 1963. Overy, R.J. The Origins of the Second World War. New York: Longman Inc, 1987. Ovyany Igor. The Origins of World War Two. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1989. Smith, Tony. "The United States and the Global Struggle for Democracy," in America's Mission: The United States and Democracy in the Twentieth Century (New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1995) [http://epn.org/tcf/xxstru 03.html.] 1995 Strik-Strikfeldt, Wilfried. Against Stalin and Hitler. Bungay, Suffolk: Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press), 1970. 1.<#1> Overy R.J. The Origins of the Second World War (Longman: New York) 1987 p.7 <#2> Overy pp. 88-89 2.<#3> Overy p .8 3.<#4> Ovsyany, Igor. The Origins of World War Two (Novosti Press Agency: Moscow) 1989 pp. 31-34. 4.<#5> Overy p. 70 5.<#6> Overy p. 85 6.<#7> Overy p. 89 7.<#8> Overy p. 91 8.<#9> Aga-Rossi p. 81 9.<#10> Divine, Robert A. "The Cold War as History" Reviews in American History, Sept 93, vol 21. p. 528. 10.<#11> Aga-Rossi, Elena. "Roosevelt's European Policy and the Origins of the Cold War" Telos Summer 93. Issue 96 pp. 65-66 11.<#12> Aga-Rossi p. 66 12.<#13> Aga-Rossi p. 69 13.<#14> Aga-Rossi p. 72 14.<#15> Aga-Rossi p. 73 15.<#16> Aga-Rossi p. 77 16.<#17> Aga-Rossi p. 70 17.<#18> Divine p. 528 18.<#19> Aga-Rossi p. 80 19.<#20> Aga-Rossi p. 68 20.<#21> Aga-Rossi pp. 74-75 21.<#22> Aga-Rossi p. 79. 22.<#23> Aga-Rossi p. 83. 23.<#24> Tony Smith, "The United States and the Global Struggle for Democracy," in America's Mission: The United States and Democracy in the Twentieth Century (New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1995) [http://epn.org/tcf/xxstru 03.html.] 1995 24.<#25> Dukes, Paul. The Last Great Game: Events, Conjectures, Structures (Pinter Publishers: London) 1989 p. 107. 25.<#26> Le Ferber, Walter. The American Age: US Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad 170 to the Present. (W.W. Norton Company: New York) 1994 p. 417-418. 26.<#27> Tony Smith, "The United States and the Global Struggle for Democracy," in America's Mission: The United States and Democracy in the Twentieth Century (New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1995) [http://epn.org/tcf/xxstru 03.html.] 1995 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Robert Penn Warren.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Robert Penn Warren Robert Penn Warren, born in Guthrie, Kentucky in 1905, was one of the twentieth century's most eminent American writers. He was a distinguished novelist and poet, literary critic, essayist, short story writer, and coeditor of numerous textbooks. He also a founding editor of The Southern Review, a journal of literary criticism and political thought. The primary influences on Robert Warren's career as a poet were probably his Kentucky boyhood, and his relationships with his father and his maternal grandfather. As a boy, Warren spent many hours on his grandfather's farm, absorbing stories of the Civil War and the local tobacco wars between growers and wholesalers, the subject of his first novel, Night Riders. His grandfather, Thomas Gabriel Penn, had been a calvary officer in the Civil War and was well-read in both military history and poetry, which he sometimes recited for Robert. Robert's father was a banker who had once had aspirations to become a lawyer and a poet. Because of economic troubles, and his responsibility for a family of half-brothers and sisters when his father died, Robert Franklin Warren forsook his literary ambitions and devoted himself to more lucrative businesses. Robert Warren did not always have ambitions to become a writer, in fact, one of his earlier dreams was to become an adventurer on the high seas. This fantasy might have indeed come about, for his father intended to get him an appointment to Annapolis, had it not been for a childhood accident in which he lost sight in one of his eyes. Warren was an outstanding student but there were also many books at home, and he savored reading. His father at one time aspired to be a poet. His grandfather Penn, with whom he spent much time when he was young, was an exceptional storyteller and greatly influenced young Red. But both of these men whom he loved had in some sense failed to achieve. By contrast, Warren was determined to achieve, to be successful. During his college years at Vanderbilt, the sense of being physically maimed, as well as the fear sympathetic blindness in his remaining good eye became almost unbearable. At Vanderbilt University he met Allen Tate, John Crowe Ransom, Donald Davidson, and others interested in poetry. As part of The Fugitives, a private group that met off campus, he delved deeply into poetry, and his first poems were published in their short- lived quarterly. Warren had a remarkable capacity for friendship, and he was in touch with these men all of their lives. For years Tate was "first critic" of his poetry. After graduating from Vanderbilt in 1925, he took a Master's Degree from the University of California at Berkley. After visiting Yale University, he moved to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, where he wrote his first book: John Brown: The Making of a Martyr in 1929. "Red" Warren, as he was known to his friends, married Emma Brescia in 1930, a marriage which ended in divorce 20 years later. In the last several years of that period, Warren was penned with depression and a lack of new material. His period of dissolution did not end until his second marriage to Eleanor Clark in 1952. Warren received many honors including a Pulitzer Prize for the fiction All the King's Men, 1946: This novel illustrating a powerful Southern governor resembling the Louisiana politician Huey P. Long. . He also produced his complex World Enough and Time, based on the Kentucky hanging of Jeremiah Beauchamp for murder in 1826. The research he done for this book was done at the Library of Congress during the time he was Poetry Consultant there. In this research, he uncovered the sorbid tale of Lilburne Lewis, Thomas Jefferson's nephew, who chopped a young slave girl to pieces with a meat ax. Robert struggled to convert the account of the murder into a long dramatic poem, which was to emerge at last in 1953 as Brother to Dragons: A Tale in verse and Voices, one of the most distinctive long poems in American literature. Warren's marriage to Eleanor and the births of their two children, Rosanna and Gabriel, brought new life into his writing. After the Pulitzer Prize-winning Promises: Poems 1954- 1956, dedicated to his children, Warren produced several more novels and a steady stream of poetry. He also wrote his other Pulitzer Prize-winning collection of poems, Now and Then: Poems, in 1978. He is still known to be the only writer to win a Pulitzer in both categories. He also received the prestigious National Medal Now and Then and the Bollingen Prize for Poetry, a MacArthur Prize "genius" grant, and was named the country's first Poet Laureate in 1986. Warren's long record of achievement in American poetry can hardly be equaled in either quantity or quality. In his earlier years, during which, he was an admirer of innovators such as T.S. Elliot and by the revival of interest in seventeenth century poetry. In these years, he produced the best adaptations of the Metaphysical style of any of his contemporaries. One perceptive critic said that, "Warren's own life, his own story, would become partly at least that of an exile telling stories about his homeland." In talking about his work Warren noted: "I am a creature of this world but I am also a yearner. I would call this temperament rather than theology_I haven't got any gospel. That is, I feel an immanence of meaning in things, but I have no meaning to put there that is interesting or beautiful." He continued to deal with timeless themes, and his late poetry is considered among his best. Late in life Warren said: "I'm a naturalist. I don't believe in God. But I want to find meaning in life. I refuse to believe it's merely a dreary sequence of events. So I write stories and poetry. My work is my testimony . . . I want to give myself in sacrifice of some sort. To participate in the common body of human life . . . my poetry lets me do that, but that sounds so trite to say." f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Rock.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rock In this essay, I'm going to introduce to the reader a topic not touched a lot because of its complexity and its avoidance by conservative adults. This topic is, of course, Rock Music. During one week, I looked for information in the library and at my house, and from the information I gathered and my one knowledge about the topic, I'm going to lead the reader to a better understanding of Rock n' Roll. I chose to do Rock music because I can identify myself with it. Rock music is very complex. In fact "It's stylistic scope is to broad to be encompassed by any single definition" ("Rock Music", Groliers, p.1). The nearest definition suggests a kind of music that represents and speaks for the teenage society. This music is characterized by using a heavy beat. In this essay, I'm going to divide Rock music into four sections: Rock of the 50Žs, of the 60Žs, of the 70Žs and of the 80Žs. Within these sections I'm also going to discuss several sub-topics such as famous composers and groups, and characteristics of the music. The first section of this essay is Rock n' Roll of the 1950's, when Rock n' Roll was born. It emerged from rhythm and blues, a music similar to jazz played by blacks. This kind of music started to attract white teenagers. Disc jockey Alan Freed was the one who introduced this music and later gave it the name of Rock n' Roll. Record companies distributed records played by whites but composed by blacks. Whites were frustrated because there weren't any white artists and they didn't want the blacks to be the stars until Bill Haley appeared with his "Rock Around the Clock". In this decade, Elvis Presley introduced a music that was sexual suggestive and outraged dull adults. In time he changed the style of the music by adopting a country and western style and became a national hero. By the end of this decade and the start of the next, Rock n' Roll started to decline because it was formula ridden and it was too sentimental. Teenage audiences transferred their allegiance to Folk music. In 1963 the renewal of Rock n' Roll came when The Beatles started to play. The Beatles, for some the best rock group ever, were from Liverpool, England. Through the 60's, The Beatles dominated the record industries and with their dominant instrumentation, which included: electric leads, rhythm, and bass guitar, drums and sometimes an electric organ, changed the name of Rock n' Roll to just Rock. During the 1960's many other styles of music arose from Rock like, Motown, Soul music, Jazz-rock , Folk-rock and others. Folk-Rock the most appreciated of this derivations and was first suggested by Bob Dylan. This kind of music brought to folk music a hard beat and amplification; and to Rock, a new poetic style. California was one of the major centers of rock activity and experimentation during the decade. First it was characterize for its surfing music, a very joyful music that reflected the fun people had while surfing. The Beach Boys were the ones who introduced this kind of music. At the end of the century this happy kind of music changed to a more rebellious style that was designated the name of "hippie music". Groups that played this music were Country Joe and The Mamas and The Papas. Along with this hippie ideas popularity of hallucinogenic drugs produced a psychedelic style of music called Acid Rock. By the end of the 60Žs the distinctions between Rock nŽ Roll and Rock were evident. The early instruments- saxophone, piano, amplified guitar, and drums- had been changed to electric guitar and bass, amplified drums and other electronic devices. Not only did the instruments change but so did the ideas behind the music. For example, "to the lyrics of teenage love and adolescent concerns were added social commentary, glorification of drugs and free-association poetry"("Rock Music", Groliers, p.1). Groups like The Beach Boys, Crew Cuts and The Everly Brothers were replaced by more imaginative, non-descriptive names groups like The Who, Jefferson Airplane, Big Brother and Holding Company. The Who, the most famous of these groups, were originally from England and were reknowned because of their bizarre stage performances, they would destroy their instruments after their performance finished. The Who was one of the first rock groups. In the 70Žs, the common barriers of rock broke into more divisions, like hard rock and mellow rock. Hard Rock was extremely loud and electronically amplified and Mellow Rock was softer and with acoustic instruments. In 1972, in Jamaica, a new style of music was created called Reggae. Reggae is a mixture of rock, soul, calypso and Latin music. The king of Reggae was Bob Marley. Other styles more in rocks borders, since Reggae was more latin than rock, were created in the middle of this century, like: bubble gum rock, a funny playful music directed to the youngest fans, Punk Rock, "a loud, hard rock style derived from acid rock and marked by its extremes of costume and staging" ("Rock Music", Encarta, p.1), and Heavy Metal, which continued the approach to Acid Rock but with a simpler musical dimension but relying upon the power of repetitiveness, loud volume, and electronic distortion. One famous group of Heavy Metal was Led Zeppelin, a British group that was formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (lead guitar), Robert Plant (lead singer), John Paul Jones (pianist and bassist) and John Bonham (drummer). Most music of this decade was intended to be listened to, but not to be danced. But this intention wasn't kept by Disco music that arose in 1977 and was especially for dancing. One great group of Disco music were the Bee Gees. Disco music was described by rock fans as mechanical, commercial and unlyrical (which is true). At the end of this decade, rock, again became a dominant cultural force. The last but not least section of this essay is rock of the 80's. At the start of this last decade, rock groups became more production oriented, mainly because of the sudden explosion of videos. This new sensation was a good way to sell music to the people. Heavy metal bands were greatly pushed by videos, but most helped were the popular performers like Michael Jackson, Prince and Boy George. The influence of British bands of punk, disco, reggae and pop-rock was still big in the U.S. Rock scene. At the same time, there of nostalgia to return to the older pre rock music, like rhythm and blues, which was suggested by played by Elvis Costello. By the middle of the 80's, almost every country had begun to support indigenous music, and at the end of this "a vigorous talk-song style called rap became extremely popular among urban black teenagers" ("Rock Music", Encarta, p.1.). Rock music taught me to appreciate things in a different way. I've learned this since rock is not an exact science, it can change. In fact Rock music helps me relax ( I would have been able to finish writing this essay with rock music). After writing this essay I have learned the origins of rock and the branches of it, but that wasn't my intention. I wrote this essay to express myself with it because I feel I can show myself with rock music. I think rock has become social phenomenal. Word Count: 1233 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\A comparison of The Aeneid and Metamorphoses.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Both Vergil and Ovid imbedded underlying meanings in their epics The Aeneid and Metamorphoses. In this paper I will focus on the underlying meaning in the Underworld scene in Vergil's The Aeneid (lines 356 through 1199). I will also focus on three scenes in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Both epics contain a larger message about the importance of the Roman past for its present and future under Augustus. The story of Aeneas in the Underworld can be interpreted as a brilliant rendition of the story of Rome's past, present, and future. When Aeneas descends into the Underworld, he is escorted by the Sibyl (lines 347 - 349). This gives the readers a clue that what is to happen in the upcoming text is a foretelling of Roman future because the Sibyl was a prophetess (Course Packet, p16). As Aeneas enters the Underworld, he sees numerous horrible sights: Grief, Disease, Old Age, Fear, Hunger, and several others. (Lines 356 - 379) These unsettling and dark words bring difficult images to the reader's mind. These lines foretell that there will be difficulties while Rome is in its infancy through phrases like "lonely night" and "phantom kingdom". Rome did indeed have difficulties in its infancy; in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE it was ruled by Etruscan kings and was only "... a little hill town." (Short Histories, p20) Lines 390 through 549 in The Aeneid deal with the crossing of the River Styx. This represents a great transition period in Rome. It symbolizes the founding of the Republic. The multitude of rushing and swarming people (Line 402) represents those that suffered the "internal turmoil" in the early stages of the Republic. (Short Histories, p21) When Aeneas mentions, "... and by what rule must some keep off the bank ..." (Lines 419 - 421) he may symbolically be referring to the "Struggle of the Orders" that the early Republic experienced. (Short Histories, p22) As Aeneas wanders through the Underworld, he notices Dido wandering about. (Lines 593 - 626) He tries to talk to her, but his words serve no purpose; she flees from him. He then sees the souls of those who died in battle. (Lines 628 - 650) These lines correspond to the Punic Wars that occurred from 264 to 146 BCE (Short Histories, pg. 24 - 26) because Aeneas offended, and arguably caused the death of, Dido when he left Carthage where he lived with Dido. (The Aeneid Book IV, line 300) In lines 738 - 832 Aeneas beholds the fortress Tartarus and its inhabitants who are being beaten and whipped. This gruesome scene can be related to Julius Caesar's death. The tormented souls could represent the enemies of Caesar. "Caesar had spared the lives of many of his most famous enemies..." (Short Histories, p33) These enemies rose up and slew him for his kindness. The "Tyrant - Slayers" (Short Histories, p34) were soon embattled in war for their unpopular attack. After Aeneas witnesses the horrors of Tartarus, he comes upon the Groves of Blessedness. This utopian abode is where those that served beneficial lives by helping their country, being pious, or advancing the qualities of life reside. (Lines 844 - 889) These lines actually have two hidden meanings. Following th history of Rome, this is the period where Augustus ruled. Vergil is trying to impress Augustus by relating his wisdom while ruling to a heavenly place. The second hidden meaning is that Vergil wanted to portray that those who were "good Roman citizens" had a much greater future to look forward to that those who were "bad citizens". After witnessing all he did in the Underworld, Aeneas finally meets his father Anchises. From lines 999 through 1190, Anchises tells Aeneas what is to come in the near future. Anchises lists the descendants of Aeneas, leaving special mention on Caesar by placing him directly after Romulus. Augustus is glorified as the son of a god, and many great deeds are spoken on his behalf. The epic ends on a sad note: that of Marcellus' death. (Lines 1148 - 1182) This sad ending foretells that Rome will never achieve its full potential, yet it will achieve much. Ovid takes a different approach to his story-telling. Instead of constructing elaborate events which have double meanings, he simply tells several stories. Ovid's works are less complex than Vergil's, and there is much less meaning within his stories. When Pythagoras is speaking, a recurring idea in his speeches is to not eat the flesh of another animal. (Ovid, p337 - 338) On a symbolic level, he is lecturing about taking another person's life. In this sense, Pythagoras may be speaking against murder, and against war. By stating that "... creatures trying to kill us may be killed ..." (p 337) he is implying that it may be necessary to defend one's life against attack, but one should never attack another. In view of Rome's past, this lecture may have come about as a result of the Punic Wars when a large deportation of males from Rome as soldiers caused a serious manpower shortage within the city. (Short Histories, p 25 - 27) Another important message in Pythagoras' speech is that of change. Pythagoras gives several examples of how things seem to change, yet they somehow remain in their original form. (Ovid, p339 - 341) This story can be related to Rome itself. The city, throughout the centuries, changed much. At times it was a mighty empire, at times it was on the verge of collapse. Yet throughout the centuries, Rome has survived in some form, and will continue to do so. Ovid's last story is that of Julius Caesar, his death, and of Augustus' reign. In this part of the epic, the gods play a role in the death of Julius Caesar. Venus tries to let Caesar live, but the other gods intervene and tell her that it is his fate to die (p 355 - 356). Caesar does indeed die, but he is turned into a god upon his death. This glorifies is heir Augustus because he now is the son of a god. Ovid is trying to impress Augustus with flattering words, and by involving so many gods in his stories he is almost making Augustus a living god. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Agamemnon.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Agamemnon Agamemnon is a confusing tale of the people that are waiting for the soldiers to get home from the Trojan war. Most of the play is the chorus singing about many of the things that happened during the war. The play also shows the disrespect the men had for women in that time period. In front of Agamemnon's palace, a watchman wishes his shift would end. He is tired and wants to sleep but he must stay awake. He awaits news from Queen Clytemnestra. The Chorus of Argive elders enters, singing of the war. They sing of the gods, asking for them to help them win the war, and of the great army. They anxiously await the news from the Queen. In the song, they tell how Agamemnon killed his child. He sacrificed his daughter to Apollo so that Apollo would make the winds blow for his armies ships. The chorus thinks that deed was horrible, but had to be done for the good of the country. The leader asks Clytemnestra if she's heard any news. He doesn't like being ruled by a woman and treats her somewhat rudely. He only listens to her because of his loyalty to his King. She tells the leader that the army has taken Troy. The leader is skeptical and asks her to repeat herself several times. The Queen gets angry and tells him she is not a "credulous girl." When the leader asks how Clytemnestra found out the city was taken so quickly, she tells him that one God delivered the message to another and so on. He yet again asks her, which makes it seem he thinks she is a young girl with little sense. When the leader finally accepts her answer, he belittles her again by saying it was "worthy of a wise man's utterance." Although the Queen has power while the King is gone, it means almost nothing to the leader because she is female. The chorus, hearing the news, sing again. They thank the Gods for their help. They sing of sinful, childish Paris and Helen, bringer of war, and the shame they should feel. A Herald tells everyone basically the same thing the Queen said. The leader finally believes it's the truth, since a man spoke the words. Everyone is happy and awaits the army's return. Agamemnon is welcomed home by the chorus. They sing of how proud they are of him. Agamemnon feels he's done justice. His wife seems to forget the pain over her dead child and welcomes him home. He is humble and rejects all the praise. He doesn't want the Gods to envy him. Agamemnon brought a slave back with him, Cassandra. Clytemnestra tells her that she's lucky to be alive and should be happy to be a slave. The leader tries to get Cassandra out of the chariot but she won't move, she only chants. She chants to the Gods and puts a curse on Agamemnon. This play is very confusing, mainly due to the chorus. They sing vaguely of the war, and it's very hard to interpret. This play does show the way women were treated at that time. Although the Queen was in charge, she was looked down on because she was a woman. Aeschylus, Agamemnon, gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/34/1, 1996. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\America Our Modern Day Athens.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ America the Modern Day Athens "We do not copy our Ancestors, but are an example to them. It is true we are called a Democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not in the few. " This is the foundation for which democracy is ruled. Without this democracy does not exist. In this essay there will be comparisons of Athenian democracy and our modern day democracy Greece, in ancient times, was not a united land. There existed many little provinces of control, called city-states. Two examples of the more powerful and lasting city-states were Sparta and Athens. Sparta, whose people lived an austere and militaristic form of life, based its government on the needs of the army which things centered around this. Athens, another powerful city-state, developed a more balanced life for its citizens. Central to this development was the rise of democracy. Called the "cradle of democracy," Athens developed a direct democracy. Those citizens that were eligible could speak at forums and vote on issues. These people were known as the Council of 500; they were chosen annually. To be elected they had to be at least 25 years of age and a citizen. They directly had a voice. This is why Athens is an example of a direct democracy. A point should be made here that Athens, for all its noble ideas about men being able to govern themselves, excluded most of the people that lived within its cities walls. Women, for example had no say in government. They were subjected to running the homes, raising children, and tending to the needs of their husbands. Slavery, which existed in Athens, also caused a blot on the noble experiment of democracy. Slaves had no vote, no participation in government, and no recourse from a cruel master. Athenian government relied upon direct democracy to raise taxes, make laws, and gather armed forces when necessary. The American experiment in democracy differs significantly from the Athenian form of government. America utilizes a representative form of democracy. Because of the huge population, when compared to Athens, a direct democracy is impractical. Americans vote for representatives to the Legislative and Executive branches of government. It is hoped by the citizen that the representatives that are elected protect their constituents interests. There are, however, some dark spots on our form of government. Like the Athenians, America did not grant slaves the right to vote. It took a Civil War that nearly destroyed our nation before slavery was abolished and that portion of the population could have a say in our government. Additionally, women, who like Athens had no say in elections, were very lately in our history given voting power after a long struggle. The "Suffragettes" finally achieved their goal in the early nineteenth century by winning the right to vote. Democracy, a noble idea, is based in the belief that people can govern themselves without a monarchy or ruling class. People can choose, and by that power of choice, decide the direction and quality of their lives. Athenian democracy, destroyed before it had time to flourish, planted this notion in mankind. American democracy extended their ideas and has since kept on refining the notion that all men are created equal and should have a voice in their destiny. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Ancienct greek drama.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ancient Greece Drama Les representations theatral sont les grands evenements du l'annee. C'etait presentait juste 10 fois par an. Toutes les personnes ont voulait le voir. Ils etaient besoin de payer deux aboles pour entrer le stadium. Si quelqu'un etait trop pauvre,le cite ont payer pour lui parce que c'etait un evenement special. Ils ont apporter ce qu'ils ont voulait manger durant les recrees. Les personnes ont faisait trois tragedies ou trois comedies et un blague. Ils connaisait generalment l'histoire parce qu'ils etaient basse sur les mythes ou les dieux. Il y'avait du musique dans les saynettes aussi. En Athens il y'avait des performances pour le dieu du vin,Dionyus.Durant le 6ieme siecle a.v,les performances de dieu ont transforme des saynettes. A la 5ieme siecle av. il y'avait les saynettes comedies et serieuses.Durant le festivale du Dionyus,les saynettes etait organise comme les compotisions. C'etait (les saynettes)organise comme ca,premierement un homme detacher le chanteur pour jouer le role principale,puis un deuxieme et troisime acteur rejoinait le saynette. Ca c'est comment nous commencons.Et meme d'aujourd'hui ils faisait les saynettes aussi.Dans le theatre du Epidaurus il y'a 14 400 sieges. Si tu reste a la siege la plus loin,meme tu peux voir toute le saynette.Et le theatre du Epidaurus est forme comme un demi circle. Il n'y avait pas des femmes dans les saynettes. Probablement les femmes n'ont pas eu le droit d'aller au theatre. Pour les roles feminines les hommes ont portait des masques,ces masques ont ressemble comme les femmes. Les acteurs principeaux ont reste sur le proscenium ou avant scene. Ils ont portait les masques aussi. Le masque tragique etait fait de tissue empese. Il y'avait deux masques pour chaque role. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Ancient greece.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Greece The Greek peninsula has been culturally linked with the Aegean Islands, and the west coast of Asia Minor since the Neolithic Age. The numerous natural harbors and close-lying islands lead to a unified, maritime civilization. However cultural unity did not produce political unity. Mountain ranges and deep valleys separated the peninsula into small economic and political units. Constant feuding between cities and surrounding empires for political power made Greece the sight of many battles. Prehistoric Period Archeological evidence shows that a primitive Mediterranean people, closely related to races of northern Africa, lived in the southern Aegean area as far back as the Neolithic Age. A cultural progression from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age started about 3000 BC. This civilization, during the Bronze Age was divided into two main cultures. One on these, called Cretan or Minoan was centered on the island of Crete. The other culture, Helladic (who became Mycenaean) populated mainland Greece. The Minoan culture dominated trade until 1500 BC when the Mycenaeans took control. During the third millennium BC a series of invasions from the north began. The most prominent of the early invaders, who were called the Achaeans, had, in all probability, been forced to migrate by other invaders. They overran southern Greece and established themselves on the Peloponnesus. Many other, vaguely defined tribes, were assimilated in the Helladic culture. Ancient Greece Gradually, in the last period of Bronze Age Greece, the Minoan civilization fused with the mainland. By 1400 BC the Achaeans were in possession of the island itself, and soon afterward gained control of the mainland. The Trojan War, described by Homer in the Iliad, began about 1200 BC and was probably one of a series of wars waged during the 12th and 13th centuries BC. It may have been connected with the last and most important of the invasions which happened at about the same time and brought the Iron Age to Greece. The Dorians left the mountains of Epirus and pushed their way down to Peloponnesus and Crete, using iron weapons to conquer the people of those regions. The Invading Dorians overthrew Achaean kings and settled in the southern and eastern part of the peninsula. The Hellenic Period After the great migrations in the Aegean, the Greek developed a proud racial consciousness. They Called themselves Hellenes. The term Greeks, used by foreign peoples, was derived from Graecia, the Latin for a small Hellenic tribe of Epirus, the first Hellenes that the Romans had dealings with. Out of the mythology that became the basis of an intricate religion, the Hellenes developed a genealogy that traced their ancestry to semidivine heroes. Age of Tyrants The age of Greek tyrants was notable for advances made in Hellenic civilization. The title of tyrant was used on people who had gained political power illegally. Generally the tyrants were wise and popular. Trade and industry flourished. In the wake of political and economic strength came a flowering of Hellenic culture, especially in Ionia, where Greek philosophy began with the speculations of Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenies. The development of cultural pursuits common to all the Hellenic cities was one of the factors that united ancient Greece. Another Factor was the Greek language, the many dialects of which were readily understandable in any part of the country. The third factor was Greek religion, which held the Hellenes together, and the sanctuary of Delphi, with its oracle, became the greatest national shrine. In addition to their religion, the Greeks held four national festivals, called games-the Olympian, Isthmian, Pythian, and Nemean. Monarchy to Democracy Some unification of the city-states took place. Between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, Athens and Sparta became the two dominant cities of Greece. Each of these great states united its weaker neighbors into a league or confederacy under its control. Sparta, a completely militarized and aristocratic state, established its leadership mainly by conquest, and kept its subject states under strict rule. The unification of Attica was, however, carried on by mutual and peaceful agreement under the leadership of Athens, and the inhabitants of smaller cities were given Athenian citizenship. The hereditary kingship of Athens was abolished in 683 BC by the nobles, or Eupatridae, who ruled Athens until the mid 6th century BC. The Eupatridae kept complete authority by their supreme power to dispense justice. In 621 BC statesman Draco codified and published the Athenian law, their by limiting the judiciary power of the nobles. A second major blow to the hereditary power of the Eupatride was the code of the Athenian statesman and legislator Solon in 594 BC, which reformed the Draconian code and gave citizenship to the lower classes. During the rule of the tyrant Pisistratus, the forms of government began to take on the elements of democracy. Hippias and Hipparchus, sons of Pisistratus, inherited their fathers power, but they were considerably more despicable. Hippias, who survived Hipparchus, was expelled by a popular uprising in 510 BC. In the resulting political strife, the supporters of democracy, under the statesman Cleisthenes, won a complete victory, and a new constitution, based on democratic principles, took effect about 502 BC. The beginning of democratic rule was the dawn of the greatest period of Athenian history and, to me personally this signifies the end of Ancient Greece. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Ancient Greek Olympics.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Reporting today's Olympic games is like a technological masterpiece. The athletes compete in many events, their times and scores are tallied and sent worldwide by satellites and high-tech computers within seconds. Each event is carefully watched and recorded with a sense of history. There was no such sense of history or records when the first Games began in Ancient Greece. The first recorded champion in Greece was a sprinter, Coroebus, he was a cook in a near by Greek city called, Elis. He ran naked on a sanded course in front of thousands of spectators. The course was about 630 feet long "or one stad-from which the word stadium was derived." His victory won him a wreath of olive leaves. That was in 776 BC and this year became very important to later Greek Historians. In 300 BC all time was dated by Olympiads, a time span of four years between the games. The Olympiad began with the first recorded foot race. As far back in Greek time as anyone can remember, the human body was a very beautiful thing. "A body of a man had glory, as well as his mind, that both needed discipline, and by that such discipline men best honored Zeus." From time to time the Greeks held ceremonies of Games in honor of their god Zeus. They held these ceremonies for the areas in which they took place. These places were, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemeam, and of course, Olympian. The Olympian games go back to the time of the first people to live in the valley of Alpheas River. There in Elis, in the western Peloponnesus was Olympia, "the fairest spot in Greece." This land was filled with beauty and snowcapped mountains. This area was a perfect spot for the ceremonies held every four years, for Zeus. In 1875, the most important ruins of Ancient Greece were uncovered. One important ruin that was discovered was the temple of Zeus, that was in use about 2,500 years ago. Near it was the temple for his wife, Hera that was even older. It was used about 2,900 years ago. Another important discovery was the finding of the statue of Hermes. Hermes was sculpted by the Praxiteles. This statue was found in the Hera's Temple. Contained in the Temple of Zeus was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, it was a statue of Zeus sitting on his throne, it was larger then a two-story house. This great masterpiece was made by, Phidias, it was made of ivory and gold. Soon everyone wanted to win the favor of their god, Zeus. By 500 BC , Sparta, Elis, Athens, and Syracuse had rivaled each other to offer their gifts to the temple. To be entered into the Games, the candidates went into a gymnasium at Elis, and were tested for the Games. The ten-month training was the most valuable preparation the athletes could undergo. For ten months they lived in the gymnasium, they practiced all day, and all night. They were constantly watched over by the professional trainers. The officials of Elis would decide who was fit enough to compete in the Olympic Games, and receive the prizes. The people of Elis won the first thirteen Olympic races. Soon people from all around Greece joined the games. They came from Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Asia Minor, and Egypt. These games served as a common link to the Hellenic world. Nothing was more important to the Greeks then the Games, not even wars. During the month of the festival, no one with weapons was allowed into Olympia. The Olympics was far more important to the Greeks then any war, there was peace throughout Greece during the month of the Olympics. This period of time was called the Hieromenia. The first athletes of the Olympics were sprinters. Twenty sprinters lined up on a straight track, the bugle sounded off and they ran as fast as they could to the finish line. Soon the Games began to expand in variety, longer races were added to the games. Then pentathlons were introduced and so was the three mile run. The discus was a favorite of the Greeks. The man who threw the farthest was regarded as the greatest athlete. Boxing was introduced in 688 BC. The boxers would wear leather straps and metal rings around their knuckles. The fight would only end when the opponent would cry for mercy or lay there unconscious. In 680 BC chariot races were part of the game. Only the ones rich enough ones who could afford chariots and horses would participate. The owner of the winning horse would receive a cotton head-band and the rider would get an olive leaf wreath. All Olympic winners were presented with prizes and if a man had won three Olympics in a row he would have a statue made just for him. He would also receive many great gift of honor, including the privilege of not having to pay taxes. Often when the winner would return home, he would be escorted through a hole through the wall surrounding his city. The hole was made by the citizens to show the world that an Olympic champion lived there. Among many Olympic heroes in history, Milo of Croton was one of the most famous. He won six wrestling matches in a row during 600 BC. Milo supposedly developed his brute strength by carrying a calf on his bare shoulders. He did this until the calf developed into a full grown bull. He was said to have killed a lion with his bare hands and stopped a chariot by grabbing it with one hand. Another Greek, Olympic hero was Theagenes of Thasos. He had several special skills, he competed in boxing, sprinting, and the pancration. (combination of boxing and wrestling) He won at least 1,400 times. Women were not allowed to participate in these games. They weren't allowed to watch the games either. There was one women from Rhodes, she dressed herself in men's clothing and went to the games. She went to the games to watch her son in a boxing match. When he won the match, she ran up to him and kissed him. That gave her away, but she wasn't punished. Several years earlier her father, Diagoras, won a boxing match. He was one of the most celebrated of all ancient athletes. Her penalty of death was waived. The glory of the Games began to dim, and interest was lost among most people. Rich people began placing bets on the games. The original purpose of the Games were forgotten. Olympia began to decline. In 393 BC the games were ordered to be stopped, the were becoming a public nuisance. The Greeks destroyed the Temple of Zeus and of Hera. Earthquakes and floods buried Olympia, so it remained lost and half-forgotten. Until 1875. Reporting today's Olympic games is like a technological masterpiece. The athletes compete in many events, their times and scores are tallied and sent worldwide by satellites and high-tech computers within seconds. Each event is carefully watched and recorded with a sense of history. There was no such sense of history or records when the first Games began in Ancient Greece. The first recorded champion in Greece was a sprinter, Coroebus, he was a cook in a near by Greek city called, Elis. He ran naked on a sanded course in front of thousands of spectators. The course was about 630 feet long "or one stad-from which the word stadium was derived." His victory won him a wreath of olive leaves. That was in 776 BC and this year became very important to later Greek Historians. In 300 BC all time was dated by Olympiads, a time span of four years between the games. The Olympiad began with the first recorded foot race. As far back in Greek time as anyone can remember, the human body was a very beautiful thing. "A body of a man had glory, as well as his mind, that both needed discipline, and by that such discipline men best honored Zeus." From time to time the Greeks held ceremonies of Games in honor of their god Zeus. They held these ceremonies for the areas in which they took place. These places were, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemeam, and of course, Olympian. The Olympian games go back to the time of the first people to live in the valley of Alpheas River. There in Elis, in the western Peloponnesus was Olympia, "the fairest spot in Greece." This land was filled with beauty and snowcapped mountains. This area was a perfect spot for the ceremonies held every four years, for Zeus. In 1875, the most important ruins of Ancient Greece were uncovered. One important ruin that was discovered was the temple of Zeus, that was in use about 2,500 years ago. Near it was the temple for his wife, Hera that was even older. It was used about 2,900 years ago. Another important discovery was the finding of the statue of Hermes. Hermes was sculpted by the Praxiteles. This statue was found in the Hera's Temple. Contained in the Temple of Zeus was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, it was a statue of Zeus sitting on his throne, it was larger then a two-story house. This great masterpiece was made by, Phidias, it was made of ivory and gold. Soon everyone wanted to win the favor of their god, Zeus. By 500 BC , Sparta, Elis, Athens, and Syracuse had rivaled each other to offer their gifts to the temple. To be entered into the Games, the candidates went into a gymnasium at Elis, and were tested for the Games. The ten-month training was the most valuable preparation the athletes could undergo. For ten months they lived in the gymnasium, they practiced all day, and all night. They were constantly watched over by the professional trainers. The officials of Elis would decide who was fit enough to compete in the Olympic Games, and receive the prizes. The people of Elis won the first thirteen Olympic races. Soon people from all around Greece joined the games. They came from Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Asia Minor, and Egypt. These games served as a common link to the Hellenic world. Nothing was more important to the Greeks then the Games, not even wars. During the month of the festival, no one with weapons was allowed into Olympia. The Olympics was far more important to the Greeks then any war, there was peace throughout Greece during the month of the Olympics. This period of time was called the Hieromenia. The first athletes of the Olympics were sprinters. Twenty sprinters lined up on a straight track, the bugle sounded off and they ran as fast as they could to the finish line. Soon the Games began to expand in variety, longer races were added to the games. Then pentathlons were introduced and so was the three mile run. The discus was a favorite of the Greeks. The man who threw the farthest was regarded as the greatest athlete. Boxing was introduced in 688 BC. The boxers would wear leather straps and metal rings around their knuckles. The fight would only end when the opponent would cry for mercy or lay there unconscious. In 680 BC chariot races were part of the game. Only the ones rich enough ones who could afford chariots and horses would participate. The owner of the winning horse would receive a cotton head-band and the rider would get an olive leaf wreath. All Olympic winners were presented with prizes and if a man had won three Olympics in a row he would have a statue made just for him. He would also receive many great gift of honor, including the privilege of not having to pay taxes. Often when the winner would return home, he would be escorted through a hole through the wall surrounding his city. The hole was made by the citizens to show the world that an Olympic champion lived there. Among many Olympic heroes in history, Milo of Croton was one of the most famous. He won six wrestling matches in a row during 600 BC. Milo supposedly developed his brute strength by carrying a calf on his bare shoulders. He did this until the calf developed into a full grown bull. He was said to have killed a lion with his bare hands and stopped a chariot by grabbing it with one hand. Another Greek, Olympic hero was Theagenes of Thasos. He had several special skills, he competed in boxing, sprinting, and the pancration. (combination of boxing and wrestling) He won at least 1,400 times. Women were not allowed to participate in these games. They weren't allowed to watch the games either. There was one women from Rhodes, she dressed herself in men's clothing and went to the games. She went to the games to watch her son in a boxing match. When he won the match, she ran up to him and kissed him. That gave her away, but she wasn't punished. Several years earlier her father, Diagoras, won a boxing match. He was one of the most celebrated of all ancient athletes. Her penalty of death was waived. The glory of the Games began to dim, and interest was lost among most people. Rich people began placing bets on the games. The original purpose of the Games were forgotten. Olympia began to decline. In 393 BC the games were ordered to be stopped, the were becoming a public nuisance. The Greeks destroyed the Temple of Zeus and of Hera. Earthquakes and floods buried Olympia, so it remained lost and half-forgotten. Until 1875. Reporting today's Olympic games is like a technological masterpiece. The athletes compete in many events, their times and scores are tallied and sent worldwide by satellites and high-tech computers within seconds. Each event is carefully watched and recorded with a sense of history. There was no such sense of history or records when the first Games began in Ancient Greece. The first recorded champion in Greece was a sprinter, Coroebus, he was a cook in a near by Greek city called, Elis. He ran naked on a sanded course in front of thousands of spectators. The course was about 630 feet long "or one stad-from which the word stadium was derived." His victory won him a wreath of olive leaves. That was in 776 BC and this year became very important to later Greek Historians. In 300 BC all time was dated by Olympiads, a time span of four years between the games. The Olympiad began with the first recorded foot race. As far back in Greek time as anyone can remember, the human body was a very beautiful thing. "A body of a man had glory, as well as his mind, that both needed discipline, and by that such discipline men best honored Zeus." From time to time the Greeks held ceremonies of Games in honor of their god Zeus. They held these ceremonies for the areas in which they took place. These places were, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemeam, and of course, Olympian. The Olympian games go back to the time of the first people to live in the valley of Alpheas River. There in Elis, in the western Peloponnesus was Olympia, "the fairest spot in Greece." This land was filled with beauty and snowcapped mountains. This area was a perfect spot for the ceremonies held every four years, for Zeus. In 1875, the most important ruins of Ancient Greece were uncovered. One important ruin that was discovered was the temple of Zeus, that was in use about 2,500 years ago. Near it was the temple for his wife, Hera that was even older. It was used about 2,900 years ago. Another important discovery was the finding of the statue of Hermes. Hermes was sculpted by the Praxiteles. This statue was found in the Hera's Temple. Contained in the Temple of Zeus was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, it was a statue of Zeus sitting on his throne, it was larger then a two-story house. This great masterpiece was made by, Phidias, it was made of ivory and gold. Soon everyone wanted to win the favor of their god, Zeus. By 500 BC , Sparta, Elis, Athens, and Syracuse had rivaled each other to offer their gifts to the temple. To be entered into the Games, the candidates went into a gymnasium at Elis, and were tested for the Games. The ten-month training was the most valuable preparation the athletes could undergo. For ten months they lived in the gymnasium, they practiced all day, and all night. They were constantly watched over by the professional trainers. The officials of Elis would decide who was fit enough to compete in the Olympic Games, and receive the prizes. The people of Elis won the first thirteen Olympic races. Soon people from all around Greece joined the games. They came from Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Asia Minor, and Egypt. These games served as a common link to the Hellenic world. Nothing was more important to the Greeks then the Games, not even wars. During the month of the festival, no one with weapons was allowed into Olympia. The Olympics was far more important to the Greeks then any war, there was peace throughout Greece during the month of the Olympics. This period of time was called the Hieromenia. The first athletes of the Olympics were sprinters. Twenty sprinters lined up on a straight track, the bugle sounded off and they ran as fast as they could to the finish line. Soon the Games began to expand in variety, longer races were added to the games. Then pentathlons were introduced and so was the three mile run. The discus was a favorite of the Greeks. The man who threw the farthest was regarded as the greatest athlete. Boxing was introduced in 688 BC. The boxers would wear leather straps and metal rings around their knuckles. The fight would only end when the opponent would cry for mercy or lay there unconscious. In 680 BC chariot races were part of the game. Only the ones rich enough ones who could afford chariots and horses would participate. The owner of the winning horse would receive a cotton head-band and the rider would get an olive leaf wreath. All Olympic winners were presented with prizes and if a man had won three Olympics in a row he would have a statue made just for him. He would also receive many great gift of honor, including the privilege of not having to pay taxes. Often when the winner would return home, he would be escorted through a hole through the wall surrounding his city. The hole was made by the citizens to show the world that an Olympic champion lived there. Among many Olympic heroes in history, Milo of Croton was one of the most famous. He won six wrestling matches in a row during 600 BC. Milo supposedly developed his brute strength by carrying a calf on his bare shoulders. He did this until the calf developed into a full grown bull. He was said to have killed a lion with his bare hands and stopped a chariot by grabbing it with one hand. Another Greek, Olympic hero was Theagenes of Thasos. He had several special skills, he competed in boxing, sprinting, and the pancration. (combination of boxing and wrestling) He won at least 1,400 times. Women were not allowed to participate in these games. They weren't allowed to watch the games either. There was one women from Rhodes, she dressed herself in men's clothing and went to the games. She went to the games to watch her son in a boxing match. When he won the match, she ran up to him and kissed him. That gave her away, but she wasn't punished. Several years earlier her father, Diagoras, won a boxing match. He was one of the most celebrated of all ancient athletes. Her penalty of death was waived. The glory of the Games began to dim, and interest was lost among most people. Rich people began placing bets on the games. The original purpose of the Games were forgotten. Olympia began to decline. In 393 BC the games were ordered to be stopped, the were becoming a public nuisance. The Greeks destroyed the Temple of Zeus and of Hera. Earthquakes and floods buried Olympia, so it remained lost and half-forgotten. Until 1875. Reporting today's Olympic games is like a technological masterpiece. The athletes compete in many events, their times and scores are tallied and sent worldwide by satellites and high-tech computers within seconds. Each event is carefully watched and recorded with a sense of history. There was no such sense of history or records when the first Games began in Ancient Greece. The first recorded champion in Greece was a sprinter, Coroebus, he was a cook in a near by Greek city called, Elis. He ran naked on a sanded course in front of thousands of spectators. The course was about 630 feet long "or one stad-from which the word stadium was derived." His victory won him a wreath of olive leaves. That was in 776 BC and this year became very important to later Greek Historians. In 300 BC all time was dated by Olympiads, a time span of four years between the games. The Olympiad began with the first recorded foot race. As far back in Greek time as anyone can remember, the human body was a very beautiful thing. "A body of a man had glory, as well as his mind, that both needed discipline, and by that such discipline men best honored Zeus." From time to time the Greeks held ceremonies of Games in honor of their god Zeus. They held these ceremonies for the areas in which they took place. These places were, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemeam, and of course, Olympian. The Olympian games go back to the time of the first people to live in the valley of Alpheas River. There in Elis, in the western Peloponnesus was Olympia, "the fairest spot in Greece." This land was filled with beauty and snowcapped mountains. This area was a perfect spot for the ceremonies held every four years, for Zeus. In 1875, the most important ruins of Ancient Greece were uncovered. One important ruin that was discovered was the temple of Zeus, that was in use about 2,500 years ago. Near it was the temple for his wife, Hera that was even older. It was used about 2,900 years ago. Another important discovery was the finding of the statue of Hermes. Hermes was sculpted by the Praxiteles. This statue was found in the Hera's Temple. Contained in the Temple of Zeus was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, it was a statue of Zeus sitting on his throne, it was larger then a two-story house. This great masterpiece was made by, Phidias, it was made of ivory and gold. Soon everyone wanted to win the favor of their god, Zeus. By 500 BC , Sparta, Elis, Athens, and Syracuse had rivaled each other to offer their gifts to the temple. To be entered into the Games, the candidates went into a gymnasium at Elis, and were tested for the Games. The ten-month training was the most valuable preparation the athletes could undergo. For ten months they lived in the gymnasium, they practiced all day, and all night. They were constantly watched over by the professional trainers. The officials of Elis would decide who was fit enough to compete in the Olympic Games, and receive the prizes. The people of Elis won the first thirteen Olympic races. Soon people from all around Greece joined the games. They came from Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Asia Minor, and Egypt. These games served as a common link to the Hellenic world. Nothing was more important to the Greeks then the Games, not even wars. During the month of the festival, no one with weapons was allowed into Olympia. The Olympics was far more important to the Greeks then any war, there was peace throughout Greece during the month of the Olympics. This period of time was called the Hieromenia. The first athletes of the Olympics were sprinters. Twenty sprinters lined up on a straight track, the bugle sounded off and they ran as fast as they could to the finish line. Soon the Games began to expand in variety, longer races were added to the games. Then pentathlons were introduced and so was the three mile run. The discus was a favorite of the Greeks. The man who threw the farthest was regarded as the greatest athlete. Boxing was introduced in 688 BC. The boxers would wear leather straps and metal rings around their knuckles. The fight would only end when the opponent would cry for mercy or lay there unconscious. In 680 BC chariot races were part of the game. Only the ones rich enough ones who could afford chariots and horses would participate. The owner of the winning horse would receive a cotton head-band and the rider would get an olive leaf wreath. All Olympic winners were presented with prizes and if a man had won three Olympics in a row he would have a statue made just for him. He would also receive many great gift of honor, including the privilege of not having to pay taxes. Often when the winner would return home, he would be escorted through a hole through the wall surrounding his city. The hole was made by the citizens to show the world that an Olympic champion lived there. Among many Olympic heroes in history, Milo of Croton was one of the most famous. He won six wrestling matches in a row during 600 BC. Milo supposedly developed his brute strength by carrying a calf on his bare shoulders. He did this until the calf developed into a full grown bull. He was said to have killed a lion with his bare hands and stopped a chariot by grabbing it with one hand. Another Greek, Olympic hero was Theagenes of Thasos. He had several special skills, he competed in boxing, sprinting, and the pancration. (combination of boxing and wrestling) He won at least 1,400 times. Women were not allowed to participate in these games. They weren't allowed to watch the games either. There was one women from Rhodes, she dressed herself in men's clothing and went to the games. She went to the games to watch her son in a boxing match. When he won the match, she ran up to him and kissed him. That gave her away, but she wasn't punished. Several years earlier her father, Diagoras, won a boxing match. He was one of the most celebrated of all ancient athletes. Her penalty of death was waived. The glory of the Games began to dim, and interest was lost among most people. Rich people began placing bets on the games. The original purpose of the Games were forgotten. Olympia began to decline. In 393 BC the games were ordered to be stopped, the were becoming a public nuisance. The Greeks destroyed the Temple of Zeus and of Hera. Earthquakes and floods buried Olympia, so it remained lost and half-forgotten. Until 1875. Reporting today's Olympic games is like a technological masterpiece. The athletes compete in many events, their times and scores are tallied and sent worldwide by satellites and high-tech computers within seconds. Each event is carefully watched and recorded with a sense of history. There was no such sense of history or records when the first Games began in Ancient Greece. The first recorded champion in Greece was a sprinter, Coroebus, he was a cook in a near by Greek city called, Elis. He ran naked on a sanded course in front of thousands of spectators. The course was about 630 feet long "or one stad-from which the word stadium was derived." His victory won him a wreath of olive leaves. That was in 776 BC and this year became very important to later Greek Historians. In 300 BC all time was dated by Olympiads, a time span of four years between the games. The Olympiad began with the first recorded foot race. As far back in Greek time as anyone can remember, the human body was a very beautiful thing. "A body of a man had glory, as well as his mind, that both needed discipline, and by that such discipline men best honored Zeus." From time to time the Greeks held ceremonies of Games in honor of their god Zeus. They held these ceremonies for the areas in which they took place. These places were, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemeam, and of course, Olympian. The Olympian games go back to the time of the first people to live in the valley of Alpheas River. There in Elis, in the western Peloponnesus was Olympia, "the fairest spot in Greece." This land was filled with beauty and snowcapped mountains. This area was a perfect spot for the ceremonies held every four years, for Zeus. In 1875, the most important ruins of Ancient Greece were uncovered. One important ruin that was discovered was the temple of Zeus, that was in use about 2,500 years ago. Near it was the temple for his wife, Hera that was even older. It was used about 2,900 years ago. Another important discovery was the finding of the statue of Hermes. Hermes was sculpted by the Praxiteles. This statue was found in the Hera's Temple. Contained in the Temple of Zeus was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, it was a statue of Zeus sitting on his throne, it was larger then a two-story house. This great masterpiece was made by, Phidias, it was made of ivory and gold. Soon everyone wanted to win the favor of their god, Zeus. By 500 BC , Sparta, Elis, Athens, and Syracuse had rivaled each other to offer their gifts to the temple. To be entered into the Games, the candidates went into a gymnasium at Elis, and were tested for the Games. The ten-month training was the most valuable preparation the athletes could undergo. For ten months they lived in the gymnasium, they practiced all day, and all night. They were constantly watched over by the professional trainers. The officials of Elis would decide who was fit enough to compete in the Olympic Games, and receive the prizes. The people of Elis won the first thirteen Olympic races. Soon people from all around Greece joined the games. They came from Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, Asia Minor, and Egypt. These games served as a common link to the Hellenic world. Nothing was more important to the Greeks then the Games, not even wars. During the month of the festival, no one with weapons was allowed into Olympia. The Olympics was far more important to the Greeks then any war, there was peace throughout Greece during the month of the Olympics. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Ancient Roman Meals.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The ancient Romans were similar to todays generations in their eating habits but never ate three hearty meals a day. Ientaculum and prandium were merely appetizers that filled their stomachs unitl the large cena, the event they look forward to since awakening. They had names for their meals similar to ours, breakfast (ientaculum), lunch (prandium), and dinner (cena). Breakfast, ientaculum was usually taken about nine o'clock and consisted of merely a few pieces of bread sprinkled in salt or dipped in wine, and with a few raisins and olives, and a little cheese added. The poorest Romans ate little other than wheat either crushed to make a porridge or ground into flour for bread. Lunch, or prandium was usually taken at noon. It was usually nothing more than a piece of bread accompanied by cold meat, vegetables, and fruit washed down with a glass of wine. Both ientaculum and prandium were so short there was no need to set the table or wash ones hands. The only serious meal was the evening dinner or cena. Dinner time was practically the same for all Romans due to the lack of artificial light. Dinner was after the bath at the end of the eigth hour in winter and at the ninth in summer. The food is mostly cold,-breads, salads, olives, cheeses, and meats remaing from last nights dinner. Occasionally, hot dishes such as ham and pig's heads are feasted upon. Some wealthy Romans would have as many as seven courses to feed on. Trimalchio, a wealthy Roman would have a bronzed donkey with appetizer dishes of olives, stuffed dormice rolled in honey and poppy seed, hot sausages were laid on a silver grill next to pomegranate and damson seeds. The guests were still busy with the hors d'oeuvres when a tray would be brought in with a basket on it, in which there was a wooden hen spreading her wings. Under the straw were Peahen eggs that would base passed out. Each egg contained a fat becafico rolled up in spiced egg yolkf. There were plates with the twelve signs of Zodiac on them that had food matas ching the symbol, ram, bull, crab, figs, lion, etc. Some hosts would heat a wfshole pig and then entertain his guests by having skilled swordmen carve the pa fig like he was killing it. After eating, many guests would entertain each othed sfr in belching. It was considered polite to belch and release wind after a ni sce meal. Guests would simply snap their fingers and servants would come running with vases to contain urine. Spitting was also allowed on the floors of the triclinium. It is hard to imagine eating after a large dinner but dessert was next. In rich homes, dessert would be served after a bath and then led into a second dining room where wine flowed like water. Dessert consisted of every kind of fruit imaginable. Poppy-seed mixed with honey is a standard dish for dessert The majority of the common Romans baked bread in public bakeries. The standard loaves are made very flat, about two inches thick, and marked with notches on the top. There were three kinds of grains used to make bread. Coarse grain (panis sordidus) for the common people. Panis secundus for the higher class and the very white and sweet siligincus for the rich. At feasts there will be wonderful pastry castles and sweet cakes truly amazing with the use of honey, chopped fruits, and nuts. Vegetables and fruits were plenitful in Rome. For many miles one could see gardens that send artichokes, asparagus, beans, beets, cucumber, lentils, melons, onions, peas, and pumpkins into the city. Garlic is also very popular in Roman dishes. Italy was an excellent fruit country and apples, pears, plums, grapes, and quinces were common in the markets. A wide selection of nuts including walnuts, filberts, and almonds were used in cooking and jsut plain eating. Peaches, apricots, cherries, and pomegranates were found in Rome but were not as abundant. Salad greens were in great demand in Rome. The demand for meat in Rome was constantly increasing as the years went by. Butcher shops became more popular which allowed poor people the opportunity to get meat. The poor people would buy goat's flesh which was competely ignored by finniky eaters. Beef was never really popular in Rome. Common people never tasted beef unless it was presented at a sacrifice or great public festival. Even for the rich, beef was no real treat. Pork was always popular. Pork in all forms especially bacon and sausage was a treat to all Romans. Poultry was in greater demand than meat. Coops full of common fowl, ducks, and geese were on sale on every street corner. Hares, rabbits, venison, and wild boar were also available. The butcher shops were far less important than the fish dealer shops. Poor people would eat salt fish of pickled fish, from little sardines to slices of the big fish. Fresh fish was very hard to get in Rome. There are few eels and good pike available in Rome. The majority of the fish supply must be brought from afar. Some sea-food would be transported still alive in small tanks. Olive oil was not only food but also served the purpose of bathroom soap. It was a complete substitute for butter and made dry and moldy bread edible. It also was the basis for most perfumes and ointments. Practically every Roman household had wine available. Beer and other drinks made from wheat and barley were available and so were distilled liquors but they would never apear at Italian banquets like wine. Enormours vineyards were common in Rome. Guests were invited for dinner parties by the master during baths or by slave messenger. Out of pride, the master of the house would invite as many as possible to dine with him and plenty of distinguished Roman citizens would have been happy to join in a family meal. Some hosts would invite many people but only serve utensils and fine dishes to a select few. Some hosts would serve wine to individuals based upon ones social status. This kind of discrimination made some feel cheap and paltry. The standard size for a dinner party ws nine. Three couches, three guests to a coach meant for a single set of serving tables and easy conversation. For larger parties, one must have more triclinia (couches). Rich Romans always served cena in a special room called a triclinium whose length was twice its width. Before the guests arrived, the master cook was ordering his slaves in the kitched and a chamberlain (upper slave) would shout cleaning orders to lower slaves and whip them if they weren't cleaning fast enough. A few signs of dirt before a party was a sign of disrespect to ones guests. The Romans ate lying down resting on the left elbow. The eating couches had three reclining places. The reclining postition was considered indispensible to dining comfort. The Roman women took their place next to their man on the triclinia. The children ate sitting on stools in front of their parents couches. Slaves reclined like their masters only on holidays and would usually eat in another room. Three sloping couches were placed around a square table with one side left open for serving. Blankets and pillows were arranged also on the couches. The couch of honor was that opposite the empty side of the table, (lectus medius) and on it the most honorable position was the right hand one called the consular. Next in honor came the couch to the left of the central couch called the lectus summus and the last couch on the right lectus imus. The guest reclined crosswise on their left elbow, their feet, which were without shoes had been washed upon entrance. An usher (nomenclator) announced the guests and pointed them to their assigned couch. Waiters (ministratores) brought in the dishes and the bowls and placed them on the tables. The tables were very plain. No tableclothes but very shiny surfaces. A preliminary course of gustatio was served to stimulate the appetite. On silver dishes came eggs, crabs, salads, and mushrooms. Wine was served in embossed silver cups. Depending on how many courses were served the dinner would come out to the sweet sounds of a live flute band and a slave would cut meat off the whole boar and serve it to the guests. Between each course, water was passed and the guests washed their hands and put on a light scented perfume on their hands. It was customary for guests to take a large napkin and fill it with scraps for later. Finally, dessert came and the guests were treated to beautiful pastrys, artificali oysters, dried grapes and almonds, and fruits. After the conclusion of the regular dinner, the guests would stay and share stories around the drinking bowl. The guests would customarily take a bath and then mix water with pure wine to dilute it. Spanish dancing girls would then perform acrobatics, tumbling, and act out plays. The male guests also have the option of having orgy with the dancers. Drinking is done to allow the tongue to loosen and give wisdom and advice. An offering was also given to the gods. While servants were distribtuing wine, other servants were passing out flowered wreaths and perfume. The fragrant flowers were supposed to ward off drunkeness. During all this talk and excitement, flute and harp players played behind a curtain. Many banquets lasted eight or ten hours. They were divided into acts. After each main course, dancers and musicians performed while riddles were told, lotteries held, and tricks performed. Roman cooks spent much time and effort cooking for banquets and would even disguise one food as another. Cooks showed their skill by trying to fool the eye by making fish out of a sows belly, chicken out of pork, cakes made to look like boiled eggs, and doves out of ham. The presentation and display of the food was just as important as the taste. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Antigone.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Literature is meant to provide a perspective on life. Phrases or quotes found in works of literature may be used to help express one's own thoughts, to describe a particular situation, or even to apply the circumstances in another piece of literature. Readers often utilize literary quotes for this purpose, yet not every reader will interpret a given quote the same way. One example of a phrase which can have many different meanings is the biblical quote "The sins of the father visit upon the children." A literal interpretation of the above quote would mean the wrongdoings of the father somehow affects the children. If the "bad habits" of one generation aren't corrected, they will be passed on to the generations that follow. That can result in generations of drug abusers, spouse abusers, or just rude people. One example of this interpretation might be if a father is a drug abuser, the children will learn from him, and use drugs also. Another example is if the father is abusive, the children will think that is how problems are solved. They, in turn, will be abusive to their families, and will start a vicious cycle for generations to come. These examples definitely show how this biblical quote may be interpreted literally. "The sins of the father visit upon the children" has a deeper meaning than that described above. For example, "father" could be changed to "parent," and these "parents" could mean "generations" that precede the children. A situation that would represent that would be war or pollution. A second example which illustrates how this quote may be interpreted on a more global level is preceding generations could affect the children by means of racial discrimination that has been passed down from long ago. This may have started with slavery and segregation. Then, as generations follow, racial discrimination is passed. All of these situations prove that one quote may have many different meanings. A third way to interpret this biblical quote is to change the word "sins" to a more general or positive term such as "behaviors", "expectations", "experiences", or even "good deeds". By making such a substitution, the quote takes on a new meaning. This makes the biblical quote good or bad depending on the "behaviors". For example, the father may behave in a polite way, which would teach the children behaviors that make many friends, get job offers, and basically get the most out of life. On the other hand, the fathers behaviors could be rude, and the children would learn to be mean, which would cause them to lose their jobs and friends. Another situation which illustrates this new idea is if the father has experienced many important ways to tackle every day conflicts, he can teach the children easier ways to work out problems, to do school work, and teach the right ways to talk to people and get what you want, such as talking your way into a job offer, or a higher job rank. While changing the focus of the original quote does add new meaning, the idea that the deeds of one generation affect those who follow, is still apparent. The quote "the sins of the father visit upon the children", certainly applies to the circumstances of the Greek drama Antigone. In this drama, the core conflict is a result of a curse on Oedipus when he kills his father. This conflict demonstrates man vs. the laws of the sate. This is the conflict that hurts following generations. Antigone wants to marry her brother, but where she lives it is against Creon's laws. Other problems which exist in Antigone are also caused by actions of a father or "father figure". One such situation is when Creon wants to punish Antigone to death even though his son, Haimon, is to marry her. It is easy to see how this biblical quote pertains, in particular, to the circumstances in the Greek drama Antigone. The above examples also show that one can use quotes from one piece of literature to help understand and clarify the actions and events in another. Literature does imitate real life, and phrases found in literary works can successfully describe life experiences. The phrase "The sins of the father visit upon the children" can be interpreted in many different ways depending on how you look at different words, or how you apply them to real life or literature. You can take word "father" literally, or take it as a word that means parent. "Father" can even mean generations of families. It just depends on the context of the situation. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Athens And Sparta Similarities and Differences.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Athens and Sparta Similarities and Differences By Mike Mizov One of the greatest city states of all time was the city state of Athens from which we take many of our modern ways. Their government was a full democracy in which they had an assembly was all male citizens over 25 years old, they had the council of five hundred which was chosen by lot of people over 30 and they proposed laws to the assembly. Then there was the court where there were no judges and the juries were very large, the archons which were the nine people with the most power before the assembly took it away from them. The Athenians descended from the Ionians in the attica region. Their city was mainly located on acropolis'. They had all around education which meant everyone was entitled to education not just the rich. They were also concerned with money and they also had unproductive soil which meant they would have to find other ways to make money, so they became sea traders. Unlike Sparta their slaves had legal rights which meant they could be freed if the owners of them thought to do so. They also had Draconian laws which were pretty tough laws and sometimes unfair. Since they had slaves they had a lot of time to pursue cultural interests and led their society forward intellectually, so they got into making dramatic plays for their enjoyment. There were three classes of people in Athens the first class were Citizens which were above age 19, then there were Metics which were considered the middle class. Then there were slaves which was about as low as you could go. So all in all you will see Athens is a lot different then Sparta which I will tell you about now. Sparta government was a lot different then Athen's they had the five ephors who were overseers and were the real rulers of Sparta. Then came the council of Elders which was made up of 28 men over 60 and they proposed laws to the assembly. Then there were kings who were elected by the assembly and served as high priests, judges, and army commanders. Then came the Assembly which were all citizens over 30 who elected officials and voted on major policies. Their government was Totalitarian. The Spartans descended from the Dorians and were located in the Laconia region. Their city was built in a valley and had no walls because they said they could defend from an invaders. Unlike the Athenians their soil supported farming but they were culturally backward, which means we never got anything out of their society's way of life. They had no real family life and were very militaristic. They spoke in Laconic phrases which meant they answered or spoke in as little words as possible (ex. yes, no, maybe, etc.). They were forced to marry at 30 so they could produce as many children as possible and unhealthy children were left to die. The society of Sparta was composed of citizens which were the direct descendants of the Dorians then there were neighbors which were people from other cities and nationalities living inside their cities who weren't as accepted as the citizens. Then thereare the Healots which were their slaves, compared to Athens their slaves were treated less then dirt. The smart and strong slaves were put to death because of the fear of revolt because slaves outnumbered citizens there. So you can see how culturally oppisate these two people are. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Atlantis Will we ever know .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Atlantis Atlantis: We will ever know Fantasy is a tough sell in the twentieth century. The world has been fully discovered and fully mapped. Popular media has effectively minimized the legend and the fantastic rumor, though to make up for this it has generated falsities not as lavish but just as interesting. Satellites have mapped and studied the earth, leaving only a space frontier that is as yet unreachable. But standing out is a charming fantasy the modern world has yet to verify or condemn: the lost continent of Atlantis. The father of the modern world's perception of Atlantis is Plato (circa 428- circa 347 b.c.). (1) The Greek philosopher spoke in his works Timaeus and Critias of a continent in the Atlantic ocean larger than Africa and Asia Minor combined which rivaled Athens as the most advanced in the world. (2) According to the legend surrounding Plato's dialogues, the island of Atlantis was violently thrown into the sea by the forces of nature, and its few survivors managed to swim ashore and relate their story. (3) There the legend was passed by word of mouth until an Egyptian priest related the story to Solon, a character in Timaeus. The priest admired the achievements of prehistoric Athenians, because when the rulers of Atlantis threatened to invade all of Europe and Asia the Athenians, on behalf of all Greeks, defeated the Atlanteans to avoid enslavement. (4) The works of Plato opened the floodgates to endless speculation on whether the continent described was fact or fiction. Atlantis has since been placed in Spain, Mongolia, Palestine, Nigeria, the Netherlands, Brazil, Sweden, Greenland and Yucatan. Every nook and cranny of the globe has been hypothesized; mountain peaks, desert lands, the ocean floor and even the barren wasteland of Antarctica have been mentioned in theories. (5) While some of these theories are compatible with Plato's works and are within relative reason, numerous crackpot theories have been developed using the lost continent as a basis. One of these theories, posted on the computer internet where it has access to over fifteen million people, talks in twenty-one pages of pre-historical lands with names like Oz and Luxor. These world wide web pages list over two hundred separate articles of proof for the existence of Atlantis, as in the following: (6) "Most all ancient civilizations believed in the TITANS, the race of giant humans that inhabited Earth long ago. Different races knew them by different names. These 7 to 12 foot humanoids were thought to be legendary until the excavation of over a dozen skeletons 8 to 12 feet tall, around the world, shocked archeologists. These skeletons were positively human. Some of these skeletal remains are on Maui in lava caves near Ulupalakua and Olowalu. The Spanish Conquistadors left diaries of wild blond-haired, blue-eyed 8 to 12 foot high men running around in the Andes during the conquest of the Incas. A couple were reportedly captured but died en route to Europe. If giant animals (dinosaurs) were possible then why not giant men? And why are these goliaths populating both Eurasia and the Americas? Only on a land bridge created by the vast continent of Antarctica can there be a sufficient bridge for the spread of these giants."(7) This text, written by self-proclaimed Atlantologist Steve Omar, represents Plato's text taken to the extreme- using his ideas as a basis for outlandish and unfounded ideas. These unverified fantasies make a dubious complement to the other dark side of the Atlantean fantasy: hoaxes. Atlantis has been "discovered" many times, but most notably in the fall of 1912 by Dr. Paul Schliemann. Schliemann introduced himself as the grandson of the famous Heinrich Schliemann, the archeologist who discovered the ruins of ancient Troy in 1873. His "discovery" made front page news (The New York American, October 1912.) and boasted of an advanced civilization with aircraft, power-driven boats and the like. Schliemann said his grandfather told him on his deathbed of the family's secret: the location of Atlantis. Schliemann's claims made waves, but didn't hold water; when pressed for details, Schliemann was unresponsive and eventually disappeared from public view. (8) Unfortunately, the falsities concerning Atlantis frequently overshadow the possibilities. The subject has gathered its share of honest journalists as well. Ignatius Donnelly wrote the first extensive study of the possibility of existence in 1882, and his views have not been found to be false with twentieth century technology. Donnelly believed in Atlantis, but believed it to be worldly; his reasons for Atlantis's existence are unable to be proven, but make sense. Some examples: -There is nothing improbable in Plato's narrative; it describes rich, cultured and educated people but doesn't mention things of fantasy like giants, hobgoblins etc. (9) -Plato speaks of hot and cold springs in the center of Atlantis, a feature common to islands with volcanic activity. Chances are Plato didn't know this. (9) -Plato says in his stories that the Poseidon, the Greek god of the sea, is always seen on a chariot with horses because he was originally the god of Atlantis, where horses were domesticated. But when Atlantis fell to the sea, the Greeks believed Poseidon brought his horses with him. (9) Responding partly to Donnelley's theories and partly to the urge to discover, some 20th century archeologists have used twentieth century technology to look for Atlantis. But many have dismissed Atlantis as glorified myths of volcanic eruptions in the island of Thera in 1450 b.c. The eruption may have destroyed that island and caused a small earthquake and tsunamis that ruined the civilization of Crete, but didn't sink a continent. (10) Therefore, none of Donnelley's theories can be proved without the actual discovery of the continent. The legend of Atlantis is only a huge collection of theories and guesses, but theories and guesses also led to the discovery of the lost Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, discovered after being buried and preserved by the volcanic ash of nearby Mt. Vesuvius. Because of this, the mystery of Atlantis's existence will tantalize the world until the continent is either proven or disproven. (11) f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\bACKROUND OF ANCIENT GREECE.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANCIENT GREECE Ancient Greece is a peninsula located off the Mediterranean Sea, and is surrounded by several islands. Ancient Greece was made up of different types of government. There were two types of city states an oligarchy , which is ruled by a small group of citizens and a direct democracy ruled by the people . All citizens could make speeches and vote at the Assembly. The Council made up of 500 citizens made new laws which were debated in the Assembly . Only citizens could vote ,women ,foreigners, slaves did not have the right to vote Religion and myths were very important in Greek citizens lives . They used Gods and Goddess to explain things which happened in science and everyday life . They built temples to honor their Gods and Goddess and held the Olympics in honor of the king of the gods Zeus . The Parthenon was a temple built to honor the Goddess Athena . The people believed the Gods and Goddess would favor you if you gave them offerings such as gold ,silver ,and the fruit of the harvest .A few of the Gods and Goddess were Zeus king of the gods ,Athena Goddess of wisdom, warfare, and the city , Apollo , god of the sun , light ,truth , music and , prophecy , Hades brother of Zeus and king of the under world and afterlife , and Poseidon, ruler of the seas . All of the gods and goddess lived at Mount Olympus the highest mountain in Greece . The Greeks had many occupations , traders , merchants , architects , philosophers, dramatists , sculptors , doctors , poets , astronomers and , physicists however ; each citizen protected the city state . Every citizen had a duty to defend the state as a hoplite, which is a heavily equipped warrior .They operated in a large rectangular formation of thousands of men all equal in rank . The Greeks influenced the way we live today .The educated Greeks wanted explanations for the world and things around them . they made observations and came up with theories . These people were known as philosophers which means "the love of wisdom " Socrates , Plato , and Aristotle were famous philosophers . Hippocrates is known as the father of medicines today doctors take the Hippocratic Oath , "named after him , which requires them to act ethically and morally . Anaxagras , an astronomer explained that a solar eclipse is caused by the moon passing between the earth and the sun blocking out the suns light . Literature was made up of myths and poems . The most famous Greek poet was Homer , who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey . A Greek theater which began in the marketplace with dances and songs was the start of the present day theater . Architecture was important in the Greek culture . There were three types Doric , simple whit thick sturdy columns , Ionic , a thinner column and , Corinthian thin columns with elaborate capitals decorated with acathus leaves . Life in Greece was different depending on where you lived . I would prefer to live in Athens because the military requirements are not as restrictive . In Athens rich boys ,at the age of seven , went to school to study reading , writing , arithmetic , music , and debating . Poor boys did not go to school . Girls stayed at home and learned how to spin and weave from their mothers . The children did not have pencils , they used a stylus and a wax covered wooden tablet . Pebbles or an abacus was used to help with math . Boys participated in sports to honor the gods to help them prepare for the military . They played games such as knucklebones , which is similar to jacks and played music on a lyre , cymbals or kitharas , which was a harplike instrument. In Sparta they had a very militaristic government and trained for war during the day . At the age of seven boys trained to be soldiers . They learned how to use spears , swords and to help them become stronger they lived in all kinds of weather . They used sports to help them become better soldiers .If a man was married he would have to stay in the military for another ten years . Then he was free to live with his family . Spartan women had to learn how to use a spear and a sword , so they could prepare their sons for battle . The reason Sparta needed such a strong military was because they were afraid their slaves , called helatsas would rebel . Bibliography Eastern Hemisphere Silver,Burdett,Ginn Morristown,NJ The Iliad and The Odyssey Dorsett Press By Homer NY NY Kids Discover Magazine NY NY Volume 4 Issue 7 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Comparison of Rome and Greece.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Legacies: In the ancient days, when culture, as well as civilizations were developing, many things came to be known as options for later cultures. Civilizations had different ways of doing things and therefore each of their cultures differed considerably. The Romans, the Greeks and the Hebrews all presented different legacies to the world. The Romans actually gave a legacy from their political, and economic systems. From the political system they gave us two forms of working government. There was the republic, which was made up of a senate, two assemblies, and consuls. They also had many forms of a dictatorship. The dictatorship was made of a dictator, who had complete control over the people, because the dictator usually controlled the army. From the Romans economic system, we gained their great knowledge of architecture. The Romans were great builders and put the arch to much use. The Greeks gave us one of the first forms of democracy, and a well developed navy. Athens, one of the most powerful city-states in Greece had a form of government called a direct-democracy, which is where the citizens directly interact with government affairs. The other legacy of the Greeks was their Navy. The navy was mostly utilized by Athens in their struggle against Sparta. It served as a useful way to fight and transport armies across seas. The main legacy of the Hebrews was religion. They brought in the idea of monotheism which is still used today in religions such as Christianity and Judaism. The Hebrews governement was very much based on religion and the laws passed to them by God. The Ten Commandments were passed to the Hebrews by God, and those were the laws that they followed. These three civilizations passed down many legacies, some of which are still used today. These legacies are important because they focus on the three aspects of every society. The political aspect, the social aspect, and the economic aspect of society. It is important that as civilizations continue to come across new findings, that these are passed down, so that technology can continue to advance. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Damn the Fates.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ D.T. Suzuki, a renowned expert on Zen Buddhism, called attention to the topic of free will in one of his lectures by stating that it was the battle of "God versus Man, Man versus God, God versus Nature, Nature versus God, Man versus Nature, Nature versus Man1." These six battles constitute an ultimately greater battle: the battle of free will versus determinism. Free will is that ability for a human being to make decisions as to what life he or she would like to lead and have the freedom to live according to their own means and thus choose their own destiny; determinism is the circumstance of a higher being ordaining a man's life from the day he was born until the day he dies. Free will is in itself a far-reaching ideal that exemplifies the essence of what mankind could be when he determines his own fate. But with determinism, a man has a predetermined destiny and fate that absolutely cannot be altered by the man himself. Yet, it has been the desire of man to avoid the perils that his fate holds and thus he unceasingly attempts to thwart fate and the will of the divine.. Within the principle of determinism, this outright contention to divine mandate is blasphemous and considered sin. This ideal itself, and the whole concept of determinism, is quite common in the workings of Greek and Classical literature. A manifest example of this was the infamous Oedipus of The Theban Plays, a man who tried to defy fate, and therefore sinned. The logic of Oedipus' transgression is actually quite obvious, and Oedipus' father, King Laius, also has an analogous methodology and transgression. They both had unfortunate destinies: Laius was destined to be killed by his own son, and Oedipus was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. This was the ominous decree from the divinatory Oracle at Delphi. King Laius feared the Oracle's proclamation and had his son, the one and only Oedipus, abandoned on a mountain with iron spikes as nails so that he would remain there to eventually die. And yet, his attempt to obstruct fate was a failure, for a kindly shepherd happened to come upon the young Oedipus and released him from the grips of death. The shepherd then gave the young boy to a nearby king who raised him as his own, and consequently named him Oedipus, which meant "swollen feet." Upon Oedipus' ascension to manhood, the Oracle at Delphi once again spewed its prophecy forth, this time, with the foretelling that Oedipus shall kill his father, whom he thought to be the king that had raised him as his own, and marry his mother. Oedipus, like Laius, was indeed frightened of such a dire fate, and thus resolved to leave his land and never return, so that the prophesy may not be fulfilled. Oedipus tried to travel as far away from home as he possibly could, and along his journey, he crossed paths with a man who infuriated him with his rudeness. Oedipus killed the man without the knowledge that that man was indeed his father Laius and ultimately, half of the prophecy had been fulfilled. And when he came to Thebes, the remaining portion of the prophecy was fulfilled as he became the champion of the city with his warding off the Sphinx, hence winning the hand of his own mother Jocasta in marriage. Together they bore four children, and Oedipus' dire fate had been fulfilled, all without his knowledge. The Theban Plays begin with a plague that ravages the city of Thebes, and Oedipus sets out to find the cause. At length, he discovers that he himself is the cause for he was guilty of both patricide and incest. When that realization is manifested, the utter shock and disgust of the horrific situation causes the tormented and disillusioned Oedipus to blind himself of a self-inflicted wound2. According to some scholars, this was the retribution he paid for his crime, but others would argue that Oedipus had no choice in the matter and simply had fulfilled his destiny. The latter argument seems to be more convincing because Oedipus does not consciously know of what he was doing at the time, and thus, his crime was not entirely premeditated. And one cannot condemn ignorance no more than one can realistically condemn good intentions, for Oedipus was both truly unaware of what he had done and of no desire to harm whom he had thought to be his parents. In the aspect of ignorance, Oedipus purely lacked a consciousness of his actions. This particular consciousness is described as a "sensory element3 "-that which affects one's decisions. The senses are what pull people to make the choices they do, e.g. the sensing of danger causes a fearful retreat into hiding. At times, these sensory elements can constrict the true inhibitions of humans, as they tend to alter the decisions that humans make and pull them from doing what they truly want, i.e. Oedipus sensed from the Oracle that he was to commit a grave sin and thus went against his inherent desire to remain with his parents. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, free will is the acting without interference of sensory elements in total regard to one's own inner psyche4. Oedipus and Laius both had sensory elements, namely a fear of their fate, and they acted in accordance to their sense of fear, thus they did not have free will,. In consideration of good intentions, Oedipus meant well in his leaving his country and defeating the Sphinx; but as it turned out, in his departure he killed his father, and in his conquest of the Sphinx he won Jocasta's hand. In fact, it seems as if he was, shall we say, "in the wrong place at the wrong time," for obviously, had he known that the man he was about to kill was his father, and the woman he was about to marry was his mother, the events that followed would most likely never have taken place. With this in mind, free will in Oedipus' case is altogether unlikely as he would have never willed to commit those crimes. Determinism again scores a victory with proof that one simply cannot run from nor thwart fate. If one can imagine the unbelievable agony and fear that consumed Oedipus upon his hearing of his own fate, of how he was to kill his own beloved father and have bear children with the very woman that bore him, perhaps the sin of running from fate may seem somewhat understandable. His fate was not one that can either be swallowed or simply pushed aside, for even the mere thought of such a thing causes a neurotic shudder. This is the reason why he ran from fate. But ultimately his attempt was an disastrous one, and he suffered severe consequences. His town suffered the punishment for his physical crime, and he himself was the incarnate sufferer for the spiritual crime. Determinism maintains that Oedipus, as a man subject to the will of the gods, whether it be right or wrong, should not have attempted to outwit them for he cannot. But perhaps the premise of free will managed to unearth a tiny, though dramatically enticing piece of itself to Oedipus. With such a thing as free will, "no matter how strait the gate, or charged with punishments the scroll," he was the ultimately the "master of his fate, and the captain of his soul." 5 That proposition seemed entirely the more attractive to Oedipus than what he had been offered, and so he took it. He went against the gods for he willed his own end and the means by which to achieve it6. His suffering is a portent to any man who would try to do things beyond his own means for he is doomed to fail in the attempt and will consequently suffer some type of repercussion for it. A nice little analogy would be an attempt to escape from prison. The situation at hand is this: if the escape is successful, a life of freedom awaits, but if it is a failure, additional punishment shall be added to the current one. The question is whether or not a life of freedom is worth the risk, and most men answer this as "no." Oedipus, unlike most people, answered "yes", and because he his escape failed, he suffered much more greatly than most people. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Decsions Decsions.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Decisions, Decisions The theme I picked for Julius Caesar essay is the mistakes made by Brutus. According to Mr. Holtz Brutus was stupid and many mistakes. The first one was him even joining the Conspirators. The second was letting Anthony live and speak at the funeral. The final mistake was his battle plan. Every one does make mistakes sometimes, but mistakes Brutus made where plainly stupid. I feel the first mistake was Brutus joining the conspirators in the first place. His mine was easily manipulated by the conspirators. They gave him the justification he needed to kill Caesar, which was "its Good of Rome." The assumption was that Caesar would eventually take the crown, which would never less destroyed Rome according to Brutus thoughts. By making this assumption and joining the other conspirators he set him self up for many problems for him and for Rome. This was one of the fatal mistakes made by Brutus. Brutus actually made two mistakes with Mark Antony. The first was letting Mark Antony live and the second was letting him speak alone at the funeral. When Cassius first suggested that they should kill Mark Antony, which they should of, but the noble Brutus said "Our course will seem to bloody." That was not his only mistake with Mark Antony he also let him speak at Caesar funeral. He was warned by Cassius, but Brutus ignored him as usual. When Mark Antony spoke he got crowd on his side and they killed all the conspirators except for Brutus and Cassius (they excepted the angry mob and left Rome). This was some more trouble that was caused by Brutus. In the war Brutus makes another dumb decision. He wanted to go into Rome and take it over, but Cassius wanted them to wait for the army to come. Of course they follow Brutus decision and they are defeated. This was yet another bad decision by Brutus. This final decision he lost his life. I wonder some time who is worst Brutus stupidness or Cassius ignorance. This was the fatal mistake was the cause of his death. Through out the play all these mistakes Cassius still followed Brutus. Brutus may have been a natural leader but he just wasn't good at it. Through this play it shows how people in life get many chances, but sometimes still fail. Through all his failure his life was lost. One of lesson to be learned is to look at the past because it may save you in the future. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Democracy in Ancient Greece.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Eddie Witten February 11, 1997 Essay II Prof. Hiltz The Greeks were very advanced for their time. They realized that they need a new form of government and they were able to invent the first democratic government in the world. The democracy that the Greeks came up with was based on two important factors. The first one was the population growth in Athens grew at a very fast rate. The second was the advocating of political, economic, and legal equality for all which some male citizens remembered from the living conditions in the Dark Ages. The Greek system of Democracy did have its shares of problems though. The Greek system of democracy was ruled by a body of nine elected officials whom were called archons. These men who were aristocrats lead the government and had supreme control over all of the verdicts and criminal accusations in Athens. Problems arose when aristocrats become jealous of one another and rivalries ensued under the early stages of Athenian democracy. The result of this jealousy was the establishment of a code written by the appointed ruler Draco. This code of laws promoted stability and equity. These laws however did more to hurt the democracy of Athens than to help it. It seems that Draco wrote this code of laws in order to benefit himself rather than to benefit the government of Athens. The democracy of Athens was used in many ways other than for what it was designed for. It was abused by many rulers of that time. They were concerned with their own personal growth and because of their greed and selfishness, they made laws and codes that would benefit their own personal gain. The results though have not always been as what they had expected to have been. Many of the lower classes were treated very unfairly and rulers lost popularity to the lower classes. Civil war was even about to break out at one point due to Draco's codes and laws. When civil war almost broke out in Athens the codes and laws were once again revamped. This time a pathway was attempted to be laid down that would accommodate both the upper and the lower classes. In the end four classes were developed to rank the male citizens of Athens based on their income. The five-hundred-measure men, horsemen, yoked men, and laborers were the four classes that were devised by this new system of codes and laws. In the Athenian society both the theories failed the men, and in turn the men failed the theories. Some of the theories that the rulers came up with needed a lot of support from the male citizens of Athens. Most of the time these theories were considered unfair and the male citizens were not cooperative with these theories. Also theories that were fair to the citizen but not recognized by them failed. The men failed the theories in this sense, since they did not give them a shot and try them out. They would have seen that these would have helped them in the long run. Considering the outcome of the Peloponnesian War the Athenians fell victim to internal restraints. Their own problems within their democratic structure caused them to lose that war. The codes and laws that they had at the time wound up doing more damage to them in the long run then it did to help them. That was the major problem with the Athenians view on democracy. Since they developed democracy they were not able to perfect it and watch other societies function under it. If they had a few hundred more years to perfect their democratic society they most likely would have had much more success in the Peloponnesian War and with all of their endeavors. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Differences in Education .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jo Smith Differences in Education There are many differences and similarities in education in Greece and The United States of America today. The differences, which there are many of, are focused on the different ideas of what is important in our different countries. The similarities are basic in an education and to have a successful country which both do have to be the same. Greece and the U.S. have only four major similarities which are common to a good education. First, both have students that go to school until the age of 18 with the exception of college now. Second, both countries make students learn about music, have physical training, and learn to read and write. Later on in the Greek society, poor and rich students all went to school and all men soon learned to read and write. There are many differences in the two different civilizations and probably due to the difference of time. There are about ten major differences between the two counties. First, the poor looked as an extra child in the family, and extra child to feed and give an education so could be abandoned or not given an education. The rich also didn't want to spend the money on the child's education and would be very selfish. Girls stayed home to cook, weave, do art, and to learn to run the house because of the male dominated culture. Only the boys went to school, and at first the rich boys only went to school. Only men learned to read and write. All schools were private schools and family's would have to pay the school expenses for the education. They believed music was necessary and they had a high value on physical fitness which the U.S. doesn't. For people who could not afford school they would train in the city to be a soldier. The schools in Greece and in The United States of America both have a great impact on the success of the country's. Even though they both are very different they both were affective. Congress or Socrates and Kings of Greece, it doesn't matter, they both thought of good education for their country's. Greece thrived in Ancient times as did China and succeeding them in modern times the U.S. and what they all had in common was a good education for there people. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Dionysius.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dionysus Dionysus was the most widely worshipped and popular god in ancient Greece. It's not difficult to see why; he was their god of wine, merriment, ritual dance, warm moisture, and later, civilization. He was often depicted as a handsome young man, dressed in fawnskin, and carrying a goblet and an ivy-covered staff. Some myths hold that Dionysus was the son of Zeus--the king of the god--and Persephone--queen of the underworld--but most myths state that he is the son of Zeus and a mortal woman named Semel. This woman Semele was not any mortal, though. She was a princess, and a beautiful one at that. Zeus was notorious for being rather prolific, and when his wife, the goddess Hera heard that he had gone off and mated with a mortal, she became quite upset. Hera, in an attempt to exact her revenge, appeared to Semele and told her to ask Zeus to appear to her in his divine form. When Zeus obliged, Semele was immediately consumed in flames, for no mortal can look upon a god in his natural state. However, Zeus saved the unborn Dionysus by sewing him up in his thigh, thus incubating him. What happened next is different in every story. Some myths say he lived with a king and queen loyal to Zeus until Hera discovered him, and, in a jealous rage, warped their brains. In this version of the story, Dionysus was turned into a goat by his father in an attempt to hide him from Hera; from then on he had small horns on his head. After he was safe, he went to live with the nymphs, who taught him to make wine. Hera eventually found him again, and this time she also warped his brain. The nymphs rejected him, and he went to live with the satyrs, who were men with goat legs and horns, and their leader Silenus. Dionysus traveled with the satyrs, who disgusted everyone they encountered with their rude, drunken behavior.  Silenus is usually portrayed as a fat drunken man who rides on an ass. He was once captured by King Midas. When Dionysus intervened, Midas freed Silenus in exchange for the power to turn all he touched into gold. Dionysus and his band eventually encountered the maenads. The maenads were a group of wild, warlike creatures. They were horribly vicious, and unfortunately, they were also incredibly stupid. They started quite a few unsuccessful wars against kingdoms in Africa. When Zeus finally found Dionysus again, he returned his mind to normal. However, Dionysus refused to give up his unruly traveling companions. The people of Achaea loved Dionysus, but hated his satyr and maenad friends. One time, when Dionysus was visiting a port city, he was captured by a group of pirates who weren't aware of his divine powers. He destroyed the pirates and sailed their ship to the Island of Naxos. It was there that he met his bride and only love Ariadne. Dionysus then made a journey into the depths of Hades to bring back his mother Semele. He took her to Mt. Olympus, and changed her name to Thyone. This fooled Hera, and Semele managed to remain safe. It was at this time that Dionysus was thought to have fully returned to his godly state. The Greeks worshipped Dionysus with two festivals known as Dionysia. The lesser Dionysia was held in December, and the greater was held in March. These Dionysia were usually marked by drunken orgies. The highlight of the festivities was the sparagmos. During this part of the ceremony, a live goat would be disemboweled, and the partygoers would feast upon its raw flesh. In Rome, Dionysus was known as Bacchus, and his festival, or Bacchanalia, was also extremely immoral, even by Rome's standards. So  immoral in fact, that the Roman Senate in 186 B.C., made a law forbidding the celebration of the Bacchanalia. The law apparently didn't stop those fun-loving Romans, f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Epic Works.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ February 21, 1997 Epic Works Epics by definition are long narrative poems, that are grand in both theme and style (Webster 417). They usually involve actions of great glory and are typically centered around historical or legendary events of universal significance. Most epics deal with the deeds of a single individual, however, it is not uncommon to have more than one main character. Epics embody several main features including: supernatural forces, sometimes the deity of the time, that shape the action; battles or other forms of physical combat; and a formal statement of the theme of the epic. Everyday details of life are commonplace and intricately woven into the background of each story in the same palatial style as the rest of the poem. Epic poems are not merely entertaining stories of legendary or historical heroes; they summarize and express the nature or ideals of an entire nation at a significant or crucial point in its history. I have chosen for comparison the Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, and Paradise Lost. The Odyssey, attributed to Homer is about Odysseus, the king of Ithaca, who sailed with his army to take part in war against Troy. After ten years of war, victory is declared and the armies of Odysseus have sailed for home. As the Odyssey begins, an additional 10 years have passed since the fall of Troy and Odysseus still has not returned to his home. The noblemen have converged on his palace seeking the hand of his lovely wife, Penelope. However, Penelope refuses their advances choosing to remain faithful to Odysseus. During the ten years of his absence since the fall of Troy, Odysseus has traveled the world undertaking many unbelievable adventures and trials set upon him by the god Poseidon. Throughout his travels he along with his men sailed to many strange lands. These great adventures included tricking Polyphemus a Cyclops by being "nobody" (Norton 320), sailing to the end of the world and descending into Hell (Norton 340), successfully battling Scylla, a six-headed monster that devoured passing seamen (Norton 361) and finally, passing safely around a terrible whirlpool (Norton 366 - 367). During his descent into Hell, Odysseus meets a sear who foretells that his wanderings would not end until peace is made with Poseidon. This sear also tells him that he will return home and re-establish himself as king. Finally as the Odyssey concludes, Odysseus does return home to a house and country in turmoil. His wife is besieged by suitors, his son is now a grown man and his country is facing certain civil war. In the final acts, order is restored with the assistance of the goddess Athene. In Dante's epic, The Divine Comedy, he tells of a journey through hell, purgatory, and heaven. This epic is divided into three sections. In each of the sections he meets with mythological, historical, and contemporary individuals. Each individual encountered during the journey represents a religious or political symbol of fault or virtue. In addition, specific punishments and rewards are associated with each fault and virtue. Dante uses each punishment and reward to illustrate the larger meaning of human actions in the universal plan. Paradise Lost is considered by some to be one of the greatest poems in world literature and most certainly John Milton's masterpiece. In its 12 cantos Milton tells the story of the fall of Adam and the loss of Paradise. Satan has been expelled from heaven with his fallen angels. In Hell, Satan formulates a plan to find the new creations God has made - man and woman. Meanwhile, God tells his Son that Satan will be successful in corrupting man. But because, man was tricked by Satan, man will be given grace if someone in heaven will die for man's sin. To fulfill his plan, Satan tempts Eve in a dream. The next morning Eve suggests that she and Adam work separately that day. Gradually she is persuaded by Satan, who has taken the form of a serpent, to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Realizing her folly, Eve shares the fruit with Adam, who also eats it. This is considered the fall of man. In Heaven God tells of the final victory of the Son over Sin and Death. This epic is told in a context of extensive drama using profound speculations. Milton's main goal was to "justify the ways of God to men." (Norton 2179) All three works are long narrative poems that are grand both in theme and style fulfilling the basic definition of an epic. Of the three epics only the Odyssey involved actions of great glory by the central hero. In the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost, the main characters are not fighting monsters or outwitting Cyclops. Dante walks through Hell, and views the fate of man, Adam and Eve are manipulated by God and Satan but are not gods nor do they have god-like qualities. The influence of the supernatural is an outside force in the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost. In the Odyssey, Odysseus possesses many god-like qualities himself. The central theme of each epic is somewhat different. In the Odyssey, the central theme seems to be Odysseus against the world. He stands the test through opposition by the gods, other men, and the forces of nature. In the Divine Comedy, Dante, a normal man, takes a walk through the many levels of hell, expressing the faith of medieval Christianity. Paradise Lost, by Milton is simply a representation of the ideals of mediaeval Christian rational. Though each work is classified as an epic, they share only a few of the basic traits of an epic poem. However, more than anything each provides insight into the thoughts and beliefs of people in our history. These epic works take us on an imaginary voyage; one through the amazing journeys of a single man, one through an imaginary trip through hell in which the political and philosophical thought of the time can be experienced, and one through an account of a religious thought for that day. All of these epics serve to remind us that no matter how far mankind has come, we still have a long way to go in our journey be it spiritual or earthly. Works Cited "Epic." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1983 ed. Homer. "The Odyssey." Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Ed. Maynard Mack. 6th ed. 2 vols. New York: Norton, 1992. Milton, John. "Paradise Lost." Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Ed. Maynard Mack. 6th ed. 2 vols. New York: Norton, 1992. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Fate Would Homer and Virgil be the same with out it .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fate - Would Homer & Virgil be the same with out it? In Virgil's Aeneid and Homer's Iliad, a picture of the supernatural and its workings was created. In both works, there is a concept of a fixed order of events which is called fate. Fate involves two parts. First, there are laws that govern certain parts of mens' lives, such as human mortality and an afterlife. Second, fate deals with the inevitable outcome of certain events, outcomes that cannot be changed by men or gods. Both Homer and Virgil allude to the existence of unchangeable laws, one of which is the mortality of human beings. This can be seen by the fact that character after character dies during war. In Virgil's Aeneid, Aeneas journeys to Hades to visit his father. During his stay, he talks to a large number of the warriors that have died in the Trojan War. The death of these warriors shows the mortality of human beings (Forman 2015). Another unchangeable law is the period of limbo that is said to await the souls of the unburied after death. Homer indicates this law by writing of Patroklos' spirit's return to remind Achilles that, until he has been properly buried, he must wander the earth. These events show Virgil's and Homer's belief in laws that cannot be changed (Strong 62). The second element of Fate deals with the unalterable predestined occurrence of certain events. One example of such an event is the fall of Troy. According to Homer, the destruction of Troy was foretold in Hekuba's dream that her son, Paris, would be the cause. This prophecy was confirmed by a seer. Although Hekuba tried to avert the disaster by attempting to have Paris killed, fate overcame and Troy was destroyed as a result of Paris' judgment concerning the golden apple of discord (Strong 15-16). Virgil also writes about a similar situation when Venus pleads with Jupiter to help Aeneas with his journey. Meanwhile, on Olympus, Venus, the mother of Aeneas, berates Jupiter for allowing her son to be persecuted in such a manner. Jupiter calms her and reminds her of the many prophecies concerning her son and his progeny: how he will found the city of Lavinium in Latium and win a great war; how his son Acanius will build the city of Alba Longa; how the twins Romulus and Remus, his descendants, will be born in this town and how they will found the city of Rome (Milch 22). The union of the Trojans and Latins to form a new race is another example of a predestined event found in the Aeneid. This illustrates the unchangeable will of Fate, even to the degree that the gods believe what is foretold must happen (Camp 42). Even though certain events are ordained by Fate, the time tables for these events are flexible. Since Achilles was mortal, he was ordained by fate to die during the Trojan War. This can be seen in the Iliad when Homer writes about Achilles. Though his death was inevitable, it was postponed as a result of being dipped in the River Styx. "...at birth, his mother dipped him in the River Styx, rendering him immortal everywhere except in the heel, where she had held him..." Fate finally ruled when Paris shot him in the heel with a poisoned arrow, causing his demise (Strong 17). Virgil also shows that Fate may be delayed when he writes about Juno's attempt to stop Aeneas from founding Rome. When Juno sees Aeneas coming close to his goal she asks Aeolus, god of winds, to blow the Trojans off course. Their ships are destroyed and they wash up on the shores of Africa, close to the city of Carthage. Once in Carthage, the shipwrecked survivors are welcomed by Dido, queen of Carthage. Juno and Venus collaborate about Aeneas' marriage to Dido. "She [Venus] agrees to the marriage, knowing that it cannot meet Juipiter's or fate's approval - as Juno, where she less irrational, should also know." (Anderson 44). At the request of Venus, Cupid, in the form of Acanius, casts a spell on Dido causing her to fall in love with Aeneas. Taking advantage of these events in a further attempt to detain Aeneas far from his Italian goal, Juno, with the complicity of Venus, thrusts the unfortunate Dido into the arms of her Trojan guest. Surrendering himself to the delights of a mad passion, the Trojan hero forgets his predestined mission for twelve long months. When Jupiter imperiously takes him to task, however, he remembers the duty fate has laid upon him and leaves Carthage and the delights of love, setting sail to the light of the funeral pyre in which the despairing Dido has thrown herself (Brisson 23-24). Aeneas and Dido's relationship and the destruction of Dido parallels Rome's destruction of Carthage. It is a repetition of fate in which Dido represents Carthage and Aeneas represents Rome. The fall of Troy to the Greeks was ordained by Fate, but could have taken place as much as ten years later than it did. These events reflect Homer's and Virgil's belief in the existence of Fate as inevitable, yet, at the same time, general and imprecise (Camp 42). The works of Homer and Virgil show their belief in the reality of Fate being composed of two parts. Both parts describe the existence of fate's unchangeable laws. Both authors are successful in depicting predestined events that cannot be changed by the powers of gods or prayers of men. Although fate is not predominant in the writings of our modern world, in the works of the ancient world; especially in Homer and Virgil, fate must be present for the heroes to accomplish their destiny. Biblography Anderson, William S. The Art of The Aeneid. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1969. Bertman, Stephen. "Modern values: the challenge of myth." Vital Speches. 1 June 1993: 508-512. Brisson, Jean-Paul. "Aeneas, Rome's man of destiny." UNESCO Courier. September 1989: 23-27. Camps, W. A. An Introduction to "Vergil's" Aenid. Oxford England: Oxford University Press, 1969. Forman, Robert J. "AENID." Magill's Survey of World Literature. Ed. Frank M. Magill. Vol 6. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 1993. Milch, Robert J. THE AENEID Notes. Lincon, Nebraska: Cliff Notes, Inc., 1963. Poschl, Victor. The Art of Vergil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962. Strong, Elaine. THE ILIAD Notes. Lincon Nebraska: Cliff Notes, Inc., 1986. "The Aenid." Prentice Hall Literature World Masterpieces. Englewood, N.J., 1991. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Gladiators of Ancient RomeGreece.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Rise of Gladiatorial Combat Gladiatorial contests (munera gladitoria), hold a central place in our perception of Roman behavior. They were also a big influence on how Romans themselves ordered their lives. Attending the games was one of the practices that went with being a Roman. The Etruscans who introduced this type of contest in the sixth century BC, are credited with its development but its the Romans who made it famous. A surviving feature of the Roman games was when a gladiator fell he was hauled out of the arena by a slave dressed as the Etruscan death-demon Charun. The slave would carry a hammer which was the demon's attribute. Moreover, the Latin term for a trainer-manager of gladiators (lanista), was believed to be an Etruscan word. (4:50) Gladiators of Ancient Rome lived their lives to the absolute fullest. Gladiatorial duels had originated from funeral games given in order to satisfy the dead man's need for blood, and for centuries their principle occasions were funerals. The first gladiatorial combats therefore, took place at the graves of those being honored, but once they became public spectacles they moved into amphitheaters. (2:83) As for the gladiators themselves, an aura of religious sacrifice continued to hang about their combats. Obviously most spectators just enjoyed the massacre without any remorseful reflections. Even ancient writers felt no pity, they were aware that gladiators had originated from these holocausts in honor of the dead. What was offered to appease the dead was counted as a funeral rite. It is called munus (a service) from being a service due. The ancients thought that by this sort of spectacle they rendered a service to the dead, after they had made it a more cultured form of cruelty. The belief was that the souls of the dead are appeased with human blood, they use to sacrifice captives or slaves of poor quality at funerals. Afterwards it seemed good to obscure their impiety by making it a pleasure. (6:170) So after the acquired person had been trained to fight as best they can, their training was to learn to be killed! For such reasons gladiators were sometimes known as bustuarii or funeral men. Throughout many centuries of Roman history, these commemorations of the dead were still among the principle occasions for such combats. Men writing their wills often made provisions for gladiatorial duels in connection with their funerals. Early in the first century AD, the people of Pollentia forcibly prevented the burial of an official, until his heirs had been compelled to provide money for a gladiators' show. (1:174) It was in Campania and Lucania that the gladiatorial games came to their full development and took on their classical form. In these new surroundings they took root and flourished, as can be seen in fourth century BC, tomb paintings. These pictures show helmeted gladiators carrying shields and lances, covered with wounds and dripping with blood. (2:84) For Rome a decisive moment in gladiatorial history was reached in 246 BC, the year when the first Punic War began. At the funeral of Brutus Pera, his two sons for the first time exhibited, in the cattle market, three simultaneous gladiatorial combats. By 216 BC the number of fights given on a single occasion had risen to twenty two.(14:16) In 105 BC the two consuls of the year made gladiatorial games official. There were no doubts of religious tendency, but the purpose of Roman spectacles, were a public display of power, that power was primarily military, and also to compensate the soft Greek culture which now was abroad. (8:98) The Gladiators Those compelled to fight gladiator duels included prisoners of war, slaves and condemned criminals. Among them were numerous followers of the new Christian faith. During this time persecution fell heavily on their faith, many won immortal fame as martyrs. Fighting in the arena was one of the sentences earned by the sacrilege accused against members of the Christian religion because of their refusal to sacrifice to the emperor. It was written that these Christians were forced, as gladiatorial novices to run the gauntlet. At other times they were thrown to the wild beasts. Criminals that were used had committed crimes that carried a death sentence or harsh manual labor. The crimes which led to the arena were murder, treason, robbery and arson. Criminals sentenced to forced labor were often obliged to serve as gladiators, and were sentenced to three years of combat and two years in the schools. Sometimes penalties were differentiated according to social class, thus for certain crimes which in the case of slaves would involve execution, free men or freedmen (ex-slaves) were condemned to fight in the arena instead. This did not of course make them gladiators, unless they were trained first, as those required to provide this sort of sport not always were. And indeed as gladiators became more expensive in the second century AD the use of untrained criminals in the amphitheater increased.(7:537) Most gladiators, at Rome and elsewhere were slaves, but in addition there were always some free men who became gladiators because they wanted to. The profession was an alternative to being a social outcast. They were generally derived from the lowest ranking category of free persons, namely the freedman who had themselves been slaves or were the son of slaves. Free fighters were more sought after than slaves, presumably because they shower greater enthusiasm in the arena. Such a volunteer was offered a bonus if he survived the term of his contract, yet he still had to swear the terrible oath of submission to be burnt with fire, shackled with chains, whipped with rods and killed with steel like the rest of the gladiators. For the period of his engagement, he had become no more than a slave. (7:539) Majestic Exhibitions and Schools There seemed no end to public entertainment's of one sort or another at Rome. First there were the regular functions. The number of days in each year given up to annual games and spectacles of one sort or another in the city was startlingly large, and increased continually. Already 66 in the time of Augustus, it had risen to 135 under Marcus Aurelius, and 175 or more in the fourth century. Gladiatorial amusement had become an essential feature of the services a ruler had to provide, in order to maintain his popularity and his job. Emperors themselves had to attend the shows. Emperors watching the shows were distinct, vulnerable, and subject to public pressures which could not be displayed elsewhere. That was why the games were not popular with a few rulers such as Marcus Aurelius. He directed that if a gladiator was freed as a result of popular outcry in the amphitheater the liberation was to be annulled. Aurelius found the sport boring and indeed he was unenthusiastic about Roman entertainment in general. (10:87) The teaching of gladiators was highly elaborate affair involving expertise appreciated by those members of the public who attended the games for something more than blood and thrills. Gladiators were trained at gladiator schools established during the late Republic at the time of Sulla 138-78 BC. (2:86) Novices practiced with wooden swords on a man of straw or a wooden post. The weapons used in more adept practice were heavier than those used in the arena. Discipline was severe, with ruthless punishments. The barracks they lived in were so low inmates could only sit or lie.(3:68) Breaking any rules was not tolerated and resulted in strict reprimanding: shackles, flogging or even death. (2:86) The main objective of the schools were to produce the best possible fighters for the arena, thus scrupulous attention was invested in gladiator health. Their schools were situated in favorable climates, and equipped with first class doctors. The schools were also provided with resident medical consultants to check the men's diet. Gladiators were called hordearii, barley men, because of the amount of barley that they ate, a muscle building food. (12:111) The Types of Gladiators From Republican times onward, foreign prisoners were made to fight with their own weapons and in their own styles. Many of these men, were merely prisoners herded into the arena, but various classes of professional gladiators likewise came from this category. Such, for example was the origin of the gladiators known as the Samnites. Generally regarded as the prototypes of all Rome's gladiators, they are said to have come into existence after its Samnite enemies introduced a splendid new type of military equipment in 310 BC. Gladiators were ranked in different categories according to their fighting style and the type of weapon they used. These Samnites wore the heavy, magnificent armor of soldiers. It included a large shield (scutum), a leather or partly metal greave (ocrea) on the left leg, and a visored helmet (galea) with huge crests and plumes. To these were added sword (gladius) or lance (hasta), and the sleeve on the right arm which was part of a gladiators general equipment.(11:121) Sectores were armed with a sword and mace loaded with lead. Thraces carried a curved scimitar of varying shape, and a small square or round shield. Myrmilliones ('Guals') carried a shield and a short scythe and wore a distinctive fish ornament on their helmets. The Retiarii were exceptionally uncovered, except sometimes for a head band. They carried a trident in one hand and a net in the other. Because the throwing of a net as a method of combat, was second rate the Retarii were inferior in status to the ranks, and thus had the worst living quarters. (2:86) The Myrmillo could fight against the Thracian or against the Retiarius or net fighter. But the principle opponent of the Retiarius was the Secutor.(12:109) The Procedure of the Arena Gladiatorial shows were intensively promoted and advertised to raise public attention. Descriptions of upcoming contests, appeared on walls and on the grave stones beside main roads. The opening ceremonies began the day before the fights. It was then that the supporter of the show donated a splendid feast to the contestants about to appear on the following day. The proceedings of the murderous day began with a chariot drive and parade. Led and presented by the sponsor of the games. The gladiators displayed themselves in uniforms topped by cloaks dyed purple with gold embroidery. Climbing down their chariots, they marched around the arena, followed by slaves carrying their arms and armor. Gladiators, especially those who belonged to the emperor's own troop, were often finely equipped. When the combatants arrived opposite the emperor's platform, they extended their right hands towards him and cried 'Hail, emperor, greetings from men about to die!' (Ave, imperator, morituri te salutant!) (7:538) The games often opened with a convicted criminal being thrown to a lion. The criminal was given a small sword, and if he could kill the lion his life was spared. Another way in which they opened the games was to tie the criminal to a pillar and lower him into a pit of hungry beasts. After these morbid killings took place, the animal events would take center stage. The most common of these fights would be a lion against bear. To make the beast ready for fighting they would starved the animals and poked them with sticks while in the cage.(5:17) These events were followed by a break, during this break Gladiatores Meridiane took place. This event consisted of a fully armed gladiator against an unarmed man. The object was simple, to kill your opponent, the winner went on to fight the next combatant. The overall winner was the person that was standing in the end.(2:88) The afternoon brought about the beginning of the gladiatorial events. Staged with a dramatic sense of climax, the afternoon started with second rate displays that were bloodless. These mock fighters were called paegniarii.(1:176) After these mock battles came the real fights, the tamest of these would be the hand to hand combats with one opponent. However, most of the contests were worst, ranging from armed fighters against unarmed, two criminals versus a gladiator, and even a group of gladiators versus another group. While the fighters were at grips, their trainers (lanista) stood beside them and hounded them on much like a modern boxers trainer would. Meanwhile the crowd shouted commands of their own including beat, kill and burn. When a man fell, the herald raised their trumpets, and spectators yelled 'Got him! He's had it!' (habet, hoc habet). The fallen fighter if he was in a state to move, laid down his shield, and raised one finger of his left hand for mercy. The decision whether his life should be spared, rested with the provider of the games, but he generally let the crowd make the decision. Thumbs up, and a waving of handkerchiefs, meant his life would be spared, thumbs down and he would be killed without hesitation. While African boys raked over the bloodstained sand, fallen gladiators were taken away. A Charon would verify the gladiators death and finish him off it was necessary. The costumes of the Charon were designed to look like Mercury, divine guide of dead men's souls to the infernal regions.(10:167) If a fighter's performance had not given satisfaction, or if he was a criminal whose survival was not desired, his life was sometimes risked again on the same day by orders for a repeat performance, against specially introduced understudies. When neither party won and both were spared, each was described as stans missus, and such a result was often recorded on inscriptions. The victorious gladiators were presented with palm branches as a prize, and in Greek lands of the Empire they were given a wreath or crown in addition or instead. Both palms and crowns are often shown on funeral monuments. The giver of the games also provided prize money, according to scales stipulated in the gladiators' contracts. (10:169) The Arenas In early times gladiators' duels took place in whatever public places a town might posses. But then , under the emperors, the characteristic place for such a contest was the amphitheater. This was an oval auditorium surrounded by rows of seats facing on to the arena, as in modern bull rings, absorbing the blood of slaughtered men and beasts. The first permanent amphitheater known to us is not in Rome but in Campania, the country which inherited the gladiatorial games from Eturia and passed them on to the Romans. (13:225) The largest and most famous of all such buildings was initiated by the Flavian dynasty. Opened by Titus in AD 80, this Colosseum is one of the most marvelous buildings in the world. Its massive overall measurements are 187 by 155 meters, of which the space for the arena itself comprises 86 by 54 meters. There was accommodation for perhaps 45,000 sitting spectators and at least 5,000 more willing to stand. Underneath the arena is a labyrinth of passages for stage effects, pens for wild beasts, storage rooms and the mechanism by which scenery and other apparatus were hoisted into the arena. The emperor's platform was at the center of one of the long sides, facing across to the portion of the auditorium reserved for magistrates and the holder of the games. There were also places for priests, who also attended these bloodthirsty sports. (13:227) The formula of the collosseum helped to mold renaissance styles. In the eight century they said that: As long as it stands, Rome will stand; when it falls, Rome will fall; when Rome falls, the world will fall The colosseum has often been raided, but has never fallen. It has been made to serve many purposes, many of which are ironic. These have included sacred occasions, church services, and plays. Thus through all the depredation the colosseum has faced over the years inside and outside of the arena, this indestructible building still towers over the city today. (13:230) The Gladiator in Society The reputation of gladiators in the eyes of the public was curiously mixed. For one thing they were feared. Society was never able to forget for very long that the gladiators were a potential danger to society. So, of course were the masses of slaves in general, and that is why their crimes were so savagely punished, if one slaved murdered his master, the whole household had to die. But by training the gladiators they spared the rest of the slaves family, and forced him to fight for his life in front of the community he violated. Moreover their legal and moral position in the community was one of complete shame. When a gladiator was killed, his corpse was not permitted honorable to be buried, unless it was claimed by his family or a friend. (9:91) However there is ample proof of the admiration and indeed excitement that the gladiators aroused. Gladiators became so ingrained in the Roman mind and soul that they believed in superstitions that resulted from munera. It was believed that the warm blood of a slaughtered gladiator would cure epilepsy. When newly married women, parted their hair with a gladiators spear, it brought good luck if this had belonged to a man mortally wounded in the arena. (8:276) Gladiators were also seen highly upon by women, graffiti at the Pompeii amphitheater reveal that members of the profession were loved with the passionate infatuation which teenage females have for pop singers today. Although gladiators lived relatively short lives it was possible to win liberation and retire on receipt of the symbolical wooden sword (rudis). It was also noted that some ex-gladiators moved upwards into respectable smart circles of local bourgeoisie's (9:96) Opposition and Abolition It was probably assumed that the munera would go on forever, and that nothing would stop their growth. With the rise of Christianity a religious presence lingered about such contests once again. The Roman ruling classes began to view these contest with a favorable eye. The excuse of encouragement to warlike toughness continued to be put forward until the eve of the Middle Ages, although it started to become lame and inhumane. Another purpose present in the minds of Rome's rulers was the desire that potentially unruly and dangerous city population should be amused and kept quiet. They should be given entertainment that they wanted, no matter how disgusting if might be. The games gradually lost its original intentions and connections to the earlier funeral games. Once defenseless human beings are thrown to wild animals, the original purpose is lost, the purpose now is blood-thirsty spectators viewing inhumane, unjust executions. (2:87) The new religion however ended them for good. With the rise of emperor Constantine and Christianity came the fall of the gladiatorial spectacles. In AD 326, Constantine abolished gladiators' games altogether. He also stated that all criminals who would have in the past have been enrolled for the games must in the future be condemned to forced labor in the mines instead. By the end of the fourth century, gladiatorial shows had disappeared from the Eastern Empire. (2:87) Bibliography 1. Cowell, F. Everyday Life in Ancient Rome. London: B.T Batsford Ltd., 1961. 2. Dining, M. A History of Physical Education: Ancient Rome. Toronto: Captus Press, 1987. 3. Grant, M. The World of Rome. London: Trinity Press, 1960. 4. Hopkins, K Murderous Games. History Today v33 16-22 1983. 5. Harris, H. Sport in Greece and Rome. New York: Cornell University Press, 1972. 6. Hopkins, K. Death and Renewal. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1983. 7. Jory, E Gladiators in the Theatre. Classical Quarterly v36 537-9 1986. 8. Koestler, A. The Gladiators. New York: Macmillan, 1947. 9. Scullard, H. Festival and Ceremonies of the Roman Empire. New York: Cornell University Press. 1981 10. Whyte-Mellville, G. A Tale of Rome and Judea The Gladiators. New York: Longmans Green, 1989. 11. Mattingly, H. Roman Imperial Civilization. London: Edward Arnold publication. 1959 12. Weirdmann, T. Emperors and Gladiators. London: Routledge Press, 1992 13. Yonah, M Illustrated Enclylopedia of the Classical World. New York: Harper and Roe Pub, 1975. 14. Wilkonson, L. The Roman Experience, Anchor Press, 1975. 15. Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, Softkey Multimedia, 1996. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Greek and Roman Architecture.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Greeks thought of their Gods as having the same needs as human beings, they believed that the Gods needed somewhere to live on Earth. Temples were built as the gods' earthly homes. The basic design of temples developed from the royal halls of the Maycenaean Age. A Mycenaean palace consisted of a number of buildings often more than one story high, grouped around a central courtyard. It was brightly painted, both inside and out. In each palace there was a large hall called a megaron, where the king held court and conducted state business. Little remains of the megaron at Mycenae. This reconstruction is based on the remains from other palaces, which would have been similar. The Romans took and borrowed a lot of things from the Greek culture. For example, the took the Greek Gods and renamed them. They also took the styles of Greek temples, but they changed them some. The temple was rectangular, with a gabled roof, with a frontal staircase giving access to its high platform. They used mainly the Corinthian style, but they also made combinations, for instance the Corinthian-Ionic style. The Romans also added a lot of details and decorations to their temples. The Romans also made what became the very common round, domed temple. The main temple of a Roman city was the capitolium. The Pantheon, the famous temple in Rome, was a sample for some of the modern day cathedrals and churches. The Classical Period Temples became much larger and more elaborate. Parthenon, one of the most famous structures ever, was created during that period. The Greeks held many religious festivals in honour of their gods. The purpose of festivals was to please the gods and convince them to grant the people's wishes. Such as making the crops grow or bringing victory in war. In addition to religious events athletic competitions and theatrical performances took place at festivals too.. The early Greek architecture, from about 3000 BC to 700 BC, used mainly the post and lintel, or post and beam, system. Their main building material was marble. Classic Greek architecture is made up of three different orders that are most seen in their temples: Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. All three had the same components, but had different types of details. The orders are known mostly by their column style. The Corinthian order was not as widely used as Doric and Ionic. It was fancier than the others, and had a lot more detail. The Greeks only used one order on one building, they never mixed. The basic temple followed these same rules. It was very simple with a rectangular inner chamber and a roof with shallow gables. The temple stood on a platform with three steps leaving rows of columns, sometimes double rows, that helped support the roof. The column which was used as either a part of the structure or as an dornament, is the basic element in the Greek architecture. The oldest, dating back to about 600 B.C. is the Doric. Perhaps the most basic temples were of the Doric order. Doric architecture was known for being used by the Spartans. Normally, standing right on the floor, the shaft is made of a series of drums which are rounded, doweled together, tapered upward and fluted, usually twenty times. On top of the shaft sits a two part capital carved in a single block. The bottom is the cushion or echinus and the top is a flat square slab called the abacus. There is a natural ring where the capital and shaft meet and this is emphasized by the addition of several carved rings. The column height is four to six and on half times the diameter at the base of the shaft. The oldest Doric columns to survive intact, seven of them, are from the temple of Apollo at Corinth. Each shaft, over twenty feet high, is cut from a solid limestone block which was surfaced with a stucco made of marble dust. While the columns seem simple and stumpy, the sharp ridged fluting is evidence of a high degree of the mastery of stone carving. Further they are bellied slightly at the centre which keeps them from seeming too dumpy. The vertical columns supported beans called architraves. To form a ceiling, other beans were laid across the building with their ends on the architraves. The ends of these beams would be channelled to make triglyphs. On top of this, another beam would be placed for the overhanging rafters. These beams are referred to as mutules. The roofs were finished with flat gables called pediments. A gutter ran along the tops of the pediments, ending at a lion's mouth, which acted as a drain. Thatch, and then tera-cotta and marble, was used to cover the roofs. What is not evident today as a result of the action of wind, rain, and man made destruction, is that these temple were generally brightly painted in white, gold, red and blues. These temples were similar to ionic ones in their layout. The Ionic column is distinguished by its volute or scroll capital. Ionic columns were slenderer than Doric. They were eight or nine diameters high, instead of four to five. Normally the Ionic column has twenty-four flutes which are separated by fillets or soft edges, some examples have as many as forty-eight flutes. The columns had a molded base under them and sculpted figures on the lover part of the shaft. The shafts had channels in them, like folds in a matron's harment. At the top of the shaft. The shafts had channels in them. At the top of the shaft there were rectangular blocks of stone, carved into the shape of flowing hair or other wavy shapes and lines. The cornice was decorated with great detail. Although there were differences in the construction of temples, they were mostly all used for the same activities. When talking about Greek temples, there are some things one must keep in mind. First, that Greek religion is not like that of the Christian. The Greeks thought their gods were of the same nature as man, except smarter and stronger. Second, that the temple was the house of the god they worshipped, so it had to be finer than that of man. Third, that congregations of people did not meet in the temples to worship, as if it were a church. And last, that all gods demanded they be satisfied by sacrifice, and so sacrifices were made at the temples. For this there was a great altar outside the east porch of every temple. Some temples only had a porch for the altar and a hall leading to it, while others were much complicated. The Parthenon is one temple that is very famous and beautiful, but also very basic in its construction. Built between 447 and 438 BC, it was the first building to be constructed on the widely know Acropolis. The Parthenon is called octostyle peripteral because it has eight columns in the front and the back of it and is surrounded by a colonnade or peristyle. Inside, it is constructed as most temples were. The central chamber, or cella, faced east, with a wood figure of Athene covered in gold and ivory in it. There was a pornaos, or porch, at the east end and a opisthodomus, or porch, at the west end. At the back of the temple is a chamber called the Parthenon, or chamber of the Virgin, which was used as a treasury and held the sacrifices. This layout was very common among temples of that period. One rather famous temple that was very complicated, was The Great Palace of Knossos, also known as just Knossos. It began a town with buildings in blocks around a square, or court, and grew into an extremely large palace. The process of becoming a palace was that of the gradual condensation of all the buildings under one roof, except for the court. Even the streets were covered, making them into corridors. The layout of Knossos had long, narrow chambers on the west side, with the shrines and ceremonial rooms on that side of the court. The luxurious living spaces were at the southeast side of the court and the service rooms and some small industries were aligned with them in the northeast side. This was truly a great palace. As we have seen there were different styles and different layouts of Greek temples, but they were used for the same thing. Also, we have seen that the Greeks made amazing buildings, that were carefully planned and skillfully created. Perhaps the architects of that day were the true geniuses of Greek culture, not the philosophers. Roman Temples were very similar to those of the Greeks. The architecture of the Roman Empire, spanning the period from 4th century to B.C. 5 century A.D. They were built in the sacred area called temenos and were surrounded by a colonnaded walk way. There was a porch in front of the entrance where an alter was placed and sacrifices were offered. Leading up to the alter, there was a great staircase flanked with walls on both sides. Like the Greeks there were columns surrounding the temple yet these columns were usually attached to the outer walls of the temple instead of the interior being open. Inside the temple there was a single room called the cella, decorated with coloured marbles. Alcoves had been cut into the walls where statues could be placed. In some cases, a statue of the god that the temple was dedicated to was placed on a raised platform at the end of the cella. In contrast to the linear emphasis of Greek architecture, Roman architecture is noted for its development of the rounded form. The Romans' mastery of concrete, used in combination with bricks, freed the orders from rounded forms as the arch, vault, and dome. Arches and vaults were first employed in utilitarian structures, for example, bridges and aqueducts. Later they were used, together with the dome, in private and public buildings as a means of extending and diversifying the interior space. Roman building types include the basilica, an oblong meeting hall with vaulted roof, often colonnaded, the thermae or bath houses with their complex spatial layout, and the triumphal arch, a purely ornamental structure. Rome has the richest collection of public building, especially the Pantheon, built between 27 BC and A.D. 124, with its enormous concrete dome. It was originally built by Marcus Agrippa but was later rebuilt by Emperor Hadrian. The name "Pantheon" means all gods for this building was dedicated to seven different dieties. The temple stands at on end of a large colonnaded courtyard and has a normal portico (porch) in the front. Inside, the cella is round with a diameter of 140 ft. the floor is laid with coloured marble and statues of all seven gods line the walls. There are two specials places of honour for Venus and Mars, the protecting dieties of Agripa's family. At the top of the dome is a circular opening called an oculus which provides the only light. Other Roman buildings are the Colosseum A.D. 70-80, numerous temples, and thermae such as those of Caracall, about A.D. 215 onwards. The ruins of Pompeii at the foot of Mount Vesuvius provide the most complete view of a Roman city, which was typically planned as a series of interlinked public spaces. Dwellings tend to look inwards towards an open atrium (inner court) and peristyle (colonnade surrounding the court). Other important monuments outside Rome include the amphitheatre in Verona, about A.D. 290, and Hadrian's villa at Tivoli, about A.D. 118-134. The Hadrian's villa shows examples of axial symmetry, its use of curved as well as rectilinear interior spaces, and its numerous vistas. Other monuments in the Roman Empire are the beautifully preserved temple known as the Maison Carree in Nimes, France, 16 BC; the aqueduct, the Pont du Gard, near Nimes, about 14 BC; the Diocletian's Palace in Split, Croatia, 300 BC. Greek temples, with their simple style, had three different, refined architectural styles which were best illustrated in the Parthenon. Rome then took that style and expanded it for their own temples, adding details, arches and domes. They then used those techniques to make churches later in their history, many of which have survived to today. In fact, those styles are still used. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Greek Architecture.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Greek influence is visable in everything that we have today. Our laws, cities and even our system of goverment all come from asppects of greek civilization, but maybe what we have been influenced the most gy the greeks is in architecture. Maybe the reason this is, is that it was a new form of architecture that had little to do with function and everything to do with looks. Agood example is the Greek temple. They were built in honor of the gods, but the architects were most likely more concerned with beauty than function. Unlike the Romans who used the arch to support their buildings the Greeks used columns. their system is called the post and lintel system. This system wasn't very efficiant and is now outdated, but in ancient times it was the only way of building. Another thing that the Greeks are famous for are their great theaters, where they held many plays. Some of these plays were building blocks for moderm drama. The greek theater was incredible. The greeks spent years of time and effort to perfect their theater design. In their theater there were four things that most theaters had. The orchestra, paraskenia, theatron, and skene. the orchestra was the stage, located in the center of the theater. unlike many modern stages, which are raised above the seatsthe orchestra was located below the seats. There were sometimes, but not usually, seats located behind the orchestra. The theatron was the audiences seating. THe theatron was raised above the orchestra,which extended in circles. These circles were devided by walkways which extended outward from the orchestra. The shape of the theater allowed the actor's voices to carry without the use of modern day equiptment. The theaters were usually cut out of hillside, meaning that theywere usually one big piece of rock. most theaters could hold about 20000 people! The skene was the backdrop of the stage. It had a picture of the front of a house painted on it. Because of this, all Greek plays took place in front of a house. The skene had windows, doorways, and arches, which allowed many entrances into the orchestra. The rooms located behind the skene were storage rooms for props and dressing rooms for actors. We get the word scene from the greek word, skene. The Paraskenias were the walls that extended away from the skene so that the audiance could not see anything beyond the play. the paraskenia was also sometimes built to be a high arch above the orchestra. This framed the stage and helped keep the audiences attention. Another thing that many theaters had was the proskenium. the proskenium was a bunch of arches or columnsplaced above the skene. This was used to add more layers to the stage as the scenes changed. Greek architectureis known for its magnificent columns. Columns were used on the outsides og buildings and were the main supports of roofs. The three mostly used columns were the dorian , ionic, and corinthian columns. The dorian columns were the oldest and the most comenly used. they were first used in the seventeenth sentuary B.C. They were pretty simple and they had a stone slab at the top and the bottom of the column seperating it from the floor or ceiling. Dorian columns were masculine and were supposed to represent the male body. The Ionic columns were first used in the 16 centurart B.C. The ionic columns were thinner and mor detailed than the dorian columns. The ionic columns were supposed to represent femininity and were eventually full scuptures of woman as columns. The corinthian columns were introduced in th 14 centuary B.C. These columns are the mostly decorated of the three columns. The tops of these columns were sculptures of plants. They had a complicated base with many layers. the corinthian columns symbolized life. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Greek Gods.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Welcome to my report on Greek gods and myths. You will learn about the gods and what they did. It is also about the myths and legends of Greece. greek gods The gods of Greece are alike many other types of gods. They were pictured a lot like human men and women. The Greeks didn't worship any animals. The gods, like people were endowed with many weaknesses. The gods could be jealous, envious, spiteful, and petty. The gods were held to be immortal, but they had a beginning. The rites of many gods came from Egypt. Most of the gods lived on Mt. Olympus. the first gods The first gods were the Titans. They were before all the other gods. The Titans were the brothers Oceanus, Coeus, Crius, Hyperion, Iapetus, and Cronus. Also the sisters Thea, Rhea, Themis, Mnemosye, Phobe, and Tethys. the gods Zeus was the strongest of all the gods. He ruled the weather by himself, and the universe with 11 other gods. Zeus was the spiritual father of the gods. He was usually armed with a thunderbolt He was also called Thunder. Hera was the wife of Zeus. She was the goddess of marriage and childbirth. She was also the queen of heaven . Poseidon was Zeus' somewhat unruly brother. He was god of the sea, of earthquakes, streams, and horses. Hesta was the sister of Zeus. She was the goddess of the household. Ares was one of Zeus' sons. He was the god of war. He loved Aphrodite. Apollo was also a son of Zeus. Apollo drove the chariot of the sun across the skies. He was the music maker of the gods and was the god of light, music, medicine, agriculture, and prophecy. He was also Known as Helios, the sun god. Hermes was the messenger of the gods and the protector of travelers who escorted the dead down to Hades. He was also a son of Zeus. Athena was Zeus' favorite daughter because she had sprung fully armed from his head when Zeus swallowed her mother, Metis. She was the goddess of wisdom and war. Frequently she was called Pallas. Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. She was the moon goddess and also the goddess of vegetables, birth, and the hunt. She was the favorite among people. Artimes was often pictured with a stag or hunting dogs. Hades another one of Zeus' daughters was the ruler of the underworld. Later she was called Pluto. Aphrodite was the goddess of love, beauty, and fertility. Hephaestus was the only ugly god. He was the god of fire. He was skilled in craftsmanship. He forged the armor of the gods. He was patron of handicrafts and protector of blacksmiths. Demeter was the goddess of the Earth's fruits. She was the mother of Persephone the seed corn. Dionysus also Bacchus was the god of wine and intoxication. He was a nature god of fruitfulness. The female worshippers of him were called Meandads. They roamed around in a frantic drugged condition, hunting animals and devouring their raw flesh. Pan was another god. He was a half man half goat. The Fates were three old hags that were more powerful than the gods, because they knew the past, present, future. Nine goddess called Muses, were the patrons of music, poetry, dance, and literature. heroes The Heroes along with the gods were the characters in the myths and legends. Hercules was the strongest and mightiest of all Greek heroes. Theseus was another hero. He defeated the Minotaur. Polythemus was the hero that defeated the Cyclops. Jason got the golden fleece. Preseus defeated Medusa. Pandora was also a hero in a way. She was the one that opened the box with evil spirits and hope inside. legends and myths The legends of Greece were made to explain the things they didn't know about. They also wrote myths and legends for entertainment. The myths and legends had the gods and heroes as the characters. Some of the stories are Theseus and the Minotaur, Pandora's Box, Medusa and Preseus, and the story of Polythemus and the cyclops. making of man The Greeks believed that Prometneus was the maker of man. He made man by molding him out of clay. Then he got some of the gods together and used their powers to make man live. death Greek ideas about the soul and afterlife were really not exact. But it was thought apparently that the popular thought was that the soul hovered above its tomb or departed to a shadowy region were it led a melancholy existence in offerings brought by relatives. The disembodied soul was also presumed to have the power of inflicting injury on the living. Proper funeraling nights were held necessary to ensure the peace and good will of the deceased. That was my report on the gods and myths. I hope you enjoyed learning about the myths and gods. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Greek Literature.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Greek literature GREEK LITERATURE. The great British philosopher-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead once commented that all philosophy is but a footnote to Plato . A similar point can be made regarding Greek literature as a whole. Over a period of more than ten centuries, the ancient Greeks created a literature of such brilliance that it has rarely been equaled and never surpassed. In poetry, tragedy, comedy, and history, Greek writers created masterpieces that have inspired, influenced, and challenged readers to the present day. To suggest that all Western literature is no more than a footnote to the writings of classical Greece is an exaggeration, but it is nevertheless true that the Greek world of thought was so far-ranging that there is scarcely an idea discussed today that was not debated by the ancient writers. The only body of literature of comparable influence is the Bible. The language in which the ancient authors wrote was Greek. Like English, Greek is an Indo-European language; but it is far older. Its history can be followed from the 14th century BC to the present. Its literature, therefore, covers a longer period of time than that of any other Indo-European language . Scholars have determined that the Greek alphabet was derived from the Phoenician alphabet. During the period from the 8th to the 5th century BC, local differences caused the forms of letters to vary from one city-state to another within Greece. From the 4th century BC on, however, the alphabet became uniform throughout the Greek world. CLASSICAL PERIOD There are four major periods of Greek literature: preclassical, classical, Hellenistic-Roman, and Byzantine. Of these the most significant works were produced during the preclassical and classical eras. Epic Tradition At the beginning of Greek literature stand the two monumental works of Homer, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey'. The figure of Homer is shrouded in mystery. Although the works as they now stand are credited to him, it is certain that their roots reach far back before his time (see Homeric Legend). The 'Iliad' is the famous story about the Trojan War. It centers on the person of Achilles, who embodied the Greek heroic ideal. While the 'Iliad' is pure tragedy, the 'Odyssey' is a mixture of tragedy and comedy. It is the story of Odysseus, one of the warriors at Troy. After ten years fighting the war, he spends another ten years sailing back home to his wife and family. During his ten-year voyage, he loses all of his comrades and ships and makes his way home to Ithaca disguised as a beggar. Both of these works were based on ancient legends. The stories are told in language that is simple, direct, and eloquent. Both are as fascinatingly readable today as they were in ancient Greece. The other great poet of the preclassical period was Hesiod. He is more definitely recorded in history than is Homer, though very little is known about him. He was a native of Boeotia in central Greece, and he lived and worked in about 800 BC. His two works were 'Works and Days' and 'Theogony'. The first is a faithful depiction of the dull and poverty-stricken country life he knew so well, and it sets forth principles and rules for farmers. 'Theogony' is a systematic account of creation and of the gods. It vividly describes the ages of mankind, beginning with a long-past golden age. Together the works of Homer and Hesiod made a kind of bible for the Greeks. Homer told the story of a heroic past, and Hesiod dealt with the practical realities of daily life. Lyric Poetry The type of poetry called lyric got its name from the fact that it was originally sung by individuals or a chorus accompanied by the instrument called the lyre. The first of the lyric poets was probably Archilochus of Paros about 700 BC. Only fragments remain of his work, as is the case with most of the poets. The few remnants suggest that he was an embittered adventurer who led a very turbulent life. The two major poets were Sappho and Pindar. Sappho, who lived in the period from 610 to 580 BC, has always been admired for the beauty of her writing. Her themes were personal. They dealt with her friendships with and dislikes of other women, though her brother Charaxus was the subject of several poems. Unfortunately, only fragments of her poems remain. With Pindar the transition has been made from the preclassical to the classical age. He was born about 518 BC and is considered the greatest of the Greek lyricists. His masterpieces were the poems that celebrated athletic victories in the games at Olympia, Delphi, Nemea, and the Isthmus of Corinth. Tragedy The Greeks invented the epic and lyric forms and used them skillfully. They also invented drama and produced masterpieces that are still reckoned as drama's crowning achievement. In the age that followed the defeat of Persia (490 to 479 BC), the awakened national spirit of Athens was expressed in hundreds of superb tragedies based on heroic and legendary themes of the past. The tragic plays grew out of simple choral songs and dialogues performed at festivals of the god Dionysus. Wealthy citizens were chosen to bear the expense of costuming and training the chorus as a public and religious duty. Attendance at the festival performances was regarded as an act of worship. Performances were held in the great open-air theater of Dionysus in Athens. All of the greatest poets competed for the prizes offered for the best plays. Of the hundreds of dramas written and performed during the classical age, only a limited number of plays by three authors have survived: Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. The earliest of the three was Aeschylus, who was born in 525 BC. He wrote between 70 and 90 plays, of which only seven remain. Many of his dramas were arranged as trilogies, groups of three plays on a single theme. The 'Oresteia' (story of Orestes) consisting of 'Agamemnon', 'Choephoroi' (Libation-bearers), and 'Eumenides' (Furies) is the only surviving trilogy. The 'Persai' is a song of triumph for the defeat of the Persians . 'Prometheus Bound' is a retelling of the legend of the Titan Prometheus, a superhuman who stole fire from heaven and gave it to mankind. For about 16 years, between 484 and 468 BC, Aeschylus carried off prize after prize. But in 468 his place was taken by a new favorite, Sophocles of Colonus (496-406). Sophocles' life covered nearly the whole period of Athens' "golden age." He won more than 20 victories at the Dionysian festivals and produced more than 100 plays, only seven of which remain. His drama 'Antigone' is typical of his work: its heroine is a model of womanly self-sacrifice. He is probably better known, though, for 'Oedipus Rex' and its sequel, 'Oedipus at Colonus'. The third of the great tragic writers was Euripides (484-406). He wrote at least 92 plays. Sixty-seven of these are known in the 20th century some just in part or by name only. Only 19 still exist in full. One of these is 'Rhesus', which is believed by some scholars not to have been written by Euripides. His tragedies are about real men and women instead of idealized figures. The philosopher Aristotle called Euripides the most tragic of the poets because his plays were the most moving. His dramas are performed on the modern stage more often than those of any other ancient poet. His best-known work is probably the powerful 'Medea', but his 'Alcestis', 'Hippolytus', 'Trojan Women', 'Orestes', and 'Electra' are no less brilliant Comedy Like tragedy, comedy arose from a ritual in honor of Dionysus, but in this case the plays were full of frank obscenity, abuse, and insult. At Athens the comedies became an official part of the festival celebration in 486 BC, and prizes were offered for the best productions. As with the tragedians, few works still remain of the great comedic writers. Of the works of earlier writers, only some plays by Aristophanes exist. These are a treasure trove of comic presentation. He poked fun at everyone and every institution. For boldness of fantasy, for merciless insult, for unqualified indecency, and for outrageous and free political criticism, there is nothing to compare to the comedies of Aristophanes. In 'The Birds' he held up Athenian democracy to ridicule. In 'The Clouds' he attacked the philosopher Socrates. In 'Lysistrata' he denounced war. Only 11 of his plays have survived. During the 4th century BC, there developed what was called the New Comedy. Menander is considered the best of its writers. Nothing remains from his competitors, however, so it is difficult to make comparisons. The plays of Menander, of which only the 'Dyscolus' (Misanthrope) now exists, did not deal with the great public themes about which Aristophanes wrote. He concentrated instead on fictitious characters from everyday life stern fathers, young lovers, intriguing slaves, and others. In spite of his narrower focus, the plays of Menander influenced later generations. They were freely adapted by the Roman poets Plautus and Terence in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. The comedies of the French playwright Moliere are reminiscent of those by Menander . History Two of the most excellent historians who have ever written flourished during Greece's classical age: Herodotus and Thucydides. Herodotus is commonly called the father of history, and his 'History' contains the first truly literary use of prose in Western literature. Of the two, Thucydides was the better historian. His critical use of sources, inclusion of documents, and laborious research made his 'History of the Peloponnesian War' a significant influence on later generations of historians. A third historian, Xenophon, began his 'Hellenica' where Thucydides ended his work about 411 BC and carried his history to 362 BC. His writings were superficial in comparison to those of Thucydides, but he wrote with authority on military matters. He therefore is at his best in the 'Anabasis', an account of his participation in a Greek mercenary army that tried to help the Persian Cyrus expel his brother from the throne. Xenophon also wrote three works in praise of the philosopher Socrates 'Apology', 'Symposium', and 'Memorabilia' (Recollections of Socrates). Although both Xenophon and Plato knew Socrates, their accounts are very different, and it is interesting to compare the view of the military historian to that of the poet-philosopher. Philosophy The greatest prose achievement of the 4th century was in philosophy. There were many Greek philosophers, but three names tower above the rest: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. It is impossible to calculate the enormous influence these thinkers have had on Western society . Socrates himself wrote nothing, but his thought (or a reasonable presentation of it) has been preserved in the 'Dialogues' of Plato. Even in translation, Plato's style is one of matchless beauty. All human experience is within its range. Best known of the 'Dialogues' is the 'Republic', a fairly long work. There are also many shorter books such as the 'Apology', 'Protagoras', and 'Gorgias' that contain the penetratingly insightful conversations of Socrates and his friends on every matter relating to human behavior. In the history of human thought, Aristotle is virtually without rivals. The first sentence of his 'Metaphysics' reads: "All men by nature desire to know." He has, therefore, been called the "Father of those who know." His medieval disciple Thomas Aquinas referred to him simply as "the Philosopher." Aristotle was a student at Plato's Academy, and it is known that like his teacher he wrote dialogues, or conversations. None of these exists today. The body of writings that has come down to the present probably represents lectures that he delivered at his own school in Athens, the Lyceum. Even from these books the enormous range of his interests is evident. He explored matters other than those that are today considered philosophical. The treatises that exist cover logic, the physical and biological sciences, ethics, politics, and constitutional government. There are also treatises on 'The Soul' and 'Rhetoric'. His 'Poetics' has had an enormous influence on literary theory and served as an interpretation of tragedy for more than 2,000 years. With the death of Aristotle in 322 BC, the classical era of Greek literature drew to a close. In the successive centuries of Greek writing there was never again such a brilliant flowering of genius as appeared in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. For today's readers there are excellent modern translations of classical Greek literature. Most are available in paperback editions. HELLENISTIC-ROMAN PERIOD By 338 BC all of the Greek city-states except Sparta had been conquered by Philip II of Macedon. Greece was not independent again until the early 19th century, a period of more than 2,000 years. Philip's son Alexander the Great extended his father's conquests greatly. In so doing he inaugurated what is called the Age of Hellenism. The Greek word for Greece was Hellas. Hellenism, therefore, signifies the spread of Greek language, literature, and culture throughout the Mediterranean world. Alexander's conquests were in the East, and Greek culture shifted first in that direction. Athens lost its preeminent status as the leader of Greek culture, and it was replaced temporarily by Alexandria, Egypt. After the rise of Rome, all the Mediterranean area was brought within one far-flung empire. Greek civilization then spread westward as well. Educated Romans learned to speak and write Greek, and they looked to Greece's golden age for inspiration in philosophy, poetry, and drama. So dependent did Roman writers become, in fact, that they produced very little that was not based upon Greek works, especially in drama and philosophy. Library of Alexandria The city of Alexandria in northern Egypt became, from the 3rd century BC, the outstanding center of Greek culture. It also soon attracted a large Jewish population, making it the largest center for Jewish scholarship in the ancient world. In addition, it later became a major focal point for the development of Christian thought. The Museum, or Shrine to the Muses, which included the library and school, was founded by Ptolemy I. The institution was from the beginning intended as a great international school and library. The library, eventually containing more than a half million volumes, was mostly in Greek. It served as a repository for every Greek work of the classical period that could be found. Had the library lasted, it would have presented to modern scholars nearly every ancient book for study. The library lasted for several centuries but was destroyed during the reign of the Roman emperor Aurelian late in the 3rd century AD. A smaller library was destroyed by the Christians in 391 because it harbored so many non-Christian works. Hellenistic Poetry Later Greek poetry flourished primarily in the 3rd century BC. The chief poets were Theocritus, Callimachus, and Apollonius of Rhodes. Theocritus, who lived from about 310 to 250 BC, was the creator of pastoral poetry, a type that the Roman Virgil mastered in his 'Eclogues'. Of his rural-farm poetry, 'Harvest Home' is considered the best work. He also wrote mimes poetic plays set in the country as well as minor epics and lyric poetry. Callimachus, who lived at the same time as Theocritus, worked his entire adult life at Alexandria, where he was cataloger of the library. Only fragments of his poetry survive. The most famous work was 'Aetia' (Causes). It is a kind of poem called an elegy and in four books explains the legendary origin of obscure customs, festivals, and names. Its structure became a model for the work of the Roman poet Ovid. Of his elegies for special occasions, the best known is the 'Lock of Berenice', a piece of court poetry that was later adapted by the Roman Catullus. Callimachus also wrote short poems for special occasions and at least one short epic, the 'Ibis', which was directed against his former pupil Apollonius. Apollonius of Rhodes was born about 295 BC. He is best remembered for his epic the 'Argonautica', about Jason and his shipmates in search of the golden fleece. Apollonius studied under Callimachus, with whom he later quarreled. He also served as librarian at Alexandria for about 13 years. Apart from the 'Argonautica', he wrote poems on the foundation of cities as well as a number of epigrams. The Roman poet Virgil was strongly influenced by the 'Argonautica' in writing his 'Aeneid' . Lesser 3rd-century poets include Aratus of Soli and Herodas. Aratus wrote the 'Phaenomena', a poetic version of a treatise on the stars by Eudoxus of Cnidos, who had lived in the 4th century. Herodas wrote mimes reminiscent of those of Theocritus. His works give a hint of the popular entertainment of the times. Mime and pantomime were a major form of entertainment during the early Roman Empire. Hellenistic Prose History. The significant historians in the period after Alexander were Timaeus, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian of Alexandria, Arrian, and Plutarch. The period of time they cover extended from late in the 4th century BC to the 2nd century AD. Timaeus was born in Sicily but spent most of his life in Athens. His 'History', though lost, is significant because of its influence on Polybius. In 38 books it covered the history of Sicily and Italy to the year 264 BC, which is where Polybius began his work. Timaeus also wrote the 'Olympionikai', a valuable chronological study of the Olympic Games. Polybius was born about 200 BC. He was brought to Rome as a hostage in 168. At Rome he became a friend of the general Scipio Aemilianus. He probably accompanied the general to Spain and North Africa in the wars against Carthage. He was with Scipio at the destruction of Carthage in 146. The history on which his reputation rests consisted of 40 books, five of which have been preserved along with various excerpts. They are a vivid recreation of Rome's rise to world power. A lost book, 'Tactics', was on military matters. Diodorus Siculus lived in the 1st century BC, the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He wrote a universal history, 'Bibliotheca historica', in 40 books. Of these, the first five and the 11th through the 20th remain. The first two parts covered history through the early Hellenistic era. The third part takes the story to the beginning of Caesar's wars in Gaul, now France. Dionysius of Halicarnassus lived late in the 1st century BC. His history of Rome from its origins to the First Punic War (264 to 241 BC) is written from a Roman point of view, but it is carefully researched. He also wrote a number of other treatises, including 'On Imitation', 'Commentaries on the Ancient Orators', and 'On the Arrangement of Words'. Appian and Arrian both lived in the 2nd century AD. Appian wrote on Rome and its conquests, while Arrian is remembered for his work on the campaigns of Alexander the Great. Arrian served in the Roman army. His book therefore concentrates heavily on the military aspects of Alexander's life. Arrian also wrote a philosophical treatise, the 'Diatribai', based on the teachings of his mentor Epictetus . Best known of the late Greek historians to modern readers is Plutarch, who died about AD 119. His 'Parallel Lives' of great Greek and Roman leaders has been read by every generation since the work was first published. His other surviving work is the 'Moralia', a collection of essays on ethical, religious, political, physical, and literary topics. Science and mathematics. Eratosthenes of Alexandria, who died about 194 BC, wrote on astronomy and geography, but his work is known mainly from later summaries. He is credited with being the first person to measure the Earth's circumference. Much that was written by the mathematicians Euclid and Archimedes has been preserved. Euclid is known for his 'Elements', much of which was drawn from his predecessor Eudoxus of Cnidus. The 'Elements' is a treatise on geometry, and it has exerted a continuing influence on mathematics. From Archimedes several treatises have come down to the present. Among them are 'Measurement of the Circle', in which he worked out the value of pi; 'Method Concerning Mechanical Theorems', on his work in mechanics; 'The Sand-Reckoner'; and 'On Floating Bodies'. The physician Galen, in the history of ancient science, is the most significant person in medicine after Hippocrates, who laid the foundation of medicine in the 5th century BC. Galen lived during the 2nd century AD. He was a careful student of anatomy, and his works exerted a powerful influence on medicine for the next 1,400 years . Strabo, who died about AD 23, was a geographer and historian. His 'Historical Sketches' in 47 volumes has nearly all been lost. His 'Geographical Sketches' remain as the only existing ancient book covering the whole range of people and countries known to the Greeks and Romans through the time of Augustus. Pausanias, who lived in the 2nd century AD, was also a geographer. His 'Description of Greece' is an invaluable guide to what are now ancient ruins. His book takes the form of a tour of Greece, starting in Athens. The accuracy of his descriptions has been proved by archaeological excavations. The scientist of the Roman period who had the greatest influence on later generations was undoubtedly the astronomer Ptolemy. He lived during the 2nd century AD, though little is known of his life. His masterpiece, originally entitled 'The Mathematical Collection', has come to the present under the title 'Almagest', as it was translated by Arab astronomers with that title. It was Ptolemy who devised a detailed description of an Earth-centered universe, an erroneous notion that dominated astronomical thinking for more than 1,300 years. The Ptolemaic view of the universe endured until the early modern astronomers Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler overturned it. The Septuagint. One of the most valuable contributions of the Hellenistic period was the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The work was done at Alexandria and completed by the end of the 2nd century BC. The name Septuagint means "seventy," from the tradition that there were 72 scholars who did the work. Since the language of the early Christian community was Greek, the Septuagint became its Bible. Other books not in the Hebrew Bible were also written in Greek and included what is called the Apocrypha Philosophy. Later philosophical works were no match for Plato and Aristotle. Epictetus, who died about AD 135, was associated with the moral philosophy of the Stoics. His teachings were collected by his pupil Arrian in the 'Discourses' and the 'Encheiridion' (Manual of Study). Diogenes Laertius, who lived in the 3rd century, wrote 'Lives, Teachings, and Sayings of Famous Philosophers', a useful sourcebook. Another major philosopher was Plotinus. He, too, lived in the 3rd century. He transformed Plato's philosophy into a school called Neoplatonism. His 'Enneads' had a wide-ranging influence on European thought until at least the 17th century. BYZANTINE LITERATURE Constantine the Great moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium (now Istanbul) in about AD 330 and renamed the city Constantinople. The Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire lasted until it was destroyed by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 . The civilization of this empire was Greek in language and heritage, but it was Christian in religion. In religion the crowning literary achievement was considered to be the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible. This, coupled with a reverence for the great literary traditions of the past, combined to make Byzantine literature very conservative. The written language had to preserve the forms of speech of the New Testament and the Church Fathers. Being heirs to such a great literary tradition excluded any interest in outside ideas. This undue emphasis on form smothered any likelihood of originality and invention. The literary creations of the period have, therefore, bequeathed few memorable works to the present. Much of the writing was necessarily religious: sermons, hymns, theological works, and descriptions of the lives of the martyrs and saints. Of the few authors who are still read may be mentioned Eusebius (died 340), who wrote the first church history; St. Basil the Great (died 379), who organized Eastern monasticism; his brother Gregory of Nyssa (died 394), who wrote many works in which he combined Platonic philosophy with Christian teaching; and Gregory of Nazianzus (died 389), who is noted for his poems, sermons, letters, and writings on theological controversies. The writings of the historians, geographers, philosophers, scientists, and rhetoricians are read today largely as curiosities or as sources of historical information. A work such as 'Byzantine History', a 37-volume study by Nicephorus Gregoras (died 1360), for example, constitutes a valuable primary source for the 14th century. In philosophy only Proclus (died 485) deserves mention. He was the last major Greek philosopher and was influential in spreading the ideas of Neoplatonism throughout the Mediterranean world. The only literature that showed any real originality was that written in the vernacular, the language of the common people. This literature including poems, romances, and epics was only written from the 12th century onward. Of the epics, the most memorable is the story of Digenis Akritas, based on a historical figure who died in about 788. It presents Akritas as the ideal medieval Greek hero. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, Greek national life and culture ended for centuries, as did literary production. It was only revived when Greece became independent in 1829 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Greek Mythology.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Greek Mythology The ancient Greeks used stories containing God's to explain the way life was. Often times there were lessons to be learned that described human behavior. To the Greeks the myths were looked at as examples of good and bad behavior and its effects. they worshipped the Gods and tried not to offend them in any way. The story of creation is a prime example of how the Greeks viewed the heavens and the earth. Zeus was the king of the sky, earth, and men. Zeus' son Apollo urged all Greeks to follow these words: "Nothing in excess" and "Know your limitations." These are words that even humans today should take to heart. The Greeks believed in manlike deities as well, whom were capable of spite, favoritism, and jealousy. The only difference being their ability to perform supernatural powers and immortality. The creation of the world according to the Greeks goes as follows: In the beginning there was only chaos. Out of this void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night (Nyx). All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Upon the birth of Love(Eros) brought a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea appeared. Gaea was the Earth goddess. Erebus then slept with Night, producing Aether and Day. Aether was the heavenly light and Day was the light of the Earth. Night solely produced Death, Doom, Dreams, Fate, Nemesis, Sleep, among others that come to man out of the darkness. Meanwhile Gaea gave birth to Uranus. Uranus was the sky god and first ruler who later became married to his creator, Gaea. Together they proceeded to have the three Cyclopes, the three Hecatoncheires, and twelve Titans. However, Uranus was a bad father and husband. He disliked the Hecatoncheires and expressed his hatred by imprisoning them into the hidden places of the earth, Gaea's womb. This angered Gaea and she plotted against Uranus. She tried to get her children to attack Uranus. All were too afraid except, the youngest Titan, Cronus. Gaea and Cronus set up an ambush of Uranus as he lay with Gaea at night. Cronus grabbed his father and castrated him, with a sharp object, throwing the severed genitals into the ocean. After this Uranus either died, withdrew from the earth, or exiled himself to Italy. As he departed he promised that. Cronus and the Titans would be punished. From his spilt blood came the Giants, the Ash Tree Nymphs, and the Erinyes. From the sea foam where his genitals fell came Aphrodite. She arose from the sea and walked to the shore in Cyprus. She was the goddess of love, desire, and beauty. Along with her natural gifts she was able to compel whomever she desired with the use of a magical girdle. After the absence of Uranus, Cronus became the next ruler. He imprisoned the Cyclopes and the Hecatoncheires in Tartarus and married his sister Rhea. Together the Titans had many offspring while Cronus ruled for many ages. However, Gaea and Uranus both had prophesied that he would be overthrown by a son. To avoid this Cronus swallowed each of his children as they were born. Rhea was angry at the treatment of the children and plotted against Cronus. When it came time to give birth to her sixth child, Rhea hid herself, then she left the child to be raised by nymphs. To conceal her act she wrapped a stone in swaddling cloths and passed it off as the baby to Cronus, who swallowed it. The surviving child was Zeus. He was the lord of the sky and the rain god. His weapon was a thunderbolt which he threw at those who upset him, often punishing those that lie or break oaths. He grew into a handsome youth on Crete. He consulted Metis on how to defeat Cronus. She prepared a drink for Cronus design to make him vomit up the other children. Rhea convinced Cronus to accept his son and Zeus was allowed to return to Mount Olympus as Cronus's cupbearer. This gave Zeus the opportunity to slip Cronus the specially prepared drink. This worked as planned and the other five children were vomited up. Being gods they were unharmed. They were thankful to Zeus and made him their leader. Metis presided over all wisdom and knowledge. However, she was seduced by Zeus and became pregnant with Athena. Zeus became concerned over prophecies that her second child would replace him. Out of this fear Zeus ate her. It is said that she is still the source of wisdom for Zeus. Cronus was yet to be defeated. He and the Titans, except Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Oceanus, fought to retain their power. Since Cronus was old of age, Atlas became their leader in battle and it looked for some time as though they would win and put the young gods down. However, Zeus was cunning. He went down to Tartarus and freed the Cyclopes and the Hecatoncheires. Prometheus joined Zeus as well. He returned to battle with his new allies. The Cyclopes provided Zeus with lighting bolts for weapons. The Hecatoncheires he set in ambush armed with boulders. With the time right, Zeus retreated drawing the Titans into the Hecatoncheires's ambush. The Hecatoncheires rained down hundreds of boulders with such a fury the Titans thought the mountains were falling on them. They broke and ran giving Zeus victory. Zeus exiled the Titans who had fought against him into Tartarus. Except for Atlas, who was singled out for the special punishment of holding the world on his shoulders. However, even after this victory Zeus was not safe. Gaea angry that her children had been imprisoned gave birth to a last offspring, Typhoeus. Typhoeus was so fearsome that most of the gods fled. However, Zeus faced the monster and flinging his lighting bolts was able to kill it. Typhoeus was buried under Mount Etna in Sicily. Much later a final challenge to Zeus rule was made by the Giants. They went so far as to attempt to invade Mount Olympus, piling mountain upon mountain in an effort to reach the top. But, the gods had grown strong and with the help of Heracles the Giants were subdued or killed. The Gods and the stories of their being were important to the Greeks. To us these ideas are unheard of, but to the Greeks this was their way of life. In 2000 years from now our ideas may be unrealistic also. The creation story allows us to see how they viewed they world and those in it. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Hercules.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hercules Hercules, in Greek mythology, was a hero known for his strength and courage and for his legendary adventures. Hercules is the Roman name for the Greek hero Heracles. He was the son of the god Zeus and a human mother Alcmene, wife of the Theban general Amphitryon. Hera, Zeus' jealous wife, was determined to kill Hercules, and after Hercules was born, she sent two great serpents to kill him. Hercules, while he was still a baby, strangled the snakes. Hercules conquered a tribe that had been demanding money from Thebes. As a reward, he was given the hand in marriage of the Theben princess Megara and they had three children. Hera, still filled hatred of Hercules, sent him into madness, which made him kill his wife and children. In horror and remorse at what he did, Hercules was about to kill himself. But he was told by the oracle at Delphi that he should purge himself by becoming the servant of his cousin Eurystheus, king of Mycenae. Eurystheus, urged by Hera, planned as a punishment the 12 impossible tasks, the "Labors of Hercules." The Twelve Labors The first task was to kill the lion of Nemea, a lion that could not be hurt by any weapon. Hercules knocked out the lion with his club first, then he strangled it to death. He wore the skin of the lion as a cloak and the head of the lion as a helmet, a trophy of his adventure. The second task was to kill the Hydra that lived in a swamp in Lerna. The Hydra had nine heads. One head was immortal and when one of the others was chopped off, two grew back in its place. Cancer, one of the Hydra's guards, bit Hercules on the foot when he came near, and was crushed by Hercules, but she was rescued by Hera. Hercules scorched each mortal neck with a burning torch to prevent it from growing two heads and he buried the immortal head under a rock. He then dipped his arrows in the Hydra's blood to make them poisonous. Hercules' next labor is to capture alive a stag with golden horns and bronze hoofs that was sacred to Artemis, goddess of the hunt. The fourth labor was to capture a great boar in Mount Erymanthus. Hercules used the poison arrows with the Hydra's blood to shoot at the Erymanthian boar. One of the poison arrows wounded Hercules' friend Cheiron, an immortal centaur, half-horse and half-man. Cheiron feared the poison arrow would hurt him for eternity, but Zeus rewarded him for his service to the gods by changing him to Sagittarius the Archer. The boar got killed by the arrows. In the fifth labor, Hercules had to clean up in one day the 30 years of filth left by thousands of cattle in the stables of king Augeas. He turns the streams of two rivers, making them flow through the stables. For the next labor, Hercules has to drive off huge flocks of man-eating birds with bronze beaks, claws, and wings that lived near Lake Stymphalus. He shot them with poisonous arrows and killed them. The seventh labor was to capture the man-eating mares of Diomedes, king of Thrace. To bring back the man-eating mares, Hercules killed king Diomedes, then drove the mares to Mycenae. For the ninth labor, Hercules needed the girdle of Queen Hippolyta. Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons, was willing to help Hercules with the ninth labor. When she was about to give Hercules her girdle, which Eurystheus wanted for his daughter, Hera made Hippolyta's forces believe that Hercules was trying to abduct the queen. Hercules killed Hippolyta, thinking that she ordered the attack, and escaped the Amazon with the girdle. On his way to the island of Erythia to capture the oxen of the three headed monster Geryon, Hercules set up two great rocks, the mountains Gibraltar and Ceuta, which now flank the Straight of Gibraltar, as a memorial of his journey of capturing the oxen. The 11th labor was to steal the golden apples of Hesperides, the daughter of Atlas and husband of Hesperus. The apples grew in the garden of Hesperides, which is in the western edge of the world, beyond the Island of Hyperborea and on the border of Ocean. The garden is guarded by Ladon, the dragon with 100 heads. The apples were very important because they were grown by Mother Earth as a wedding present for Hera and Zeus. Hercules reached Ocean and found Atlas holding up the sky. Hercules offered to hold the sky while Atlas killed Ladon and got the apples. But Atlas was tired of holding the sky and told Hercules that he might continue holding it. Hercules pretended to agree but said the weight of the sky was hurting his shoulders and asked Atlas to take over for a while so he could make pads to protect his shoulders. When Atlas took over, he took the golden apples. Later he gave the apples to Athena, who returned them to Hesperides. The 12th and most difficult labor was to bring back Cerberus, the three-headed dog, from the underworld. Hades, lord of the underworld, allowed Hercules to take Cerberus if he used no weapons. Hercules captured Cerberus, brought him to Mycenae, and then carried him back to Hades, therefore, completing the Twelve Labors. After completing the Twelve Labors, Hercules fought Antaeus, son of the sea god Poseidon, for the hand of Deianira. As he was taking her home, the centaur Nessus attacked Deianira. Hercules wounded him with an arrow poisoned in the blood of the Hydra. The dying centaur told Deianira to take some of his blood, which he said was a powerful love charm and anyone wearing clothing with his blood rubbed on it will love her forever. The centaur's blood was actually a poison. Years later, Hercules fell in love with Iole, daughter of Eurytus, king of Oechalia. Deianira found out about Iole and sent Hercules a tunic with the blood of Nessus. When Hercules put on the tunic, the pain caused by the poison was so great that he killed himself and was placed on a funeral pyre on Mt. Oeta. Hercules went to heaven, where he was approved by Hera and married to Hebe, goddess of youth. Hercules was worshipped by the Greeks as both a god and a mortal hero. In Italy, he was worshipped as a god of merchants and traders, although others prayed to him for rescue from danger or good luck. The most famous statue of Hercules is in the National Museum in Naples. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Heros of Greece.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In ancient Greek times heroism was much different than it is now. Today, all you have to do to become a hero most of the time is rich, after you do this the media will take it from there. But in the time of the Trojans it took much more, thing's that Achilles thankfully, was very good at or things he thought was important. Achilles was not only a hero physically, but was more importantly, a hero for the Achian army's morale, also his chivalric properties were important with his being a hero. Physically Achilles is superior to anyone that I have read of so far in the Iliad, other than Zeus and a few other gods. Even the best of the Trojan warriors and fighters cannot compare to Achilles' fighting skill or his strength. Morale is something that the Achians are truly suffering from in the end of book six and into book nine. Something that the Achians need and Achilles provides when he is with the A.chians is a sort of a "father figure" if you would, a figure to look up to and to follow. Another way Achilles aggrandized the Achians morale was him just being on their side and not on the Trojan team. Chivalry was a trait that Achilles saw to be very important, to strive hard to perform well in. He showed a few instances were he could have conducted himself differently but made a gallant decision. This includes when Agamemnon took away Briesies, Achilles' war prize. Achilles could have become very angry and could have killed him very easily but he refrained, he spared the Achians leader and left so no shame could soil his name. Compared to most hero's in ancient Greece Achilles was a monster of a hero, for he showed multiple ways a hero can be the best hero, he also showed exactly how good a hero can be through his physical properties, his influence he had on the Achians army morale, and his desire to be the best warrior and hero he could be through his chivalrous acts. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Hipporcratic oath and Kevorkian.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ More than 2000 years ago Hippocrates who was known as the founder of medicine established a code of behavior for medical students. It is still recited by students about to enter medical practice today. The Hippocratic Oath addresses three major points. The first of these states that no deadly medicine should be given to anyone by diagnosis or if asked. The emphasizes the belief that no sician is to aid in the death of another person. Another major point in the Hippocratic Oath is that any houses entered by a physician should be entered for the benefit of the sick only with no acts of mischief or corruption taking place. Finally the oath states that anything seen or heard in connection or not in connection with a physicians practice should not be divulged. this means that all information given to a physician during practice or not during practice should be kept secret. One major point of the Hippocratic Oath is addressed in the today's news. Dr. Jack Kevorkian who repeatedly ignores the section of the oath dealing with the harming or killing of an individual. His assistance in the suicide of 39 persons, breaks the very backbone of the Hippocratic Oath. Although Hippocrates Oath was written a long time ago, its major points and principles still should be followed by physicians today. Such principles enforce doctors to perform in a way that follows the basic guidelines of modern society As you can see by this essay the Hippocratic Oath Although 2,000 years old still should be abided by today. Its major points and principles outline the way medical physicians should present themselves. Dr. Jack Kevorkian's actions violate the Hippocratic Oath and all that is stated within it. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\justice in the orestia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aeschylus is primarily concerned with the nature of justice. In the trilogy The Oresteia, the Akhaians evolve from an older, more primitive autocratic form of justice, to a new concept of civil justice devised by Athena. He confronts the contrast between the old and new orders, the lives of the members of the House of Atreus, and the serious moral questions that Orestes' crime presents. The case against Orestes is strong. The son admits to striking down his mother, in violation of the sacred tenant of kinship. "But I came back, my years of exile weathered-killed the one who bore me, I won't deny it, killed her in revenge." (Eumenides lines 476-478) This shows that Orestes was fully aware of the act he was committing, that he willfully committed it, and that he must suffer for it. The bond between mother and child was broken when Orestes murdered Clytaemnestra. Marriage, arguably, is a tenant of Zeus and the Olympians. In the old order of things, family is by blood only. A husband and wife have no blood relation, yet the son is of the same blood as his parents. The Furies right to vengeance cannot be dismissed. Clytaemnestra is one who upheld the laws of the Furies. Agamemnon's murder of Iphegenia at Aulis was pure outrage. "Yes he had the heart to sacrifice his daughter , to bless the war..." (Agamemnon lines 222-223) Agamemnon killed his own blood relation in order to sail for Troy. This too, is a terrible crime, seemingly of the same weight as Orestes' act. Clytaemnestra believed she was justified in avenging her daughter, because her husband violated a sacred tenant of the old gods. "Here is Agamemnon, my husband made a corpse by this right hand-a masterpiece of justice. Done is done." (Agamemnon lines 1429-1431) This shows a clear morality behind Clytaemnestra's motives. She appears to have justification for her actions. The curse on the House of Atreus is fulfilled. In the last lines of Agamemnon the chorus foreshadows Orestes' return. Clytaemnestra responds by saying to her new husband, "We will set the house in order once for all." (Agamemnon lines 1708) The chorus's purpose for suggesting Orestes's return is to show that the house is not yet cleansed of the curse.. Like his mother, Orestes possesses what he believes to be a just motive for revenge. Unlike his mother, however, Orestes has reservations about killing. He does not wish to strike down his mother, but realises that he must. The defense of Orestes is rooted in the fact that Apollo ordered him to do so. Orestes trusts Apollo's guidance at his trial. "Apollo will never fail me, no, his tremendous power, his oracle charges me to see this trial through." (Libation Bearers lines 273-275) Orestes believes that he is justified in avenging his god-honoured father, who was so brutally murdered by his mother. This cycle of blood in the House of Atreus appears as if it will continue forever. This cycle of violence leads the gods to search for a different solution. If the society of Greece is to progress to a higher civilisation, some other way must be found to resolve the conflict of moral questions. The ancient idea of vengeance doesn't properly apply here because both Clytaemnestra and Orestes acted in support of legitimate definitions of justice. The ancient gods support Clytaemnestra and her actions, while Zeus, by means of Apollo, supports Orestes. The clash between deities sets the stage for the emergence of a new form of justice-civil justice. The ancient law of retaliation, which states that blood must be paid for with more blood, is enforced by the Furies. This task was given to them by Destiny at the dawn of time. "...you'll give me blood for blood, you must!... Wither you alive, drag you down and there you pay, agony for mother-killing agony!" (Eumenides lines 262, 265) Their concept of justice is one where the law of retaliation is applied absolutely. They have no notion of compassion or understanding. They uphold the belief that regardless of circumstances, Orestes must be made to pay for his crime of matricide. The Furies represent something older and more sacred which Apollo and Zeus do not respect. Athena's establishment of the court to try manslaughter is significant, because it provides a place for the citizens to decide about what moral elements will be upheld in the Polis. The Eumenides is the battleground for the two competing moralities. The furies invoke their rights as defenders of blood, and it is up to Orestes and Apollo to convince the jury that the son was just in his actions. The jury is expected to believe that Apollo's oracle is true-that Zeus himself ordained the act. The Chorus asks the question, "Can a son spill his mother's blood on the ground, then settle into his father's halls in Argos?" (Eumenides lines 661-662) A good answer to this question might have been to hypothetically reverse the question on Clytaemnestra-How quickly she settled into life after she cut down her lord. But, Apollo opts for the weaker, more arbitrary defense. His speech about how the father is the only true parent makes little sense. Even the all-male jury would take some offense to this argument. Athena, however, initiates the ideal that the law be concerned not only with the forms of justice, as the Furies are passionate about, but with justice itself. The jurors must ask themselves whether Orestes was justified in committing matricide. Circumstances, motives and consequences must be taken into account at trial. Do they consider marriage as sacred as the law of kin? Is there a sacred bond between mother and son? Or only between father and son? Does Zeus's will override the ancient laws of the Furies? These are complicated moral question that Athena asks the mortal jury to grapple with. Even Athena believes the issue too important for her to judge solely. "...by all rights not even I should decide a case of murder-murder whets passions." (Eumenides lines 486-487) She realises that if she were to mediate, the curse will never end. Perhaps she is suggesting that mortals must decide when the gods disagree. This is an important development because it shows the journey from the retributive justice in Agamemnon to the deliberative justice of Athena's tribunal. The ultimate decision is ambiguous. The vote is tied for a reason-neither side puts forth a well argued analysis of Orestes' case. There is justice on both sides, and the jury realises this. Orestes is acquitted by Athena on arbitrary terms. She casts her vote for Orestes because she supports her father's Order, believing that there is a need for the establishment of a higher reasoning. One could also argue that she voted for acquittal because she is the god of war. She supported Agamemnon, the General, throughout the Trojan war and thus wished to favour his memory. She knows little of women, despite being female herself. Having settled the trial, Athena must also settle the anger of the Furies. She tactfully invites them to join Zues's Order-something that is necessary if peace is to be made between the generations of immortals. She does not completely refute them, nor deny them their place in the world. "I will bear with your anger. You are older. The years have taught you more than I can know. But Zeus, I think, gave me some insight, too, that has its merits." (Eumenides lines 855-859) She asks the Furies to accept her offer of making their home Athens, and to endure as the upholders of the sacred bond of marriage. They accept her offer because it is wise and just. It transforms the Furies from destructive forces to beneficial ones. This resolution ends the curse on the House of Atreus, as well as many of the differences between the old and new gods. Orestes is free to claim his city and the Furies have been given a place in Zeus' Order. The latter seems to be the emphasis of the trilogy because of the arbitrary decision on Orestes' case. The best possible justice has been realised in the decision. The new Apollonian concept of justice represents a higher level of understanding and civilisation. It may be argued that Clytaemnestra's death was left unavenged; that justice escaped her. Orestes' right to avenge the dishonorable death of his father was upheld by the court. The tribunal deemed Clytaemnestra's actions wrong and Orestes' just. With the establishment of Athena's judicial system, there is now a method to prosecute people like Clytaemnestra, such that the ancient blood-lust of vengeance doesn't take rule over issues of right and wrong. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Medeas Revenge.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Medea, a play by the Greek playwright Euripides, explores the Greek-barbarian dichotomy through the character of Medea, a princess from the "barbarian", or non-Greek, land of Colchis. Throughout the play, it becomes evident to the reader that Medea is no ordinary woman by Greek standards. Central to the whole plot is Medea's barbarian origins and how they are related to her actions. In this paper, I am attempting to answer questions such as how Medea behaves like a female, how she acts heroically from a male point of view, why she killed her children, if she could have achieved her goal without killing them, if the murder was motivated by her barbarian origins, and how she deals with the pain of killing her children. As an introduction to the play, the status of women in Greek society should be briefly discussed. In general, women had very few rights. In the eyes of men, the main purposes of women in Greek society were to do housework such as cooking and cleaning, and bear children. They could not vote, own property, or choose a husband, and had to be represented by men in all legal proceedings. In some ways, these Greek women were almost like slaves. There is a definite relationship between this subordination of women and what transpires in the play. Jason decides that he wants to divorce Medea and marry the princess of Corinth, casting Medea aside as if they had never been married. This sort of activity was acceptable by Greek standards, and shows the subordinate status of the woman, who had no say in any matter like this. Even though some of Medea's actions were not typical of the average Greek woman, she still had attitudes and emotions common among women. For instance, Medea speaks out against women's status in society, proclaiming that they have no choice of whom to marry, and that a man can rid themselves of a woman to get another whenever he wants, but a woman always has to "keep [her] eyes on one alone." (231-247) Though it is improbable that women went around openly saying things of this nature, it is likely that this attitude was shared by most or all Greek women. Later in the play, Medea debates with herself over whether or not to kill her children: "Poor heart, let them go, have pity upon the children." (1057). This shows Medea's motherly instincts in that she cares about her children. She struggles to decide if she can accomplish her goal of revenge against Jason without killing her children because she cares for them and knows they had no part in what their father did. Unfortunately, Medea's desire to exact revenge on Jason is greater than her love for her children, and at the end of the play she kills them. Medea was also a faithful wife to Jason. She talks about how she helped Jason in his quest for the Golden Fleece, then helped him escape, even killing her own brother. (476-483). The fact that she was willing to betray her own family to be with Jason shows her loyalty to him. Therefore, her anger at Jason over him divorcing her is understandable. On the other hand, Medea shows some heroic qualities that were not common among Greek women. For example, Medea is willing to kill her own brother to be with Jason. In classical Greece, women and killing were probably not commonly linked. When she kills her brother, she shows that she is willing to do what is necessary to "get the job done", in this case, to be with Jason. Secondly, she shows the courage to stand up to Jason. She believes that she has been cheated and betrayed by him. By planning ways to get back at him for cheating on her, she is standing up for what she believes, which in this case is that she was wronged by Jason, but in a larger sense, she is speaking out against the inferior status of women, which effectively allows Jason to discard Medea at will. Third, she shows that she is clever and resourceful. Rather than use physical force to accomplish her plans, she uses her mind instead: "it is best to...make away with them by poison." (384-385) While physical strength can be considered a heroic quality, cleverness can be as well. She does in fact poison the princess and the king of Corinth; interestingly, however, she does not poison them directly. "I will send the children with gifts...to the bride...and if she wears them upon her skin...she will die." (784-788) This shows her cleverness because she is trying to keep from being linked to the crime, though everyone is able to figure out that she was responsible anyway. In a way, though, she is almost anti-heroic because she is not doing the "dirty work" herself, which makes her appear somewhat cowardly. Finally, there is the revenge factor. Many times heroes were out for revenge against someone who did them or a friend wrong, and in this case Medea is no exception, since she wants to have revenge against Jason for divorcing her without just cause. There are two main reasons why Medea decides to kill her children. The first, and more obvious one, is that she feels that it is a perfect way to complement the death of the princess in getting revenge on Jason. When she tells the chorus of the plans to kill the children, they wonder if she has the heart to kill her children, to which she replies, "[y]es, for this is the best way to wound my husband." (817). This shows that she believes that by killing her children, she will basically ruin Jason's life, effectively getting her revenge. The second reason for Medea killing her children has nothing to do with revenge. If she left her children with Jason, they would be living in a society that would look down upon them since they have partly barbarian origins. She did not want her children to have to suffer through that. Also, if her children are mocked for being outsiders, then this reflects badly on Medea, and she said that she does not want to give her enemies any reason to laugh at her. (781-782) Since she does not want to leave her children with Jason, they really have no place else to where they could go, being barbarians in a Greek city: "[m]y children, there is none who can give them safety." (793) For these two reasons, Medea decides that killing her children is the best way to accomplish her plan: getting revenge and keeping her children away from Jason. Whether or not Medea could have accomplished her goal without killing her children is debatable. On one hand, if we look at Medea's objective only as seeking revenge against Jason, then she could have accomplished that without killing her children. Killing the princess, Jason's new wife, would cause enough grief for Jason so that her goal would be accomplished. We can infer that the death of Jason's wife would be more damaging to him than the deaths of his children because Jason was going to let Medea take the children with her into exile and did not try to keep them for himself. Therefore, once the princess was dead, killing the children, while it causes additional grief for Jason, really is not necessary. Even though Medea does not seem to believe it, killing her children probably causes more pain for her than Jason. She just does not see it because she is so bent on revenge against Jason. On the other hand, if we define Medea's objective in two parts, one being revenge, and the other to keep the children away, then it is possible that she had to kill her children. As for the revenge part, it was not necessary that she kill her children for the reasons just discussed. However, she may have needed to kill them to keep Jason from getting them. If Jason decided he wanted his children, there is not much Medea could do about it, other than kill them. Also, it is possible that she did not want to take them with her into exile because they could make it more difficult for her to reach Athens. For whatever the reason, however, it is probable that she needed to kill her children to carry out her plan, since she accomplished two different goals through their deaths. The murder of Medea's children is certainly caused in part by her barbarian origins. The main reason that Jason decides to divorce Medea to marry the princess is that he will have a higher status and more material wealth being married to the king's daughter. (553-554) In other words, Jason believes that Medea's barbarian origins are a burden to him, because there is a stigma attached to that. In his mind, having the chance to be rich outweighs the love of a barbarian wife. Medea's barbarian status is a burden to herself as well. Once separated from Jason, she becomes an outsider with no place to go, because the barbarians were not thought too highly of in Greek society. Had Medea not been a barbarian, it is likely that Jason would not have divorced her, and therefore, she would not have had to kill her children. But since she is a barbarian, this sets in motion the events of the play, and in her mind the best course of action is to kill her children. Just because she is non-Greek does not necessarily mean that her way of thinking would be different from the Greeks; in other words, her way of thinking did not necessarily cause her to kill her children. Medea deals with the pain that the deaths of her children cause her quite well. She does this by convincing herself that her revenge against her husband was worth the price of her children's death. When asked about killing her children, she replies, "So it must be. No compromise is possible." (819) This shows that she is bent on revenge, and that she is justifying their deaths to get her revenge. However, she does struggle with her decision to kill them. She is sad that she must take their lives, but also tells herself that it is in their best interests, as evidenced by what she says to her children: "I wish you happiness, but not in this world." (1073) She does not seem to have a problem with killing her children once it comes time to actually carry out the act. But her motherly instincts will not allow her to totally abandon her children after they are dead, as she decides to hold a yearly feast and sacrifice at their burial site. (1383-1384) But in the end, we can see that she dealt with the pain surprisingly well. Two main themes are present in Medea: Medea's barbarian origins, and her desire for revenge against Jason. Her barbarian status is really what starts the actions of the play. It is what makes her a less desirable wife to Jason than the princess, and causes him to leave her. This then leads to her thoughts of revenge against Jason, and her decision to kill her children as a way to exact that revenge. As far as revenge goes, Medea is heroic in that she is standing up against an evil done to her. Throughout most of the play, she spends her time plotting her revenge against Jason, waiting until the right moment to unleash her plan. She uses her cleverness to trick Jason and the others into believing that she was not upset with him. In the end, we can see that Medea's barbarian origins were a major factor in the play, and that Medea was no ordinary woman in Greek terms. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Metamorphosis.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Metamorphosis Metamorphosis is a key element in Greek mythology. This ability to change shape or form is a major development in the stories of Arachne, Zeus, and Daphne. Almost all of the gods had the power of metamorphosis. The first story was the one of Arachne. Arachne was a mortal, who was a great weaver. She was the best of all the mortals. She even thought she was as good as one of the gods. Nobody was as good as the gods at anything. She thought she was as good as the god Athene. Athene was the god of arts. When Athene heard Arachne say she was better than her, Athene challenged Arachne to a contest. The winner would chose the losers punishment. Arachne accepted and went first in the competition. Hers was very beautiful, but she was no match for Athene. Athene was weaving about things that happened to the gods. While the crowd watched Athene, Arachne new that she had lost, so she went and hung herself. She soon shriveled up and had eight legs. That is how the Greeks explained the way spiders came to be. Another example of metamorphosis is Zeus. Zeus was the king of all gods. He had probably the most changes in Greek mythology. He was always changing to get a girl to marry him. The most important change was when he got his first wife Hera. Zeus had ask Hera to marry him every year for three hundred years. One stormy night Zeus changed into a pigeon, and flew onto a window seal near Hera. She let what she thought was a helpless little pigeon in through the window. She did not know it was Zeus at the time. Hera petted the bird and told it she loved it. At that time Zeus changed into himself and Hera had to marry him. That made her the queen of all gods. The Greeks believed in having many wives. And the sneaky god Zeus was he had over one hundred wives, none of them where as important as Hera. Daphne was another example of metamorphosis. Daphne was not one of the gods of the Pantheon. One of the gods from the Pantheon loved her, his name was Apollo. Apollo liked chasing Daphne. Daphne did not like to run, so one day she cried out "please turn me into a tree". Her wish was granted. She was turned into what we know today as the laurel tree. The Greek people where laurel reefs as head ornaments even today. This myth had something to do with the naming of our town Daphne. There are a hole lot more myths that involve metamorphosis. I think Zeus made more changes in shape or form, than any other god. The gods could not appear as themself infront of mortals. Their beauty would kill the mortals if they saw a god. If somebody poor comes to your door and ask you for food you should give it to them, because it might be a god in disguise. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Modern Vs Ancient.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Modern Vs. Ancient "We saw her lying: she had made a noose of her fine linen veil and hanged herself. Haimon lay beside her, his love lost under ground, crying out that his father had stolen her away from him." Throughout history plays have evolved in many ways. For example, the theaters where they hold plays have changed drastically from the original theater. Costumes are another item that has changed, but the content of the play has always been similar, ever since they created the very first play. Most plays have the same motifs, and have relied on tragedy to form the play. The play, The Effects of Gamma Rays on Man in The Moon Marigolds has taken several aspects from Greek drama, specifically from the play Oedipus. The play The Effects of Gamma Rays on Man in The Moon Marigolds and both Antigone and Oedipus have used the same ideas and they both have very similar aspects to them. Although they created the modern play many years after the other two, there are still signs of the old style of writing in them, just like there are in most plays. For example, these three plays use the same motifs in their main themes, in fact they all use pretty much the same themes, and have the same morals. Just like plays passed on from generation to generation, modern plays also have morals in them, and many of those morals are similar. For example, the theme of Antigone and Oedipus was that we should listen to others, and we shouldn't think that we are always right, because there are always people who know more than we do. The theme from The Effects of Gamma Rays on Man in The Moon Marigolds is very similar. They all teach us that we should be honest, and we should listen to others. Both ancient and modern plays rely on tragedy in the plot lines. Tragedy is used for many reasons; to foreshadow upcoming events, make conflict in the play, to show the reader the consequences of different actions, to arouse the emotions of pity and fear, wonder and awe, to explore the questions of the ways of God to Man, and to purify the emotions. For example, in the play Oedipus, there were many tragedies that the author used. In the beginning of the play there was a tragedy because all the people were suffering, and there wasn't enough food. Then after that, there was the problem of who killed the king, and when Oedipus found out it was him, he realized what a fool he was for not listening to others. After that he was forced to take out his own eyes and it showed the audience the consequences he had to take for his actions. That was how tragedy was used in Oedipus. In Antigone, there was an even bigger tragedy at the end when Creon finally decided to free Antigone, it was too late, and many people whom he loved very much, killed themselves because he would not listen to them. The quotation used in the introduction of this paper was taken from this moment in the play. The quotation explains just how tragic this scene was for the actors in the play. In the play The Effects of Gamma Rays on Man in The Moon Marigolds, they showed a tragedy when Beatrice killed the rabbit. This is a tragedy because many of the other characters loved the rabbit in the play. Another thing that hasn't changed very much about plays is the physical theater itself. Throughout history, and all the technical advancements we have made since the old plays were created, it is amazing that the actual theater has remained pretty much the same. For example, the same main parts are still there, like the stage, the place where the audience sits, the dressing rooms, and the entrance have all still stayed the same. There have only been a few changes like adding lights, and some computerized parts to the stage. Costumes have also changed also, before they used to be robes and veils, but now actors use modern clothes. Also, masks used to be used to show the actors emotions in the play, but now instead of masks makeup and facial expressions are used to show how they feel. Plays have clearly changed very little since ancient times. They have the similar motifs, themes, techniques, and are still held in a place similar to where they used to be, and that proves that future plays will have these same characteristics in them, and the same traditions will be kept. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Myth Book Report.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MYTH BOOK REPORT Title - Prometheus Steals Fire From Heaven Author - Shortened, Simplified version of real story. Author Unknown I. Setting: The setting for the story Prometheus Steals Fire From Heaven is In heaven, Earth, Olympus, and Mt. Caucasus. The time period is that of when there were only the (Greek) gods, and no men on earth, and none of the animals seemed worthy to rule the rest. II. Point of View: Omniscient point of view III. Characters: Zeus - Zeus is the ruler of the universe. At one point in the story Zeus was Jealous of others' powers. Zeus also had a bad temper and was mad at Prometheus for stealing heavens fire and chained Prometheus high on Mt. Caucasus, forever. He is one of 2 antagonists in the story. Hera - Queen of heaven, no significant part in story. Prometheus - The major protagonist in the story. Prometheus was one of the Titans (parents of the gods). He always thought of the positive side of things, and never let anyone or thing phase him. He proudly endured pain and showed his agony to none, all for inferior humans. Epimetheus - A minor part in the story. Epimetheus was the brother of Prometheus. Hephaestus - This minor character is heaven's lame smith. His part is somewhat significant later in the story, but he has no say in what he does, even if it is wrong. Pandora - Pandora was made by Zeus. She was made to curb man's power. As beautiful as a goddess, the immortals bestowed gifts on her to make her more captivating. Pandora is the 2nd antagonist in the story. IV. Theme The hero's mission is to create a man like figure on the Earth, with the power of fire. Pandora accidentally opened a jar full of disease, envy, revenge, spite, and other evils which went on man, down on the earth, but she closed it. The only thing left in it was hope. That is all man had now - hope. Prometheus completed his mission, even though he was chained up on the side of the mountain and tormented the rest of his life. V. Plot There was a time when there was no gods, and Heaven and Earth alone existed. From their union sprung the Titans, and the children of the Titans, the gods rebelled and overthrew them. Now there was no men on Earth so Prometheus had a task of making one. He mixed clay with water, kneaded it, shaped it, and made it look rather god like in shape. He made it stand upright so man could look up at the stars, as opposed to down on the Earth, like the animals. Now Prometheus had to give man gifts to make him superior to all the animals. Unfortunately, his brother Epimetheus already had given all the great gifts to the animals, and there was nothing left for man. Then Prometheus thought of a great idea, that would enable man to make weapons, tools, master the arts, protect them from nature, and slay beasts, among other things. So Prometheus lit his torch at the chariot of the sun, and went back down to Earth. Zeus was mad because the human was a great match for the animals on earth, and perhaps even for the gods, so he made woman, lovely as a goddess. All the gods gave her gifts to make her even better. She was named Pandora - Gift of All. Epimetheus was enchanted with Pandora so he took her into his home, where he had a jar with certain gifts that he had never given out to animals, and e warned her to stay far away from that jar. She thought it would do no harm if she just peeked in to see what was there, but as soon as she did, out came a host of evil plagues, and all manner of disease, envy, spite, revenge, and they spread out far and wide. She quickly clapped on the lid only to find it almost completely empty. Only hope had remained -- hope which never leaves mankind. Zeus was no longer worried about the power of mankind but he was furious because Prometheus had stole heaven's fire. Zeus summoned Hephaestus who was heavens lame smith. Prometheus was chained on the top of Mt. Caucasus, where a vulture would prey on his liver, and it would grow back as fast as it was devoured. Prometheus never groaned or regretted what he did, and he lay proud on the mountain, enduring the pain and suffering forever (and for the pride of mankind.) VI. Analysis of the Hero Prometheus was a very determined person. I believe this because he went through the trouble of stealing the fire from heaven, just for some animals (humans). I also think that Prometheus was clever. It even said in the book "Quick-witted Prometheus" but that is not the whole reason. He is clever because even after his brother had given all of the gifts he could think of to the other animals, Prometheus thought of fire to give to the humans. Prometheus was proud of what he did, because at the end of the story he did not regret what had happened, even though he was chained up at the top of the mountain to be tortured. Prometheus is also very kind. He warned his brother about the evil Pandora, but his brother didn't listen, and the consequences were not good at all. One negative trait of Prometheus is that he didn't realize what the consequences would be from stealing the fire from heaven. He just took it, and went away rejoicing. I can't think of a name for this trait, maybe half-witted, even though he was very intelligent. VII. Conflicts Person vs. Person: Zeus was Jealous of Prometheus and his power to create man, and to steal the fire from heaven. He ultimately avenged this "crime" by having Prometheus chained to the top of Mt. Caucasus to be tortured for a long time. The conflict here would be Zeus vs. Prometheus. Person vs. Society: Prometheus stole fire from heaven and the gods didn't like that one bit. They were perhaps a society and they disagreed with Prometheus when he did what he did. The conflict is Prometheus vs. The Gods Person vs. Nature: The humans that Prometheus was creating had no special talents because the gifts were all given to the other animals, for example: Wings, Claws, Scales, etc. How were the humans supposed to be superior to the rest of creation when nature was greater? That is the Person vs. Nature - Man vs. the other animals. VIII. Literary Value. There are many things a person can gain from reading a myth. The values, morals, and the theme can effect a person and they can use the story (or myth) as an example to be a better person or to think about what they do, before they consider the consequences. I can gain knowledge from reading a myth such as this, for example the word hope. This is explained a great deal in the story and I have a better understanding of it. I also can look at what Prometheus did and think about what I do before I do it so that in the end, I don't get hurt (or screwed). f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Myths test.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MYTHS AND THEIR MEANINGS TEST CHAPTERS 1-6 NAME__________________________________ DATE ___/___/___ CH. 1 ___1. GAEA A. RULER OF THE MOON ___2. OCEANUS B. RULER OF THE HEAVENS ___3. URANUS C.MOTHER EARTH ___4. THEA D. RULER OF THE OCEAN 5._______________AND______________WERE THE FIRST TWO GODS. ___ 6.WHO OVERTHREW HIS FATHER AND TOOK RHEA TO BE HIS WIFE? A) JUPITER B)CRONIS C)MNEMOSYNE 7. WHAT DID CRONIS DO TO HIS NEW BORN CHILDREN? __________________________________________ 8. WHAT OCCURRED TO URANUS? __________________________________________ CH. 2 9.NAME THE TWO PLACES MT. OLYMPUS SEPARATES? __________________________________________ ___10.MT. OLYMPUS IS ________FT. HIGH A) 50,000 B) 10,000 C)9,000 11.WHAT PURPOSE DOSE MT. OLYMPUS SERVE AS? _________________________________________ 12.THE GODS DRANK_________ AND EAT _______________ 13.WHO ARE THE 3 CHILDREN OF CRONIS THAT DWELL ON MT. OLYMPUS? __________________,_________________AND___________________ 14.NAME THE GOD KNOWN AS THE FATHER TO GOD AND MAN. _________________________________________ 15.WHAT ARE ORACLES? _________________________________. CH. 3___16.WHO WAS THE PRINCESS OF ASIA? A)PENELOPI B)CYCLOPS C)EUROPIA ___17.WHO TOOK EUROPIA? A)BOB HOPE B)A BULL C)JUPITER ___18.WHO DID THE BULL MEET IN THE SEA/ A)JUPITER B)EUROPIA C) MRS. BULL 19.WHAT ARE THE SERIES OF TUNNELS CALLED? _________________________________ 20.WHO WAS TRAPPED IN THE TUNNELS? __________________________________ 21. WHAT IS THE MINATAUR? _________________________________ CH.4 22.WHAT DID VENUS DO TO FALL SO DEEPLY IN LOVE WITH ADONIS?__________________________________________________ 23.WHAT IS ADONISIS MOST FAVORITE SPORT? ___________________________________ 24.WHEN SHE DID WHAT SHE DID WITH ADONIS, WHAT DID THIS TAKE AWAY FROM?________________________________ 25.WHAT ENDED UP OCCURRING TO ADONIS? ___________________________________________________ 26.WHAT DID JUPITER DO FOR HIS DAUGHTER? ____________________________________________ 27.WHAT TODAY IS ADONIS ACTUALLY? _______________________________________ CH5. 28.WHO IS THE GODDESS OF DARKNESS? ________________________________ ___29..LATONA WAS... A)UGLY B)FAT C)BEAUTIFUL ___30. WHO FELL IN LOVE WITH LATONA? A)JUPITER B)BUGS BUNNY C)APOLLO ___ 31.A)HOW MANY OF JUPITER'S CHILDREN DID LATONA BARE? A)4 B)2 C)6? ___32.B)WHAT WERE THE CHILDREN? A)UGLY B)TWINS C)QUADRUPLETS 32.WHO FOLLOWED LATONA EVERYWHERE? ____________________________________ CH6 33.WHAT WAS DIANA THE GODDESS OF? ________________________________ 34.WHO DID SHE FALL IN LOVE WITH? _________________________________ 35.WHO WAS ENDYMION? __________________________ 36. WHERE DID ENDYMION TEND HIS FLOCKS? ________________________________ 37.WHO FELL IN LOVE WITH ENDYMION? ____________________________________ 38.WHO IS DIANA? ___________________________ 39.DID DIANA EVER COME AGAIN TO SEE ENDYMION? ________________________ 40.WHAT WERE THE GODS AFRAID DIANA WOULD NOT DO? _________________________________________________ f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Odyseus A Hero.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Heroism was not an invention of the Greeks. Yet, through the first hundreds years of their civilization, the Greek literature has already given birth to highly polished and complex long epics that revolved around heroes. These literature works gave many possibilities of definition of heroism. The Greeks illustrated heroism to obey the rules laid down by the gods and goddesses, and those who obey the rules would gain honor and fame. The Greeks regarded intelligence as one of the highest gifts that all heroes must posses. The Greeks required that all heroes must have courage. Odysseus, one of the heroes of the epic "Odyssey" standout. He was constantly expected to be a true hero, always obey the rules laid down by the immortals, posses wisdom and courage. The Greeks believed that all heroes must always obey the Guest/Host relationship rule-- which all guests must treat the hosts with courtesy, and the host must treat the guests properly-- laid down by the gods and goddesses. Those who did not obey the rule would be punished severely. Odysseus throughout the epic, demonstrated that he obeyed the Guest/Host relationship rule. Odysseus always following the Guest/Host relationship rule, a characteristic that all heroes must have according to the Greeks' tradition . All heroes must followed the rule because if they did not, they would be punished by the immortals, and would not be recognized as heroes. When Odysseus reach the land of the Cyclops race. Odysseus decided to pick his best men, goods offered as gifts, and headed toward a Cyclops's cave. When his men saw cheese, pens, and lamb on lying on the racks, they pleading to Odysseus, "Why not take these cheeses, get them stowed, come back, throw all the pens, and make a run for it? We'll drive the kids and lambs aboard. We say put out again on good salt water!" Odysseus dismissed the suggestion, "I wished to see the cave man, and what he had to offer." Odysseus dismissed the suggestion of his men, and choose to wait to greet the Cyclops with the gifts as in the custom of the Guest/Host relationship rule. Those actions and sayings showed that Odysseus was always following Guest/Host relationship rule, an example for his men to look up to. Odysseus's actions spoke for his character. He posses the characteristic that meets the criteria of always obeying the rules laid down by the immortal as defined in the Greek's tradition of all true heroes. The Greeks believed that intelligence was one of the highest gifts that all heroes must posses Intelligence was so important to the character of all heroes because intelligence would be used in novel situations where cunning would most needed. Odysseus posses intelligence as expected in the Greeks' tradition of heroes. Odysseus displayed intelligence when he went to the goddess Circe to rescue his men who were turned into swine by the goddess Circe. The goddess spoke to him, "Put up your weapon in the sheath. We two shall mingle and make love upon our bed. So mutual trust may come of play and love." He was asked to go to bed with a beautiful goddess, and yet he responded, "Circe, am I a boy, that you should make me soft and doting now? Here in this house you turned my men to swine; now it is I myself you hold, enticing into your chamber; to your dangerous bed, to take my manhood when you have me stripped. I mount no bed of loved with you upon it. Or swear to me first a great oath, if I do, you will work no more enchantment to my harm.' She swore at once, outright, as I demanded, and after she had sworn, and bound herself, I entered Circe's flawless bed of love." Odysseus was asked by the goddess Circe to make love with her in order to build trust between her and Odysseus. However, Odysseus realized that the goddess wanted to go to bed with him, not to build trust, and as a result, Odysseus used his cunning to ask Circe to make a deal in which Circe had to swear to reverse her spell on his men in trade for him to make love with her "as to build trust". The goddess accepted the deal because both sides would get what they want-Circe would go to bed with Odysseus, the goddess would reverse her spell on Odysseus men. Odysseus's intelligence enable him to save his men. His actions showed the quality of a hero who posses the most important trait according to the Greek tradition-intelligence. The Greek required that courage was a trait that all hero need. Courage was defined in the Greek tradition as to conquer fear or despair in order to save oneself or others. Courage was vital to the characteristic of all heroes because there would be inevitable situations where courage would be needed. Odysseus posses courage through out the journey home. When he asked Circe about what lay ahead in his journey home, Circe replied "There lay are a pair of cliffs. One of them with its jagged peak reaches up to the spreading sky, wreathed in dark cloud that never parts. Halfway up the clip is a murky cave, facing north-west to Erebus, and doubtless it is past this, Odysseus, that you and your men will steer your vessel. A strong man's arrow shot from a ship below not reach the recesses of that cave. Inside lives Scylla, yelping hideously; her voice is no deeper that a young puppy's, but she herself is a fearsome monster. God or man, no one could look on her in joy. Her legs-and there are twelve-are like great tentacles, unjointed, and upon her serpent necks are borne six heads like nightmares of ferocity, with triple serried of rows of fangs and deep gullets of black death. No seaman ever, in any vessel can clam to have passed her without loss or grief; she takes, from every ship, one man for every gullet." Odysseus asked her again, "Only instruct me, goddess, if you will, how if possible, can I fight off Scylla when she raids my crew?" After Circe told him how horrible Scylla was, and that no ship of mortal men had ever passed Scylla unharmed, and yet Odysseus asked how to fight Scylla. Odysseus asked how to fight the monster that no one have passes it without loss and grief because this monster would bring death to his men. Odysseus wanted to save his men from horrible deaths and asked how to fight this monster. He showed courage. Those actions fit the criteria of a hero who posed unyielding courage as defined in the Greed tradition of heroism. Throughout the epic, Odysseus was a hero. He had indeed pre-eminent qualities and much that were beyond the capacity of normal men. It was when problems come that these heroic traits emerged. When his men asked Odysseus to steal the goods from the Cyclops, which break the rule of Guest/Host relationship, he refused. He showed that he always obey the rules laid down by the immortals. When his men were turned into swine by the goddess Circe, he made Circe swore to reversed her action in trade for him to make love to her. He showed cunning. When Circe told him about Scylla and her unforgiving power, he asked how to fight Scylla to help his men avoid horrible deaths. He showed courage. We know him less from what he thought, which was seldom revealed, than by what he says and did, and his actions follow naturally from his characteristics. If the cunning of Odysseus is mentioned more than his courage , it was his courage that gets him into the scrapes from which his cunning had to deliver him. Odysseus had the all the qualities that the Greek tradition required of all heroes, which were obey the rules of gods, posses intelligence, and displayed courage. He was a hero. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Oedipus Rex.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oedipus the King is widely regarded as a tragedy of fate. Briefly stated, it begins with a terrible plague that destroys the city. King Oedipus sends a messenger to the oracle at Delphi to find a cure. The answer that is received suggests to find out who the killer of King Laios was. Oedipus sends for the prophet Teiresias, who after much arguing, finally reveals that Oedipus himself is the murderer. Slowly but surely the history of Oedipus' situation begins to unravel, and it is discovered that there was a prophecy made that he would unwittingly kill his father and marry his mother; Oedipus fulfilled his prophecy. The conflict here lies with the struggle between the all powerful gods and the mere will of the humans. The prophecy had been made about Oedipus as soon as he was born. Once the destiny was foretold by the gods, no amount of hope, faith, or vain effort by human beings could have prevented it. As soon as there was interference with fate, it was counteracted by the divinities. Jocasta wanted to kill the baby, so she skewed his legs together, had a servant bring him to the forest and leave him for dead. The servant does not want to carry out this deed and therefore "saves his life" by handing the baby to someone else, so that he can be raised in another city. Further, a drunken man in a tavern tells Oedipus about the prophecy, so he runs home to question his parents about his fate. Instead of telling him the truth, they give him the impression that they are in fact his biological parents. The idea that must be pointed out here, is that once an oracle or a prophet makes a prediction, it is destined to be and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Oedipus was highly regarded as a noble and honorable king. However, if we explore beneath the exterior, we will discover that in actuality, the King has many faults and is not so honorable and noble. Oedipus seems to be driven by an unconscious rage. Being very short tempered, he is quick to lash out at those whose opinions are different from his. The first episode appears within the first few minutes of the play. When Teiresias refuses to tell him who murdered King Laios, Oedipus becomes unjustly enraged, which in a way suggests that he himself could have committed the murder. He then proceeds to insult Teiresias violently. Teiresias is finally provoked into telling Oedipus the truth; that he is responsible for the death of King Laios. Oedipus then accuses him of lying and conspiring with Creon against him. As the story continues, we see how Oedipus is easily irritated by a few words from a drunken man in a tavern. This once again shows his short temper. Ironically, it was those words that sent him off to fulfill the prophecy in the first place. On his way out of Corinth, we catch a glimpse of another volatile explosion. He becomes involved in a scuffle with a band of men at a crossroad. In his fit of unleashed anger, he attacks and kills the men, not knowing that one of the men is King Laios. The problem with Oedipus seems to lie within his internal character structures. He is full of anger and rage that is expressed as quickly as it is forgotten. Oedipus is stubbornly resistant to the full details of the story, always attributing these events to mere coincidence. His ignorance comes from his fear of the appalling horror of the possible truth and it's devastating implications. The question of morality surfacing leads one to sympathize with Oedipus. How could the gods be so cruel? How could this be justified by simply saying that it was "the work of fate"? Was it in fact fate to begin with? These questions and many more like it have been raised countless times. Few concrete answers have been found, and there is much debate over even the slightest points. A conclusion that can be drawn, is that the plot of Oedipus the King was entirely predestined. The characters and circumstances surrounding the events were all simply instruments of fate which nobody could prevent or alter. Ultimately, Oedipus cannot be held responsible for his actions, because fate was immutable from the outset. It may not have been fair, kind, or just, but the future was preordained and irrevocable. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Olympic Games.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Olympic Games are an international sports festival that began in ancient Greece. The original Greek games were staged every fourth year for several hundred years, until they were abolished in the early Christian era. The revival of the Olympic Games took place in 1896, and since then they have been staged every fourth year, except during World War I and World War II. Perhaps the basic difference between the ancient and modern Olympics is that the former was the ancient Greeks' way of saluting their gods, whereas the modern Games are a manner of saluting the athletic talents of citizens of all nations. The original Olympics featured competition in music, oratory, and theater performances as well. The modern Games have a more expansive athletic agenda, and for two and one-half weeks they are supposed to replace the rancor of international conflict with friendly competition. In recent times, however, that lofty ideal has not always been attained. The earliest reliable date that recorded history gives for the first Olympics is 776 BC, although virtually all historians presume that the Games began well before then. It is certain that during the midsummer of 776 BC a festival was held at Olympia on the highly civilized eastern coast of the Peloponnesian peninsula. That festival remained a regularly scheduled event, taking place during the pre-Christian golden age of Greece. As a testimony to the religious nature of the Games, which were held in honor of Zeus, the most important god in the ancient Greek pantheon, all wars would cease during the contests. According to the earliest records, only one athletic event was held in the ancient Olympics--a foot race of about 183 m (200 yd), or the length of the stadium. A cook, Coroibus of Elis, was the first recorded winner. The first few Olympics had only local appeal and were limited to one race on one day; only men were allowed to compete or attend. A second race--twice the length of the stadium--was added in the 14th Olympics, and a still longer race was added to the next competition, four years later. When the powerful, warlike Spartans began to compete, they influenced the agenda. The 18th Olympics included wrestling and a pentathlon consisting of running, jumping, spear throwing, discus throwing, and wrestling. Boxing was added at the 23rd Olympiad, and the games continued to expand, with the addition of chariot racing and other sports. In the 37th Olympiad the format was extended to five days of competition. The growth of the Games fostered "professionalism" among the competitors, and the Olympic ideals waned as royalty began to compete for personal gain, particularly in the chariot events. Human beings were being glorified as well as the gods; many winners erected statues to deify themselves. In AD 394 the games were officially ended by the Roman emperor Theodosius, who felt that they had pagan connotations. The revival of the Olympic Games in 1896, unlike the original Games, has a clear, concise history. Pierre de Coubertin, a young French nobleman, felt that he could institute an educational program in France that approximated the ancient Greek notion of a balanced development of mind and body. The Greeks themselves had tried to revive the Olympics by holding local athletic games in Athens during the 1800s, but without lasting success. It was Baron de Coubertin's determination and organizational genius, however, that gave impetus to the modern Olympic movement. In 1892 he addressed a meeting of the Union des Sports Athletiques in Paris. Despite meager response he persisted, and an international sports congress eventually convened on June 16, 1894. With delegates from Belgium, Britain, France, Greece, Italy, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the United States in attendance, he advocated the revival of the Olympic Games. He found ready and unanimous support from the nine countries. DeCoubertin had initially planned to hold the Olympic Games in France, but the representatives convinced him that Greece was the appropriate country to host the first modern Olympics. The council did agree that the Olympics would move every four years to other great cities of the world. Thirteen countries competed at the Athens Games in 1896. Nine sports were on the agenda: cycling, fencing, gymnastics, lawn tennis, shooting, swimming, track and field, weight lifting, and wrestling. The 14-man U. S. team dominated the track and field events, taking first place in 9 of the 12 events. The Games were a success, and a second Olympiad, to be held in France, was scheduled. Olympic Games were held in 1900 and 1904, and by 1908 the number of competitors more than quadrupled the number at Athens--from 311 to 2,082. Beginning in 1924 a Winter Olympics was included--to be held at a separate cold-weather sports site in the same year as the Summer Games--the first held at Chamonix, France. In 1992 about 2,174 athletes from 63 nations competed at Albertville, France, in a program that included Alpine and Nordic skiing, biathlon, ice hockey, figure skating, speed skating, bobsledding, and luge. But the Summer Games, with its wide array of events, are still the focal point of the modern Olympics. The standard events are archery, basketball, boxing, canoeing and kayaking, cycling, equestrian arts, fencing, field hockey, gymnastics, handball, judo, modern pentathlon, rowing, shooting, soccer, swimming and diving and synchronized swimming, track and field, volleyball, water polo, weight lifting, wrestling, and yachting. The Games are governed by the International Olympic Committee, whose headquarters is in Lausanne, Switzerland. Although the Olympic Games have been increasingly politicized, the ideal of the world's best athletes competing against each other in the arena of so-called pure sport has been at least partially realized, especially from the athletes' point of view. And even though skill and courage are manifested by most Olympic participants, the great gold medalists are the ones who are most often remembered. This past summer the World commemorated the 100th Olympiad which was hoped to be held in Athens in recognition of the original, Ancient Olympics. Instead the 100th was held in Atlanta GA. Because of this fact, at least for us, we as a country, gave the best we had to offer. This was even more a advantage when the "home field advantage" is accounted for. And like I mentioned before the Gold medalists are most likely remembered. It will be awhile before people forget about Michael Johnson's 200 and 400 gold and him crushing the 200 world record he himself set at the trials. And who will ever forget Carl Lewis' final competition that ended in fitting fashion, with the gold draped around his neck. This just goes to show that the Olympics are not just for the Athletes who compete in it, but it is for the whole world which comes together for this short time every 4 (well, two now) years. That is why I believe that this is a great gift from Ancient Greece. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Platos New Republic.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mike Harris Essay Questions 5/5/96 #1 The editor's of the New Republic, suggested the following questions; Will such be-havior affect performance on the job ? For example, the book makes references to drunken legislators conducting the nations business on the floor three sheets to the wind. In this case, the good senators judgment would obviously be somewhat impaired. Therefore he would not be performing the job that he was appointed to do. The public, in my opinion has the right to know. Next, the editors asked if public disclosure was warranted if the law broken ? In my opinion, if the law, any law, was broken by an elected official, then the American public has a right to know. For example, in the case of former Washington DC Mayor, Marion Bairy If it had not been for the press, who knows how long, or the extent to which a cover up would have gone on. If the public is being lied to seems to also be a criteria for which I would advocate public disclosure. When the news hit the fan about the Iran-contra controversy, and that Olli North lied before the judiciary committee, the press was absolutely justified in printing the information it had attained. Again, who knows how long the cover-up would have lasted. Lastly, if the office makes special demands, then a certain right to know coincides with it. I believe that a president should act like a president. The public has expectations of its elected officials, and they have a duty to meet them. I feel that it isn't possible to separate public morality from private, because in a way, they are both the same thing. In a democracy, the private person elects the public official. Society must have standards, and those standards must be dictated from that society. Not from any one man or elected body. However if it were possible to separate the two, I think it would be note worthy step. But I don't see that happening any time soon in our culture. Our morality is our safety net, and I think we like it right where it is...in the hands of the majority. I think that it would affect someone's conduct as a public official if they were not truthful. Public official or not, not telling a lie may be the stuff of morals in childhood fables, but I recently recall where an incident where a high level executive of a major, international company told a lie while under oath and cost his company over eight million dollars in fines. Also I would like to see a code of morals of some sort in any elected official. I know that's a little vague, but not having some kind of common sense, basic, know the difference between right and wrong , type of element would definitely constitute a character defect in my opinion. Lastly, not having a vision of some sort, a passion if you will, for what they do would also make up a character flaw. Public office is an important job, it should be treated as such. I feel that unfortunately a lot of politicians are just "burnt out." #2 If there were no affirmative action programs, I believe that the merit system, as ap-plied in hiring, promotions, and school admissions would not be applied, however, I wouldn't quite describe it as injustice "rampant". Maybe more along the lines of extensive and abstruse. I agree with the observance made by the dean of faculty at Amherst College as mentioned in the text; " ...I have become aware of pervasive residues of racism and sexism, even among those whose intentions and conscious beliefs are nondiscriminatory...I believe that most of us are afflicted with such residues." It would be these "residues' that would hin-der any such merit system. People may have good intentions, however when we speak of the undertones of racism, we're touching upon the things that you and I do every day without ever knowing it. For example, the Michael Harrington article on "The New American Pov-erty" mentions how suburbanization is removing the middle class from daily contact with the poor. As proponents of Affirmative Action programs will no doubt tell you, our very neighborhoods are designed to keep the poor out. With that in mind we can now ask our-selves " who are the poor ?" The blacks. The Hispanics. The single women. The very peo-ple Affirmative Action speaks of. Therefore, if the merit system can't really be applied to "truths we hold to be self evident", ( the virtue and integrity we hold in our social structure), then how are we to have faith in it when it applies to things that aren't as morally clear ? To obtain a greater "fairness" in competitive opportunity, our society needs to enact laws that would allow for fair and just employment policy making, such as affirmative ac-tion. I feel that job quotas need to be filled. The work place contains the residuals of racism carried over from its history. For example, in the resent press there where claims of dis-crimination against Denny's Restaurant chains of promoting managers based on race. Also, school systems should mandate multi-cultural curriculum to help eliminate ig-norance and undue stereotypes. I think that the text books could be written more appropri-ately, without wearing there "political correctness" on their selves. Lastly, and most importantly, we need to reflect upon the break down of our family value systems. I feel that it is the root of most of the problems we face today. Why aren't parents teaching their children about the ugliness of racism. We need to build these values in our children. #3 Government, business, and the individual all have a role when it comes to the wel-fare of the poor. All three should not be held responsible as caretaker, parent, or guardian, but as a member of the humane race. I believe that their is a certain standard which we must be held accountable for. In so far as I can tell, we're not there yet. On the governmental level, there is a responsibility to do all that is in the scope of it's power. Some answers may lie in tax breaks for low income families, programs that would build jobs opportunity, instead of reduce it. Certainly a balanced budget would help free up funds that would be spent on paying off debt to be allotted towards revamping the Federal welfare system. Business might look at whether or not its putting back into the community what its taking out. Again, possible funds might be freed up to help reform the system. Business leaders might ask themselves whether or not there doing enough to provide jobs. Does pro-ductivity outweigh moral responsibility ? Most importantly, the individual needs to ask themselves this question; " When is enough, enough ?" Why do so few people hold so much of the resources ? When will it end ? We need to make sure that we never forget that every hand helps. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Platos Republic.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Critics of The Republic, Plato's contribution to the history of political theory, have formed two distinct opinions on the reasoning behind the work. The first group believes that The Republic is truly a model for a political society, while the other strongly objects to that, stating it as being far too fantastic for any society to operate successfully by these suggested methods. In an exchange between Crito and Dionysius, this argument is first introduced, with Crito siding with those who agree that The Republic is a realistic political model, and Dionysius arguing on behalf of those who doubt it as being realistic, claiming it to be a criticism of politics in general. Both sides have legitimate arguments, and there is evidence within the text to support each opinion. When Plato wrote Gorgias, he made it clear where exactly he stood on his personal involvement in politics (Cornford 1941, xix). "Unlimited power without the knowledge of good and evil is at the best unenviable, and the tyrant who uses it to exterminate his enemies and rivals is the most miserable of men--a theme to be further developed in The Republic (Cornford xx)." But here, Plato was referring to the politics of his time, and critics who sided with Crito believed that The Republic was Plato's way of introducing a political system in which he would feel comfortable supporting (Plato 204). Conversely though, The Republic itself is summed up this way: Well, one would be enough to effect all this reform that now seems so incredible, if he had subjects disposed to obey; for it is surely not impossible that they should consent to carry out our laws and customs when laid down by a ruler. It would be no miracle if others should think as we do; and we have, I believe, sufficiently shown that our plan, if practicable, is the best. So, to conclude: our institutions would be the best, if they could be realized, and to realize them, though hard, is not impossible (Plato 210-211). These institutions of which Plato speaks are described in the body of The Republic, and not only does Plato explain how they are carried out in current society, but he offers his own alterations, which is the primary cause of the arguments over the content of the book (Plato 222). In his fifth chapter, entitled "The Problem Stated," Plato introduces what he believes to be wrong with the current system of politics (Plato 41). He starts by describing the Social Contract theory (Plato 53), the method used during his time, a method Plato rejected. It says: all the customary rules of religion and moral conduct imposed on the individual by social sanctions have their origin in human intelligence and will and always rest on tacit consent. They are neither laws of nature nor divine enactments, but conventions which man who made them can alter, as laws are changed or repealed by legislative bodies. It is assumed that, if all these artificial restraints were removed, the natural man would be left only with purely egotistic instincts and desires, which he would indulge in all that Thrasymachus commended as injustice (Plato 41-42). In response to this description, Plato wrote, First, I will state what is commonly held about the nature of justice and its origin; secondly, I shall maintain that it is always practiced with reluctance, not as good in itself, but as a thing one cannot do without; and thirdly, that this reluctance is reasonable, because the life of injustice is much the better life of the two--so people say. That is not what I think myself, Socrates; only I am bewildered by all that Thrasymachus and ever so many others have dinned into my ears; and I have never yet heard the case for justice stated as I wish to hear it (Plato 43). Throughout this chapter, Plato makes a point to say how difficult it is to do what is right, since it seems so much easier to take the easy way out, to do the wrong (Plato 49). And in summing up this chapter, Plato had one final contribution, "You must not be content with proving that justice is superior to injustice; you must make clear what good or what harm each of them does to its possessor, taking it simply in itself and leaving out of account the reputation it bears (Plato 52)." At this point, Plato has revealed his mental viewpoint on the problems in current government, and the remainder of the book deals with the ways he intends to do away with that which cripples those in politics, including corruption, various conflicts, and many traditional practices. Plato continues on to describe how luxuries are not necessities, as many prominent figures of his time had believed (Plato 61). Soonafter came his suggestions on how society should be educated (Plato 231). Not only did he intend to totally alter the curriculum, but he also wanted to change people who were educated. To him, education was not to be limited to the wealthy, it was to be focused primarily on those who showed the greatest potential, the greatest talents. His most radical idea was to reform society based on his method of education. He rejected the idea of having a person's place in society based on family name or wealth (Plato 111). His ideal society would have rank based on merit, ability and talent, and should a woman possess these skills, then she would have a high rank in society (Plato 153). Not only did he want women to be included, but he also made his system of education almost rigorous, hoping to weed out those who did not belong, or who showed more talent as say a soldier rather than a mathematician (Plato 102-103). To finalize his suggested society, Plato wrote, But in reality justice, though evidently analogous to this principle, is not a matter of external behavior, but of the inward self and of attending to all that is, in the fullest sense, a man's proper concern. The just man does not allow the several elements in his soul to usurp one another's functions; he is indeed one who sets his house in order, by self-mastery and discipline coming to be at peace with himself, and bringing into tune those three parts, like the terms in the proportion of a musical scale, the highest and lowest notes and the mean between them, with all the intermediate intervals. Only when he has linked these parts together in well- tempered harmony and has made himself one man instead of many, will he be ready to go about whatever he may have to do, whether it be making money or satisfying bodily wants, or business transactions, or affairs of state. In all these fields when he speaks of just and honorable conduct, he will mean the behavior that helps to produce and to preserve this habit of mind; and by wisdom he will mean the knowledge which presides over such conduct. Any action which tends to break down this habit will be for him unjust; and the notions governing it he will call ignorance and folly....we...have discovered the just man and the just state, and wherein their justice consists (Plato 142). The final installment in Plato's ideal society is the ruler (Plato 122). He devotes and entire chapter describing the duties of a philosopher king (Plato 205). His main arguments in favor of such a ruler include "when strength fails and they are past civil and military duties, let them range at will, free from all serious business but philosophy; for theirs is to be a life of happiness, crowned after death with a fitting destiny in the other world (Plato 207)." With that said, there is now an overview of what Plato feels to be the ideal society. Elements discussed include how society is educated, categorized, as well as ruled. And some people accepted this model, and argued on Plato's behalf, including Crito. But as in all arguments, there must be a second party, and that group viewed this as impossible to accomplish as well as destined for failure. Even though the arguments against The Republic are not in plain text, those who do not see eye to eye with Plato do have a valid argument, and there is enough evidence hidden between the lines of The Republic to support their statement. When Plato discussed virtues within a state (Plato 119), he mentioned wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice as the virtues that make up a state. Those arguing against The Republic can refer to a statement made by Plato reading, "Strangest of all, every one of those qualities which we approved--courage, temperance, and all the rest--tends to ruin its possessor and to wrest his mind away from philosophy (Plato 198)." Here is probably the most obvious statement Plato makes that is anti-political, saying that the ideal political state cannot successfully contain elements of philosophy (Plato 29). Mentioned in the exchange is the Allegory of the Cave (Plato 227-235). Here, Plato tries to explain why he should be taken seriously, for he is one of the few who has seen this light, and he is trying to adjust society in such a way that it would resemble the world he was exposed to when he left the cave. But he does not think that ordinary people would accept these proposals, and may even fear Plato to be insane (Plato 231). Many other of his simplified stories can be mistaken for deliberate attacks on politics in general, rather than methods by which politics could be improved. Among these are the ideas that women could be equal to men in Plato's ideal society (Plato 144), as well as Plato's suggestions that such traditions as Olympian religion and poetry were not important in his educational scheme (Plato 67, 321). Although the evidence in favor of The Republic is far greater than that which opposes it, the argument itself cannot really be won. Plato consistently expresses doubt throughout his work, which favors the opposition. But, his ideas themselves are in no way impossible to accomplish. Plato had this to say to sum up all his beliefs, there will never be a perfect state or constitution, nor yet a perfect man, until some happy circumstance compels these few philosophers who have escaped corruption but are now called useless, to take charge, whether they like it or not, of a state which will submit to their authority; or else until kings and rulers or their sons are divinely inspired with a genuine passion for true philosophy. If either alternative or both were impossible, we might justly be laughed at as idle dreamers; but, as I maintain, there is no ground for saying so. Accordingly, if ever in the infinity of time, past or future, or even today in some foreign region far beyond our horizon, men of the highest gifts for philosophy are constrained to take charge of a commonwealth, we are ready to maintain that, then and there, the constitution we have described has been realized, or will be realized when once the philosophic muse becomes mistress of a state. For that might happen. Our plan is difficult--we have admitted as much--but not impossible (Plato 208). f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Pompey the Great.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ POMPEY THE GREAT Pompey was a Roman general and political leader. He was a member of the first Triumvirate with Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus, but later became Caesar's enemy. Pompey was born September 30, 106 B.C. His first important military experiences were in the Social war during which his father Pompeius Strabo, taught Pompey his military skills. Pompey distinguished himself in the civil war between Lucies Sulla and Gaius Marius. Pompey raised his own army in Picenum. He did such a good job raising his army he was made an imperator general. In 83 B.C., he was sent as an imperator general to Sicily and then to Africa. Successes in both places earned Pompey the name Magnus and the honor of a triumph, although he was little over 25 years old and legally unqualified for such a status. Some years later, the senate used his aid against the remnants of Marius' factor. Then in 77 B.C., Pompey moved against the Marian forces commanded by Quintus Sertorius in Spain. There his operations were not rewarded but Sertoriu's death by poison permitted Pompeys return to Italy in time to annihilate the remnants of Spartacus's army fleeing from the defeat at Crassus hands (71 B.C.). For his victory, Pompey celebrated his second triumph although he still held public office. He got a spot in office by moving into the highest office of all, the consulship with Crassus as his colleague (70 B.C.). Together they overthrew Sulla's constitution by giving the plebian tribunes their former powers and the knights partial control of the law courts. In 67 B.C., the tribune Aulus Gabinius, by a bill gave extraordinary military powers to Pompey. His objective was to deal with Piracy throughout the Mediterranean. Pompey needed only three months to finish this task. This feat led to further honors. In 60 B.C., on the motion of another tribune, Pompey received even greater powers when appointed in Lucullus's place as commander against Mithridates the Great. With little difficulty, the new Roman commander forced the Mithridates from Asia Minor and then spent some years overrunning the North East. The big range of Pompey's Journeys and his hatred towards the natives started future trouble with Parthia. Pompey did, however, increase Rome's dominions, and he also laid a firm foundation for Roman administration in the area. While in Palestine, he learned of Mithridates' suicide and some months later he returned to Italy and a third triumph. His action in disbanding his army relieved his enemies of their anxiety at his return, but it also persuaded the senate to refuse to approve his near Eastern arrangements or authorize bonuses for his veterans. Pompey retaliated by forming with Crassus and Caesar the political bloc known as the First Triumvirate (60 B.C.), and promptly proceeded ratification of Pompey's veterans. The coalition had agreed to exile Marcus Cicero but it would not be easy. When Caesar went to Gaul, fighting soon arose between Pompey and Crassus, and when Pompey acquiesced in Cicero's recall, a war seemed imminent. Caesar then arranged the Conference of Luca (56 B.C.) to restore harmony Pompey and Crassus became consuls again (55 B.C.) but with violence. Then they obtained extended commands like Caesar's in Spain and Syria, respectively. But although Caesar remained in Gaul and Crassus departed for Syria, Pompey did not leave Italy. He commanded his forces in Spain by substitute. Julia's death in 54 (B.C.) and Crassus's in 53 (B.C.) snapped the ties linking Pompey and Caesar and the stage was set for their rivalry. When mob violence prevented consuls being elected in 52 (B.C.) Pompey was appointed consul. He quickly restored order by forcing one of the chief rioters, Titus Milo, into exile for the murder of Publius Clodius, another mob leader. Pompey's third consulship was also productive of legislation that Caesar thought was harmful to him. Caesar then attempted to safeguard his own interests and it got him involve in a quarrel with the senate. This led him to being pronounced a public enemy (49 B.C.). Pompey was invited to command the senatorial forces in Italy, and when he accepted the mandate the die was cast. Caesar crossed the Rubicon from Cisalpine Gaul, and a new civil war began. Before Caesar's veteran force, Pompey retired in March, to Macedonia where he made a strong army. Caesar, after crushing Pompey's supporters in Spain, also crossed the Adriatic. Almost at once, Pompey scored a local success at Dyrrhachium on the coast of Albania. However when he allowed his army to engage, Caesar's at Pharsalus in Thessaly, Greece, in August, he suffered a terrible defeat. Pompey then fled to Egypt to seek isolation. The king of Egypt, however being anxious not to offend Caesar, had Pompey kB.C. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\pyramids.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pyramids The pyramids of Egypt are the last remaining Wonder of the World. Even in the days of Ancient Egypt when powerful pharaohs ruled over Egypt the pyramids were considered a wonder. Today, the ruins of 35 pyramids still stand near the Nile River in Egypt. These pyramids were built to protect the bodies of Egyptian kings and other royalty but before the pyramids became the standard for burials, tombs were used for Egypt's early rulers, nobles, and other high ranking officials. This group of hierarchy were laid to rest in rectangular, flat-topped mastabas of mud and brick. These mastabas were about 12 feet high and were easy targets for tomb robbers. The first pyramid built was the Step Pyramid of Saqqara; it stands in the open desert south of Cairo. The Step Pyramid was built for King Djoser. The people of Egypt willingly labored to build these monuments for their rulers, believing that, as gods, the pharaohs had to be properly provided for in their afterlife. The Step Pyramid was built around 2630 B.C. It exhibited a radical new shape never before used, and it was so new the Egyptians used its silhouettes as the hieroglyphic for "primeval mound", the first piece of earth to emerge from the soup of creation (Malek 90). King Djoser's chief architect for his pyramid was Imhotep. It is thought that King Djoser's stone tomb started out having the standard shape of a mastaba. Then, as construction progressed, a concept evolved. Imhotep began to place one flat-topped stone structure atop another until he had created six steps by which the king could ascent to the heavens after death. The Egyptians had a firm belief in an afterlife and viewed their pharaohs as gods. These beliefs were a strong force that led to the piling up of stones to such a monumental scale. The Step Pyramid rose to a height of 204 feet; later pyramids increased in height as their designs changed. It was not sufficient that a pyramid be immense, but it had to be built so solidly that it would stand forever. Although the Step Pyramid was the first pyramid, the Great Pyramid is the best known. The Great Pyramid was built for King Cheop. It is the largest pyramid of the three at Giza. The three pyramids built for King Cheops, King Chephrun, and King Mycerinos stand on the west bank of the Nile outside Cairo. They are the largest and best preserved of all Egyptian pyramids. They were built between 2600 B.C. and 2500 B.C. However, it is hard today to imagine the manpower involved in building the Great Pyramid (especially in our world of computers, machinery, and advanced technology. The ancient Egyptians had no machinery or iron tools to help in the building of the pyramids. The large limestone blocks used to build the pyramids were cut with copper chisels and saws. Most of these stones came from nearby quarries. An interesting fact to note is that camels were not brought into use until twenty centuries after the pyramids were built. Human strength was used to drag the stones from the quarries or from the boats (Casson 76). The stones were then dragged and pushed into place for the first layer of the Great Pyramid, which was placed on flat level ground. Next, long ramps were built of earth and brick moving the blocks up the ramps to form the next layer. After the top layer was finished the workers covered the pyramid with an outer coating of white casing stone, which gave the Great Pyramid a brilliant shrine during the day when the sun shone down on it. The outer coating of white casing stone were laid so perfectly that from a distance the pyramid appeared to have been made from a single white stone. The main difference of the Great Pyramid compared to other pyramids, besides the fact of its size, is the difference of the location of the burial chamber. The Great Pyramid's burial chamber was in the uppermost part of the pyramid. This was something new, burial chambers in other pyramids were located beneath the pyramid. To reach the burial chamber inside the Great Pyramid a upward sloping corridor was built. The ramp for the king's ascent to the polar stars was therefore lost. A substitute for the ramp was devised in the form of a northern ventilation shaft, which was a replica of the lower entrance corridor. King Cheop was to be positioned facing this northern view. But what of King Cheop? His body has never been found. Did he have a secret chamber built for himself that was so well hidden that it was impossible to find? Did thieves steal or destroy King Cheop's body for the jewels and gold hidden within the body wrapping? Answers to these questions have yet to be found. It is estimated that it took about 2,300,000 separate blocks, each weighing an average of two and a half tons, to build King Cheop's Great Pyramid. Some blocks weighed up to fifteen tons. The base of the Great Pyramid covered thirteen acres and reached a height of 481 feet. To accomplish the feat of building the Great Pyramid it took 23 years and a work force of tens of thousands peasant laborers (Hallibunton 335). The enormous size of the Great Pyramid can better be visualized with the fact that Saint Paul's Cathedral and the House of Parliament could be housed within the Great Pyramid. If the Great Pyramid was sawed into cubes, measuring a foot in each dimension and placed in a row, they would extend over a distance almost equal to the circumference of the earth (Edwards 104). It is no wonder the Great Pyramid is still a Wonder of the World. All pyramids, no matter their size, design, or age, share a common curse. Tomb robbers have plundered the pyramids for centuries stealing gold, gems, beautiful furniture, clothing, musical instruments, even sacred vases containing a pharaoh's vital organs. All these items were common items found inside a burial chamber. Now they have all been lost forever because of tomb robbers of today and yesterday. The well known Arabic proverb "Death comes on wings to he who enters the tomb of the pharaoh" (Casson 81) meant little to the tomb robbers. Others who have heard the warning and chose not to listen or believe have eventually paid the price. One such person was Lord Carnarvon, who headed the excavation of King Tutankhamun's tomb. Lord Carnarvon died quite unexpectedly from a 4000 year old fungus he came in contact with inside the tomb of King Tutankhamun. Shortly after Lord Carnarvon parished, other members of the excavation party began to meet with unusual and sometimes unexplainable accidents. These so called accidents claimed the lives of thirty six members of the party (Reeves 31). Was it the pharaoh's curse or just coincidence? In Las Vegas, Nevada the hotel-casino Luxor was built. The Luxor was built in the shape of a pyramid. A replica of the Sphinx sits in front of the giant pyramid shape casino. When the hotel was being built a report was given, and the construction workers interviewed were afraid of the pyramid shaped casino. The workers believed in the Curse of the Pharaohs. The numerous accidents had sent other workers to the local hospital emergency room. Other Las Vegas casinos are blaming their misfortunes on Luxor. It is no wonder that magic, superstition, and the unknown has followed mankind since the earlier times of the first mysterious pyramids! Works Cited Casson, Lionel. Ancient Egypt. New York: Time Life. 1965. Edwards, I.E.S. The Pyramids of Egypt. New York: Viking Penguin. 1985. Hallibunton, Richard. Complete Book of Marvels. New York: Bobbs Merrill. 1960. Malek, Jaromin. In the Shadow of the Pyramid. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma. 1986. Reeves, Nicholas. Into the Mummy's Tomb. New York: Scholastic. 1992. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Pythagoras.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pythagoras Pythagoras was a very significant person in the history of the world. He made many contributions to the fields of math, music, and astronomy. Pythagoras's teachings and beliefs that were once taught by him in his own school in ancient Greece, are still taught today. The thing that Pythagoras is probably the most famous for is the Pythagorean Theorem. The Pythagorean Theorem is used in the field of mathematics and it states the following: the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two other sides. This means that if one makes a square (with all sides equal in length) out of a triangle with a right angle, the areas of the squares made from the two shorter sides, when added together, equal the area of the square made from the long side. Another geometrical discovery made by Pythagoras is that the diagonal of a square is not a rational multiple of its side. The latter discovery proved the existence of irrational numbers and therefore changed the entire Greek mathematical belief that whole numbers and their ratios could account for geometrical properties. Another contribution of Pythagoras and his follower is that of music. Pythagoras essentially created music in that he discovered the way it works. Pythagoras noticed that vibrating strings produce harmonious tones when the ratios of the lengths of the strings are whole numbers. After making this discovery, he found that these same ratios could be extended further to other instruments. Pythagoras was one of the first to teach that the Earth was at the center of the universe. He was also one of the first to teach that the world was round, an idea not to be proven for almost another one thousand years. Pythagoras also discovered that the orbit of the moon is inclined to the equator of the Earth. He also was the first person to make the connection that Venus as the evening star is the same as Venus the morning star. So, in conclusion, Pythagoras made many contributions to modern society. Thus, making him recognizable as a formidable scientist and mathematician even today. Pythagoras will always be a significant person in history, because of the discoveries made by him, his students in ancient Greece, and the ever growing amount of people studying his teachings today and who will continue to learn and follow his lessons until the end of time. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Siddhartha.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SIDDHARTHA In the book Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse, the main character Siddhartha had many teachers along his quest for happiness. Throughout his life he denounced teachers and their teachings. In his last meeting with his lifelong friend, Govinda, he mentions five in which he was indebted : a beautiful courtesan, a rich merchant, a dice player, a Buddhist monk, and Vasudeva. The first of these teachers along his way was Kamala a beautiful courtesan. Kamala taught him the wonderful pleasures of love and the importance of wealth and riches in society . ³It [had] never been my experience that a Samana from the woods should come to me and desire to learn from me. Never has a Samana with long hair and an old torn loin cloth come to me. Many young men come to me, including Brahmin¹s sons but they come to me in fine clothes, in fine shoes; there is scent in their hair and money in their purses. That is how these young men come to me, O Samana.² These teachings in which Kamala placed upon him helped him to seek out the riches and wealth that would supposedly bring him happiness. Another of the people who Siddhartha obtained knowledge from was the rich merchant Kamaswami. Kamaswami taught Siddhartha the secrets of making money and living the life of a rich man. While working for Kamaswami many of Siddhartha¹s values stayed intact but, slowly these values began to slip away. In many ways Kamaswami taught Siddhartha the dark side of life. As the days went on Siddhartha began hating himself more and more. He viewed his riches as worthless, for they did not truly bring him happiness. Slowly he began squandering his money playing dice. He won thousands and lost thousands in order to reach the high he felt when he carelessly bet his money away. This taught him the worthless value of money, for money only brought more and more sadness. Finally after rejecting this life of sin he vowed to leave the city and never return. As he retreated into the forest he decided to go to the river. At the river he found his friend Govinda, who had watched over Siddhartha while he had slept. Govinda was now a Buddhist monk who searched for happiness. I believe this showed Siddhartha that their two lives were still very similar. They both still seeked happiness and they were both in transitory. The final teacher along Siddhartha¹s quest for happiness was Vasudeva, the ferrymen. Vasudeva taught Siddhartha how to listen to people and the river which in turn helped Siddhartha on the road to happiness. ³You will learn it,but not from me. The river knows everything; one can learn everything from it. You have already learned from the river that it is good to strive downwards, to sink, to seek the depths. The rich and distinguished Siddhartha will become a rower; Siddhartha the learned Brahmin will become a ferryman. You have also learned this from the river. You will learn the other thing too.² Throughout this book Siddhartha distrusts teachers, but in the end he becomes one. Although he shy¹s away from this classification, towards the end he begins to share the knowledge he has gained throughout the many different phases of his life. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Socrates Moral Decision.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Was Socrates wise to stay in Athens to die? Examine firstly the context of the word wise , Socrates wasn't wise in the sense of preserving his own life as he stayed to die. He was encouraged and given the chance to escape by his friend Crito, but Socrates did not want to escape . Why? Socrates was a wise man. He believed in absolutes, and pursued the knowledge of man's source of goodness and virtue. He believed that the repayment of evil with evil was wrong. In short, Socrates was a very moral person. He stayed in Athens because he said that he had lived by the laws of the country for all his life. He had enjoyed the privileges of a civilized society, and that he had been treated as any other citizen would have come to expect. Now that the laws didn't suit him, was it fit for him to ignore them? Crito, in vain, tries to dissuade him. Socrates compares the laws of the state to a father/mentor figure: The state says that all of the laws and statutes have protected him and raised him. His parents were married by the law, and the same saw to it that he was educated. Now the state says "Is it alright for you, who thinks so much of virtue, to destroy us?" Socrates is wise to see that he would be contradicting not only himself, but he would betray the examples he was trying to set to his followers. The impact of Socrate's teachings on the world were greatly increased by his decision. Socrates had no education, therefore none of his own teachings were ever written. His followers have carried on his messages and lessons into later times. Would Socrate's teachings really have been carried on at all if he hadn't followed through? The impact of his teachings would have been greatly lessened had he escaped. All the lessons of "virtue" and "courage" would have been taught by a hypocritical man. Socrates was brave enough to face that sentence without fear or cowardice; and he is remembered as one who died for what they believed in. It could be safe to call Socrates a martyr: He laid down his life for what he considered to be right, selflessly. Socrates was morally obligated to stay in Athens to die. The choice was not the selfish one, but the honorable one. He didn't have to stay, as Crito would have arranged escape, but he declined. Socrates believed firmly in "practicing what you preach" as demonstrated by his decision. This shows the moral fiber of which he is made. He explains people should set the highest value "not on living, but living well." This means abiding by a set of values and morals which will lead to a virtuous, honest and "good" life. This also involves following the laws of the state, and to break the law would be repaying evil with evil. This notion is absolutely unacceptable to Socrates. Socrates was morally obligated by the "laws" , a personnified figure of justice, to stay in Athens. It says that he was given a share of all the good things the city had to offer; and if he didn't like it, he had many years to move away. It says that Socrates was pleased so much with living in Athens he started a family. The laws "say" to Socrates that even if he does run to Thebes or Megara, he will be recognized as one who subverts the law. Also if he ran to Thessaly, an ungoverned town, he would do nothing but feast. And how could a man like Socrates enjoy life without virtue, institutions and courage? Finally, they say to him to come clean before justice, not his friends. This would make judgement in the next life easier on him(the laws of Hades). There are, in today's society, certain circumstances which a citizen is justified in disobeying the law. The laws of today recognize certain offences may be justified with certain legal defences. The defences of duress and self-defence are valid today, with the exception of severe crimes such as murder. It must be recognized that also, in situations like emergencies or life-or-death situations, a citizen may ignore laws applicable to the situation. Take for example; the person whose father is having a heart attack, or a pregnant woman going into labor. These people probably wouldn't obey the traffic laws while rushing to the hospital. Is this justification to break the law? Many people would say that while it is morally and legally wrong to break any laws; these situations would be acceptable. Personal judgement would prevail over the situation at hand. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Socrates.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Socrates Socrates, as known by Renault, was a beautiful creature. Not physically beautiful, but internally and fundamentally beautiful. It was he who said: When you assume the show of any virtue, you open a credit account, which one day you will have to meet or go broke (pp. 398). According to Renault, Socrates taught children free of charge. He often walked and talked with children and young men in the market. They discussed, or more accurately argued in a calm manner, various issues ranging from the sciences to religion. Socrates, however, usually avoided the subject of government whenever possible. Socrates believed his role in life was to teach a new understanding of virtues, it was these virtues that revolved around much of the controversies. The citizens thought that Socrates poisoned the minds of children. Causing them to lose respect for parents and elders. It was said that he did not believe in conventional gods either. This is shown by Strymon on pp. 181 and 182, "I imagine the in your own circle of friends, what we have heard is nothing out of the way. Where the teacher (Socrates) does not even worship the immortal gods, but sets the aside for his new divinities, one can hardly expect in the pupil much reverence for age and kinship in mere men." Parents blamed the lack of respect for elders on Socrates. In truth Renault says that he was only giving them guidance so that they may guide themselves and be free of petty problems. This guidance and advice caused these young men to re-think their attitudes. Indeed Alexias, Xenophon, and especially Plato were all changed by Socrates. They loved Socrates like a mother or father: pp. 392, "In a word," said Xenophon, "We love him." This love for Socrates was often misinterpreted as love being lost for family, through argument. Parents were so afraid of losing children to him they made laws. One law stated that Socrates could not speak to anyone under thirty years of age. Socrates defied this law, and was not punished. However after a while all his defiance's and warnings caught up with him. He was given the choice of banishment or death. He chose death. Many of his students wanted to free him, but Socrates made the choice against it. In the end Socrates is holding the glass of Hemlock saying farewell with his students, and friends. According to The Encyclopedia, Socrates was born around 470 BC and died around 399 BC. He greatly impacted Western Philosophy through his influence on Plato. Socrates was born in Athens the son of a sculptor. He received an education in literature, music, and gymnastics. Later he familiarized himself with the ideas of the Sophists. However, like in the book, Socrates was not to be associated with the Sophists. Following in his fathers foot steps Socrates became a sculptor. During several wars: The Potidaea, the Delium, and the Peloponnesian, Socrates served as an infantry man. After the wars ended Socrates spent the greater part of his mature life engaging in dialogue, in Athenian Markets, with anyone who would listen. In agreement with Renault, Socrates was unattractive, and short of stature. He was said to have received social popularity because of his wit and sense of humor. Socrates was obedient to Athenian Law. He usually steered clear of politics. He believed he had received a call to pursue philosophy, and could best serve his country by teaching. He wanted the Athenians to engage in self-examination and by doing so attend to their souls. Socrates wrote no books, he did however introduce understandings of love, justice, and virtue. Through Plato, and then Aristotle, Socrates set off a chain reaction of thinkers. This affected the entire subsequent course of Western speculative thought. In 399 BC Socrates was charged with the same violations mentioned above. Socrates' friends wanted to plan an escape from prison, but he preferred to comply with the law and die for his cause. He killed himself with a poisonous drink of hemlock in the company of his friends. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Sparta.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sparta: Uncultured Discipline The Spartans were the most formidable warriors in all of history. They dedicated their entire lives to warfare. They were taught to endure cold, hunger, pain, their courage on the battlefield was second to none. The Spartan code was to fight hard, follow orders without question and to die rather then retreat or surrender. To achieve all this, Sparta sacrificed everything; the arts, culture, and other things that make life worth while. I believe the price was to high they went to far and shut off all that was creative and human in Sparta. A culture that can't change or adapt doesn't survive. This is exactly what happened , after a single major defeat in 360 B.C Sparta was no longer a significant factor in the region (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 178). The original founders of "modern" Sparta were the Dorians. At around 1100 B.C these savages came from the north into what is today Greece. They attacked the Mycenean civilization thriving there and quickly defeated them. The secret behind the remarkable victories against the Myceneans was iron, the Dorians knew how to forge iron weapons which completely outclassed the bronze weaponry of the Myceneans (Carl Roebuck, 1966, p. 119). In Mycenean times Sparta had been a important city, but after Dorian conquest it sank to insignificance. Over the next three hundred years it recovered and began to prosper. By 800 B.C it ruled over the region called Lacedonia. Up to about 650 B.C Sparta was pretty much like every other Greek state. They had music, art and poetry. During the seventh century, a musician named Terpander came to Sparta and established himself their. He is called the "father of Greek music," he's also supposed to off improved the lyre (a harp like instrument). The most widely known Spartan musician was Tyrtaeus. He lived during the Second Messenian War and his music inspired many Spartan soldiers to new heights of bravery (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 53). But then something happened, a war with the Messinians. The First Messenian War broke out in 730 B.C, when the Spartans marched into Messenia eager for more land. After 20 long years of war the Messenians were forced to surrender. They were made into helots (slave/workers with no rights) and ruthlessly oppressed. In 685 B.C they rose in revolt, it took 17 years of brutal fighting they were finally put down (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 50). These wars were the turning point of Spartan history, nearly half a century of conflict had made the Spartans very warlike. It seemed to them if they ever relaxed their guard even a bit, the helots would rise again. The Spartans went to excessively great extremes in order to make sure this wouldn't happen. At age seven a boy would be taken from his family and given military training., his true home was his barracks, his family, his unit. They hardened their bodies with countless drills and savage games, they were taught to steal and live of off the land. A young soldier was whipped as punishment or to make him more resistant to pain. At age 20 he was finally allowed to marry but was still in military service. Only when he was 60 was he allowed to retire from the army (National Geographic Society, 1968, p. 178). To a Spartan warrior surrender was unthinkable, even death was preferable. To flee a soldier had to throw down his heavy shield (which would slow him down), if he died he would be carried home, with honor, on his shield. For this reason Spartan mothers instructed their sons to return form a battle "with their shield or on them" (V.M Hillyer, E.G Huey, 1966, p. 27) One of the functions of the Spartan system was to rid the state of weaklings. At birth each child was inspected by a board of inspectors. If the child was feeble or deformed it was left on a hill side to die. Spartan women were told to exercise and keep in shape so that they could have healthy offspring. A true Spartan's purpose in life was war, their entire lives were centered around it. They left agriculture, manufacturing to their slave/workers, the helots. As a result their culture suffered, it was almost non-existent. For example after 600 B.C the import of luxury goods such as ivory or spices ceased. Obviously the taste for such indulgences was denied when the Spartans became warriors. They disliked trade so much that instead of coins they used heavy iron rods for money. These rods were difficult to carry and discouraged commerce and idle shopping (National Geographic Society, 1968, p. 177). The food at a typical Spartan barracks was designed to fill a person and keep him alive, but nothing more. An ancient story tells the tale of two outsiders who were invited to eat in a Spartan barracks. One of the two took sip of the black broth from a bowl and putting down his spoon, whispered "now I know why the Spartans do not fear death" (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 52) Even normal conversation stopped (most Greeks like to talk, from ancient times to today). Spartans spoke very briefly and to the point. They were all business. In fact the word "laconic" (form Laconia, another word for Sparta) means to speak in a concise manner (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 53). For a while it seemed like all these sacrifices were worthwhile. Indeed the Spartans were impressive warriors, even when outnumbered. In 480 B.C a force of 300 Spartans held Thermopylae, a vital pass during the war against Persia. They held the pass for two days, until a traitor showed the Persians another way through. The Spartans refused to retreat and fought to the bitter end, until everyman was killed. However they held the Persians off long enough for the remaining Greek armies to escape(V.M Hillyer, E.G Huey, 1966, p. 27). Unfortunately military strength is never enough to keep a culture going, other things are essential, such as music or literature. At the same time in history the other Greek peoples were very active in the arts, science and philosophy. In particular Athens was in it's "Golden Age." Under the leadership of Pericles, Athens reached the height of it's power and glory. During this age the Parthenon was built, it is perhaps the most perfect structure ever constructed and easily the most famous. Phidias, the genius behind the Parthenon also carved the statue of Zeus at Olympia., located at the stadium in which the Olympic games (another Greek accomplishment) were held. This statue was listed by later Greeks as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The people of Athens were good sculptors and created many fine statues of people, animals and objects (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 133). The Athenians produced arguably the most important literary figures between the time of Homer and Shakespeare. These three men Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides helped advance the art of drama. They were first to make use of costumes, masks, props and other paraphernalia to make actors more visible to the audience. Together these writers produced over 280 plays, some of which survive today (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 134). Science was another field in which the "normal" Greeks excelled at. Men such as Anaxagoras believed that the stars were no more special or magical then the earth was. The sun, stars and planets he said were flaming rocks. Lecippus, who lived around 450 B.C is supposed to be the first to suggest that matter wasn't composed of substances that could be divided endlessly, but instead consisted of tiny particles (atoms). Hippocrates was born in 460 B.C on a island off the coast of Asia Minor. He was the earliest person to establish a reasonable theory of medicine, one that didn't depend demons or spirits. For this reason many call him the "father of medicine." Today the "Hippocratic Oath" is still taken by medical students after the completion of their training (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 135). Many famous ancient philosophers were Greek, these people tried to teach how people should lead their lives. Easily the most widely know is Socrates, who lived during the "Golden Age" of Athens. Socrates believed we each had a conscience that tells us what is right and wrong. He is considered by many to be the wisest man who ever lived. We owe a great deal to these ancient Greeks who founded the basis of so much that we know today. Keep in mind that while the Greeks were accomplishing all this, that even at the height of it's power, the city of Sparta was very drab and lacked walls. One historian noted "the ramparts (walls) are her men." It was basically a collection of five villages, which looked pitiful when compared to Athens (National Geographic Society, 1968, p. 177). Today little remains of Sparta. Sparta finally fell after a battle against the combined forces of Athens and Thebes in 362 BC. This defeat destroyed Sparta's armies and left her exposed. Epaninondas the leader of the Thebean army won a total victory and was soon at the gates of Sparta. After this loss Sparta would never return to it's former self (Isaac Asimov, 1965, p. 178). In order to achieve military glory the Spartans gave up nearly everything. Later on Greeks from other city states admired the Spartan way of life because it seemed so noble. They were wrong to think this way, to art, music, literature and other such pursuits they donated nothing. She only had a cruel, inhuman way of life to offer, dependent on a barbaric slavery of most of her population, with only a kind of blind animal courage as a virtue. Before long the Spartan way of life was more show then substance, Sparta seemed strong as long she was victorious, but other states could survive defeat and rise again. After a single major defeat (against Thebes) Sparta lost her domination of Greece. This catastrophic loss exposed the Spartan fraud and disposed of her. Reference List - Asimov, Issac. (1965). The Greeks A Great Adventure. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company - Hillyer V.M, E.G Huey. (1966). Ancient World 500 BC - 500 AD. New York: Meredith Press - National Georgraphic Society. (1968). Greece and Rome Builders of Our World. Washington D.C: Author - Roebuck, Carl. (1966). The World of Ancient Times. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\StarCrossed Ignorants.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Eng Comp II Star-Crossed Ignorants No matter what anyone tries, no matter what anyone does, no matter what anyone believes they have accomplished, they have not controlled fate. Fate is uncontrollable. Much like betting on a ³sure thing² and knowing in the back of your mind that there are infinite factors in the outcome--anything could happen. It¹s unfortunate that the people of Ancient Greece sanctioned the concept of fate. In the Era of Enlightenment the idea of God-controlled fate was finally challenged with the notion of self-fulfilled destiny; until then, men turned to prophets and oracles. In the play Oedipus, by Sophocles, there was a ongoing synergy between fate and knowledge that was constantly rejected. Oedipus, the main character, struggled to dominate his own destiny, but ironically fell back into his bizarre misfortune that was in the end, inevitable. Misfortune, false realities, deception: all a result of Oedipus knowing too much and at the same time too little of his true lot in life. Knowledge was what nurtured him into false pretenses. Knowledge was a false pretense. By knowing that his parents were out of harms way, namely his, he knew that his prophecy would not come true. He knew that as long as his father was still alive and he was married to a woman not even related to his mother, he would not bear the offspring that ³men would shudder to look upon.² It was the epitome of irony for Oedipus to know his fate, and try to avoid it with the ³knowledge² that he had obtained: ³My father was Polybus of Corinth, my mother the Dorian Merope, and I was held the foremost man in all that town until a thing happened--a thing to startle a man, though not to make him angry as it made me. We were sitting at the table, and a man who had drunk too much cried out that I was not my father¹s son--and I, though angry, restrained my anger for that day; but the next day went to my father and my mother and questioned them. They were indignant at the taunt and that comforted me--and yet the man¹s words rankled...I sought where I might escape those infamous things--the doom that was laid upon me.² When Oedipus fled from his parents, he started the chain reaction of ironic happenstance that would eventually direct him in a complete circle back into the same position he was when he left Corinth. The destiny of doom that Oedipus was attempting to avoid, was the destiny that he was inadvertently fulfilling. Fate is defined as a destined outcome; nothing can alter that no matter what is tried. Anyway, this time it was too late for Oedipus to do anything about it, for the infinite factors that contributed to his demise were irreversible and dormant until the very ironically tragic end. Oedipus tried to master fate and it ultimately mastered him. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Business Life of Ancient Athens.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Business Life of Ancient Athens is an informative book about different aspects of Ancient businesses and Ancient ways of dealing with money. This book first starts out by explaining the agricultural aspects of Ancient Athens. Agriculture was not well for Athens, so they had to trade a lot. It is recorded as early as the 6th century BC that grain was a very big part of an average Athenian's diet. Therefore; much grain trade was necessary because Greece land was very bad for agricultural purposes. Athens had grown industrially and commercially within time, and this was also a problem: overpopulation. Also, many Spartan tribes over and over attacked Greece and destroyed any crops that might grow in the soil. Peasants were also sent to work at farms but they lost care in their farms and found it better to live in the city, living off small amounts of money that came from doing state services. During this time, many people learned ways of math because they needed to know how much grain is needed per person. Although these calculations are not totally accurate, they are a start in banking and maybe even other ways of mathematics. The Peloponnesian War also occurred- leaving Greece(Attica) with nothing. Attica was forced by famine to go under Peloponnesian rule. By now, trade had come in an uproar. Many people had found it easy to trade by sea. So many merchants with not enough money would borrow money from rich people and then buy cargo space on a ship. In most cases the merchant went on the ship to get the goods to sell. Then on returning, the merchant would sell the goods, and then pay off the lender, with a 22.5 percent interest rate. In many cases, problems occurred, sometimes a merchant returned late, could not pay all of the money back, or something or other. Therefore the idea of a collateral was invented. Also, courts were established to rule these sorts of fights amongst the people. These courts weren't used in the winter because of stormy weather and so not to interrupt commercial business. Courts were required to solve a case within 30 days, this procedure only applies to cases where and actual legal documented agreement was made between the lender and the merchant. Many merchants did not return, therefore the collateral was the lender's to keep. But often the merchant didn't have anything good to start with so many lenders lost money. Next, the book talked about Banking and Bankers. Early banking dates back all the way to Sumer and Akkad where many specialized in weighing things and telling of precious metals. Banking was first found where coinage started, in the middle of Asia Minor, around the 7th century BC. Coinage was also thought to have started with Minoans, but they are not sure. It is thought that the idea of banking may have started with the priests of Sumer and Akkad, priests were always the "bankers" of temples and organizer of the money. The Greeks took the information from these past priests and formed a banking system that consisted monetary transactions. And they concentrated in dealing with strictly money and giving out money. The Romans took this idea further and made what is similar to modern 1980's bank situations(banking has progressed in the last decade). With banking, the Greeks learned frugal manner and ways of living with money, and not bartering. Lastly, this book speaks about Mining in Ancient Athens. Around 500 BC. Mining was introduced in Athens. If the ways of the mining business had not come, Athens would have probably lost an oncoming war with the Persians, but because of the mining, many new people joined Athens and Persia decided not to invade. They feared it because it had become much greater in strength. If mining had not come, there would have been no Athenian Empire, or an Age of Pericles. So, in the scabrous hills of Laurium, silver struck. Everyone was fascinated with this new idea. In present day Laurium, you can still see the remains of the mining and see everything. Many things were not found out about the mining, because not too many records were kept. But many modern engineers and archaeologists have looked into the land of Laurium and have found remains of apparatus, and from analyzation of cinder collections. However, it is not known how silver was extracted from the stones, how they were crushed and how they eventually made silver objects from the mined silver. The history of this can not be reconstructed. The way this author approaches this topic is in a supportive way. He is very Greek favoring and states many comments about how many people do NOT give the early Greek people the credit they deserve. For instance on page 82 the author states......"many students of economic history have not yet given Greek banking the attention it deserves [in banking]. " and the author proceeds in telling of all the wonderful things the Greeks have done about banking and how the Romans merely just watched the early Greeks. The author also thinks of the mining industry as wonderful. He explained it in such an exciting manner . As a result of reading this book, I have formed many new opinions. For example, I never knew that business started as early as it did[in the manner of banking]. I figured that banking probably didn't come until at least a couple of centuries after Christ. Also, I learned about mining and all the things that were involved with it. Here again I was surprised that it had started so early. My outlook on the business filed has changed. I thought that all these business people were so great to come up with all these ideas, but they are truly just taking the basics of early history in business and applying it to modern ways. I think the author's purpose of writing this book was to make me confused! No, I really think that the purpose of writing this book was to inform people of the ways of early business life, and the way our ancestors were dealing with the business industry back then. Also, it was a way to carry on history even further, to state the facts for people even farther down the road of the world. The author did not try to persuade the reader in any way, although he did favor the Greeks a lot. He[the author] did, however, compare and contrast almost all of the situations with the modern world. I think that the author succeeded in his purpose in that he wanted to get the Greek side of the story out, and also tell a lot of facts too. He kept on, over and over, telling what the Greeks did that others took the credit for. For example, when talking about coinage, he said that the Lydians were the founder of coins. But he left a trace saying that the Greeks too, had knowledge of coins, but the Lydians developed it faster than them. The author repeatedly stated facts about the Ancient Businesses, telling of how courts developed, how they ran, how they were maintained, how they were functioning. And he did this similarly to almost all the subjects he touched upon like Mining, Banking, Agriculture, Trade, the course of economic evolution. All in all my opinion of this book is good. I wished at most times that it wasn't so factual and the author also used a number of hard to comprehend ways of saying things. The part of the book that I found the most interesting is the part about the Grain Trade. The Early Athenians had such a need for grains and they could not get it so they eventually had to surrender to the Peloponnesians, which they DID fight and went through months of famine. And I also enjoyed the part of the book that talked about early banking. I was very surprised that banking started so early. I think that by reading this book, I learned many things, and it helped me better my knowledge of history. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Chorus of Antigone.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Chorus of Antigone The chorus was not only a major part of Antigone, but also the most insightful portion of this play's cast. The members of the chorus tell Creon and the audience very important truths about themselves. Throughout the play the chorus comments on Creon's actions, and gives us all unbiased views on our hypocritical species. Without a chorus Creon's epiphany may never have occurred and we wouldn't have, as easily, seen our personal flaws. The chorus is included in a very effective manner, the chorus talks about death, love, and other unconquerable forces that humans eternally try to defeat, it shows the audience great futility and lets us see the problems we face throughout life. Creon changes greatly throughout the play, he starts as a best friend, or someone out to help the common man, but later in the play he becomes more and more ruthless as his power corrupts him. At about the time his degradation reaches it's climax the chorus interrupts with a song about death, how man can control the most powerful of elements, and tame the wildest beast, yet death still comes. He also learns through them some important things about love, especially that it is unconquerable. Through the chorus Creon begins to see that he is wrong and God is superior to himself, but it takes a lot to shake his belief that a perfect society is run by an unrelenting rule. This play also told me a lot about humans in general, that the they aren't interested in anything but the fulfillment of their own needs, and that they refuse to see that something may be more powerful than themselves. This revelation is the major theme of the play and is very important in Creon's growth as a person. This play couldn't have existed without a chorus, these singers give too much to the structure of the play, without them Creon would never have changed as a person and the play would have been much more ambiguous as to the relationship of Creon's problems to our own. With the help of the chorus Creon learns that he is just a frail being in a world much greater than his own pitiful kingdom. Because of this he becomes much more god-minded, and sees his place in the scheme of things. This play is about loyalty to a much greater power, and with the help of the chorus he sees the power he must follow. This entire play runs around the chorus, who gives insight to the characters, these actors provide the audience with knowledge about the human condition, and entertain as well as playing many parts for the characters to talk to. Without their odes, and paeans the play would have been incomplete. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Classic World.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Classical World made many contributions to the development of science, literature, and ethics. These contributions have influenced the modern world today. Many mathematicians, astronomers, and scientists contributed to the development of many of the luxuries we enjoy today. Homer, author of The Iliad and The Odyssey, made contributions to the field of literature through his writing. In the field of ethics, many philosophers from the Classical World contributed to the standards, values, and principles of our society today. Some of the major contributions from the Classical World is in the field of science. Mathematicians, astronomers, and scientists made important contributions that formed the basic element of science. From this basic element came the luxuries we enjoy today. Pythagoras, a mathematician, proved "the relationship between the legs and the hypotenuse of a right triangle."1 From this, he derived the Pythagorean Theorem. This contribution mainly influenced architecture and geometry today. Equally, Eratosthenes also influenced architecture and geometry. He developed a method of determining the circumference of the Earth by using geometry. Developed by Archimedes, the Archimedes Principle contributes greatly to the field of science. The principle states that "a body immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal the weight of the fluid displaced by the body."2 The Archimedes Principle influenced the development of the boat and submarine. The Classical World also contributed to the field of literature. Literature has come a long way from the Classical World since its development by many authors and playwrights of this time period. Homer, author of The Iliad and The Odyssey, affected prose and poetry through his writing of Homeric poems. Sophocles, a playwright, "presented many changes in Greek Drama."3 These changes led to the development of more actors in a play and the addition of more scenery. Accordingly, these changes have influenced modern day movies in that they have more actors. Since the Classical World contributed to the fields of science and literature, it also helped develop the fields of ethics. The standards, values, and principles of a society were also contributed by various philosophers of the Classical World. Pythagoras founded the "Rosicrucian Fellowship," a religious and philosophical school. One of the three main rules of this school was, "No eating beans or meat," which most likely influenced the idea of the modern day vegetarian. Wanting people to think for themselves, Socrates did not want the people of his time to "imitate their elders."4 To Socrates, "people should depend on reason and logic to guide their lives." 4 These beliefs have contributed to the development of ethics. Also these beliefs have influenced the basic thinking and making decisions of man. In these three fields, the Classical World made many contributions. The Classical World made many contributions to the fields of science, literature, and ethics. These contributions, in many ways, influenced the modern world. Mathematicians, astronomers, and scientists like Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, and Archimedes contributed to the field of science and influenced the modern world greatly. Contributing in the field of literature, Homer and Sophocles have affected prose, poetry, and Drama through their literary works. Philosophers have changed our views on different matters such as alternatives to eating. The contributions from the Classical World developed and influenced the way we view science, literature and Drama, and ethics in today's society. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Fate of Patroclus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Fate Of Patroclus Throughout The Iliad Of Homer, the constant theme of death is inherently apparent. Each main character, either by a spear or merely a scratch from an arrow, was wounded or killed during the progression of the story. For Zeus' son, Sarpedon, it was a spear through the heart, and for Hector, it was the bronze of the mighty Achilles through his neck which caused his early demise. It seems that no one could escape an agonizing fate. Of these deaths, the most interesting and intriguing death of all is that of Achilles' dear friend Patroclus. Although his life was taken by the mighty Hector's spear, who was truly liable for his death? Could it have been Zeus or Hector or the mighty Achilles to blame for this horrible death? The intricate story line of The Iliad makes many possible answers available, but only one possibility accurately explains the actions and events that led to this gruesome episode. The only person to blame for the death of mighty Patrocles was himself. First of all, Patrocles was responsible for his own death because he requested his insertion into the battle, fully knowing that the Achaeans were being unmercifully defeated. In Book XVI , Patroclus said, " Send me forth now at the head of the Myrmidon host That I may be a light of hope to the Danaans. And let me strap on my shoulders that armor of yours That the zealous Trojans take me for you and quickly Withdraw from the fighting." Because Achilles refused to help the Achaeans battle the Trojans, a discontented Patroclus took the matter into his own hands by requesting activation into battle disguised as Achilles in the hope of sending the Trojans into a full retreat from the sight of him. It is apparent that Patroclus was willing to fight although the odds were greatly against him. His vehemence towards the Trojans coupled with his disappointment of Achilles gave him the drive to conquer the Trojan army with or without the aid of Achilles. In doing so, Patroclus took an enormous risk that the Trojans would fall for his trick, a risk with his life as the stakes. Essentially, while pleading to Achilles for battle, it was his own dark death for which he plead. Next, because Patroclus ignored Achilles' warnings before battle, the blame for his death can only be placed upon himself. In Book XVI, Achilles said, " Do not, I tell you, get carried away In the heat of conflict and slaughter and so lead the men Toward the city. For one of the gods everlasting may decide To descend from Olympus and fight against you - Apollo, For instance, who works from afar and dearly loves All Trojans. Come back, then, when once you have saved the Vessels, and let others go fighting across the plain." In explanation, Achilles was saying that he wanted Patroclus to lead the Myrmidons in an attack against the Trojans to drive them away from the ships. Once that was done, he wanted Patroclus and the army to return because imminent death surrounded Troy, antagonized by Zeus and Apollo. However, Patroclus did not heed this warning. After going into battle and sending the Trojans into a full retreat, Patroclus was overcome with fury over his slain comrade, Epeigeus, and ordered a full scale attack upon the walls of Troy. " Then Patroclus, calling Commands to the horses and to Automedon, drove In pursuit of the Trojans and Lycians, blind foolhardy child That he was! For had he obeyed the careful orders of Peleus' son Achilles, he surely would then Have escaped the miserable doom of murky death." This passage in Book XVI foreshadowed how this grave mistake would lead to Patroclus' death. Because of his overwhelming desire to take revenge for the many Achaeans defeated in battle, Patroclus failed to realize the accompanying consequences to his suicide mission. No one else made the decision to attack, therefore, only Patroclus is to blame for his narrow minded decision which led directly to his untimely demise. Finally, because of Patroclus' inferiority to Achilles in battle, he was responsible for his own death. An example can be derived from a passage in Book XVI from Apollo to Patroclus, " Fall back Zeus - descended Patroclus! It is not fated That by your spear this town of the gifted Trojans Shall be laid to waste, nor even by that of Achilles, A man far batter than you." This passage suggests the inferiority of Patroclus compared to Achilles. If Achilles was not fated to sack the city of Troy, how was Patroclus supposed to, being only half the warrior that Achilles was? Patroclus should have known this, but his mind was clouded with anger and grief so he decided to do even what Achilles could not and perished. Therefore, his inferiority to Achilles shown through. Another example took place after Patroclus defeated Hector's driver, Cebriones. While trying to strip the armor from the body, Patroclus and Hector began to fight over the corpse. Instead of following Achilles' orders and returning to the ships, Patroclus went for the nucleus of the Trojan army and tried to defeat Hector, as no other Achaean could do. His fury overcame him and inferiority to Achilles caused him to die. Patroclus picked a fight with an enemy aided by a god, and fell from glory with a combination of blows from Apollo, Euphorbes, and Hector. This inferiority to Achilles may have been the primary reason that Patroclus' life came to an end that day at the hands of the Trojan army. In conclusion, among the various themes of The Iliad of Homer, death is one of the most apparent and moving themes to consistently appear throughout the story. Each death was described in full, graphic detail to more emphasize the individual people and events for which this siege was taking place. Each man had a family and a story behind his life and death. For Patroclus, however, life was cut short by his poor decisions and unyielding fury toward the Trojans. These, accompanied by his battle skills, greatly inferior to those of Achilles, caused Patroclus to disregard Achilles' warnings of what fate the battle might hold and attack Troy as well as Hector. If these decisions had not been made, Patroclus could have ridden beside Achilles in their sack of Troy. Thus, because of Patroclus' over - zealous and inferior battle decisions and behaviors, it is apparent that he is solely responsible for his own death. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The History of Greek Theater.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The History of Greek Theater Theater and drama in Ancient Greece took form in about 5th century BCE, with the Sopocles, the great writer of tragedy. In his plays and those of the same genre, heroes and the ideals of life were depicted and glorified. It was believed that man should live for honor and fame, his action was courageous and glorious and his life would climax in a great and noble death. Originally, the heros recognition was created by selfish behaviors and little thought of service to others. As the Greeks grew toward city-states and colonization, it became the destiny and ambition of the hero to gain honor by serving his city. The second major characteristic of the early Greek world was the supernatural. The two worlds were not separate, as the gods lived in the same world as the men, and they interfered in the mens lives as they chose to. It was the gods who sent suffering and evil to men. In the plays of Sophocles, the gods brought about the heros downfall because of a tragic flaw in the character of the hero. In Greek tragedy, suffering brought knowledge of worldly matters and of the individual. Aristotle attempted to explain how an audience could observe tragic events and still have a pleasurable experience. Aristotle, by searching the works of writers of Greek tragedy, Aeschulus, Euripides and Sophocles (whose Oedipus Rex he considered the finest of all Greek tragedies), arrived at his definition of tragedy. This explanation has a profound influence for more than twenty centuries on those writing tragedies, most significantly Shakespeare. Aristotles analysis of tragedy began with a description of the effect such a work had on the audience as a catharsis or purging of the emotions. He decided that catharsis was the purging of two specific emotions, pity and fear. The hero has made a mistake due to ignorance, not because of wickedness or corruption. Aristotle used the word hamartia, which is the tragic flaw or offense committed in ignorance. For example, Oedipus is ignorant of his true parentage when he commits his fatal deed. Oedipus Rex is one of the stories in a three-part myth called the Thebian cycle. The structure of most all Greek tragedies is similar to Oedipus Rex. Such plays are divided in to five parts, the prologue or introduction, the prados or entrance of the chorus, four episode or acts separates from one another by stasimons or choral odes, and exodos, the action after the last stasimon. These odes are lyric poetry, lines chanted or sung as the chorus moved rhythmically across the orchestra. The lines that accompanied the movement of the chorus in one direction were called strophe, the return movement was accompanied by lines called antistrophe. The choral ode might contain more than one strophe or antistrophe. Greek tragedy originated in honor of the god of wine, Dionysus, the patron god of tragedy. The performance took place in an open-air theater. The word tragedy is derived from the term tragedia or goat-song, named for the goat skins the chorus wore in the performance. The plots came from legends of the Heroic Age. Tragedy grew from a choral lyric, as Aristotle said, tragedy is largely based on lifes pity and splendor. Plays were performed at dramatic festivals, the two main ones being the Feast of the Winepress in January and the City Dionysia at the end of March. The Proceeding began with the procession of choruses and actors of the three competing poets. A herald then announced the poets names and the titles of their plays. On this day it was likely that the image of Dionysus was taken in a procession from his temple beside the theater to a point near the road he had once taken to reach Athens from the north, then it was brought back by torch light, amid a carnival celebration, to the theater itself, where his priest occupied the central seat of honor during the performances. On the first day of the festival there were contests between the choruses, five of men and five of boys. Each chorus consisted of fifty men or boys. On the next three days, a tragic tetralogy (group made up of four pieces, a trilogy followed by a satyric drama) was performed each morning. This is compared to the Elizabethan habit of following a tragedy with a jig. During the Peloponnesian Wars, this was followed by a comedy each afternoon. The Father of the drama was Thesis of Athens, 535 BC, who created the first actor. The actor performed in intervals between the dancing of the chorus and conversing at times with the leader of the chorus. The tragedy was further developed when new myths became part of the performance, changing the nature of the chorus to a group appropriate to the individual story. A second actor was added by Aeschylus and a third actor was added by Sophocles, and the number of the chorus was fixed at fifteen. The chorus part was gradually reduced, and the dialogue of the actors became increasingly important. The word chorus meant dance or dancing ground, which was how dance evolved into the drama. Members of the chorus were characters in the play who commented on the action. They drew the audience into the play and reflected the audiences reactions. The Greek plays were performed in open-air theaters. Nocturnal scenes were performed even in sunlight. The area in front of the stages was called the orchestra, the area in which the chorus moved and danced. There was no curtain and the play was presented as a whole with no act or scene divisions. There was a building at the back of the stage called a skene, which represented the front of a palace or temple. It contained a central doorway and two other stage entrances, one at the left and the other at the right, representing the country and the city. Sacrifices were performed at the altar of Dionysus, and the chorus performed in the orchestra, which surrounded the altar. The theatron, from where the word theater is derived, is where the audience sat, built on a hollowed-out hillside. Seated of honor, found in the front and center of the theatron, were for public officials and priests. he seating capacity of the theater was about 17,000. The audience of about 14,000 was lively, noisy, emotional and unrestrained. They ate, applauded, cheered, hissed, and kicked their wooden seats in disgust. Small riots were known to break out if the audience was dissatisfied. Women were allowed to be spectators of tragedy, and probably even comedy. Admission was free or nominal, and the poor were paid for by the state. The Attic dramatists, like the Elizabethans, had a public of all classes. Because of the size of the audience, the actors must also have been physically remote. The sense of remoteness may have been heightened by masked, statuesque figures of the actors whose acting depended largely on voice gestures and grouping. Since there were only three actors, the same men in the same play had to play double parts. At first, the dramatists themselves acted, like Shakespeare. Gradually, acting became professionalized. Simple scenery began with Sophocles, but changes of scene were rare and stage properties were also rare, such as an occasional altar, a tomb or an image of gods. Machinery was used for lightning or thunder or for lifting celestial persons from heaven and back, or for revealing the interior of the stage building. This was called deus ex machina, which means god from the machine, and was a technical device that used a metal crane on top of the skene building, which contained the dressing rooms, from which a dummy was suspended to represent a god. This device was first employed by Euripides to give a miraculous conclusion to a tragedy. In later romantic literature, this device was no longer used and the miracles supplied by it were replace by the sudden appearance of a rich uncle, the discovery or new wills, or of infants changed at birth. Many proprieties of the Greek plays were attached to violence. Therefore, it was a rule that acts of violence must take place off stage. This carried through to the Elizabethan theater which avoided the horrors of men being flayed alive or Glousters eyes being put out in full view of an audience (King Lear). When Medea went inside the house to murder her children, the chorus was left outside, chanting in anguish, to represent the feelings the chorus had and could not act upon, because of their metaphysical existence. The use of music in the theater began very simply consisting of a single flute player that accompanied the chorus. Toward the close of the century, more complicated solo singing was developed by Euripides. There could-then be large-scale spectacular events, with stage crowds and chariots, particularly in plays by Aeschylus. Greek comedy was derived from two different sources, the more known being the choral element which included ceremonies to stimulate fertility at the festival of Dionysus or in ribald drunken revel in his honor. The term comedy is actually drawn from komos, meaning song of revelry. The second source of Greek comedy was that from the Sicilian mimes, who put on very rude performances where they would make satirical allusions to audience members as they ad-libbed their performances. In the beginning, comedy was frank, indecent and sexual. The plots were loosely and carelessly structured and included broad farce and buffoonery. The performers were coarse and obscene while using satire to depict important contemporary moral, social and political issues of Athenian life. The comedy included broad satire of well known persons of that time. Throughout the comedic period in Greece, there were three distinctive eras of comedies as the genre progressed. Old comedy, which lasted from approximately 450 to 400 BCE, was performed at the festivals of Dionysus following the tragedies. There would be contests between three poets, each exhibiting one comedy. Each comedy troupe would consist of one or two actors and a chorus of twenty-four. The actors wore masks and soccus, or sandals, and the chorus often wore fantastic costumes. Comedies were constructed in five parts, the prologue, where the leading character conceived the happy idea, the parodos or entrance of the chorus, the agon, a dramatized debate between the proponent and opponent of the happy idea where the opposition was always defeated, the parabasis, the coming forth of the chorus where they directly addressed the audience and aired the poets views on most any matter the poet felt like having expressed, and the episodes, where the happy idea was put into practical application. Aristotle highly criticized comedy, saying that it was just a ridiculous imitation of lower types of man with eminent faults emphasized for the audiences pleasure, such as a mask worn to show deformity, or for the man to do something like slip and fall on a banana peel. Aristophanes, a comic poet of the old comedy period, wrote comedies which came to represent old comedy, as his style was widely copied by other poets. In his most famous works, he used dramatic satire on some of the most famous philosophers and poets of the era. In The Frogs he ridiculed Euripides, and in The Clouds he mocked Socrates. His works followed all the basic principles of old comedy, but he added a facet of cleverness and depth in feeling to his lyrics, in an attempt to appeal to both the emotions and intellect of the audience. Middle comedy, which dominated from 400 to 336 BCE, was very transitional, having aspects of both old comedy and new comedy. It was more timid than old comedy, having many less sexual gestures and innuendoes. It was concerned less with people and politics, and more with myths and tragedies. The chorus began its fade into the background, becoming more of an interlude than the important component it used to be. Aristophanes wrote a few works in middle comedy, but the most famous writers of the time were Antiphanes of Athens and Alexis of Thurii, whose compositions have mostly been lost and only very few of their found works have been full extant plays. In new comedy which lasted from 336 to 250 BCE, satire is almost entirely replaced by social comedy involving the family and individual character development, and the themes of romantic love. A closely knit plot in new comedy was based on intrigue, identities, relationships or a combination of these. A subplot was often utilized as well. The characters in new comedy are very similar in each work, possibly including a father who is very miser like, a son who is mistreated but deserving, and other people with stereotypical personas. The chief writer of new comedy was Menander, and as with the prominent writers of the middle comedic era, most of his works have been lost, but other dramatists of the time period, like Terence and Platus, had imitated and adapted his methods. Menanders The Curmudgeon is the only complete extant play known by him to date, and it served as the basis for the later Latin writers to adapt. Adventure, brilliance, invention, romance and scenic effect, together with delightful lyrics and wisdom, were the gifts of the Greek theater. These conventions strongly affected subsequent plays and playwrights, having put forth influence on theater throughout the centuries. Bibliography 1. Lucas, F.L., Greek Tragedy and Comedy, New York: The Viking Press, 1967. 2. McAvoy, William, Dramatic Tragedy, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. 3. Murray, Gilbert, Euripides and His Age, New York: Oxford University Press, 1955. 4. Reinhold, Meyer, Ph.D., Essentials of Greek and Roman Classics, New York: Barrons Educational Series, Inc., 1960. 5. Trawick, Buckner B., World Literature, Volume I: Greek, Roman, Oriental and Medieval  William McAvoy, Dramatic Tragedy, 1971, p. ix  Ibid., p. x  William McAvoy, Dramatic Tragedy, 1971, p. xi  Ibid., p. vii  Meyer Reinhold, Ph.D., Essentials of Greek and Roman Classics, 1960, p.60 F.L. Lucas, Greek Tragedy and Comedy, 1968, p. 3 Ibid., p. 9 Ibid., p. 10 Ibid., p. 10 Gilbert Murray, Euripides and His Age, 1955, p. 145  F.L. Lucas, Greek Tragedy and Comedy, 1968, p. 12  Ibid., p.62  Gilbert Murray, Euripides and His Age, 1955, p.146  Gilbert Murray, Euripides and His Age, 1955, p. 153  F.L. Lucas, Greek Tragedy and Comedy, 1968, p. 12  Buckner B. Trawick, World Literature, Volume I: Greek, Roman, Oriental and Medieval Classics, 1958, p. 76  Meyer Reinhold, Ph.D., Essentials of Greek and Roman Classics, 1960, p. 114  Ibid., p. 238  Ibid., p. 253 Buckner B. Trawick, World Literature, Volume I: Greek, Roman, Oriental and Medieval Classics, 1958, p. 76 Meyer Reinhold, Ph.D., Essentials of Greek and Roman Classics, 1960, p. 254 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Illiad.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4º English 1 H Stephen Wong Iliad Important Characters: Agamemnon king of Mycenae; brother of Menelaos Hektor Prince of Troy; son of Priam and Hekuba Achilles greatest warrior of the Achaian army Aias song of Telamon; he has brute strength and courage Menelaos husband of Helen; brother of Agamemnon Paris a prince of Troy; also son of Priam and Hekuba Priam King of Troy; very old man Helen wife of Menelaos; most beautiful woman In the world Diomedes one of the best Achaian warriors Hekuba wife of Priam Aeneas son of Aphrodite; Trojan Aphrodite Daughter of Zeus; goddess of love; mother of Aeneas; patron of Paris; on the Trojans' side Athena daughter of Zeus; goddess of wisdom; on the Achaian side Ares son of Zeus; god of prophecy, light, poetry, and music; on the Trojans' side Zeus supreme god and king of Olympos Poseidon younger brother of Zeus; god of sea Iliad Chryseis and Briseis who were captured during a raid in Troy are awarded as 'war prizes' to Agamemnon and Achilles. Chryseis for Agamemnon and Briseis for Achilles. Chryseis is the daughter of Chryses which prays Apollo to help get back his daughter. Apollo causes a deadly plague in the Achaian camp. Achilles asked Kalchas to explain the cause of Apollo's anger. Apollo plagued the Achaians because Agamemnon refused to return Chryseis to her father. Agamemnon demands Achilles' war prize in place of Chryseis. Achilles because angry at Agamemnon's demand and withdraws his troops from the Achaian army. Agamemnon returns Chryseis to her father then collects Briseis from Achilles. Strangely, Achilles gives him the girl. Then, Achilles decides to tell his mother about the problem. Achilles asks his mother to ask Zeus to make sure that the Trojans win. Thetis goes to Zeus and asks and he agrees to help the Trojans. Agamemnon has a dream that he can defeat the Trojans so, full of false hope, he planned a mass assault on Troy. Agamemnon orders his army to prepare themselves to attack. When the news of the Achaian plan arrived in Troy, Hektor ordered his troops to meet the Achaians on the plain in front of Troy. Paris dares any of the Achaian warriors to fight him personally. Then, Menelaos accepted the challenge. But, Paris is suddenly scared and backs out. Hektor then fines Paris and scolds him. The agreement was whoever won gets Helen, then the war would be over. They fight on a large open area between the armies. Menelaos hurts Paris then Aphrodite saves Paris and brings him to his bedroom in Troy, where she also brings Helen. Then Agamemnon announces that Menelaos has won. Hera wants the complete destruction of Troy so Zeus sends Athena to get them fighting again. Athena then tempts Pandaros to kill Menelaos, then he would get great glory. Then, Pandaros stupidly shoots Menelaos with an arrow and wounds Menelaos. Agamemnon and the Achaians were shocked by this violation of the truce. The wound is not fatal, but when the surgeon is treating it, several Trojan regiments begin to attack. Agamemnon immediately orders is army to fight and the army is cheerfully responding to Agamemnon's praises. The battle then continues and has an outstanding warrior, Diomedes. Pandaros then wounds Diomedes and Diomedes asks for Athena's aid. She gives him more courage, and the advantage of being able to tell between gods and mortals. She tells him not to fight with any of the gods but Aphrodite. Diomedes kills many Trojans including Pandaros. Then, he wounds Aeneas and takes his horses as a war prize. Diomedes is angry at Aphrodite's interference so he wounds her in the hand. The Achaians are slowly loosing and withdrawing. Hera and Athena helps the Achaians. Ares complains to Zeus about the bad treatment he got and Zeus tells him he doesn't care. No more gods are fighting in the war. The Achaians overpower the Trojans and drive them back. Diomedes and Glaukos challenge each other to a personal duel. Later, they discover that they are related form their grandfathers. Then respectfully exchange their armor. Hektor then finds Paris to come back to fight. Andromache and Astyanax beg their man not to fight . Hektor then says it is his duty. Hektor and Paris rejoin the Trojan army then they battle again. Athena and Apollo wants to end the day's combat by dueling Hektor to one of the best Achaian warriors. Telamonian Aias battles with Hektor. No one wins. A short truce is called for burial of the dead. Zeus plans to end the Trojan War and warns the gods not to interfere. The Achaian army seems to be loosing and even King Agamemnon feels bad. Then, Diomedes convinced the army to stay and fight till Troy is destroyed. Agamemnon knows that he was wrong when he was unwise about taking Achilles' war prize and offers to give her back if Achilles rejoins the army, but Achilles refuses the offer. Agamemnon is bothered by the fate of the Achaian army so he held a conference and they send Diomedes and Odysseus to spy on the Trojans. They stop a man named Dolon and from him they learn the location of Hektor and his staff and also important information about the Trojan army. The Achaians then attack but many are wounded therefore the Trojans start winning. Patroklos dies because Achilles uses him as a substitute. The Achaians take cover behind their wall. The Trojans can not cross the Achaian's trench therefore, they attack on foot. An eagle with a serpent flies over the Trojan army and Poulydamas thinks this is a bad omen and asks Hektor to retreat, but he refuses. The Trojan army finally knocks the Achaian wall down and the army storms inside. Zeus has brought the Trojans as far as defeating the Achaians and he sits back and watches. As Zeus watches, Poseidon takes this advantage and he disguises himself as Kachas and helps the Achaians. Achilles lets Patroklos wear his armor and tells Patroklos to only save the ships. The Trojans believe that Achilles has returned and is going to beat them up so Hektor and his army decide to retreat back to Troy. Apollo decides to enter the fighting and he hits Patroklos so hard that his vizored helmet flies off and then a Trojan soldier pierces him between the shoulders with a javelin. Hektor sees Patroklos and he stabs Patroklos at the lower part of his belly. Hektor takes Patroklos' armor then leaves him naked on the ground. The Trojans wanted to take the body and mutilate it and the Achaians wanted to give him a proper funeral ceremony. Two of the best warriors from both armies fight and along joins Apollo and Athena. Finally, Patroklos' body is safely carried back to the Achaian camp. When Achilles finds out that Patroklos died, he gets mad at himself and sobs. Thetis promises to get new armor for Achilles that was taken by Hektor. The Trojans follow the Achaians when they take Patroklos' body away so Achilles appears at the trench and scares the Trojans away. Achilles is very mad at the sight of Patroklos' dead body so he promises to kill Hektor and twelve Trojan warriors. Thetis receives new armor from Hephaistos and goes and searches for her son. Achilles, mad at Hektor for killing his friend, rejoins the Achaians and ends the fight he has with Agamemnon. Agamemnon returns Briseis to Achilles along with many other presents. Achilles knows his fate that he will die in battle avenging for Patroklos but nothing would prevent him for fighting back. Zeus tells the gods that they can join in on the sides they wish to help. Achilles wanted to kill Aeneas but Poseidon rescues him. Achilles doesn't kill Aeneas so he kills many Trojans. The god of the river is mad at Achilles for all the bloodshed in the river's water so he attacks Achilles with waves and currents. Poseidon, Athena, Hera, and Hephaistos attack the river with fire. Hektor stands outside the Trojan gates to await Achilles and to fight with him. When Achilles gets there, Hektor is so afraid he runs away. Finally, Achilles and Hektor started fighting. Achilles kills Hektor. Then, Achilles attaches Hektor's naked body to his chariot by the heels and drags the corpse as he goes. Priam and Hekuba see what Achilles is doing and the moan and groan. Andromache collapses when she hears the news. Achilles dreams that Patroklos asks that his funeral be held so that he can enter the realm of the dead in peace. The next morning, the soldiers got wood and built a large funeral mound. They place Patroklos's body on the top of the mound and they sacrifice the twelve Trojan captives. Achilles holds funeral games in which valuable prizes are awarded. Hektor's body has been lying on the ground untouched. For nine days, Achilles drags Hektor's corpse around the dead body of Patroklos. Zeus then orders that Hektor have a suitable burial. Priam talks to Achilles and moved him with memories of home and parents so Achilles agrees to give Priam Hektor's body. Hektor's body is placed on a mound and burned. They placed his bones in a golden chest, then buried it in a shallow grave. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Life & Times of Alexander the Great.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ iii Introduction Alexander the great made an impact on world history that few individuals can profess to have done. He ruled all of the known world, and one of the largest empires ever. His men were the first westerners to encounter tales of the Yeti. They even discovered and classified new types of flora and fauna, such as the red mold that grew on their bread while they were in Asia, and made it appear as if it were bleeding. He expanded the Hellenist sphere of influence to the farthest reaches of the globe. When the king of Greece visited the British colony of India around the turn of the century, the colonial government had some native Indian dances displayed for him. He was shocked when he immediately recognized the dances as the same harvest dances that his fellow Greeks performed near Thessalonika. This was the breadth of Alexander's influence on hundreds of different cultures around the world. Throughout the whole of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, stories of this great man have been handed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries. In many cases Alexander has even taken on a superhuman aura, and many unbelievable legends have been based on his life. When Julius Caesar visited Alexandria, he asked to see the body of the greatest warrior of all time- Alexander the Great. Such was Alexander's reputation, able to impress even the powerful Caesar. He was, without a doubt, one of the most remarkable men that ever walked the face of this Earth. And this is the story of his life. 1 The Life and Times of Alexander the Great The story of Alexander the Great is one of courage, genius, and great accomplishment; but it is also somewhat of a bittersweet one, ending with his tragic death during the prime of his life, at thirty-two. Alexander was born to Philip II of Macedon and Olympias, his principal wife, in 356 BCE, mpic Games. Just three years earlier, Philip had ascended to the throne after the death of his older brother, Perdikkas1, and named the city of Philipi after himself. Shortly thereafter, at the age of twenty, he met Olympias at a religious ceremony on the island of Samothrace. Olympias was of the Mystery Religions, and was initiated at an early age. She spent her time at wild orgies during which snakes were wrapped around the worshippers limbs. She kept this custom of sleeping with snakes throughout her marriage to Philip. In addition, she sacrificed thousand of animals to her particular god or goddess each year. Interestingly enough, she had a cruel streak normally common only to the Greek men of her time. Throughout her career she was no slower than her male rivals to kill off enemies who seemed to threaten her. Olympias, believing that she was descended from Achilles, and being of royal Epeirosian blood herself, thought that she was rightly entitled to respect from Philip as his queen. For this reason Olympias was constantly upset at Philip's long stays away from home. This anger was especially directed towards his torrid affairs with the nearest nubile 2 waif. At the time of Alexander's birth, Philip was involved in a campaign to defeat the Illyrian provinces in battle and incorporate them into the Greek empire that he was building for himself. In that month, Philip received three messages bearing good in quick succession: his victory over the Illyrians, Alexander's birth, and Macedonian victory in the Olympic races. Alexander resembled his mother more than his father. It was in memory of Macedonia's greatest king, Alexander I, that Alexander was named. Philip, currently engaged in a plan for the conquest of Greece and eventually parts of Asia, had high hopes for his firstborn son to eventually continue in his footsteps. In the following year Alexander's only sibling, a sister named Cleopatra, was born. Alexander probably had no recollection of his father having both of his eyes, because Philip lost his eye storming an Athenian fortress. During Alexander's early years, he was watched over by a man named Leonidas2. Leonidas saw to all of Alexander's education and tutelage in many varied subjects including: writing, geometry, reading, arithmetic, music, archery, horseback riding, javelin, and other types of athletics. Alexander's nursemaid was an endearing gentleman whose name was Lysimachos, who won Alexander's heart at an early age by playing imagination games with Alexander and his playmates: Ptolemy, Harpalos, Nearchos, Hephaistion, and Erigyios. When Alexander reached the ripe old age of thirteen, Philip decided it was time for Alexander to receive a higher education better befitting his young heir. Searching throughout his empire, Philip was lucky enough to find a student of Plato who was at the time unemployed, a young genius named Aristoteles (commonly known as Aristotle). Aristotle's father, Nakimachos, had been Macedonia's court physician, so Aristotle was 3 quite familiar with the area. Aristotle taught Alexander, and sometimes his friends in a rural sanctuary for the nymphs at Mieza. Aristotle actually composed two books, "In Praise of Colonies" and "On Kingship", for Alexander's education. He taught Alexander that other peoples were vastly inferior to the Greeks, and therefore fit for subjugation. Alexander loved Aristotle like his own father as he said himself, "One gave him life, but the other showed him how to live it." During this time , Alexander was involved in a homosexual relationship with Hephastion, a friend he loved dearly. This was a very common occurrence, looked upon as a learning experience for the boys. Their love was a very deep and close one, and when he died prematurely during Alexander's teenage years, Alexander felt a crippling grief from which he never fully recovered. Philip was constantly conquering more territory, and though Alexander respected him, he was also a bit jealous. He once told Ptolemy, "Father is going to do everything; at this rate he won't leave any conquests for you and me." During Alexander's sixteenth winter, Philip went to attack Perinthos in Thrace, and Alexander was left as regent in Macedonia. It was now, when Philip was away, that the Madoi tribe chose to revolt. Alexander crushed the rebellion expertly, in a merciless fashion. He was so victorious that when he built a walled city at the site of the battle, he took the freedom of naming it Alexandropolis, after himself, thus beginning his illustrious career. It was love at first sight for Philip when he saw Cleopatra, the niece of Attalus, Philip's general. The wedding was to take place immediately. At the wedding feast Attalus stood up for a toast to the bride and groom. In the course of his speech he "called upon the Macedonians to pray to the gods that of Philip and Cleopatra there might be 4 born a legitimate son as a successor to the kingdom3." Alexander had been quiet throughout the celebration, but with these words, he'd finally had enough. He rose and shouted, "What of me villain? Do you take me for a bastard4?", and with that threw his goblet of wine in Attalus's face. An enraged Philip sprang from his seat and made for Alexander, but being drunk, tripped and fell flat on his face. Alexander took the opportunity to further mock his father by proclaiming, "Look, men! Here is the man preparing to cross from Europe into Asia, and he can't get from one couch to another without falling down." After this incident Alexander no longer felt comfortable staying in Macedonia, and left with his mother. After dropping her off in her home town of Epeiros, he continued on and finally settled in Illyria, where he was welcomed as a fellow dissident to the monarchy. In a story reminiscent of King David and Absalom, Demarates, one of Philip's generals, convinced Philip to get Alexander to return. When Philip gave the affirmative, Demarates went to return Alexander to his home. Philip soon forgot the whole incident. Pixodar, the ruler of Caria and a vassal of the king of Persia, wanted to marry off his daughter to one of Philip's sons so as to secure a peace with Philip. Philip agreed, but didn't want Alexander, his heir, to marry a vassal's daughter, so instead he chose Arrhidaios, an epileptic. Alexander was still suspicious of Philip's intentions (after Attalus's speech), and his friends convinced him that Philip was planning on making Arrhidaios his heir in Alexander's stead. Therefore Alexander offered to Pixodar that he should take Arrhidaios's place, noting that Arrhidaios was an epileptic. When Philip found out, he was mad as all Hell, but treated Alexander maturely by reasoning with him. He argued, "Do you really think so little of yourself to be the son-in- 5 law of a lowly Persian vassal?!" Alexander had at last learned his lesson and began trusting Philip. Philip, though had finally had enough of Ptolemy and the rest of Alexander's friends meddling in Alexander's business, and exiled them from Macedonia "sine die". In Alexander's twentieth year, Philip was ready to begin his conquest of Persia and Asia Minor, but first he had to cement Epeiros's allegiance to him by marrying off Cleopatra (his only daughter from Olympias) to King Alexander of Epeiros. At daybreak the wedding procession began. Twelve of the Greek deities led the procession with Philip following close behind. A man posing as a guard gained access to Philip's entourage and stabbed Philip in the side before anyone could stop him. This man, later identified as Pausanias, had a horse prepared for a quick departure, but as fate would have it, he tripped over a bush, and was transfixed with a spear before he was able to rise to his feet. But there was no helping Philip- he was quite dead. Alexander was a firm believer in the saying, "The king is dead, f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Odyssey and Its Relation to the Greek Ideal Of a Sound M.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How Is The Greek Idea of a Sound Mind and Body Essential for The Successful Characters of The Odyssey? If one were to only have a very fit and strong body, lacking mental ability, to the Greeks it would not suffice. If a man were merely smart and intelligent, without much physical capability, the Greeks would feel that he is not complete. They believed an individual must have have both, a well developed mind and a fit body, not only one or the other, to be ideal. This is the Greek concept of a sound mind and body. In Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus and Telemachos, had to have and/or achieve a sound mind and body, to be the successful and outstanding characters of the epic. The ones who lacked these quality suffered and paid for it in the end. In Books one and two, Telemachos acts immaturely and lacks mental prowess. For this reason he makes his life difficult. Yet, Later on he matures and gains a sound mind. Telemachos certainly has a sound body. Menelaos says of how "...it amazes me quite, how this young man(Telemachos) looks exactly like Odysseus, strong and mighty"{page 47}. Yet, he is criticized by others, for the reason that he does not have a sound mind. In an attempt to stand his ground, in front of the council he breaks down into tears. Antinoos says "Telemachos you are a boaster, and you don't know how to keep your temper!"{page 24}. Telemachos made an attempt to express his valid point of view, and does so, but fails to convince the council. He breaks down in tears, showing how immature he really is. He does not have a sound mind. The council basked in this weakness and was even more critical of him at that point. Later on, he is told of how "(Telemachos), you speak like a man of sense, you are older than your years, your father is just the same, you get it from him."{page 48} As his adventure progresses he grows to be a more complete man, to eventually fighting along side his father against the "hangers-on"{page 17} that are "tormenting Penelope"{page 16}, to rid them from his home once and for all. Odysseus was triumphant in The Odyssey for the reason that he was a man who was astute and very clever, at the same time strong and robust. Odysseus, the man who is never at a loss, was so because he had a sound mind and body. Odysseus was so ingenious that "he pretended to be a beggar, and entered the city of Troy and [The Trojans] where all taken in"{page 49}. He was so powerful that "he leaned hard on (the pole) from above and turned it round and round (into the eye of the mighty giant Cyclops, blinding him)." He was so quick with his words, that he could "Appeal to Nausicaa, (so) she brought him to her father's house"{page 73}, when he was washed up onto shore naked and bruised, and after swimming for two days. Time and time again, through the many obstacles he encounters, he is successful, because he has a sound mind and body. The poet, shows through all Odysseus encounters, that he must utilize both his strength and wit to surpass them. If a man does not have both a sound mind and body, he will suffer. So is the case with Achilles. The conceited Achilles, one of the greatest fighters of the Trojan War, now lays in the underworld and says "I would rather be plowman to a yeoman farmer on a small holding than lord Paramount in the kingdom of the Dead."In the Trojan war he had refused to fight, and now he has to pay for his mistakes. He begged Odysseus, never at a fault, to tell him of his son Neoptolemos, who in fact is a coward and a weakling, but Odysseus, taking pity on his former comrade, says "I can tell you about your beloved son Neoptolemos, and there is nothing to hide. In fact I brought him in my own ship from Scryros to join the Achaian army. When we held a council of war, he was always the first to speak, and always found the right thing to say. Only Nestor and I were superior. When we met our enemies in battle, he did not lag among the crowd or in the scrimmage, but showed himself well in the front, the bravest of the brave: many a man killed in fair fight." {page 134}. Achilles was strong and a great warrior once, but now, because he did not possess a sound mind, he lost the one real thing that meant anything; life. The ones that suffer most for the flaw of missing a sound mind and a sound body, are the suitors. The suitors are greedy, selfish, wretched and scheming men, who have tormented Penelope for three years. The suitors were slowly eating Penelope, Odysseus and Telemachos out of house and home. They took all the food and board they pleased, in a home that did not belong to them. Penelope hated them very much as did the gods. "Bright-Eyed" Athena tells Telemachos to "collect your wits and make a good plan to kill these hangers-on(suitors), either by craft or open fight"{page 17}. In the end this is exactly what Telemachos and Odysseus do. They struck down the "Dogs!Who never thought that (Odysseus) would return from Troy."{page 243}. The "Poor fools! they did not know that the cords of death were made fast about them all,"{page 245} now were in their rightful place, in the land of the dead. They trespassed into another man's home, all the time being absent of a sound mind and body, and now had to pay with their lives. Odysseus returns to the Underworld where he is confronted by Antinoos, the leader of the suitors, who says "My friends, here is a monstrous thing this man (Odysseus) has done against our nation!"{page 269} to invoke pity from Odysseus and others. Sorrow is felt for Antinoos, but all knew that "(Antinoos') own faults have brought this (punishment) about"{page 270} and his punishment is fitting. All in all, one cannot help but note that the idea of a sound mind and body is blended into The Odyssey. The Characters that possessed this trait, obtained their goal in the end. On the other-hand, the ones that lacked either a sound mind or body, failed. Odysseus and Telemachos were able to find each other and win back their home, while the suitors and even Achilles were robbed of their lives. It is a fact that a sound mind and body were an essential ideal in the ancient Greek society and The Odyssey. How would today's society differ if these values held true? f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Odyssey Telemachus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On Page 59, Telemachus recounts his confrontation with the Old man of the sea who could change his appearance in order to escape danger. Telemachus reveals the information which he obtained from the Old man of the sea to the reader. The Old man told Telemachus of the sorrowful tale of Agamemnon's Murder. The story tells of how Aegisthus paid a man to watch for Agamemnon's return from the sea. After a year of waiting, the King returned in what he thought to be secrecy. The lookout man relayed the information to Aegisthus and he had Agamemnon's finest warriors become preoccupied with a small confrontation in one end of the castle. In the other end of the castle, Aegisthus had a banquet and feast prepared for Agamemnon. Aegisthus took a chariot to the sea and picked up Agamemnon. Agamemnon was very happy and he believed that Aegisthus was his friend. He returned to the palace and after the feast Aegisthus slain him in his own bedroom. Eight years later, Orestes returned from Athens and killed Aegisthus and his own deceitful mother. On Page 39, Nestor forewarns Telemachus not to stray too far or too long from home or to leave his wealth unguarded with all of the contemptuous suitors in the palace. He tells Telemachus that if he does stay away for too long the suitors will take all of his wealth and in effect, making his small Odyssey futile. This is very substantial information which Telemachus had encounter in order to direct his attention and actions towards what was right. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Parthenon.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Parthenon The Parthenon was a temple to the patron goddess of Athens, Athena. Located atop Athens's Acropolis, the Parthenon was an architectural masterpiece. It was constructed between 447 and 432 BCE by the Greek sculptor Phidias and the Greek architects Ictenus and Callicrates. It the largest temple in Greece. However, subtle elements used in the construction create amazing effects. All of the 46 massive stone columns lean inward slightly, the flutes on the columns taper off a bit near the top and the columns get thinner near the top. When used together these elements create the illusion of "upthrusting motion". The illusion is most effective from a distance, when seen in contrast to the wall of the Acropolis. The Parthenon was made of white marble from Mount Pentelicus (however over time the marble's color has changed to a light yellowish beige). It stands approximately 60 feet high and has an area of 30,030 feet. The Parthenon contains two rooms. One room served as a treasury and the other once contained a large statue of Athena. Perhaps the most dramatic feature of the Parthenon was the sculpture by Phidias. Since the temple was a tribute to Athena, the sculpture centered around her. The western side of the roof depicted the battle between her and Poseidon over control of Athens. The eastern side depicted her birth. On the outer wall above the columns there were 92 metopes (sculptured panels) depicting battle scenes involving heroes and gods. They included the Trojan war, the Greeks fighting the Amazons, and the gods against the Titans. Along the walls of the enclosed room of the Parthenon a festival honoring Athena was shown, depicting the men and women of Athens. The Parthenon focused on Athena and the greatness of the city of Athens. The Parthenon shows the architectural innovation ad nd the artistic genius of the Athenians. It shows the spirit and culture of Athens and is a history in itself. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Shield of Achilles.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Shield of Achilles: The shield of Achilles plays a major part in the Iliad. It portrays the story of the Achaeans and their fight against the Trojans in a microcosm of the larger story. Forged by the god, Hephaestus, who was a crippled smith, it depicts the two cities and the happenings within, as well as Agamemnon's kingly estate. To gain insight into the details and intricacies of the shield, one must look at the shield itself, the cities depicted within the shield, and the King's Estate and other scenes which are also depicted. These items will give even an amateur reader a fair understanding of the importance of Achilles' shield and the Iliad. Hephaestus, the god of fire, is the smith whom forged Achilles' shield. He begins with twenty hot bellows and fires bronze, tin, gold, and silver in his kiln. He then proceeds to hammer the metals upon his anvil to create a massive shield for Achilles to wield. The shield itself is made of five layers of metal with a triple ply shield strap edging on the rim. On the shield are scenes showing the heavens and earth and sea, two noble cities, a king's estate, fallow fields, a thriving vineyard, a herd of longhorn cattle, and a dancing circle. Once Hephaestus completes the shield he makes a breastplate and helmet for Achilles. The armor he forges is indestructible and worthy of a god. Through Homer's description of the shield and how it is forged, the reader can begin to understand the importance and value of this device in a literary context. The two cities depicted on the shield represent a city in Greece and Troy. One of the cities is filled with men dancing and singing and brides marching through the streets, while the other is circled by an army. This army has two plans which split their ranks: to share the riches which they have captured or plunder the city and capture more. Turmoil surrounds each city. In one a quarrel breaks out and is brought to judgement. Surrounding the other, two armies fight along the river banks killing men and dragging off the dead. Both cities are tainted with death, and both house love. In the former two men quarrel over the blood price for a murdered kinsman and take their case to a judge to decide the outcome. In the latter, children and housewives stand guard as the men march out to war. This scene is analogous to the Trojans leaving to fight the Achaeans between their shores and the city. As seen in line 625, " ...now hauling a deadman through the slaughter by the heels...", Homer foreshadows Achilles victory over Hector and how Achilles humiliates him. The king's estate is also portrayed on Achilles' shield. Bountiful harvests of ripe grain are reaped and bound, and the king stands in silence rejoicing among the endless bundle of barley. An ox is being prepared for the harvest feast while the women fix the midday meal. The shield depicts happiness and prosperity for the king (whom represented Agamemnon, the King of the Achaeans) again foreshadowing the Achean's victory in their war with Troy. The shield also shows a thriving vineyard with a winding footpath on which the pickers run. Among the pickers is a young boy who plays his lyre and sings a lovely dirge. A herd of longhorn cattle is also shown. The bulls are engraved in the gold and tin along with the rest of the pasture's swaying reeds and rippling stream. A pair of lions seize a bull from the front and proceed to devour it. A pack of dogs and herdsmen run to aid, but it is too late. The smith also forges a meadow for the flocks to graze and a dancing circle for young boy and girls to court and dance. The scene brings forth a festive and joyous mood. As you can see, the shield of Achilles is a finely detailed and intricate piece of craftsmanship suitable for a god. The details within the cities themselves and within the King's estate are evidence of this. Not only do they hold beauty in the intricacies, they also serve to represent the larger story of the Iliad and the war between the Achaeans and the Trojans. It serves to remind the reader of what has taken place,as shown in the battle scenes, while setting the scene for what is to come. It acts as a pause for the reader to step back and absorb the meaning of the events prior, and foreshadows the fall of Troy. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The similarites in Antigone and Creon.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I here by give all ownership and copyrights to you The similarities between Creon and Antigone "Ah Creon! Is there no man left in the world-" Teirsesias Greek theatre played a large role in Greece. The citizens were supposed to learn from the mistakes made in tragedies. The citizens should have learned what not to be like as a citizen or person. In a Greek trilogy written by Sophocles there are two main characters, Antigone and Creon. They are both strong willed and stubborn people. Both being unwilling to change, they both seal each others fate. Creon is passionate. . Antigone is full of rage. They are both so similar they can not see eye to eye. Although they may seem quite different, Creon and Antigone share many similarities throughout the story. They are both very independent people. Antigone is extremely independent.. She doesn't mind doing anything on her own. For example, in the beginning of the story when Antigone is talking with Ismene, she asks for her help . When Ismene refuses she is furious with her. Then Ismene decides to act independently. Creon is also very independent. He refuses to accept anyone's opinions except his own. When his son Haimon comes to talk with him he refuses to listen , claiming that Haimon is "girlstruck!" and corrupted . Teirsesais comes and tells him a morbid prophecy. Creon will not listen to this either. He claims that Teirsesais has been corrupted by money, like many prophets at that time. He finally listens to the Charagous when reminded that Teiresias has never been wrong. Antigone has no problem working by her self either. She demonstrates this when she slipped by all the guards that were protecting the dead body of Polyneices. Creon and Antigone are both independent, and they are both very loyal. They are loyal to their views. Creon is especially loyal to his laws. Antigone is loyal to her beliefs. Creon will not change his laws. An example of this occurs when he and Antigone argue. He calls her "A traitor" For giving a burial for her dead brother Polyneices. He is so loyal to his own laws that he fails to see that he is disobeying the law of the gods. Antigone puts the laws of the gods ahead of the laws of the states. She goes ahead and buries her brother. Which was strictly prohibited by Creon. This shows her short-sightedness is because she only does what she thinks the gods want. Instead of abiding by the law that Creon decreed. Creon is also short-sighted because he refuses to believe any other opinions or laws than his own. Creon and Antigone are both so loyal which can also make them very extreme. Creon is an extremist in reason. He thinks his law is the most important. Antigone is an extremist of passion. Creon is unwilling to put the god's law above his law. He is unwilling to listen to the passionate pleas of his son to let Antigone live. He instead puts his laws first, and states that if he lets Antigone live after she has broken his law, "How shall I earn the worlds obedience?" His extreme will, later leads to his son's death because he thinks his son has been corrupted by Antigone. Antigone is equally as extreme and she will not listen to the reasoning of her sister Ismene. Ismene reminds her of the problems and dangers she is undertaking when she goes out to bury Polyneices. Antigone will not listen though, and this ends up killing her as well. Because Creon and Antigone are very extreme in their ways this can also make them cruel and foolish people. Creon is quite cruel to everyone around him. He never once listens to anyone, but instead he acts foolishly and hurts everyone. When he is talking to his son Haimon, he retorts that Haimon is "a fool" and that he is, "Taken in by a woman!" These words and his fathers attitude hurts Haimon and he becomes filled with rage towards his foolish father. Antigone is also cruel and foolish. Especially to her sister Ismene. Ismene tries to help Antigone in the start of the play. When she tries to tell Antigone not to risk everything to please the gods. Antigone won't listen though, She just tells her "Go away Ismene. I will be hating you soon", in a striking example of her cruelty. Ismene and Antigone have been caring sisters until suddenly Antigone abandons her because she does not agree to help bury their brother. Creon also is cruel to his old friend and prophet, Teirsesias. Teirsesias comes to warn him that if he does not free Antigone that bad things will happen, but Creon doesn't believe him. He claims that Teirsesias has "sold out" as a prophet and shows how foolish he is not to trust a long standing friend who has never been wrong. Creon and Antigone are both plagued by hubris. Creon wants to stand by the law he has made. Antigone is willing to risk it all to stand by the law of the gods and what is right. Creon's stubbornness is clear when his old friend and prophet Teirsesias. Tells him to free Antigone. Creon stubbornly refuses and remarks to the old wise man, "Bribes are baser then any baseness" Creon does not even listen to Teirsesias, who made him king in the first place. He is so stubborn that he refuses to listen claiming that Teirsesias had been corrupted by money and so his pride hampers his good judgment. He is so concentrated on everyone being corrupted that he does not even listen to common sense. His son, Haimon tries to come tell him that he should not sentence Antigone to death. Creon is outraged by his son siding with her. He tells Haimon that he is a "Fool, adolescent fool! Taken in by a woman!" Haimon responds to this by saying that he is "perverse" Creon, even more outraged, calls him a "Girls struck fool" Haimon storms off with a loathing hatred for his father's arrogant pride and stubbornness. Antigone has equal hubris herself. She is so passionate on burying her brother that she will not listen to reason. Full of arrogance and indignation, she will not listen to the words of her sister. Ismene warned her of the dangers of burying their brother Polyneices but Antigone will not listen. She calls Ismene a "traitor" for not coming to help her and Ismene shakingly replies "I am so afraid of you". Antigone, instead of listening to the common sense of her sister, snaps back that "You need not be: you have yourself to consider, after all". Later in the story Antigone is arrested for burying her brother and Ismene comes crawling back to her. Ismene breaks the conversation between Antigone and Creon by admitting that, "I am guilty, if she let me say so". Antigone will not let her and retorts coldly, "No, Ismene. you have no right to say so. You would not help me, and I will not have you help me" This reveals clearly how arrogant and stubborn Antigone can be. Even after her sister wants to share in her punishment and crawls back to her. She will not accept it to her own demise. Creon and Antigone are both remarkably similar people. Ironically, they are both so much the same that they can not see it. The flaws they share make neither of them willing to listen to the other. Many of their traits are identical, but their opinions are so different that they can't stand each other. Sophocles did an excellent job in portraying the two vast extremes of the spectrum, passion and reason. This story hopefully proves to people that neither extreme passion nor extreme reason, but rather be in the middle and achieve arete. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Story of Oedipus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jason Garoutte August 15, 1996 Lunt / Sn. English The Story of Oedipus After reading Oedipus, one may think that in this story, there was no justice, and nobody could avoid their fate. King Laius and Queen Jocasta, fearing the prophecy of the Delphic oracle, had the young Oedipus left on Mount Cithaeron to die, but the father dies and the son marries the mother anyway. Oedipus, seemingly a good person, also tries to avoid the second prophecy, only to fulfill the first. But even through all this, I have done some research and feel that there was justice in Oedipus, The King, and their fate wasn't completely sealed. First, the murder of King Laius. Laius seemed to die a unwarranted death, but he was not necessarily in complete innocence, for he had done some malicious things earlier in his life, such as the attempted murder of his son, Oedipus, and the kidnapping and rape of Chrysippus, a young man Laius fell in love with before Jocasta. And Oedipus wasn't as guilty under ancient Greek law as he is under our modern laws. It was every Greek's duty to harm his/her enemies, and as far as Oedipus knew, King Laius was an enemy. Queen Jocasta wasn't exactly guiltless, either. The great Queen had also tried with King Laius to kill their son, and had no respect for the prophecies of Apollo: "A prophet? Listen to me and learn some peace of mind: no skill in the world, nothing human can penetrate the future." She was also the other half of a mother-son marriage. Greek law considered the act, not the motive - meaning that even though she nor Oedipus knew they were related, they committed the crime. Finally, Oedipus's guilt. In some ways, Oedipus was the most guilty of them all. Consider his 'hubris'. He regarded himself as almost a god, assuming that since he alone had solved the sphinx's riddle, he was the one of the gods' favorites. He was very quick to judge, and judged on the most flimsy of evidence. He calls on Tiresias to tell him what he should do, and when he doesn't like what he hears, Oedipus says, "Your words are nothing - futile", and accuses Creon of plotting with Tiresias to hatch a plan to overthrow him. I don't think that fate is inescapable. If it was, then why would the blind prophet Tiresias tell Laius, Jocasta, and Oedipus their future, if not to let them change. I believe they were all involved in their own 'fate'. In how they reacted to the original prophecy, combined with actions before and after the prophecy, the three decided how the prophecy would be delivered. Justice, in terms of Greek law, was served. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Trojan War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Trojan War took place in approximately the 13th century. The ancient Greeks defeated the City of Troy. The Trojan War started after an incident at the wedding feast of Peleus, the king of Thessaly, and Thetis, a sea goddess. All the gods and goddesses of Mt. Olympus had been invited except Eris, the goddess of discord. Eris was offended and tried to stir up trouble among the guests at the feast. She sent a golden apple inscribed "For the most beautiful." Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite each claimed the apple as their own. Paris judged the quarrel and awarded the apple to Aphrodite because she had promised him Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world. Helen was already married to Kin Menelaus of Sparta but when visited by Paris, she fled with Paris to Troy. Menelaus organized Greek war against Troy to get Helen back. The Greeks battled for ten years but could not defeat Troy. The fall of Troy occurred when the Greeks built a large hollow horse and placed it outside the walls of Troy. The Trojans took the horse inside and thought the had won the war and the horse was a gift from the Greeks. Later that night, the Greeks stormed from the horse and opened the gates to allow their fellow warriors in and the Greeks conquered the City of Troy. Ancient Greece was the birthplace of Western civilization about 2500 years ago. Greek civilization consisted mainly of small city-states. A city-state consisted of a city or town and the surrounding villages and farmland. The Greek city-states were independent and quarreled often with one-another. These city states established the world's first democratic government. The Greeks believed that certain gods and goddesses watched over them and directed their daily lives. Families would try to please these gods by offering sacrifices, gifts, and ceremonies. Greeks flocked to oracles to consult priests and priestesses to answer questions and fore-tell the future. Greek men enjoyed drinking, talking, and dancing at parties. They also like sports and religious festivals Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the most important Greek philosophers. Socrates taught by carefully questioning his listeners to expose the weaknesses of their ideas and arguments. Plato explored such subjects as beauty, justice, and good government. Aristotle summed up the achievements of Greek philosophy and science. His authority on many topics remained unquestioned for more than 100 years Most Ancient Greeks were suspicious of philosophers and their theories. They continued to believe in superstitions and in myths. In 399 BC, an Athens jury sentenced Socrates to death for showing disrespect to the gods. Greek architects, sculptors, and painters made great contributions to the arts. They were trying to create ideal beauty based on equal proportions. Greek sculptors portrayed figures of gods, goddesses, and human beings. The most famous Greek sculptors were Phidais, Praxiteles, Lysippus, and Myron. Music often was played with Greek plays. Melody was common and harmony was not. The government of Athens was headed by Pericles for most of the Golden Age. An assembly of all male citizens would pass the laws, at the height of its power, Athens had the most advanced democracy in Greece. The Parthenon in Athens is a Greek Temple. Athena was the goddess of wisdom and warfare. Apollo the god of the sun and of poetry represented the ideal young man. The ancient Greeks built Athens upon a great plateau upon a great hill. The flat hill covers about ten acres. Athens became known as the Acropolis. The Greek words akro and polis mean high city. The Athenians built temples and public buildings on the Acropolis. By 1200 BC the Athenians had built a wall around most of the city. The Athenians built a temple to Athena on the hill. Pericles also began the Propylaea in addition tot he Parthenon. The Propylaea was never completed. All citizens except those of the city's poorest class were eligible for the council and for all other offices. Women were not citizens and could not vote or hold office. All public officials were chosen annually by drawing lots. Generals were elected. Unpopular government officials could be banished for ten years by vote of the people. The Coliseum is one of the chief landmarks of Rome. Romans watched gladiators fight each other or animals. Forums were the center of public life in he city. Public meetings were held here and many important buildings and statues stood there. The Parthenon is an ancient Greek temple in the city of Athens. It stands on a hill called the Acropolis overlooking the city of Athens. The Parthenon is dedicated to the goddess Athena. The best Greek sculptors and designers erected the Parthenon between 447 and 432 BC When the Turkish people owned the Parthenon, they filled it with gunpowder which exploded and destroyed the central part of the building. The Parthenon was built entirely of Pentelic marble. One room in the Parthenon contained a huge gold and ivory statue of Athena. Around the top of the outer wall above the columns of the Parthenon was a set of small sculptured panels called metopes. Athens was a city known to protect people from the Athenians. The Greeks living in Athens were people with a passion for perfection. Artists excelled in beautiful works of love, beauty, and passion. Pericles was leader of the Athenians and built Acropolis to honor Athena. 39 foot high statue of Athena sits in the town. Many people and small countries looked to Athens for protection. Athens was completed in 50 years. Sculptors such as the great Fidius designed statues to display in Athens. We as Americans took so much from the Greeks. Politics, Rhetoric, biology, geology, first to calculate atom, position of heavenly bodies, all were first done by the Greeks. Great Philosophers included Socrates, Plato, Hypocrates, Pythagorean, Pindler, Escelus. Athens had the worlds first democracy. The citizens participated males only in the government. We took the Greek form of Government and applied it to American Government. Our founding fathers knew Latin and Greek and realized the importance of the language. The Greeks erected many statues to honor their gods and one was found in 1928 by divers. The found statue, one dedicated to Poseidon, god of the sea was probably stolen by the Romans but the ship sunk and the statue was under water for hundreds of years. Sea at Sunneam was the name of a temple built in honor for Poseidon. Zeus, the father and leader of the Gods liven on Mt. Olympus. Delphi was an important Greek Temple for Apollo. The Greek people were highly educated and built stadiums and offered sacrifices to uphold their high religion. The oracle of Delphi, was a well known oracle. The theater originated as a place for religious festivals. Amphitheater was for plays about woman. The Olympics were every four years. The competitors competed naked and their were cheering sections along the side of the competition area. 770 BC was the first Olympic Games played. Physical Beauty was a great thing for Greeks. Sculptors tried to capture great eye-pleasing physiques for their statues. Homosexual activity was accepted between men and boys. A plague in Athens wiped out Pericles and many Greek people. The Greek people inspired cultures and countries for years to come and we are all in debt to the Greek people for the knowledge and wisdom they showed to invent new theories, laws, ideas, and ways of life. The Greek people were very advanced for their time and without them we would not know many of the things we know now. Pythagorean helped us to develop math skills and Socrates as well as other philosophers taught us theories of science and evolution. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\The Unjust Execution of Socrates.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [Error] - File could not be written... f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Theater of Dionysus.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Theater of Dionysus The Theater of Dionysus was Europe's first theater, and stood immediately below the Parthenon in Athens, Greece. It was originally built in the late 5th century B.C. The theater was an outdoor auditorium in the shape of a great semicircle on the slope of the Acropolis, with rows of seats on which about eighteen thousand spectators could comfortably seat. The front rows consisted of marble chairs, and were the only seats in the theater that had a back support. The priests of Dionysus and the chief magistrates of Athens reserved these rows. Priests claimed 50 of the 67 front row seats, then came the officials, the guests of honor, then finally the ordinary citizens of Athens. Beyond the front row, stood a circular space called the orchestra where the Chorus would sing and dance, and in the center of which stood the alter of Dionysus. The orchestra level was around 3 meters higher than the shrine. Behind the orchestra, there lied a heavy rectangular foundation known as the stage on which the actors would perform their section of the play. The back of the stage had a building painted to look like the front of a temple or a palace. Here, the actors would retire when they were not needed on stage or would go to when they had to change their costumes. Above lay the deep blue sky, behind it was the Acropolis, and seen in the distance was the olive colored hills and lush green of the forests that surround. The theater was built as a result of the Athenian's religious practice in honor of the god, Dionysos, who personified both wine and fruitfulness. Long before the theater itself was built, an annual ceremonial festival was held for Dionysus in the same spot. This ancient ceremony was performed by choruses of men who sang and danced in the god's honor. Spectators would gather in a circle to watch these dancers; that was the way that the theater took its circular shape. When the theater was built, the performers only sang and danced about the stories of Dionysus's life, then later the stories of other gods and heroes. The stories were told in the form of a song, chanted at first by all who took place, then later by a chorus of about fifty performers. During the intervals of a song, the leader would recite part of the story himself. As time passed, these recitations became more and more important, as it eventually overtook the chorus. They were now presented by two or three people, while the chorus consisted of only fifteen performers. A maximum of three speakers were allowed on stage at once, and only one story was told during one performance. The chorus, although less important, still set the atmosphere for the play, and as well gave the audience a time of relief from a tragedy. The Festival of Dionysus was a great dramatic one that was held during March and April inside the theater. Three poets were chosen every year, and each wrote a series of three tragedies based on some well-known Greek legend. Originally, admission to the theater was free, but as the crowds grew, the leaders realized that a small entrance fee would be economically beneficial for the theater. Several plays were given in one day, and a prize was awarded to the best, so the audience was obligated to start at dawn and would remain until sunset. While watching the plays, the Athenian audience was very critical as they would bluntly show their signs of approval or disapproval by their applause, or lack thereof. The legends and traditions from which most of the Greek plays took their plots were well known to the Athenians. They were stories honoring some great event or explaining some religious observance. These legends were chosen by the different dramatists, each of whom brought forth a different side of the story to enforce some particular lesson he wished to teach the audience. The plays were written in poetry which deeply stirred the emotions of the audience. It gave the Athenians much to think about their eternal problems of human life and conduct, and the proper relationship between humans and gods. Each play followed certain guidelines which created the culture of the theater. When the play began, only three actors were allowed on stage at once. They would usually wear very elaborate costumes, and on their feet would be a strange looking wooden sole called a buskin. This would add about six inches to their height to make them look taller and more impressive to the audience. A facial mask would also be worn to identify whom the character was, and the moods and feelings that the character portrayed. The mask included a wide mouth to project the voice of the actors so that everyone in the immense audience would be able to hear what the actor had to say. The actors would change their masks as they changed their characters. There were no curtains used, even though the plays were not divided into different acts. When there was a pause in action, the Chorus would fill up the time with their songs. When a tragedy was performed, the final calamity would never be shown on stage, but a messenger would appear to give the audience an account of what had happened. The creation of drama and the theater was a very large stepping stone for the Greeks, as it showed surrounding and future societies many things about the Greek beliefs, lifestyles, and culture. The building of the theater itself showed their degree of engineering and architectural ability that they used in creating their structures. It also showed that they had a vague form of understanding the way that acoustics work, as all the seats, no matter where they were, could hear the sounds from the stage. The plays that were performed gave an insight on Greek history and mythology. Naturally, they would not have performed any plays which did not interest the audience. They would only display what they believed to be important for civilians to know, such as their heritage and religious beliefs. Finally, the innovation of the drama and the theater undeniably confirmed their absolute belief in religion, as the theater would never have come about if it weren't for the worship of Dionysus by the Athenians. Bibliography 1) Powell, Anton, Ancient Greece. Facts on File, Inc., 1989. 2) Onians, John, Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age. Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1979. 3) Mills, Dorothy, The Book of the Ancient Greeks. G.P Putnam's Sons, 1977. 4) Skipp, Victor, Out of the Ancient World. Penguin Books, 1967. 5) Erim, Kenan, Aphrodisias, the City of Love. Facts on File Publications, 1986. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Theseus or Hercules.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Theseus or Hercules? Theseus is most worthy of emulation. He was a great hero in Athens. "Theseus was, of course bravest of the brave as all heroes are, but unlike the other heroes he was as compassionate as he was brave." (p. 159). Theseus also was a man of bravery, intellect and bodily strength. Hercules on the other hand was what all Greece except Athens most admired. He was very strong but wasn't too smart. Hercules never thought of the consequences that his actions would bring about before he followed through with them. First, Theseus was very strong. He fought many terrible horrendous monsters such as the Minotaur, "..a monster, half bull, half human.." (p.151), and went on many great ventures such as the Quest for the Golden Fleece. Theseus showed his great strength in adventures such as the one with the Minotaur. Hercules was also involved in many great adventures in which his great strength was shown. Hercules was much stronger than Theseus, but Theseus made up for this small loss in other ways. Second, Theseus was very smart. Because of his great intellect the Athenians, people who valued thought and ideas, chose him and not Hercules as their hero. Theseus escaped from the Labyrinth and killed the Minotaur. Neither of these tasks were easy and required someone with aptitude unlike Hercules. Theseus always thought things through and made good decisions. Hercules' foolishness was shown on many occasions such as when he killed his family and his music teacher. Theseus' intellect is one very valuable quality which makes him more worthy of emulation. Third, Theseus was very brave. In fact he went on so many great excursions that a saying grew up in Athens "Nothing without Theseus!" (p. 149). When it was time for Theseus to seek his father he would not go by water " But Theseus refused to go by water because the voyage was safe and easy." (p. 149). Theseus insisted to take the way by land. His idea was to become a hero as quickly as possible, and he accomplished his goal by ridding the land of all the banns to travelers on his way to find his father. Theseus had many other adventures. He was on the Argo, in the Caledonian hunt, as well as many others. Hercules also had many adventures but his were often the result of his own stupidity. The "labors of Hercules", one of his greatest adventures, were all a result of his own folly in killing his wife and children even though Hera supposedly brought the madness upon him. In conclusion, Theseus is most worthy of emulation. He was strong, brave and most importantly smart. If Americans had to choose between Theseus and Hercules, Theseus would be chosen. Theseus' great intellect makes him a better person for Americans to choose. Of course Theseus would only be chosen if Americans suddenly became qualified to make such a decision. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Three Female Characters in Greek Tragedies.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim Creus Mrs. Baldi English IV 2/18/97 Three Female Characters in Greek Tragedies In the times of the ancient Greeks, women had an unpretentious role. They were expected to do take on the accepted role of a woman. In most cases, a woman's role is restricted to bearing young, raising children, and housework. In Sophocles' Oedipus the King, Antigone, and Medea, the dominant female characters impacted upon men with authority and political power. It is an inescapable fate that one of these characters will fall, and that the Gods have control over everyone's fate. Each dominant female character portrays her willpower and commitment to their beliefs. This is what leads to the inevitable tragedy. In Oedipus the King, Jocasta, is Oedipus' wife and the sister of Creon. She became a part of doomed Theban dynasty when she married Laius, the King of Thebes. As a result, the marriage had brought together two branches of the family of Cadmus and seemed to guarantee political strength. She became disappointed because she was unable to produce an heir to the throne. Seeking a solution, Lauis went to the oracle at Delphi and asked how the proble might be overcome. Instead, the oracle proclaimed that the son born to Jocasta would be his murderer. Upon hearing the prophecy, Lauis rejected all women. This infuriated Jocasta and she had gotten Lauis drunk, and slept with him. This proves that Jocasta refuses to be outdone, even by her husband. When Jocasta had given birth to a baby boy (Oedipus), Lauis had it sent away by a messenger to die of exposure high in the mountains. A shepherd discovered the boy and gave it to his master King Polybus. As years passed, Thebes was plagued by a Sphinx that sought the answer to a riddle. It asked for the answer and killed everyone who had guessed incorrectly. This had riddled Thebes' commerce and left its people disgruntled. To make matters worse, news reached the city that Lauis had been killed by unknown assailants. Desperate and in need of help, Creon (now the regent of Thebes) had offered up the throne and Jocasta to anyone who could solve the Sphinx's riddle. In the meantime, Oedipus came across the Sphinx and solved the riddle. He ended up in Thebes because he went to the oracle at Delphi just like his father Lauis. Now Oedipus is King of Thebes and another problem arises, a plague. He searches far and wide for the solution to save his people. Prophets and wisemen were brought in to help Oedipus with the plague. It is discovered that the plague will be lifted when Lauis' death is revenged. Tiresias, an old prophet reveals that Oedipus is the murderer. Creon too, accuses Oedipus of the murder. Jocasta stands by Oedipus' side. A prophet? . . . free yourself of every charge! Listen to me and learn some peace I mind: no skill in the world, nothing human can penetrate the future. . . .my son wasn't three days old and the boy's father fastened his ankles, had a henchman fling him away on a barren, trackless mountain. Apollo brought neither thing to pass. My baby no more murdered his father that Lauis suffered- (201) Here Jocasta questions the Gods and comforts Oedipus, her dear husband. They do not notice how blind they are because the Gods are always correct. "Stange, hearing you just now . . . my mind wandered, my thought racing back and forth." (201) Oedipus finally begins to realize that his trip to Delphi begins to coincide with Jocasta's explanation of Lauis' murder. He begins to questions Jocasta frantically. Jocasta explains that a witness of the murder had been sent into hiding immediately after Oedipus's crowning. Oedipus demands his presence, but Jocasta begs him to stop his investigation. "Impossible. Trust me, he could never make the murder or Lauis truly fit the prophecy." (208) Oedipus starts to realize he had put a curse upon himself when he had condemned the man who had slain Lauis. The witness verifies the truth to Oedipus and their stories match. Jocasta prays to Apollo that Oedipus won't be so worrisome. "What should a man fear? . . . Better to live at random, Live as if there's no tomorrow!" (215) She wants him to be calm, for she believes he did not do it. Both Jocasta and Oedipus are excited to hear the news of Polybus' passing. This meant that Oedipus did not kill his father. The messenger also verifies that Oedipus' father was not Polybus' but Lauis. "Oh no, I beg you, don't do this . . .No, please, I want the best for you." (222-3) Oedipus' thirst for the truth is too strong and he discovers the truth. His mother is Jocasta and his father is Lauis. As a result, Jocasta, horrified, runs to her chambers and hangs herself. Oedipus then follows after and gauges his eyes. He suffers from his own curse and banishes himself faraway. In Antigone, a war if fought and the invading armies of Argos have been driven from Thebes. Creon, who is now king, orders that all the dead invaders are to be left unburied for the birds and beasts. Antigone, Oedipus' daughter, demands for her brother's proper burial, despite the Creon's orders. Antigone's sister, Ismene, on the other hand, is a typical subservient woman. " He has no right to keep me from my own." (61) Despite the disagreement between the two sisters, Ismene and Antigone, Antigone will follow through with some burial rites for her brother. Ismene agrees to keep Antigone's intentions a secret, but that is all. Anigone replies, "Dear god, shout it from the roof tops. I'll hate you all the more for silence-tell the world!" (64) The sentry guards report to Creon that someone has lightly dusted the body with dirt. Creon is furiated and has Antigone captured and buried alive. Antigone is brave and accepts her punishment. "I chose to die . . . I gave myself to death," (88) The prophet Tireseas predicts more tragedy as a result of Creon's defiance of the Gods. By not giving a proper burial to the dead bodies, he is robbing the Gods of the underworld. Creon shakes off his warnings. Haemon, Creon's son, pleads for Antigone's life because he is in love with her. Creon thinks of women in only one way, Never lose your sense of judgment over a woman. The warmth, the rush of pleasure, it all goes cold in your arms, I warn you . . .a worthless woman in your house, a misery in you bed. Spit her out like a mortal enemy-let the girl go. (93) Antigone, in her tomb, faces her fate with grace. "Very well: if this if the pleasures of the gods, once I suffer I will know that I was wrong." (106) Haemon discovers Antigone who had strangled herself. He in turn thrusts himself upon his own sword. Creon had realized what the Gods demanded and attempted to dig Antigone out himself but was too late. In Medea, Medea seeks revenge when her husband Jason falls for Creon's daughter and marries her. Medea devoted herself to Jason and he lusts for another woman. "When you were sent to the fire-breathing bulls, I saved your life; I willingly deceived my father and left my home with you." (31) Medea feels that she must exact revenge instead of forgiving and forgetting. "Trials are yet to come for this new-wedded pair;" (28) Creon fears that Medea will harm his daughter so he banishes her. She has all of one day to find a home elsewhere. Medea faces her exile with dignity, "Nothing would induce me to have dealings with your friends, nor to take any gift of yours." (35) Aegeus, King of Athens, offers her a home in his kingdom for an exchange for a cure for his sterility. Before leaving, Medea poisons a crown and a dress, presented by her two children to the Jason's new wife. She bursts into flames and dies. For Medeas ultimate revenge, she kills her two children. Adding insult to injury, she does not let him bury the children, "I will convey them to the temple of Hera, I will bury them with my own hand." (60) Jocasta, with her ignorance to the prophecies, and her devotion to Oedipus, act as her spotlight as she breaks the mold of typical women. Antigone's willpower and loyalty to the Gods burial demands and her brother portray her as a strong person. Medea's drive and determination, although not with good intent, characterizes her as a strong woman. All three have shown their acceptance of their fate at one time. They stand out in a crowd of subservient women. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Tiberius Caesar.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar was born in Rome on November 16, 42 BC. Four years after his birth his mother divorced his father and married Octavian. Tiberius was a descendant of the Claudian family who moved to Rome shortly after the foundation of the city. The Claudians did not respect others who were not of noble ancestry. After Tiberius was four he was raised to be a loyal servant of Augustus. Tiberius is associated with Augustus for 22 years. Augustus had Tiberius carefully educated. Augustus later forced Tiberius to dissolve his happy marriage to Vipsania Agrippina and marry Augustus' daughter Julia. This was arranged to better the chance of succession of a descendant of Augustus to take power. The plan did not work because they did not get along and soon lived separately. For this reason Tiberius retired to the island of Rhodes where he devoted himself to study for seven years. When Tiberius returned to Rome in AD 26, Julia had been banished for adultery. The death of both of Augustus' grandsons within two years led him to adopt Tiberius as his son and heir. Tiberius then went into active service in northern Germany against the Marcomanni. Tiberius succeeded in securing the northern border with the dangerous German tribes. Tiberius made two more marches into the heart of Germany. On his return to Rome he was awarded a triumph, the highest official tribute that was given to honor a victorious warrior. Augustus died in AD 14 and Tuberius assumed sole power of the whole Roman empire. Tiberius was a large, strong man, and very tall. He had a fair skin complexion that was sometimes subjected to outbreaks of skin disease. According to Suetonius, he wore his hair long in the back. This was an old fashioned style for the time. Perhaps it was adopted in memory of his distinguished ancestry. Tiberius remained in excellent health most of his life. He was formal in manner but it was reported that he indulged in heavy drinking and sexual activity. He was also well educated in Latin and Greek literature. He also had a strong devotion to astrology. Tiberius took the throne at the age of fifty-six. This was during the life of Jesus Christ. Although he assumed actual power, he did so unwillingly and refused most of the titles that the senate offered him. Many people believe that Tiberius was reluctant to become an autocrat. Tiberius began to take firm steps against foreign beliefs because he thought they were a threat to traditional Roman values. He expelled followers of the Egyptian and Jewish religions from Rome and banished astrologers. Tiberius believed in astrology himself but probably feared a possible conspiracy inspired by horoscopes. Tiberius established a central camp for the Praetorian guard in Rome so the military could be quickly called to put down civilian violence. Civilian riots were common because of the large population of unemployed that were provided for by the public dole. Lucius Aelius Sejanus was in charge of these troops and that gave him an enormous amount of potential power. He aspired to marry Livia Julia, Tiberius daughter, and worked to increase the emperor's fear and distrust of other members of his Tiberius family. In AD 26 Tiberius left Rome and withdrew to Campania, and the following year went to the island of Capri. Tiberius left Rome under the power of Sejanus. Finally realizing that Sejanus was trying to seize the imperial power he sent a carefully worded letter to the senate. The senate read the letter while the unsuspecting Sejanus sat in the senate chamber. Tiberius bitterly condemned Sejanus. Quick action was then taken to execute Sejanus and his family. Incidents such as this one gave Tiberius a bad name with the people of Rome and the senate. Tiberius continued to rule Rome and the empire from the isolation of Capri. Tiberius often confused and baffled the senate with his letters. The senate was frequently unable to interpret his mysterious messages. Tiberius continued to live at Capri. His character was weakened by years of hard work, worry and intense pressure. According to Suetonius he engaged in a series of perversions. Tiberius grew into a very paranoid and suspicious man. Since he had outlived his son he decided that his nephew Gaius would succeed him. Tiberius died on March 16, AD 37 near Naples. Some believe he was smothered by the prefect of the Praetorian Guard. Instead of mourning there was celebration. His body was not cremated until April 3. Tiberius was not deified during his lifetime or after his death. People take different sides when reflecting on Tiberius rule. Some believe that on the whole he was a fairly good emperor. He was able to maintain peace at home and security along the borders. Tiberius seems to have been an able soldier and administrator who retained the republican form of government as much as possible. He did improve civil service, the economy and kept the army highly disciplined. Few doubt the fact that after Sejanus death Tiberius became suspicious and vengeful. Others feel that Tiberius was cruel and a tyrant. Tacitus was one of Tiberius greatest critics. His writings portrayed a completely evil ruler who used unlimited power to destroy his enemies. However Tacitus was a believer in the republic style of rule and hated the empire that replaced it. Tacitus version of history is what most people remember because of his brilliant writings. Some maintain more of a middle ground when reflecting on his reign. They feel Tiberius had great military and political abilities. He often used these to benefit Rome and provided effective rule for the empire for many years. However the series of plots against him, the hostility of the upper classes, and overwork caused drastic changes in his personality. The job of ruling the entire Roman Empire was too great a job for any one man to handle. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\Virgil paper.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The story of Virgil's Aeneid was drawn from many sources, the most influential being the work of the Greek poet Homer. Virgil based the first six books of the Aeneid on the Odessey and the last six books on the Iliad both written by Homer. The Aeneid describes the adventures of Aeneas, the legendary Trojan hero who survived the fall of troy, sailed westward to Italy and founded Rome. During the time that Virgil wrote the Aeneid he incorporated all known Rome history up to his own time. The book is world renowned and also is said by many to be one of the best works ever. The last chapter of the Aeneid has caused some problems for readers. The first problem that is evident is the manner in which Aeneas deals with Turnus. In book XII Turnus states that the fight should be between the two men as apposed to both armies fighting any further. Turnus had every right to dislike Aeneas who came unannounced, tried to take his fiancé, Aeneas' son killed their sacred deer, and he took his land. They have a great dual and Aeneas disarmed Turnus by striking him in the leg. With his sword to his chest Turnus makes a last request for his body to be returned to his family, as Aeneas is considering the request he notices that Turnus is wearing the sword belt of Pallas and the stoic ways of Aeneas leave him as rage, fury, and anger run through his body. He kills Turnus in anger and dedicates his death to Pallas. This loss of control and act of violence is the opposite of stoicism and the way Aeneas had been portrayed the rest of the epic. Turnus has to die for the founding of Rome to occur but he should not have been killed in such a way. The killing was payback for the dishonorable way that Pallas was killed. The sword belt had images that reflect Augustinian Rome as did the shield in book eight. The theft of the belt from Pallas can be compared to the stolen helmet and the youth slain when his guard was down and greed had taken over. All if this represents the theme of greed and each incident resulted in death of the thief. Another problem that the last book of the Aeneid provided for the readers was how the last scene was written in relation to the rest of the epic. At the end of the novel Aeneas kills Turnus for many reasons, most them were dishonorable. Aeneas had gone through many barriers in the epic. At the beginning of the epic Aeneas knew his duty to the people very well, this was shown in many instances such as returning for his wife during his flight from troy. But throughout the epic this theme becomes less and less vivid and the fact that he starts to understands the Gods becomes more and more evident. Due to the fact that Aeneas is half devine shows that he can be in either side of the line that divides the two. Usually a being in this state is either more devine or more human. At the beginning of the epic Aeneas is portrayed as a very human person who understands human needs. As the epic progresses this fades, his divinity states to show. At the end of the novel he is very much the opposite is of when it started and his will to understand human behavior is gone. Due to the fact that the piety that he had throughout the epic was no longer within him. Aeneas has no need for piatos because in a very short time he will become a god and he must prepare for this instead of gaining piety. The last scene changes our view of Aeneas that has been built up throughout the epic. He becomes enraged and clearly not the Aeneas that started out during the fall of Troy. This is not necessary a bad thing because the he has ahead of him needs a strong man and the occurrences throughout the book actually made him the man that the founding of Rome required him to be. The third problem that appears in the final act of Aeneas is that his actions are really not like him at all and is not consistent with the character which is shown in the rest of the epic. I feel that for the founding of Rome to occur Turnus had to die but Turnus did not have to die the way he did. If Turnus did live he would have been a constant nuisance and a trouble maker. He would have also posed a constant threat to the life of Aeneas. The fact that he stole the sword belt of Pallas and killed him with such dishonor does somewhat justify the act of Aeneas but it goes back to the question of who is the better man out of the two. Aeneas let his emotions overcome him and this in turns shows weakness. On the other hand Turnus showed strength in accepting his defeat and making a last request. Aeneas' character throughout the epic was ever learning. He went through much to get to the point where he is at during the battle. He fought the walls that Juno put up throughout his journey and became a stronger man at the end. Aeneas deals with Turnus in a bad way but this should not totally dishonor him. He did make it to his destination and sacrificed much to get there. Although Aeneas did make it to found Rome. Juno also is a victor in the epic. The root of Juno's anger was that the prophecies proclaimed that Aeneas would take over Carthage and he is Trojan. But now that Aeneas is no longer Trojan but Roman and Rome will love Juno more than Carthage ever did. If Aeneas had stuck to stoicism in the story could he have accomplished his mission without resorting to such violence? Obviously the Stoic way would have been much better and much quicker. If he had not let his emotions get the better of him he would not have spent seven years with Dido and her death would not have happened. Also if he would have gone straight to Italy he would have arrived long before Turnus was engaged to the princess and there would have been no war. Although there is a strong argument that the events throughout the book built the character Aeneas needed to be the founder of Rome and become a God. Another point is that the prophecies stated that Aeneas would have to fight many battles to found Rome the fact remains that if he had gotten there sooner there would still have been some sort of war awaiting his arrival. On the other hand in the last book Jupiter did make a statement that suggested that it was possible for him to interfere with fate if he wished and change the prophecies. There is no telling what he could have done had he made different choices throughout his journey and many people ponder the same questions about life itself and the choices made in their lives. The fact is there is no way of knowing. In my opinion the last scene insinuates that Rome was founded in violence. This in not necessary bad, roman people were very proud of their heritage and the way that the city was founded. The Romans fell in love with Virgil's Aeneid and so did Augustus. The book was praised by Romans as it showed Rome as strong and powerful. The character of Aeneas was modeled after Augustus and the book agreed that Augustus was a strong leader. The book actually helped his image and the love for him grew threw Rome after the publication of the book. For that society in that time the epic was written perfectly to suit the need of the reader. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Culture\What is the greatest difference between Greek and Roman Archi.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Greek Architecture Greek architecture has been noted as some of the world's finest buildings known to man kind. Such as the Parthenon, and the temples they built to their Gods, have been studied over for many years. The way these structures were built is fascinating. The Three Greek Orders of Architecture Greek architecture is broken down into three orders. These orders were determined by the way that the top or capital of each column was sculpted. The first order was called the Doric Order. This was the most simple of the three. It was only meant for sturdiness, not for beauty. The second order was called the Ionic order. They had capitals sculpted like spiraling scrolls. They too were not that beautiful, but very sturdy. The third was the Corinthian Order. Ta the top of each capital of this order were carved Acanthus leaves. They were very beautiful, but not quite as sturdy as the other two. The columns were sometimes replaced with load-bearing statues called Caryatids. Greek Homes Greek houses were probably the most common of all buildings. They were built out of mud, and bricks. They all had a few rooms for dining, cooking, bathing, and sleeping. To conclude about Greek homes, most Greek citizens spent their time away from home, so little architectural specialties were put into the households. Ancient Greek Temples Greeks spent alot of hard work, time and effort into the temples they built for their gods. This was where the three orders were put into effect. The Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders were popular forms all over Greece. Greek temples were made of stone, some were made of Marble. The Greeks constructed many acropolises, one famous one was the Partheneon. Inside the Parthenon shows statues of Athena and Poseidon fighting in the presence of other gods. Who ever won would rule supremely over Attica. Also inside showed the citizens of Athens for the very first time. Most temples were a house for the gods, and some of them still stand today. Use of the Orders Use of the three Greek orders depended on what region you were in. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roman Empire.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Fall of the Roman Empire could be linked to many different aspects:army,citizens,barbarianism. Personally I think that all these reasons are linked and headed by the decline of the Roman emperor. The deficient Emperor role led to the lacking military response to invasions,civil war and peasant uprisings. ROMAN EMPIRE AND ITS EMPEROR Ever since the adoptive system which was installed by Marcus Aurelius was never reinstalled after his death,effective leadership in governing Rome was lacking. It was clearly visible that the Roman Emperor was the backbone of Roman stability and therefore the strength of the Roman army was also crucial in ensuing the empire's stability. But this stability was drastically altered when corruption and "necessary" errors were committed. ECONOMIC, BARBARIAN AND MILITARY PROBLEMS The Roman Empire was plunged into military anarchy and raided by barbarous Germanic tribes causing a major burden from an economic standpoint. Emperors, feeling pressure from all directions, resorted to manners which depleted army and citizen moral. The personal dreams of empirical leaders was never capable of re-stabilizing the Empire after the invasions. For instance, Constantine created a "substantial field force where he recruited many regiments from Germany. He greatly increased the German generals" (1). "Aurelius also introduced the German element into the Empire. He established a precedent for settling Germanic peoples, barbarians to the Romans, in Roman territory to try secure peace"(2). He felt the only way to preserve the Empire was to host all those who wished to live within its territory. These German units under Roman commanders did not easily fall to the traditional Roman discipline and command. The reluctance to submit to Roman rule allowed Rome to lose the tactical superiority that it once had and enjoyed over the German barbarians. This loss of tactical supremacy destroyed the elite, disregarding their once owned power and thus causing change on top of the Roman Empire elite. According to Andre Piganiol,"The destruction of the elite handed over power to a new oligarchy of the newly wealthy and of high officials who came from barbarous elements of the population"(3). Piganiol continues to state that"conquered nationalities had in no way lost consciousness of their origin and many were the means of resistance to the unifying will of Rome"(4) Economically wise, the war against the Germans led to terrible financial burdens on the Empire. "To obtain funds for the military, emperors confiscated goods, exacted forced labor, and debased the coinage by minting more currency without an increase in the supply of precious metal."(5) Through this the citizens withdrew their loyalty to Rome which deeply affected the middle class. In the Piganiol essay, Piganiol clearly emphasis the fact that the "Roman state went bankrupt in the third century because it was incapable of continuing to pay its officials and it was incapable of paying its armies without recourse to confiscations,monetary falsifications requisition in kind, unpaid services."(6) Another major move the emperor and his empire introduced the citizens of Rome involved the citizenship issue. In approximately 212 AD, recruits had been picked from among provincials, who were attracted by the promise of free citizenship and its advantages. "With citizenship no longer necessary for enlistment, the poor, weak class of the empire were drawn to the army because of the weapons and artillery"(7). Personally I think that the major reasons why loser class societies were drawn to the artillery aspect of the army was so they could steal the empires wealth. This behavior would probably lead to the destruction of Roman cities, and destruction of farmlands and economic trade. Civil war also played a negative role in the Fall of the Roman Empire. This was made possible when emperors became afraid of their own troops and the possible rebellion against them. Therefore the emperors to remain on their throne were sometimes obliged to buy the emperor powers from soldiers and other militia men. The lack of conventional loyalty and honor towards the emperor led to a character change in the Roman soldier. ROMAN SOLDIERS BEFORE AND AFTER Before the Civil War the Roman soldier was considered as probably the greatest fighting force in all of the Western World. During the Pax Romana period, the Roman soldier used his superior organization and training to conquer nations. He was extremely disciplined and professional. He and his army were literally the wall which protected Rome. Their fighting willpower would allow them to remain on the battlefield no matter what and how long battles were needed for victory. "They would join the army at the age of eighteen. Their recruitment was localized and usually hereditary. They were not allowed to marry while on service. Their employment included police duties, checking and rounding up local raiders."(8) "The army had two purposes, first to fight wars of conquest and satisfy the emperors desires for glory, booty, and expanded territory. Second, to suppress the unrest in outlying provinces."(9) But all this seemed to be changing later on in the empire with the emperors change in attitude and the allowing of barbarous German tribes into the army. Emperors resorted first to the population of the barbarous regions of the empire regions, then to foreign barbarians. In the reserve army, the highest regarded men were the barbarians units. These officers occupied the highest ranks up to that of master of the militia. With all the favoritism toward the German unit the Roman soldiers began to feel inferior and secondary in their role of defending the empire. The military commanders began to use their military troops to cease the thrown and its governing power. They began "neglecting its duty of defending its borders and disrupted the eternal life of the Empire."(10) Although they continued to fight in well framed units, their overall will to train and discipline required for fighting was almost unnoticeable. Emperors continued to play a negative role in the allotment of foreigners to take control. In Piganiol's essay he mentions that the, "emperors disarmed the citizens and trusted the defense of the empire to mercenaries."(11) Valens was a clear example of the corruption in the higher class of the empire. He was active in suppressing the lives of officers, whereby he defrauded men of their portions, clothes and military equipment. Favoritism towards the barbarian units of the army, corruption towards the state and its people, gives ample reason why such a revolt in the Roman army occurred. Towards the end of the empire the Roman army's qualities deteriorated. The legions failed to defend borders, the army began to consist predominately of the peasants (citizenship issue). The change in the soldiers attitude explains in the lack of loyalty to Rome and the lack of leadership in military leaders. In conclusion, the Roman army defeated itself. It began as a powerhouse but by some uncontrollable and ignorant errors it collapsed. It was violated internally by the emperors and their soldiers and externally by the barbarous tribes. The lack of soldier loyalty to Rome, began with the lack of Rome loyalty towards soldiers. By allowing citizenship to almost anyone it negated the importance the higher class society had in Rome. Almost anyone could be a Roman soldier, almost anyone could have access to arms and almost anyone could use these arms in their favor. The allowance of the German entrance in the army introduced doubt in the mind of the veteran soldiers. Therefore, Rome hurt itself. One does not know if it could have continued its dominance, but one could clearly say that its dominance brought its disappearance. END NOTES 1) Lynn Hunt, Thomas Martin, Barbara Rosenwein, R.Hsia, and Bonnie Smith. The Challenge of the West: Peoples and Cultures from Stone Age to 1740. Toronto: D.C. Health and Company, 1995. 2) Ibid 3) Piganiol, Andre. "The Causes of the Ruin of the Roman Empire." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Why did it Collapse ?: Donald Kagan. ED. Donald Kagan. Massachusettes: D.C. Health and Company, 1962, p.87. 4) Ibid, p.87 5) Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore Von Laue. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics & Society. Boston: Houghton Miffln Company, 1996. 6) Piganiol, Andre. "The Causes of the Ruin of the Roman Empire." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Why did it Collapse ?: Donald Kagan. ED. Donald Kagan. Massachusettes: D.C. Health and Company, 1962, p.88. 7) Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore Von Laue. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics & Society. Boston: Houghton Miffln Company, 1996. 8) Jones, A.H.M. A General History of Europe: The Decline of the Ancient World. London: Longman Group Ltd. 1966 9) Lynn Hunt, Thomas Martin, Barbara Rosenwein, R.Hsia, and Bonnie Smith. The Challenge of the West: Peoples and Cultures from Stone Age to 1740. Toronto: D.C. Health and Company, 1995. 10) Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore Von Laue. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics & Society. Boston: Houghton Miffln Company, 1996 11) Piganiol, Andre. "The Causes of the Ruin of the Roman Empire." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Why did it Collapse ?: Donald Kagan. ED. Donald Kagan. Massachusettes: D.C. Health and Company, 1962, p.88. BIBLIOGRAPHY Jones, A.H.M. A General History of Europe: The Decline of the Ancient World. London: Longman Group Ltd. 1966 Lynn Hunt, Thomas Martin, Barbara Rosenwein, R.Hsia, and Bonnie Smith. The Challenge of the West: Peoples and Cultures from Stone Age to 1740. Toronto: D.C. Health and Company, 1995. Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore Von Laue. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics & Society. Boston: Houghton Miffln Company, 1996. Piganiol, Andre. "The Causes of the Ruin of the Roman Empire." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Why did it Collapse ?: Donald Kagan. ED. Donald Kagan. Massachusettes: D.C. Health and Company, 1962. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Roosevelt and Hoover.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ President Franklin D. Roosevelt is commonly thought of as a liberal and President Herbert C. Hoover as a conservative. The validity of these accusations, however, is uncertain. Before classifying each president in the categories of "liberal" and "conservative," it must first be understood what is meant by each term. During the time of the Great Depression, a liberal was usually associated with "political equality, free speech, free assembly, free press, and equality of opportunity." It was directly derived from the word "liberty" which meant freedom. Today, the definition changes drastically. A liberal is someone who thinks government can solve problems, and someone who trusts government. They believe in more government spending (such as in social plans) and are not turned off because of raised taxes, knowing full well the money taken away will do the country good. Frankly, liberals believe in more government in the daily lives of people. Conservatives believe in directly the opposite of what liberals do. They believe heavily in the free enterprise system (private ownership). Their economics rely on the theory of supply and demand and profit motive. Their lassiez-faire policy was introduced in a book The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. This economic policy can be seen directly in the rest of what conservatives believe in. They are resistant to change, being strong believers of traditional values. They thought money should be spent on defense, not social programs. In a nutshell, they want government to stay out of people's lives. The modern definitions of each term will be used in categorizing Roosevelt and Hoover. President Hoover, a strong believer in traditional values, can definitely be described as a conservative. His initial "hands-off" policy in dealing with the Great Depression show this well. He believed in the business cycle and that the country would pull its self out of the depression. He did not want to use government power in dealing with this catastrophe, mainly because of his predecessor's tradition of lassiez-faire. Hoover stated in an election speech, "Every step of bureaucratizing of the business of our country poisons the very roots of liberalism (old definition)." As government gets bigger, there are needed more offices, agencies and bureau's to handle affairs. This bureaucracy, he said, would take the American people's freedom right from them. He felt a great need to take government out of peoples lives more then ever. Even after the depression hit, Hoover was convinced that government could do nothing to help the country out this cataclysm. He said in 1930, "Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement." He felt that no matter what happens, government actions can do no good for the economy, and that only the people can pull themselves out. As the depression worsened, Hoover began to think he should not sit back and watch the depression thorough, but help out as much as he can to quicken the arrival of prosperity in the business cycle. While this government action was one of liberal proportions, Hoover is still classifies as a conservative because of his long terms goals having conservatism written all over them. Drastic times call for drastic measures, and he felt the only way to preserve tradition was help out the people. He first started helping out by merely encouraging voluntary groups in the community to help out the less fortunate. He felt that "government -national, state and local- can join with the community in such programs and do its part." He put people to work in construction and doubled the government expenditure. He favored "temporary expansion of these activities in aid unemployment during this winter." While no other president had ever participated in the people's lives as much as Hoover, he was still considered a conservative because of his goals for the end of the depression. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt could also be termed a conservative. In an election speech in 1932, Roosevelt attacked the Hoover administration for their increased government spending and involvement in people's lives. He said, "It (the Hoover administration) is committed to the idea that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." This highly liberal actions would appall any true conservative, just as it did Roosevelt. He proposed a twenty-five percent cut of federal spending, abolish the "innumerable boards and those commissions" and balance the budget. In his second election campaign, he spoke of himself as a true conservative. He said, "the true conservative is the man who has a real concern for injustice and takes thought against the day of reckoning." Even in the heart of the depression, he still felt himself to be a great conservative. He perhaps defended his title as a conservative best when he stated "worthy institutions can be conserved only by adjusting them to the changing time." When Roosevelt formed a rebuttal against his New Deal as being liberal, he perhaps best described his political career by saying "I am that kind of conservative because I am that kind of liberal." Roosevelt's New Deal was perhaps the most liberal set of government actions this country will ever see. While the goals of this New Deal were liberal, it was all put into effect to preserve conservatism. The country was so down and out, something had to be done to pull itself out so the economy and the people could return to their normal, post-depression lives. Government seemed to have the only answer. Much of the New Deal contradicted itself with what Roosevelt said he would do in his campaign speeches. He said he would balance the budget, yet his devotion of John Maynard Keynes idea of deficit spending led this country to almost triple its indebtedness between 1929 and 1941. Perhaps Roosevelt did realize at the time what the true, horrendous condition of the country was during the time. He knew he had to act fast, in order to keep the country "alive", and capable of living without government support. He established agencies and boards like the CCC, CWA, and PWA to provide jobs. He also provided loans to farmers and established the AAA to help them with their farming difficulties. He hoped that if he could give the people a boost, they might just get out of this depression and be able to support themselves, without government help. If he could end the depression with these "liberal actions" and make it so lassiez-faire could reign supreme again, Roosevelt would be happy. To say that President Franklin D. Roosevelt is a liberal and that President Herbert Hoover was a conservative is only half-true. Both men lead their country through the perils of the depression with conservative goals in mind, and both men had to resort to liberals actions to preserve conservatism. Roosevelt best described himself and Hoover as being "that kind of conservative because (of being) that kind of liberal." f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Sallusts and Plutarchs View of the Moral Decline .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ An Exploration of Sallust's and Plutarch's View of the Moral Decline of the Roman Republic Though there are varied dates as to the time that the Roman Republic stood, it is agreed upon as lasting approximately 500 years. During the last century of its existence (133 BC -27 BC) there were the many violent years of The Civil Wars and much social strife. Though the end result of these final years of the res publica was the adoption of an Emperor and the birth of the Roman Empire, the focus of this paper will be the presentation of the nature of tensions at the end of the res publica using selections from Sallust and Plutarch as a basis. Sallust and Plutarch, while coming from different worlds and living different lives were very much alike in the thoughts that they presented in their writing on the fall of the Roman Republic. Sallust was an active individual in Roman politics during the Republic's decline. He was a tribune in 52 BC who was kicked out of the Senate amid allegations of immorality. In 49 BC Sallust was in command of one of Julius Caesar's legions and was elected to Praetor in 47 BC. Taking part in the African Campaign earned him the governorship of Numidia in. Upon his return to Rome in the early 40's BC however he was charged with extortion, only to be released by Caesar. At this point in his life he decided to become a writer of history and lived a quiet life doing that. Plutarch's life was very much different form Sallust's. Born in Chaeronea he remained there for much of his life. His last 30 years he spent as a Priest at Delphi. There he was a devout believer in the ancient pieties and a profound student of its antiquities. The only involvement in politics at the time were stories that he was a man of influence and rumors of a governmental office being bestowed upon him by both Hadrian and Trajan. Despite the differences in their lives and backgrounds, their surviving literature has a basic underlying similarity; that being morality. To be more specific, the lack of morality on the part of the rulers of Rome during the last century of the Republic. In the following essay I will show examples of how Sallust and Plutarch point out again and again the lack of morality in the characters about whom they write in reference to the decline of the Roman Republic. Sallust begins his Bellum Catalinae by telling us how the Roman Republic was built. He shows us that the people put aside their differences and kept their common goal, peace, in mind. According to the version I have heard, in the beginning the Trojans who were wandering in exile without a fixed home under the leadership of Aeneas founded and controlled the city of Rome as a free and independent Republic along with the indigenous people, A primitive tribe of men without laws or organized government. It is remarkable how easily these two peoples united after they had been gathered together in one community in the light of their differences in race and in language and the disparity in the way in which each of them lived: in a short time a diverse and nomadic mass of people was transformed by harmony into a Republic. Later after the Republic had grown in population, institutions and territory and seemed to be sufficient in prosperity and strength then, as happens in most human affairs, envy grew out of success.1 Clearly Sallust is setting up some contrast from what was good and right to what will become the Republic's demise. At the end of the passage above Sallust points out "as happens in most human affairs, envy grew out of success." This idea is presented again later when Sallust writes: "... the rule of the Kings of which the original purpose had to protect the liberty and to strengthen the Republic turned into pride and tyranny ..."2 He is reiterating the fact that the agenda of the Kings had changed over time from one that was morally good to one that was mainly concerned with themselves and no longer with the well being of the Republic. In the same piece Sallust shows that Rome herself had degraded. Once Rome was a city where all was moral and just, a city where people lived in harmony. The founding of Rome, from Sallust's point of view, was a situation that threw people who were very much different with diverse cultures and ideas together. This must have led to all sorts of problems yet they formed the Republic without too much trouble. The line: In a city so great and at the same time so corrupt, Cataline had no difficulty in surrounding himself with bands of criminals and degenerates of all kinds.3 shows that Rome had very much degraded from the great city that it once was into one that is very much a moral void. In this moral vacuum that Rome has become it is not surprising that conspiracies and conflicts that Sallust chose to write about took place. Though above Sallust seems to give an indication that this behavior is just human nature, he goes on to contradict himself. In section IX of his Bellum Catalinae he says: As a result strict morals were followed both at home and in war. There was the greatest degree of harmony and the least incidence of greed; [and] justice and honesty were prevalent more through the influence of nature than because of the power of the law.4 We can see that he is saying that the Romans in the past, the Romans who built the Republic, were just and honest. Further they were this way just out of nature and not because there were laws stating that they had to be that way. Sallust goes on and gives a brief excuse for what the people of Rome became: For men who had easily endured hardship, danger and difficult uncertainty leisure and riches, though in some ways desirable, proved burdensome and a source of grief. Accordingly at first the desire for money increased in them and then the desire for power and these have been as it were the ingredients of all the Republic's evils.5 Sallust kind of gives the impression that it is not human nature that makes the Romans go bad but instead it is the soft life that they now have the opportunity to lead. Regardless of the cause though the end result is the same, the people of Rome are no longer the stuff that legends are made of. Plutarch too presents Roman morality as something that is desirable and good. Antony as a soldier on the battlefield for instance takes us back to the days of building of the Republic. Upon the taking of Pelusium Ptolemy wanted to put the people to the sword but "Antony withstood him, and hindered the execution."6 This is very similar to the incident in Sallust's Bellum Catalinae when the men who were punished mainly in war during the building of the Republic were those men "...who had attacked the enemy contrary to orders or men who had withdrawn too slowly from battle after they had been recalled..."7 Plutarch goes on to tell us that Antony "left behind a great name among the Alexandrines, and all who were serving in the Roman Army looked upon him as a most gallant soldier."8 Implying that this morality that Antony exhibited was something that the others respected. This moral attitude contributed to Antony's rise in Roman Politics, but was soon replaced with a different one. Plutarch gives many examples of the changed Antony. This is the Antony that emerged as a result of his rise in Roman Politics. The story that is relayed to us about Antony's purchase of Pompey's house is quite something. Besides the ill reputation he gained by his living in the house of Pompey the Great, who had been as much admired for his temperance and his sober, citizen-like habits of life, as ever he was for having triumphed three times. They could not without anger see the doors of that house shut against magistrates, officers, and envoys, who were shamefully refused admittance, while it was filled inside with players, jugglers, and drunken flatters, upon whom were spent the greatest part of the wealth which violence and cruelty procured. For they did not limit themselves to the forfeiture of the estates of such were proscribed, defrauding the widows and families, nor were they contented with laying on every possible kind of tax and imposition; but hearing that several sums of money were, as well by strangers as citizens of Rome, deposited in the hands of vestal virgins, they went and took the money away by force. When it was manifested that nothing would ever be enough for Antony, Caesar at last called for a division of property.9 Antony is not the same person that was portrayed by Plutarch at the beginning of the work. The power that he has achieved has clearly corrupted him, at least that is what is presented by Plutarch. Plutarch provides us with a glimpse of the depth to which Rome an Antony have fallen. He relates the story of Dolbella where Antony goes straight from the Senate to murder Dolbella. Antony, backed by a vote of the Senate that Dolbella should be put down by force of arms, went down and attacked him, killing some of his and losing some of his own men; Rome has become a place where the Senate deciding the fate of common men or breaking up and turning into a lynch mob is not uncommon. The Gracchi for example were pursued and eventually were no longer living as a direct result of a decision made within the Senate. This is not what the founders of the Republic had in mind I am sure. Both Sallust and Plutarch come across trying to live their lives right. Plutarch shows this by living as a Priest at Delphi and sternly believing in the ways and rites that such a life involved. When you consider that this was a way of life for him for 30 years, you have to accept the fact that he lived a moral life. Sallust on the other hand displays moral beliefs through his writings. He lived a public life, though by all accounts a prosperous public life, and his writings can be interpreted as his reaction to the way that things are in the Republic at the time of his writing. It is clear that both Sallust and Plutarch hold the view that good old-fashioned morality is a good thing. In their writings they portray the founders of The Republic as possessing this morality. It was the pietas, virtus, clementia, and iustitia that the founders of the Republic possessed that built the res publica against all odds. Also in their writings they choose to make the founders of the Empire (and therefore killers of the Republic) as people who lack these very same morals. 1 Sallust, Bellum Catalinae. Taken from Roman Civilization [CLASS 111.3(08)] Supplementary Readings, sec. VI, p. 30. 2 Ibid. sec VI, p. 30. 3 Sallust, Bellum Catalinae. Taken from Roman Civilization [CLASS 111.3(08)] Supplementary Readings, sec. XIV, p. 31. 4 Ibid. sec. IX, p. 31. 5 Ibid. sec. X, p. 31. 6 Plutarch, Antony. Taken from Roman Civilization [CLASS 111.3(08)] Supplementary Readings, paragraph 1, p. 107. 7 Sallust, Bellum Catalinae. Taken from Roman Civilization [CLASS 111.3(08)] Supplementary Readings, sec. IX, p. 31. 8 Plutarch, Antony. Taken from Roman Civilization [CLASS 111.3(08)] Supplementary Readings, paragraph 1, p. 107. 9 Ibid. p. 115. All biographical information on Sallust and Plutarch taken from: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\seminoles.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Seminole "As the United States is a nation made up of people from many nations, so the Seminole is a tribe made up of Indians from many tribes." (Garbarino 13) The Seminole are the indigenous people living in southeastern America. They lived in what is now Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The Seminole had a Muskogean language of the Hokan-Siouan stock. (Bookshelf) The Indian tribes found in the southeast were the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Yuchi, Yamassee, Apalachicola, Timucua, and Calusa. The southeastern Indians were described by the Spanish as being tall with complexions ranging from olive, to brownish. The Indians in the mountainous regions were described as having lighter complexions, and those in the sunnier regions as brown. (Garbarino 13) The Seminole were originally part of the Creek, but they began to migrate from Southern Georgia to Northern Florida in the later half of the eighteenth century. The Seminole fled there because Spain owned Florida, and they hoped they would be free. They shared the land with another group of Indians, the Apalachee and the Timucua, who spoke the Mikasuki Language. (Seminole Indians 290) By about the year 1775, they began to be known by the name Seminole, which is derived from the Creek word simanoli, meaning "separatist," or "runaway". The name, Seminole, could also originate from the Spanish word cimarron, meaning "wild." Also joining the migrants were Indian and Negro slaves, who fled from the power struggles between the Americans and the Indians. (Seminole 626) The Indians who moved to Florida all had similar ways of life. After their migration, they kept many of the qualities of their original culture. Their natural environment affected every aspect of their culture and life. The environment determined what food they ate, what clothing they could wear, the houses that they could build, and how to live in them. The environment even influenced the language and rituals. Due to this involvement with Nature, they revered all of Nature. (Garbarino 13) The landscape in which the Seminole lived was composed of fertile valleys, thick woods, and low mountains. The largest and most powerful tribes took the desirable locations, the fertile valleys. The small tribes settled in the woods and mountains. (Garbarino 14) The environment influenced the types of food the people could find the most. It allowed maize, beans, and squash to grow plentifully. Although these plants grow plentifully, the Seminoles lived more by hunting and gathering. It was easier to hunt and fish because the woodlands and rivers were filled with an abundance of game. The Indians also gathered founds that were found in the environment, like berries, nuts, tubers, and seeds. (Seminole 626) The jobs of gathering and growing plants were doled out to the women. They also had to prepare and cook the food that the men obtained. Most of the time, they baked boiled, or broiled the food. The women also preserved the food that they collect, such as plums and persimmons. (Garbarino 17) The men usually helped where there was heavy and intensive work to be do be done, like clearing land and harvesting, but the men's main jobs were to hunt, fish, and battle. (Seminole Indians 290) The men hunted animals for their hides in addition to their meats. The most hunted for animals were: deer, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, bears, turkeys, ducks, and geese. The Indians also ate alligator meat, turtle meat, shellfish, and fresh and salt-water fish. (Garbarino 15) The Indians lived in villages that ranged in size from 20 to 100 houses and in population from 100 to more than one thousand. The homes were most likely to be built around a square or town plaza. The central area of the square was left for ceremonial purposes. The chief's house, a meeting hall, storage building, and often the home of an important medicine man or religious leader surrounded the square. Around these buildings, the townspeople made their homes. (Garbarino 20) Early Seminoles used to build log cabins, but later on they began to live in basic shelters with thatched roofs that were supported by poles. These homes were called chickees. They had a chickee for summer, winter, and for a woman who is going to have a baby. The huts had raised platforms and the roof was thatched with palmetto leaves. (Lepthien 7, 24-25) Most of the towns with these chickees were stockaded or palisaded. That means they were surrounded with logs that formed a protective fence. This fence had usually had one or two openings, which allowed passage in and out. The men reinforced the walls with crossbeams and daubed clay or mud over the open spaces. (Garbarino 20-21) All of the Indians of the Southeast belonged to clans. People were a member of the clan that their mother belonged. Clan membership was just as important as the village you lived in. Clans were usually ranked within tribes, making some clans higher in status than others. Since a boy was not part of his father's clan, it was the maternal uncle's job to instruct him in hunting and warfare. The mother cared for the girls that she has. Even though a child did not belong to the father's clan, the father was responsible for the support of his children and they usually had a warm relationship. (Seminole Indians 290) A person must marry someone outside the clan because it formed an alliance between clans. It was not forbidden to marry into the father's clan, but it was unusual. Men of very high status usually married two wives, if he could provide more than one wife could manage. The first wife was usually happy to have them and all the wives lived in different houses. Divorce was just a matter of separation. If a woman wanted a divorce, she would leave a bundle of his belongings outside and he left to go to his mother's house. (Garbarino 23) Spain claimed a new land that Juan Ponce de Leon had named Florida. Ponce De Leon named the land Florida because of the festival that was going on in Spain at that time, Pascua Florida. Spain had claimed the land from the southernmost tip of Florida to the Chesapeake Bay and to the Mississippi River. Juan Ponce de Leon tried establish a settlement along the coast of Florida, but all he did was bother the Indians in the area. As a result of the skirmish between the Indians and the Spaniards, he was wounded very badly. He died a little while later at his base in Cuba. (Garbarino 33) In the ensuing 50 years, many others reinforced Spain's claim to Florida. None of the adventurers tried to settle, so they did not take any land away from the Indians, but they built little forts and supply depots. They were not many conflicts between the Spanish and the Indians, except when the Spanish held Indians captive and used them for forced labor and guides. (Garbarino 33) As a result of the contact with the Spanish, some Indians contracted diseases like fatal pneumonia and smallpox. Some Indians did not even have to be in contact with the Spanish to get the diseases. If the Indians were in contact with other Indians who had the germs, they could also get the disease. The Indians could not fight against this enemy, so the Indians were rapidly reduced. (Lepthien 5-6) The French also tried to establish a colony in Florida in 1564, but they failed because the Spanish captured the settlement the following and extinguished the belief that France had claims in Florida. One year later, the Spanish found the first Spanish and the first permanent European settlement in the southeast. It was named St. Augustine. The English were also interested in the Southeast. Sir Francis Drake commanded an English force against St. Augustine in 1586, but his forces failed to penetrate the Spanish fortress; however, the English established the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia just north of Florida and the Spanish always worried about the inevitable expansion of English territory southward. (Garbarino 34) There soon began a rivalry between the Spanish and the English. The Indians either chose the English or the Spanish. Some Indians joined the English and killed other Indians. A few that were not captured, killed, enslaved, or died by disease fled to the Spanish West Indies. (Lepthien 13) After this time there was massive and reigning confusion. Indian tribes killed other Indians. The English trying to get rid of the Indians played one tribe off for another and caused more chaos. As a result, many tribes were reduced in size, and many people were homeless and hopeless. (Garbarino 36) Soon afterward, the English presence in America grew, and colonists began to settle on Indian land. In 1715, the settlers and the Yamassee tribe began to fight. The Yamassee were badly defeated, and they moved into Northern Florida, where there was no competition for land. The state of Georgia worked as a buffer between the Spanish and the English. (Garbarino 37) Many African slaves and Indians lived in the buffer zone and were not bothered. The Indians accepted the blacks in their tribes and they even inter-married. Then, the English established the colony of Georgia, so the area could no longer be an area for runaways. All of the people fled to Florida, where the Europeans mispronounce their names. The Europeans called them Seminoles when the word is really simanoli. In 1763, Britain forced Spain to trade Florida for Cuba. (Garbarino 39) In 1783, Florida became Spanish after Great Britain lost the Revolutionary War. The period of peace and prosperity was now over for the Seminoles. The American settlers were soon attracted to the fertile land that the Seminole owned. Some of them even trespassed and set up farms. (Lepthien 16) The Indians warned them that they would be attacked if they did not leave. The Americans did not comply with the Seminole, so they raided the American Homesteads. Also, at this time, the plantation owners whose slaves had become Seminoles, demanded their slaves back, and they sent slave-catchers to the Seminole lands. (Garbarino 39) The War of 1812 also affected the Seminole because some were with the United States, and some were with Great Britain. As a result of continuing skirmishes between the United States and the Seminole, the United States declared war on the Florida Indians in 1817. They claimed that their mission was to recapture slaves, but the soldiers illegally went into Florida, and since the Spanish control in Florida was weak, U.S. continued to raid into Spanish territory. The Seminole villages were burned, livestock captured, and food was destroyed or confiscated. The fighting between the Seminole and the United States was later known to be the First Seminole War. It was fought from 1817-1818. (Seminole 626) The Seminole fought bravely. Billy Bowlegs led the Seminole. The United States Army was led by Andrew Jackson, who later became President. Many Indians were killed in the fighting, and those that survived, retreated into the marsh. Andrew Jackson's victory caused the Spanish to sign a treaty with the U.S. setting up Florida for sale. On February 22, 1821, Florida became a part of the United States of America. (Garbarino 40-41) On September 6, 1823, near St. Augustine, 70 Seminole chiefs met with Florida governor William P. DuVal to discuss the removal of the Seminole. Most of the Seminole Chiefs agreed to the Indians move to a reservation further south. The Seminole gave the U.S. 30 million acres of fertile farmland, and the U.S. gave them 5 million acres of land that was unfit for cultivation. The Seminoles took a year to move, and when they go there, they were soon afflicted by widespread hunger. They grew more and more discontented with their present situation. By the year 1830, the Seminole's old land was already settled, and the homesteaders were looking for more. The Federal Government was planning to remove all Eastern Indians to the west of Mississippi. President Andrew Jackson was given the authority to relocate the Eastern Indian Tribes. In 1832, some Seminole decided that they could fight no more, so they moved, but the two most powerful leaders, Micanopy and King Philip, refused to leave. They believed that they had rearranged their lives so much that they were going to stay. Seven Seminole leaders went to check out the reservation that they were going to be put on, and there, the leaders signed the Treaty of Fort Gibson, in which they agreed to move. When the leaders returned to Florida, they said that they were tricked into signing the treaty, and they refused to leave. (Garbarino 45-46) The Seminole were given until January 1, 1836 to move by. One month before the deadline, Seminole warriors began to raid against U.S. troops stationed in Florida, thus began the Second Seminole War. (Garbarino 46) This was one of the most costly U.S. versus Indian wars. This war lasted for seven years. Their brave leader, Osceola, led the Seminole. The warriors hid the families in the Everglades, and they used guerrilla warfare. This war cost the U.S. Government between 40 Million Dollars and 60 Million Dollars. Almost 2000 men died for the United States and the death total was uncounted for the Seminole. (Seminole War 626) The Seminole Warriors began to terrorized the settlers in the area. The burned and pillaged the homes of the wealthy plantation owners. The Seminole destroyed 16 plantations in one month. Osceola was completely against the raiding of these homes. He did not want to hurt any women or children. Osceola taught the Indians how to use ambush and withdrawal to surprise the enemy. (Garbarino 52) The U.S. Army now had a new General. General Thomas S. Jesup took command of the 10,000 men in Florida. He attacked the Seminole villages, ruined their crops, captured their cattle and horses, and took their women and children hostage. All of these combined lowered much of the Indian's enthusiasm for battle. On October 23, 1837, near St. Augustine, Osceola and several of his warriors, met with one of Jesup's officers to release King Philip. The Indians carried a white flag and tried to call a truce, but they were captured and imprisoned. Later the same year, a delegation of 11 Seminole chiefs, met with General Jesup with a white flag of truce. They were also captured. The prisoners were moved to another prison, and soon afterward, Osceola died. Instead of lowering the morale of the Seminole, the death of their war chief inspired them to fight on. (Garbarino 52) Soon the war began to end because enthusiasm was low and the might and numbers of the U.S. Army intimidated the Indians. There was no treaty to end the war; the war just began to stop, and then it completely stopped. No one came to give them a treaty because no one wanted to go into the Everglades to acknowledge the signing of a treaty. (Garbarino 54) Problems began to mount in 1855, when surveyors went to map the Everglades, and then they took away the ripest crops that the Chief, Billy Bowlegs, had, and then they burned the rest of their crops. The Indians then attacked them, and wounded several of them. Over the next three years, there were little skirmishes, but there was little bloodshed. In 1858, 163 Seminole moved west of the Mississippi. Only a few remained in the Everglades, and those that remained, moved deeper into the Everglades. After that, they were left alone. (Garbarino 54-55) Today, many Seminole live on small farms in Oklahoma. They were among the Five Civilized Tribes that include the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, and Choctaw. The Seminole that remained in Florida make a living by hunting, fishing, farming, raising cattle, or working in tourism. (Seminole Indians 291) "For more than 200 years the Seminole have survived as a tribe by adapting to change without giving up their traditional ways entirely. The preservation of their customs has helped the Seminole maintain a strong sense of identity as a distinct and proud people."" (Garbarino 102) Works Cited Garbarino, Merwyn S. The Seminole. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1989. Lepthien, Emilie U. The Seminole. Chicago: Childrens Press, 1985. "Seminole." Encyclopedia Britannica. 1993 ed. "Seminole." Microsoft Bookshelf. CD-ROM. 1994 ed. "Seminole Indians." The World Book Encyclopedia. 1992 ed. "Seminole Wars." Encyclopedia Britannica. 1993 ed. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\seneca indian tribe.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ALLIES AND ENEMIES Seneca are among the most respected and feared. The Seneca are culturally similar to their Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, an Mohawk confederates. The five tribes were known as the Five Nations or the League of Five Nations. Sometime between 1715 and 1722 the Tuscaroras from North Carolina joined the confederacy and changed the name to the Six Nations. In their relations with white settlers the Seneca played the role of an independent power and were this way from the very start. During the colonial period they held the balance of power between the French and English. Particulary around the Canadian border. The Seneca opposed the extension of French settlement southwards from Canada, and were responsible for prevention the English colonies from being forced on the west by the French. During the American Revolution the Seneca sided with the British. SOCIETY Each town in the tribe contained several long, bark covered communal houses that had both tribal and political significance. Inside each house several families lived in semi-private rooms or areas and the center areas were used as social and political meeting places. They lived in scattered villages that were organized by a system of matrilineal clans. A calendar cycle of ceremonies reflected their agricultural, hunting, and gathering. The men hunted, cleared fields, traded and made war. The woman gathered various wild plant foods and tended gardens. They had a great agricultural economy. Their man crop was corn, but they also grew pumpkins, beans, tobacco, maize, squash and later on they grew orchard fruits like apples and peaches. Crafts were also made. Fine pottery, splint baskets, mats of corn husk and used wampum as a medium of exchange. FAMOUS TRIBE MEMBERS There were many famous Indians from the Seneca tribe. Ely S. Parker- His Indian name was Donehogawa. He was a Seneca Indian of the Wolf clan. Parker served under President Ulysses S. Grand on the Board of Indian Commissioners. For a while he lived in the Canadian woods under traditional Iroquoian style. Parker served as military secretary to General Grant. Parker came under attack in an investigation in the Bureau of Indian Affairs about corruption. Government records say he was thrown out he had really resigned his position. Parker was also the author of a book called The Character of Grant. Red Jacket- Red Jacket was a Seneca chief know for his strong personality, and political shrewdness. Sagoyewatha was his Indian name. He had the ability to stay uncommitted even in crises like John Sullivan's raids on Iroquois settlements in 1779. He greatly opposed land sales to settlers, but to gain his people's support he secretly sold land to keep esteem among the white people. When the Seneca were put into the Revolutionary War in support of the British, Red Jacket proved to be a very unenthusiastic warrior. He earned himself the name Red Jacket from wearing the British's red coat. During the War of 1812 he fought on the American side against the British. Cornplanter- Cornplanter was a famous Seneca Indian chief and statesman, who during the American Revolution led his warriors against the colonists in many important campaigns. He was half-brother of the Seneca prophet Handsome Lake. Cornplanter eventually accepted the outcome on the war and became a great supporter of the United States. WORKS CITED PAGE HISTORY The Seneca Indians were an Iroquoian speaking North American Indian tribe. The were traditionally living between the Geneses River and Seneca Lake in what is now New York State. The Seneca were in a league called the Six Nations. The other members were Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Tuscarora. The date that the tribes formed is unknown although it is believed to be in the early 16th century. According the Iroquois legend the league was founded by Deganawidah, a leader of high status. He had persuaded the original Five Nations to give up intertribal warfare marked by bloody feud and cannibalism. The prophet Hiawatha who was Deganawidah's spokesman traveled among the five tribes in an attempt to unify them. His persistence was successful and when the tribes united it was almost an invulnerable political alliance until it's collapse during the American Revolution. Warfare and raids against tribes outside of the league gave opportunities for young Iroquois warriors the earn prestige and honor. The gaining of economic and political advantages were only of a second importance to the tribes. Eventually though dealing with the British, French and the colonists the league let opposing parties fight against one another while they attacked neighboring enemy tribes for economic and territorial gains. Before the collapse of the league in the late 18th century the Iroquois league dominated land as far west as the Mississippi River. The league was modeled after family, clan, and community organizations. They were not only to unite its members through symbolic relations but to maintain peace through individual tribe members. HISTORY (con't) The league had a Grand Council. It was made up of 50 members, who were life- appointed males, or peace chiefs. They were nominated by the head woman of each tribe. The Onondaga consisted of 14 members, the Cayuga 10, the Oneida and Mohawk each had 9 and the Seneca with 8. The council members were responsible for keeping peace within the tribes, representing the league to outsiders, and planning tribal activities in warfare against nonmembers. Major decisions were reached the unanimity because of unequal tribe representation. Any member of the Grand Council could be thrown out by impeachment from his tribe's headwoman. Many historians say that the democratic organization of the Iroquois League could have been used as a model for the makers of the United States Constitution. Today's members of the Seneca live at the Tonawanda, Allegany, and Cattaraugas reserves in New York, and at the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario. THESIS PAGE The Seneca Indians. Who were they and what did they do? Who were their friends and foes? The history of the Iroquoian tribe is of great importance to the history of our nation. How they participated in our wars and who they had sided for could have determined the outcome and the ways of our country. CONCLUSION PAGE The Seneca Indians were a great tribe. Through themselves and five other tribes they formed the Six Nations. The Six Nations were an almost indomitable clan. They participated in the Revolutionary War and in the colonial wars. The tried to keep the French from coming down from Canada into the now United States. The Seneca had a great agricultural and hunting economy. The men and women each had specific jobs they were to do in order to keep things running. The Seneca was the tribe that was the most intensely studied by the white people. It is also believed that their democratic ways were an influence on the writers of the United States Constitution. Many of the famous Indians came from the Seneca tribe. Some were Red Jacket, Ely S. Parker and Cornplanter. There were also many others from their league tribes, the Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and later joiners the Tuscarora. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Sir Francis Drake.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sir Francis Drake Sir Francis Drake Francis Drake was an experienced and daring seafarer. Among many adventures, the 'famous voyage', his successful circumnavigation of the world between 1577 and 1580 ensured that he would be one of the best remembered figures of Tudor England. In his own lifetime, he was thought of with mixed feelings, both at home and abroad. Some English people regarded him as a hero, but he was distrusted by others, who saw him as having risen 'above his station'. Although he was feared and hated by the Spanish, he was also regarded by some with secret admiration. What was England like at the time of Drake? For most of Drake's life, Queen Elizabeth I ruled the country. It was a time when England was growing in population, power and wealth, and was also becoming more outward looking. New markets and colonies were needed, so that English produce, especially wool, could be traded. England was also keen to gain from the huge profits to be made from the 'New World' of the Americas and from the Eastern spice trade, as Spain and Portugal were already doing. It was a time when religion was extremely important to people, especially the question of whether England was to be a Protestant or a Catholic country. Arguments about religion and trade meant that England was at war with Spain for much of Drake's life. Where was Francis Drake born? Francis Drake was born in Tavistock, Devon, sometime between 1541 and 1543. What sort of family did he come from? A very ordinary family, certainly not rich or powerful. His family was a devoutly religious one. When Francis was still a small boy, the Catholic Queen Mary came to the throne, and there were religious disturbances in Devon. The family left, and moved to Chatham in Kent where for a time they lived on an old, laid-up ship. Drake's father became a Protestant preacher. These early experiences had a profound effect on the young Francis. The Protestant religion was to be one of the most important things to him throughout his life. On his voyage around the world he led religious services on board ship twice a day. When did Drake first go to sea? He first started going to sea while living in Chatham, at the age of twelve or thirteen. He was an apprentice on a small trading ship which was left to him when the master died. After selling this ship, he returned to Devon and sailed with his relative John Hawkins. Together, Hawkins and Drake made the first English slaving voyages, bringing African slaves to work in the 'New World'. Did Francis Drake marry? Yes. He married twice. When he was twenty-five he married Mary Newman, who died in 1583. He married again in 1585. His second wife, Elizabeth Sydenham, came from a much more influential family. He did not have children with either of his wives. What was Drake looking for on his voyages? Spanish ships, sailing back from their new conquests in South America were extremely attractive, as they were laden with silver. Drake attacked such ships, and if he was successful in capturing them, took their treasure for himself and for his queen. He also raided Spanish and Portuguese ports in the 'New World' and the Atlantic. On Drake's voyage to Panama in 1572-3, he was helped by cimarrones. The cimarrones were former slaves, who had escaped to live in the forest and mountains as outlaws. Many were prepared to help the English as they blamed the Spanish for their position. One cimarrone in particular, named Diego, became especially close to Drake, accompanying him to England and later around the world. How long did it take Drake to sail around the world? The circumnavigation took three years, from 1577 to 1580. Originally, the voyage was probably planned as a raid on Spanish ships and ports. Five ships, manned by 164 seamen, left Plymouth, with Drake himself sailing in the Pelican. Nearly all the crew thought they were heading for the Mediterranean. After reaching America, Drake was worried that his ships might get separated from each other, so he gave orders for two of them to be destroyed. Then the Marigold was lost, with all her crew, and the Elizabeth turned back and sailed home. By October 1578, as the company started up the western coast of South America, there were just 58 left, all on the Pelican. Drake renamed his ship the Golden Hinde. What did Drake find out on his voyage around the world? Drake's voyage helped to give a more accurate picture of the true geography of the world. During the course of the voyage, Drake discovered that Tierra del Fuego, the land seen to the south of the Magellan Strait, was not part of a southern continent as had been believed previously, but an archipelago, or group of islands. Francis Fletcher, the chaplain on Drake's ship described it like this: In passing along we plainly discovered that same Terra Australis to be no continent, but broken islands and large passages amongst them.... This meant that if the American continent was not connected to a southern continent, the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans met at Cape Horn. It should be possible to sail ships around the bottom of South America, south of Tierra. This was the Cape Horn route, eventually discovered in 1616. As Drake sailed further up the coast, he plundered Spanish ports in Chile and Peru and captured treasure ships. His biggest prize was the Cacafuego. Drake sailed further north along the coast of the Americas than any other European until then. On the way he landed in what is now California, naming it Nova Albion (New England) and claiming it for his queen. He then continued across the Pacific to the East Indies, or Spice Islands. Six tons of cloves were loaded onto the ship. Later, half had to be tossed into the sea in order to free the ship from a reef. His route through the East Indies lay along the uncharted southern coast of Java. Here Drake discovered that Java was an island, not connected to a southern continent as the Dutch believed. Drake returned from his voyage around the world with the little Golden Hinde packed full of spices from the Indies, and plundered Spanish silver and treasure. The good health of the surviving members of his crew was a remarkable achievement in itself. This was in marked contrast to the dreadful condition of those who had accompanied Magellan on the first circumnavigation of the world fifty years earlier. How was Drake helped by others? During the Tudor period, it was important that each explorer built on the experience of those who had gone before. Portugal and Spain had been involved in ocean exploration long before England. Francis Drake obviously recognised this, as he made use of this previous knowledge and expertise by seizing the Portuguese pilot Nuna da Silva to guide him on his passage to Brazil and the east coast of America. In the Pacific, he seized the charts of two Spanish pilots bound for the Philippines. He already had a chart of the world made in Portugal, and three books on navigation. How did the Queen treat Drake when he returned after his three year voyage? Queen Elizabeth dined on board the Golden Hinde at Deptford, on the River Thames. Afterwards, she knighted him so that for the rest of his life he was known as Sir Francis Drake. The king of Spain was insulted by the Queen's reward to Drake. His voyage may have been triumphant to the English, but to the Spanish it was highly destructive. Was the circumnavigation the end of Sir Francis Drake's career at sea? No. Drake was involved in several other battles with the Spanish. In 1585 he and more than 1000 men attacked Santiago in the Cape Verde islands. As no treasure was found, he ordered the town to be burnt down. In 1586 he captured San Domingo in Hispaniola (now named Haiti). One of his most famous attacks was on Cadiz and Coruna in 1587. This incident is sometimes known as the 'singeing of the King of Spain's beard.' In a daring raid, between twenty and thirty ships were sunk or captured. Perhaps of even more importance though, was the destruction of supplies intended for King Philip's planned Spanish Armada. Because of the attack, the Armada was delayed and the Spanish were short of some important supplies for their fleet. They were also forced to use unseasoned wood for barrels, as Drake had destroyed the seasoned wood. Later on this resulted in the rotting of many of their precious stocks of food for the Armada crews. What was Drake's role in the battles against the Spanish Armada? Sir Francis Drake was very active in the Armada battles of 1588. One of the most famous incidents involving Drake was when the Spanish flagship, the Rosario, collided with another ship. It lost its mast and became separated from the rest of the Spanish fleet. Drake captured it, even though he had been given the job of tracking the Armada with his stern lantern alight to guide all the other English ships following him. The prize of the Rosario must have been too difficult to resist. The ship was taken without a single shot being fired, still with the royal money chest on board. How did Sir Francis Drake die? He died at sea on his final voyage, off the coast of Panama, in Nombre de Dios Bay. He had been suffering from dysentery for several days and in January 1596 he finally died. His body was placed inside a lead casket and he was then slipped overboard. Two other ships, his most recent prizes, were sunk near his body. He was about 54 years old. Why is he still remembered today? His circumnavigation led to an increased knowledge of the geography of the world, particularly to a more accurate understanding of the 'southern continent'. As a navigator his skills put him in the same rank as Columbus. His claim of California, or Nova Albion, for England led directly to later plans to send people to live in colonies in America. Word Count: 1709 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Slavery Reparations Are Wrong.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Slavery Reparations Are Wrong Ladies and gentlemen; I don't believe that anyone in this chamber would move to disagree with the idea that slavery was an atrocity, committed from the depths of the darkest parts of the human sole. Africans were seized from their native land, and sold into lives of servitude into a foreign land. Indeed, it was a tragedy on such a scale that cannot be measured nor quantified. And it is this very notion of unquantifiable tragedy which speaks to the matter of reparations for slavery. To be quite blunt, reparations, even if they may be deserved, are not feasible under any system or economic tangent - indeed such an undertaking would only not remedy the situation, but it would sink Africa and her people deeper into the cycle of poverty and oppression that they have so struggled to free themselves. While the arguments against reparations may seem shallow or self-serving to advocates of such a system, upon examination, the logistics of what to give, and whom to distribute it to, preclude any potential benefits of such a system of indemnity and requite. The point of the follow critique is not to say that Africans were not mistreated, nor that they are not worthy of reparations, but that perhaps reparations are not an adequate solution to this situation, and indeed will only serve to worsen. Africa is a continent in dire straits. European colonization and colonialism damaged the native structure and society - some might say that this simply proves that European man caused, and ought to pay for, the damages done to Africa and her people. However, I would argue that simply placing a 'band-aid' blanket over Africa, would serve only to mask their problems, and relieve us of our guilt. It was this same attitude that the early European missionaries took with Africa - that they are not capable of dealing with their own problems and situations. Authors suggest that reparations should take the form of capital transfers and African status in the International Monetary Fund (Mazuri, 22). Does this sound like mending the deep running wounds and damage done to Africa, or like a transfer of monetary funds in order to "fix" Africa? Indeed, this idea of presenting money to Africa in order to "apologize" for what we have done is nothing more than a quick fix solution - it is not a long-term remedy for the underlying structural damage. The very center of Africa has been changed, for better or for worse. Surface solutions, while some may claim they are "a good beginning" or perhaps just a token of our apologetic state, will only further social damage and entrench abusive African regimes. A cognate situation with African Americans is with that of Afrocentric history (Asante, 174); many suggest that perhaps we ought to provide black student with their own curriculum, such as to instill in them a sense of pride that will improve their education. The U.S. News and World Report comments: "The Afrocentric curriculum is usually presented as an attempt to develop pride in black children by giving them a racial history... But what kind of pride and self-esteem is likely to grow from false history? And how much more cynical will black children be if they discover that they have been conned once again, only this time by Afrocentrists? ... It is a sure-fire formula for separatism and endless racial animosity (Leo, 26)" This author suggests that indeed, conferring upon youths of African descent their own "different" history will not only further the racial segregation, but also provide them with a false sense of history, fueling the animosity. If the rest of the world were to suddenly step down and bestow upon Africa special privileges and grants, it would only create a sense among the global village that Africans are 'different' and require some sort of special assistance in order to succeed. This type of compensatory system would not only be insufficient to ever repay blacks for the injustice to them, but also further the rigid separatism that plagues African Americans today - what they need is equality, not special programs catered to what guilty-feeling Europeans feel they "owe" them. Aside from any philosophical or idea-based arguments against reparations, there exist a number of logistical barriers to repaying blacks for their suffering. Immediate questions arise in the realm of distribution - it is intuitive that such reparations would be difficult to distribute, much less to decide how much, or where to place the funds or assistance. The questions are impossible to answer: who was the most oppressed? Which family or group of people received the cruelest treatment - should they get the most money or assistance? Such questions cannot be decided, nor is it fair to quantify or compare the suffering of different people - if we started to hand out assistance, some would invariably demand more than others. Some of African descent were never taken into slavery, nor were oppressed by whites - even if one believed they are deserved of reparations, it would be impossible for an international body to distinguish or properly disburse the requite among Africans of diverse backgrounds. Some Africans have indeed become wealthy within then white world and do not require assistance - yet it would be unfair to slight them their share - did they not also once suffer? It is equally impossible to prove whether or not someone actually was a slave, or how long they had been slaves; no records of such history were ever kept. Also worth of addressing is African involvement in slavery - it ought be decided whether those Africans deserve reparations. Some historians agree that many early slave traders justified their actions because of African involvement in the trade itself - these African kings were bought by guns and technology from the Europeans (M'Bokolo ??). By this logic, even if they were forced to sell these slaves, they did indeed contribute to the effort - are the nations which contain these former kingdoms today deserved of repayment? Indeed, it is unfeasible to say who did and who did not, as any logical observer would note. It is equally unworkable to decide whether or not they too were victims of the slave trade, the arguments either way would be morally irreparable - for are they responsible for the actions of their ancestors? In total, no governing body can be sure of who these reparations ought to be distributed to, nor what form they ought to take. One might argue that just general monetary grants should be given to African nations - but that leaves African Americans out of the process, who formerly suffered as Africans. While perhaps the ideas that Mazuri presents are perhaps worthy of noting or discussion, we find that there are many unanswered questions in the issue - the risks of the distribution process outweigh potential benefits. The final case against the organized business of reparations for slaves is that the indemnifiers... the question of who ought to bear responsibility for repaying the slaves for their oppression and abuse. Is there a certain group of people that ought to be most responsible for the reparations - should the average citizen pay for slavery? Both are questions which cannot be sufficiently responded to. No single person ought to be paying more for slavery than another; in fact few people alive today has ever committed slavery or owned slaves; they ought not to be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors who perhaps once did have slaves. Also worth noting is the idea that those nations most responsible for slavery are unable to pay for it, such as Belgium and Portugal, while relatively benign countries like Great Britain are economic powers in Europe (Mazuri, 22). This makes the interesting point of such, and I feel that Britain does not have to pick up the slack and pay for what other nations did - it is equally unfair as giving reparations to Africans who were not slaves. One of the suggestions that is also raised (Mazuri, 22) is that of establishing an IMF fund for African nations. However, it is the tax money of average citizens paying for these reparations - no one say that these people were actually the ones who contributed to slavery. The hard earned taxes of the middle class should not go to foreign funds to deal with guilt for African tragedies, but to education for all people, without regard to race or discrimination. The point is, that all in all, those who did not contribute to slavery ought not pay for it - neighbors of criminals do no go to prison for being near the criminal, nor the children or grandchildren of criminals serve time to society. I would, once again, like to make clear that I do not disagree that slavery was an act of near genocide, and ought never be forgotten nor trivialized - we owe the African of our day a great apology. Nor do I disagree that perhaps Africans contributed to global markets in the early days of European expansion (Miller, 71). However, I do not think it right that we bandage Africa in requital of our own guilt, thusly entrenching the very notion of segregation and discrimination that we are discussing here today. African peoples and nations may be deserved of recompense, but it will never truly be possible to requite the losses in any form of goods or services by a foreign power. If Africans need money, it need not be asked for under guise of slave reparations. We ought not bestow these requites of shallow money and assistance on Africa - it would distinguish them as something different, and entrench the mindset of racism, and the paradigm of separate treatment. Indeed, the point of this address was to display to the chamber the impracticality of providing such "quick-fix" solutions, and of ever hoping to properly distribute these funds within a reasonable timeframe of effectiveness. Indeed, I believe deeply that Africans have been abused and oppressed - yet we ought not buy the forgiveness of Africa, nor should Africa have to accept our payments. I urge you, to please have the foresight to not entrench the very notions of which it is so paramount that we battle, but to find an alternative solution to Africa's dilemma. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Spanish American War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Spanish American War CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 1898 Jan. 25.--U.S. battleship Maine, Captain C.D. Sigsbee, U.S.N., is ordered to Havana, Cuba. Feb. 8.--The publication of a letter written by Senor Dupuy de Lome, Spanish Minister of the United States, speaking disparagingly of President McKinley, leads to the Minister's resignation of his post, and the appointment of Senor Luis Polo y Bernabe. Feb. 15.--The U.S. battleship Maine, lying in the harbor of Havana, is destroyed and sunk by an explosion between 9 and 10 o'clock p.m. Two hundred and sixty-six lives were lost. Feb. 17.--Rear Admiral Sicard, commanding the North Atlantic Squadron orders a court of inquiry into the loss of the Maine. Feb. 19.--The request of the Spanish officials in Havana for a joint investigation into the loss of the Maine is declined. Feb. 21.--The United States Senate orders an investigation into the Maine disaster. Mar. 8,9.--Congress votes to place $50,000.000 at the unqualified disposal of the President as an emergency fund. Mar. 16.--Spain remonstrates against the presence of the United States fleet at Key West, and against other measures of defence by our Government. Mar. 19.--Facts concerning Cuba stated in the Senate by Senator Proctor of Vermont, as the result of a personal observation. Mar. 28.--Court of Inquiry's report on the Maine sent to Congress. Apr. 5.--Consul General Lee recalled. Apr. 10.--Consul General Lee leaves Cuba. Apr. 11.--President McKinley sends a message to Congress recommending armed intervention in Cuba. Apr. 15.--Army ordered to mobilize. Apr. 16.--Senate belligerency resolutions passed. Apr. 18.--Congress votes against Cuban recognition. Apr. 19.--Congress passed resolutions demanding the withdrawal of Spanish forces from Cuba. Apr. 20.--Queen opens Cortes with war speech. Government announces its opposition to privateering. President signs notification to the nations of intention to blockade. Apr. 21.--Our Minister at Madrid, General Stewart L. Woodford, informed by the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs that diplomatic relations between Spain and the United States are terminated. Apr. 21--President McKinley cables our ultimatum to Spain, demanding a reply by April 23. Apr. 21.--Senor Polo y Bernabe, Spanish Minister, receives his passports and leaves Washington {Begin handwritten} Wash. D.C. 1899 {End handwritten} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {Begin page} Apr. 22.--Cuban ports blockaded by the American squadron. Apr. 23.--The President issues his proclamation calling for 125,000 volunteers. Apr. 24--(Sunday)-A Spanish decree declaring war against the United States was gazetted at Madrid. Apr. 25.--Congress passed a resolution declaring that a state of war had existed from April 21. Apr. 26.--Recruiting volunteers began in New York City. Apr. 27.--Seventh Regiment (N.Y.) declines to enlist. Apr. 28.--Commodore Dewey's squadron sails from Hong Kong for Manila. Apr. 29.--Spanish squadron sails from Cape Verd for the West Indies. Apr. 30.--Commodore Dewey's squadron arrives off Manila. May 1.--U.S. cruiser, Topeka, arrived at New York from Falmouth. May 1.--Commodore Dewey's squadron destroys the Spanish fleet at Manila. May 2.--Cable from Manila to Hong Kong cut by Dewey. May 4.--Battleship Oregon and gunboat Marietta sail for Rio Janeiro. May 7.--Commodore Dewey informs State Department of the seizure of Cavite. May 9.--Congress thanks Rear Admiral Dewey. Governor Black (N.Y.) disbands 13th regiment. May 11.--Ensign Worth Bagley and four of the crew of the torpedo boat Winslow, killed by a shell from the Spanish forts at Cardenas. May 12.--Admiral Sampson's squadron bombarded the forts at San Juan, Porto Rico. May 12.--The Spanish Cape Verd fleet arrived at Fort de France, Martinique. May 13.--Commodore Schley's fleet sails south to meet the Spanish squadron. May 14.--Spanish Cape Verd fleet sighted off Curacao. May 15.--Sagasta's Cabinet resigns. May 15.--Spanish torpedo-boat destroyer Terror, disabled at Fort de France, Martinique. May 15.--Spanish fleet leaves Curacao. May 15.--General Merritt ordered to the Philippines as Military Governor. May 15.--Governor Black authorizes reorganization of disbanded 13th regiment. May 18.--Ninety thousand troops ordered to mobilize in Chickamauga. May 20.--Spanish fleet arrives at Santiago de Cuba. May 23.--Troops A C arrive at Camp Alger, Falls Church, Va. May 24.--The Spanish fleet bottled up at Santiago de Cuba. May 25.--Three transports start with 2.588 men for Manila. May 25.--President issues a call for 75,000 more volunteers. May 26.--Oregon arrives at Key West. May 26.--Commodore Schley is in touch with the insurgent leaders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {Begin page} May 26. --Ninth and sixty-ninth regiments of New York arrive at Chattanooga. May 26.--Florida expedition landed without opposition, near Guantanamo, Cuba. May 29.--Commodore Schley reports the trapping of Cervera in the harbor of Santiago de Cuba. May 29.--Cruiser Columbia arrives at New York, having been in collision with the British steamer Foscolia, which sank. May 30.--Troops embark at Tampa for Havana. May 31.--Rear Admiral Sampsons fleet bombards fort at Santiago de Cuba. June 1.--Transports for Manila arrive at Honolulu, H.I., and the boys in blue become the guests of the city. June 1.--Monitor Monadnock ordered to Manila from San Francisco. June 3.--American squadron bombarded Santiago de Cuba. June 4.--Lieutenant Hobson sinks cruiser Merrimac in the mouth of the harbor of Santiago de Cuba. June 6.--Fortifications of Santiago de Cuba reduced. June 7.-American squadron bombards and silences batteries at Santiago de Cuba. June 8.--Assault on fortifications of Gauntanamo Bay. June 9.--House agrees on war revenue conference report. June 10.--Admiral Sampson reports that he has held Gauntanamo Harbor since the 7th. June 10.--Senate agrees on conference report on war revenue bill. June 10.--Marines from the Panther land at Caimanera. June 11.--Four Americans are killed at Caimanera in a fight with the Spaniards. June 13.--Thirty two transports with Shafter's troops sail for Santiago de Cuba. June 13.--President McKinley signs the war tax bill. June 14.--Two Americans and several hundred Spaniards killed in a battle at Caimanera. June 15.--Second expedition sailed from San Francisco from Manila. June 15.--Great destruction results to the Santiago forts through the use of the dynamite guns on the Vesuvius. June 17.--Spanish squadron sailed from Cadiz and passed Gibraltar. June 19.--General Shafter reports that he can take Santiago in 48 hours. June 20.--Transports with General Shafter's troops arrive off Santiago de Cuba. June 22.--Part of Shafter's troops landed. June 23.-Admiral Camara's fleet arrives at Island of Pantellaria. June 24.--Sixteen American soldiers killed, and forty wounded, in driving back Spanish soldiers at Santiago. June 27.--President McKinley recommends thanks of Congress for Lieut.Hobson, and that he be transferred to the line. June 28.--President proclaims blockade of southern Cuba from Cape Frances to Cape Cruz. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {Begin page} July 1.-- Shafter's army began the assault upon Santiago, capturing the enemy's outer works. July 2.--Shafter renewed the attack upon Santiago, losing about 1,000 killed and wounded, and making 2,000 Spanish prisoners. The Spanish casualties probably exceeded those of the Americans. July 3.--Cervera's fleet destroyed at Santiago, with great loss of life. July 6.--Spanish transport, Alfonso XII., blown up off Mariel by American gunboats. July 6.--Hobson, the hero of the Merrimac, and his comrades, exchanged for Spanish prisoners outside Santiago. July 7.--President signs Hawaiian annexation resolution. July 7.--Admiral Dewey took Subig and 1,300 prisoners. July 11.--Cruiser St. Louis brings Admiral Cervera and 746 prisoners to Portsmouth, N.H. July 11.--Admiral Sampson's fleet bombarded Santiago. July 13.--Announced that yellow fever had broken out in General Shafter's army, July 14.--General Toral and the Spanish army surrendered Santiago at 3 p.m, July 17.--"Old Glory raised over Santiago at noon. July 18.--President issues a proclamation providing for the government of Santiago de Cuba. July 18.--Seven American vessels bombard Manzanillo and destroy seven Spanish ships. July 21.--General Miles, with 3.415 men on transports convoyed by war ships. starts to take Porto Rico. July 21.--American gunboats captured Nipe, and sank the Spanish cruiser Jorge Juan. July 25.--General Nelson A. Miles, in command of United States troops,landed at Guanica, Porto Rico. The town surrendered after a few shots from the Gloucester. July 26.--The Spanish Government through M. Cambon, the French Ambassador, asks President McKinley for terms of peace. July 28.--Ponce, second largest city in Porto Rico, surrendered to General Miles, and received the American army with open arms. July 30.--President McKinley gave M. Cambon a statement of terms upon which he would agree to end the war. July 31.--United States and Spanish troops engage at Malate, near Manila, Spaniards were repulsed with considerable loss. 11 American soldiers were killed and forty-four wounded. Aug. 9.--Spain's reply accepting the terms of peace, presented to President McKinley by the French Ambassador. Aug. 10.--United States under General Schan took Mayaguez, a city of Porto Rico. Spaniards were repulsed with heavy loss. Two Americans were killed, and forty wounded. Aug. 12.--The war was ended, and the blockade of Cuba, Porto Rico, and Manila was lifted; protocol agreeing as to the preliminaries for a treaty of peace having been signed by Secretary Day and the French Ambassador. Word Count: 1428 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Spanish settlement of the west.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Spanish settlement of the west International borders have always been centers of conflict, and the U.S.-Mexican border is no exception. With the European colonizing the New World, it was a matter of time before the powers collided. The Spanish settled what is today Mexico, while the English settled what is to day the United States. When the two colonial powers did meet what is today the United States' Southwest, it was not England and Spain. Rather the two powers were the United States and Mexico. Both Counties had broken off from their mother countries. The conflict that erupted between the two countries where a direct result of different nation policies. The United States had a policy of westward expansion, while Mexico had a policy of self protection. The Americans never had a written policy of expansion. What they had was the idea of "Manifest Destiny." Manifest Destiny was the belief that the United States had the right to expand westward to the Pacific ocean. On the other hand, Mexico was a new country wanting to protect itself from outside powers. Evidence of U.S. expansion is seen with the independence of Texas from Mexico. The strongest evidence of U.S. expansion goals is with the Mexican-American War. From the beginning, the war was conceived as an opportunity for land expansion. Mexico feared the United States expansion goals. During the 16th century, the Spanish began to settle the region. The Spanish had all ready conquered and settled Central Mexico. Now they wanted to expand their land holdings north. The first expedition into the region, that is today the United States Southwest, was with Corando. Corando reported a region rich in resources, soon after people started to settle the region. The driving force behind the settlement was silver in the region. The Spanish settled the region through three major corridors; central, western and eastern. The first settlements were mainly through the central corridor. The Spanish went thorough what is now the modern Mexican state of Chihuahua into the U.S. state of New Mexico. Eventually the Spanish established the city of Santa Fe in 1689. The eastern corridor was through modern day Texas and led to the establishment of San Antonio. The eastern expansion was caused by the French expansion into modern day Louisiana. The Spanish crown wanted a buffer between the French in Louisiana and central Mexico. The last corridor of expansion was in the west, through the sea, which led to the establishment of San Diego in 1769 and Los Angles in 1781. The Spanish were not the only European power to colonize the new world; French, English and the Dutch also settled North and South America. The Spanish and the French settled what is present day U.S.-Mexico border region. The French settled modern day U.S. midwest, while the Spanish settled present day Mexico and U.S. southwest. As time went on, European influence in the region diminished.. The French sold there claims to the United States, in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase. Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821. Once the United States bought the Louisiana Purchase, western expansion began. This set the stage for major conflict in the region. The United States gained independence from England in 1775. After 1775, the Americans started to expand west. By the time Mexico gained independence, the United States had reached the Mexican frontier. Mexico needed to protect its northern borders. To protect the border region, Mexico needed to populate the area. Mexico continued the policy started by Spain of allowing Americans to settle Texas. The Americans had to follow Mexican law, religion and customs. The settlement of Texas played into the United States' expansion plans. Eventually Mexico City closed Texas from more Americans from entering. This angered the Americans wanting to enter and Americans already living in Texas. Texas revolted from Mexico in 1833. Mexicans did live in Texas, and fought for the independence of Texas. The majority of Texans were Americans and fought for their independence. After the war the Americans intentionally or non-intentionally forced most Mexicans out of Texas. The ones that stayed faced racial tensions that continue to today. After gaining independence from Mexico, Texas wanted to join the United States immediately. The U.S. Congress voted against Texas from joining the Union. Congress was worried that annexation of Texas would anger Mexico. Mexico had never officially recognized Texas as independent. Congress was concerned that annexation would start a war with Mexico. Mexico's repose to American annexation was not the only factor in deciding against annexation. If Texas was to become a state, it would be a slave state. At the time, the United States an even balance between slave and non-slave states. Texas entering the Union would disrupt the balance, giving slave states an advantage in the U.S. House and Senate. Since the United States was not ready to annex Texas, Texas declared itself a sovereign country. In 1837 President Andrew Jackson formally recognized Texas a country. Texas wanted to be part of the United States. It needed the protection of the Untied States. President Tyler could not get the 2/3 majority needed to admit Texas. Instead, he changed the law to require only a simple majority. It was not until 1845 and two Presidents later that Texas was annexed into the United States. Mexico protested the admission of Texas into the United States. The United States saw Mexico's protest as a excuse to spend troops into Texas. The annexation of Texas was a represented the United States expansion goals. The United States wanted to settle in Texas, but Mexico owned the land. That did not matter to the United States, they settled in the region regardless. The Americans that settled the region agreed to Mexican law and customs, but still considered themselves Americans. After the annexation of Texas, Texas also wanted to expand. Texas claimed that New Mexico and California were part of Texas. The boundary with Mexico was also disputed. The United States claimed that the Texas border was at the Rio Grande. Mexico disagreed, Mexico stated the border was at Nueces River. The United States did try to settle matters diplomatically. The United States sent inexperienced diplomat John Slidell. Slidell tried to buy area known as the U.S. Southwest. Slidell, being an inexperienced diplomat, was rejected. Not only was he not successful in buying the land, he aroused Mexican fears. This set the stage for the Mexican-American War. The United States also had no written policy of expansion, but the government quietly supported it. The United States has always had troops the region, even though they held no land in the region The United States kept ships off the coast of California. In 1842 the U.S. commander in the region, Commodore Thomas Jones, attacked and took the city of Monterrey in California. He falsely believed that Texas and Mexico were at war. Once he realized his mistake he withdrew his forces and apologized to the Mexian government for his action and claimed that he did not act with orders from the U.S. government. Although Jones claimed that he did not act with orders from the U.S. government, clearly the government did not stop the practice. Another example of the United State's expansion goals was the Mexican-American War. This is the first time America has fought a war with land expansion as its main goal. The war started on April 25 1846 with the attack from Mexican troops and the counter attack from General Taylor of the U.S. Army. Taylor sent a message to President Polk that hostilities have started. President Polk, with a pre-drafted declaration of war, asked Congress to declare war against Mexico. President Polk knew that Mexico would lose the war and would gain new lands in the end. The Mexican-American war lasted two years, and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadeloupe on February 2 1848. The United States had succeeded in winning the war. With the Treaty of Guadeloupe the United States had succeeded in completing its Manifest Destiny. The Treaty itself represented the United States expansion goals. The United States wanted to settle on were the international border was to be. Mexico wanted the border to north of the Rio Grande river, but finally decided upon the middle of the Rio Grande river. Mexico having been bankrupt from the war, agreed to take the 15 million as payment for the vast land. In addition, the United States agreed to pay off all Mexican debts owed to the United States. This amount was small in comparison to what the United States gained in territory. The United States took advantage of a weak country of obtained its expansion goals. Another example of the United States taking advantage of Mexico is the Gasden Purchase. The Gasden Purchase was ratified in 1854 for the selling price of 10 million. Mexico was going through rough economical time and desperately needed the money. The United States seeing an opportunity to build a railroad through the region brought the land at a cheap price. The selling of the Gasden Purchase was the down fall of President Santa Ana, and led to his replacement. The conflicts along the border region were a direct result of U.S. expansion policies and Mexican fear for the United States. The Americans saw Manifest Destiny, westward expansion, as there God given right. The United States proved often that it supported policy of expansion. With the Mexican-American war, the United States completed it's Manifest Destiny. The United States completed Manifest Destiny at the cost of the Mexican government and its people. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Stalin Did his rule benefit Russian society and the Russian .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I. Introduction A. Thesis B. Statement of problem II. Beginnings A. Childhood B. The Making of a Revolutionary III. The Five Year Plans in Industry A. Progress and Benefits to Russia B. Downfalls for the People IV. Agricultural Changes A. Collectivization B. The Liquidation of the Kulaks C. Famine V. Social Changes A. Social Benefits B. Personal Advancements C. Woman in Society VI. Purges A. The Party B. The Army C. The Burial Pits VII. Conclusion A. Summary B. Final Statement Stalin: Did his Rule Benefit Russian Society and the Russian People? In this paper I plan to prove that even though Stalin made improvements in the Russian industrial system, his rule did not benefit Russian society and the Russian people. In order to accomplish this, several questions must be asked. How did Stalin affect Russia's industrial power? How did Stalin try to change Russia's agricultural system? What changes did Stalin make in society? What were Stalin's purges, and who did they effect? Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili was born on December 21, 1879, on the southern slopes of the Caucasus mountains, in the town of Gori. His mother, Ekaterina was the daughter of a peasant who married at fifteen and who lost her first three children at birth. Vissarion, his father, was a self-employed shoemaker who had a violent temper (Marrin 6-7). Young Djugashvili was small and wiry and had a deeply pitted face from a small pox attack that nearly killed him. He also had blood poisoning in his left arm that was probably caused by Vissarion's beating fists. The arm would stiffen at the elbow joint and wither, making it lame and useless for the rest of his life (Lewis 8; Marrin 8). He was dedicated to only one person, his mother, and her only ambition was for her son to become a priest and to bless her with his own hands. But, this dream was crushed when Joseph was expelled from Tiflis Theological Seminary for reading "forbidden books" such as Marx and Lenin (Lewis 8; Marrin 20). After his expulsion from Tiflis school, Joseph became a revolutionary. He organized strikes and demonstrations at factories and also found ways to gather money for Lenin and the Bolshevik party. He was banished to Siberia six times between the years 1903 and 1917. Each time, he escaped easily, except the last, when he was released because of the February revolution (Lewis 19; Marrin 24). After the death of his first wife, Ekaterina Svanidze, Joseph became more cold and tough. He gave the child that his wife bore him to her parents and even chose a new name for himself, Stalin, the Man of Steel (Marrin 26). Then came the October Revolution and the rise of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Stalin became general secretary of the Bolshevik party's Central Committee. He was also the commissar of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate and the commissar of nationalities (McKay 927; Treadgold 205). After Lenin's, death Stalin gained power by allying himself with the moderates to fight off his rival, Leon Trotsky, who was a radical and another member of the Central Committee. Stalin expelled Trotsky and suppressed his radical followers. Then he turned against his own allies, the moderates. Stalin at last had gained complete control (McKay 927-928). One of the great achievements that Stalin made for the Soviet Union were the Five Year Plans in industry. Russia had not yet had their industrial revolution and were far behind the other powers of the world. Even Stalin said," We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed." So, that is what Stalin set out to do (Dmytryshyn 158). The First Five Year Plan was adopted in April 1929 by the Sixteenth Party Conference. It's purpose was to increase Russia's industrial production. On December 31, 1932, the First Five Year Plan was declared officially completed ahead of schedule. Total industrial output increased two hundred and fifty percent, steel production increased three hundred percent, production of large-scale industry showed an increase of one hundred and eighteen percent, production of machinery and electrical equipment increased one hundred and fifty-seven percent, heavy metal increased sixty-seven percent, coal output increased eighty-nine percent, and consumer goods increased about seventy-three percent (Dmytryshyn 158; McKay 928; Treadgold 266). After the success of the First Five Year Plan, the Seventeenth Party Congress formally adopted the Second Five Year Plan, covering the years 1933-1937 in January, 1934. To overcome the lacking of iron and steel, the Second Plan ordered construction of forty-five new blast furnaces, one hundred and sixty-four open-hearth furnaces, and one hundred and seven rolling mills. Other goals of the second plan were an expansion of machine tool production, the development and production of non-ferrous metals, and the improvement and double-tracking of the main railroad lines (Dmytryshyn 159). The results of the Second Five Year Plan were that some items reached their estimated targets while others lagged behind. Overall, by the end of the Second Five Year Plan, the Soviet Union was emerging as a strong industrial country. It possessed increased capability to produce iron, steel, coal, and electric power. It also had a whole new range of new industries, including aviation, tractor, locomotive, chemical, aluminum, nickel, and tin. The Soviet Union now had a well-established industrial base capable of further expansion and growth (Dmytryshyn 160-161). Although rapid industrialization helped improve Russia, it hurt the workers. "Industrialization moved so fast and was often so poorly planned that disasters frequently resulted . . ." (Marrin 102). The amount of work that had to be put in was also hard on the workers. The workers had to work longer under Stalin than when they were ruled by the tsars. "Depending on the industry, they worked between forty-eight and sixty hours a week, Sundays included . . ." (Marrin 103). Once the industrial Five Year Plans started to roll, Stalin decided to make some agricultural changes to support the industrialization. In April, 1928, Stalin presented the draft of a new land law. Although the draft failed to become a law, it showed a couple of Stalin's objectives. One was the rapid and forcible collectivization of the peasants in order to industrialize the country quickly. The other was the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. Kulaks were classified as, "Those peasants who were either industrious, or more prosperous than their neighbors, or simply those who were not enthusiastic about the policies of the communist party . . ." (Dmytryshyn 167). Collectivization was the forcible consolidation of individual peasant farms into large, state-controlled enterprises. It was suppose to help Russian agriculture and support the quickly industrializing country (McKay 928; Dmytryshyn 167). Soviet writer, Lyudmila Saraskina believed that, "Collectivization was a bloody, terrible, and monstrous means of the seizure of absolute power, because the free peasant and master of the land, the farmer, constituted one of the main obstacles on the path to the absolute feudal power that Stalin really wanted . . ." (Lewis 65). The kulaks were the well off peasants that opposed collectivization any way they could. The way Stalin dealt with them was to first turn the bedniaks or poor peasants against them offering the bedniaks the kulaks castles and machinery. Then, Stalin had the rest of the kulaks either killed or exiled to the northern or eastern regions of the country. The death toll recorded in the anti-kulak campaign is between three and ten million killed (Treadgold 268; Dmytryshyn 168; Lewis 63). Many peasants killed their cattle, pigs, and horses; destroyed the farm implements; and either burned their crops or let them rot in the fields before being forced into collectivization. Because of this, poor harvests, grain seizures, and the elimination of the better farmers, the kulaks, there was a man made famine (Lewis 65) . The famine was so bad that some people resorted to cannibalism. Mykola Pishy reported this about her neighbor, "Ivan was a good specialist - a joiner, a tailor, a shoe-maker - a good fellow who could turn his hand at anything. But the famine was awful and he got to the end of his tether. He was so hungry that he killed his child, and ate the meat . . ." (Lewis 66-67). In Targan, the city where Alisa Maslo lived, 362 people died from the famine. They went from house to house and they took away everything to the last grain . . . and this included ours. And they really left the family to certain famine death. And so my grandma died and then one of my brothers. . . . My mother was lying in bed swollen with hunger . . . my older brother had died. And I told my mother that 'we're the only two left', that my brother was also dead. Up came the cart and the man took my brother and dragged him to the cart, and then my own live mother. I started crying and the man said, 'Go to the orphanage where at least you'll get some soup. She'll die anyway, why should I come here a second time?' And so I became an orphan (Lewis 65-66). Between five and ten million people died from starvation because of the famine (Dmytryshyn 169). Along with the improvements in industry and the attempted improvements in agriculture, Stalin started to make improvements in society. Soviet workers received some important social benefits, such as old-age pensions, free medical services, free education, and free day-care centers for children. There was also the possibility of personal advancement. To improve your position, you needed specialized skills or technical education. Massive numbers of trained experts were needed for the rapid industrialization going on. High salaries and many special privileges were offered to the technical and managerial elite. Millions struggled in universities, institutes, and night schools for the all important specialized education. "In Soviet Russia there is no capital except education. If a person does not want to become a collective farmer or just a cleaning woman, the only means you have to get something is through education . . ." (McKay 931-932). Another change under Stalin was that there was an equality of rights for women. They were urged to work outside the home and to liberate themselves sexually. Divorces and abortions were also made very easy. "Young women were constantly told that they should be fully equal to men, that they could and should do anything men could do . . ." (McKay 932). Most women had to work outside the home because it took both the husband and wife working to support their family. But, the woman had a heavy burden of household chores in her off hours. Soviet men still considered the home and the children the wife's responsibilities (McKay 933). Along with some of these beneficial changes that Stalin made to society came some non-beneficial ones, specifically the purges. One of the first to be eliminated was Stalin's wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, who after being ridiculed by her husband at a party for the fifteenth anniversary of the revolution on November 8, 1932, apparently shot herself (Lewis 83-84; McKay 930). Then, at four o'clock in the afternoon of December 1, 1934, a young disillusioned Communist named Leonid V. Nikolaev shot Stalin's number-two man, Sergei Kirov, who had just been offered Stalin's job of General Secretary from the senior members of the Party (Marrin 116; Lewis 86; McKay 930; Treadgold 278). Stalin used Kirov's death to launch a reign of terror. Stalin blamed Kirov's death on foreign powers, the exiled Trotsky, and the moderates. Stalin ordered the "purification" of the party. On August 19, 1936, sixteen old Bolsheviks were publicly tried for conspiring with Trotsky and for the murder of Kirov (Dmytryshyn 179-181; Treadgold 279). Anyone connected anyway to Nikolayev was also arrested. Robert Conquest explains: Everyone who was remotely connected with the case was seized. One woman had worked as a librarian at the 'Young Communist Club' in Leningrad which had been disbanded in the mid-twenties but, with which Nikolayev had in some way been associated. Not only was she arrested, but also her sister with whom she lived, her sister's husband, the secretary of her Party cell, and all those who had recommended her for jobs (Lewis 90). Then in January 1937 there was another trial for seventeen more party members. They were accused of conspiring with Nazi Germany and Japan to dismember the USSR (Dmytryshyn 181). The trials and arrests continued. There were mass arrests, confessions extracted by force, and the executions and deportations of thousands of peasants. Soviet officers were also arrested and convicted. The Red Army lost three of it's five field marshals, fourteen of it's sixteen army commanders, sixty of it's sixty-seven corps commanders, 136 of it's 199 division commanders, 220 brigade commanders, all eleven deputy commissars of war, seventy-five members of the Supreme Military Council, all military district commanders, all air force officers, all except one navy fleet commander, and all eight Red Navy admirals. In addition, the army lost half of it's officer corps, 35,000 men ranging from colonels to company commanders (Dmytryshyn 180-182; Marrin 127). Many that suffered from the purges were sent to labor camps or were just executed by the secret police. Local units of secret police were even ordered to arrest a certain percentage of the people in their districts (McKay 931). Graves were discovered in 1934 holding over 9,000 bodies of people killed around 1938 in the Ukraine. Since then mass burial sights have been discovered outside major cities such as Minsk, Kiev, and Novosibirsk, and one with possibly 40,000 bodies in the Kirov region of Donetsk. A burial sight at Chelyabinsk, was found to contain more than 80,000 people. Zenon Pozniak, an archaeologist who has excavated many of these burial plots also found 510 burial pits in Kuropaty and calculated that each one contained about 150 bodies. That could mean there are around 75,000 bodies in there. Apparently there were as many as 1,000 pits originally (Lewis 106-107). Pozniak has also researched the circumstances of these people's deaths: They were shot by NKVD (secret police) soldiers in NKVD uniform. They shot them from behind, in the back and pushed them into the pit. When that group was finished, they covered the corpses with sand like a layer cake. They got the contents of the next lorry and shot them, and in that way they filled the pit right up to the top . . . people who lived in the villages nearby told us that . . . the earth would breathe. Some people weren't actually dead when they were buried, and the earth breathed and heaved and the blood came through (Lewis 107). Stalin used the Five Year Plans to make great strides in industrializing Russia. When he tried to equal that success with agricultural growth he met some resistance and ended up liquidating a class and causing famine. Socially, he gave some important social benefits to workers and gave women equal rights. But, he also tried to purge the country and eliminated a lot of the Party, most of the army, and a good part of the workers and peasants. Stalin made several industrial improvements for his country but, that does not even begin to equal the death and destruction that he caused. Works Cited Dmytryshyn, Basil. USSR: A Concise History. 2nd ed. New York: Scribner's, 1971. Lewis, Jonathan, and Phillip Whitehead. Stalin. New York: Pantheon Books, 1990. Marrin, Albert. Stalin: Russia's Man of Steel. New York: Viking Kestrel, 1988. McKay, John P, Bennett D. Hill, and John Buckler. History of Western Society. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton, 1991. Treadgold, Donald W. Twentieth Century Russia. 2nd ed. Chicago: Rand, 1964. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Steps Towards the Russian Revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Russia, History, WWI - Steps Towards the Russian Revolution The quotation, "'I shall maintain the principle of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father.' (Nicholas II) In spite of the Czar's decrees and declarations, Russia, by the beginning of the 20th century, was overripe for revolution," is supported by political and socioeconomic conditions late monarchial Russia. Nicholas II was the Czar of Russia from 1896-1917, and his rule was the brute of political disarray. An autocrat, Nicholas II had continued the divine-right monarchy held by the Romanovs for many generations. From the day Russia coronated Nicholas II as Emperor, problems arose with the people. As was tradition at coronations, the Emperor would leave presents for the peasants outside Moscow. The people madly rushed to grab the gifts, and they trampled thousands in the bedlam. As an autocrat, no other monarch in Europe claimed such large powers or stood so high above his subjects as Nicholas II. Autocracy was traditionally impatient and short- tempered. He wielded his power through his bureaucracy, which contained the most knowledgeable and skilled members of Russian high society. Like the Czar, the bureaucracy, or chinovniki, stood above the people and were always in danger of being poisoned by their own power. When Sergei Witte acted as Russia's Minister of Finance from 1892 to 1903, attempted to solve Russia's "riddle of backwardness" in its governmental system. He is considered more of a forerunner of Stalin rather than a contemporary of Nicholas II. In 1900, Witte wrote a memorandum to Nicholas II, underscoring the necessity of industrialization in Russia. After the government implemented Witte's plan, Russia had an industrial upsurge. All of Russia, however, shared a deep-seated resentment of the sudden jump into an uncongenial way of life. Witte realized that Nicholas II was not meant to carry the burden of leading Russia to an industrial nation as a Great Power. Nicholas II's weakness was even obvious to himself, when he said, "I always give in and in the end am made the fool, without will, without character." At this time, the Czar did not lead, his ministers bickered amongst themselves, and cliques and special-interest groups interfered with the conduct of government. Nicholas II never took interest in public opinion, and seemed oblivious to what was happening around him. He was still convinced he could handle Russia himself. By 1902, the peasants had revolted against Witte's industrialization movements, which were marked by a raise in taxes as Russia spent more than it ever had. Russia was struggling in the European and Asian markets, and with much domestic unrest, Nicholas II did not want foreign affairs muddled as well. Nicholas II dismissed Witte from the Minister of Finance in August 1903. January 22, 1905, commonly known as Bloody Sunday, was a revolutionary event only because of what followed, not of what actually happened on that day. A group of workers and their families set out, with the backing of several officials, to present a petition to the Czar. As they approached the Winter Palace, rifles sprayed them with bullets. This cruel act by the Czar shattered what smidgen of faith the workers and peasants still held for Nicholas II, and sparked the quickly-aborted "October Revolution." Peasants and workers revolted in an elemental and anarchic rebellion, ultimately turning a large-scale strike and bringing the government, economy, and all public services to a complete halt. By October 1905, the relations between the Czar and his subjects had come to a complete breakdown. The October Manifesto, created in 1905, caused two things. First, it granted basic civil liberties to all, despite religion or nationality; it even legalized political parties. This concession was capped by the creation of an elected legislative body, the Imperial Duma. Second, it split the revolutionary front, reconciling the most cautious elements among the moderates, who had no heart for violence, with a government which promised to end the abuses of autocracy. This formed the political party called Octobrist, which lead the Duma. Peter Stolypin was Chair of the Soviet of Ministers (1907-1911). Stolypin's goal was to seal the rift between the government and the public. His scheme was a moderate one, based largely on Witte's earlier suggestions. Its essence was the creation of a prosperous and conservative element in the countryside composed of "the strong and the sober." On the whole, Stolypin succeeded with some improvements in the civic status of the peasantry, but did not expunge the barriers separating it from "privilege Russia" (see explanation in section covering social aspects). A revolutionary assassinated Stolypin in 1911. In 1916, Nicholas II and his wife, Alexandria, were so estranged from the ruling circle that a palace coup was freely advocated. Before this, Alexandria had brought Rasputin, a faith-healer, to live with them in the Winter Palace at Petrograd. Alexandria believed he was holy and could save her son, Alexander, from dying of hemophilia. Rasputin ate into the woodwork of the Russian aristocracy, and Alexandria made sure that the members of the Duma did not tarnish him, and that they met his requests. Two revolutionaries murdered Rasputin in December of 1916, after being poisoned, shot, and drowned. Many members of the Imperial family and army generals in the field believed that, "If it is a choice between the Czar and Russia, I'll take Russia." The British Ambassador to Russia, Sir George Buchanan, said to Nicholas II on January 12, 1917, "Your Majesty, if I may be permitted to say so, has but one safe course open to you, namely to break down the barrier that separates you from your people and to regain their confidence." To this, Nicholas II replied, "Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people or that they are to regain my confidence?" History took its course with the belligerent ravings of Nicholas II, and on March 7, 1917, a major demonstration ignited in Petrograd. After two days of heavy rioting, the soldiers called into to control the bunch and defend the regime gave up and joined in. On March 12, the soldiers in Petrograd would not obey the Czar's orders, and in several days this held for the rest of Russia. On March 15, Czar Nicholas II abdicated his Empire to the emissaries of the Duma. Socially, Russia was in just about as much of as mess as they were politically. In 1900, the Czar and his government had not decided how to treat its peasants. It kept all the peasants legally and socially segregated from the other social groups. There were essentially two sides to Russian society at this time. On one side stood the peasants, the "dark people." On the other was "privilege Russia," including nobles, bureaucrats, the run of educated Russians, and even the merchants, who often had risen from the peasants. "Privilege Russia" look down upon the "dark people" with much contempt. Chekhov described the peasants in a story that he published in 1897: . . . these people lived worse than cattle, and it was terrible to be with them; they were coarse, dishonest, dirty, and drunken; they did not live at peace with one another but quarreled continually, because they feared, suspected, and despised each other . . . The most insignificant little clerk or official treated the peasants as though they were tramps, and addressed even the village elders and church wardens as inferiors, and as though he had a right to do so. The peasants were the bulk of Russian citizenry, and acted as the soldiers of the 1917 revolution. While "privilege Russia," worked reluctantly to make themselves more western, the "dark people" had remained the same over the years. Most were, until this time, politically unaware. The only Russia that they knew existed within a five-mile radius of their shanty. In the bottom of the peasant's heart, he or she carried a deep, imbedded bitterness and hatred for the "upper crust." All moves toward industrialization and westernization had been done without regard to him or even at his expense. The peasant was simply apathetic and harbored a sense of personal worthlessness to his country. Ultimately, he rejected it, and was not a Russian, but identified himself as merely from his local area. As pathetic as the peasant's situation might be, it was finally them who started the revolution and them who slowly came politically aware. As visionaries believed in the power of the people, the peasants' resilience and drive encouraged them. "Privilege Russia," although markedly better-off than the peasantry, was not having a picnic either. As much as it tried to westernize itself, it did not enjoy the equal citizenship of a European democracy. It was divided into state-supervised organizations: the nobility, the bureaucracy, the priesthood, the merchant community, and the "lower middle class." If a citizen had graduated from a school which was considered "higher education," the citizen became known as an "honorary citizen," which granted enough more privileges to appear somewhat like a western citizen. The Balkans had ethnic groups numbering in double-digits, and they weren't worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier. Greater Russia had groups numbering in triple- digits. There were hundreds of different ethnicities, languages, cultures, and many different religions, ranging from sects of Judeo- Christian to Islam to even Buddhism. Getting along with one another was not easy for these groups, and especially so under Russia's policy of forced assimilation. Most Russians were dissatisfied with their country's "cultural barrier" between Russia and Europe. They had an inferiority complex, thinking of themselves as less civilized, backwards, "Asiatic," and in doing so created a lack of respect among Russia's European counterparts. During World War I, when the Allies bullied Russia to get back into the war after their first retreat, they seemed to think of Russia as "stupid cowards." Germany made Russia soon to sign a treaty with Germany, after their army - embarrassingly enough - ran away from strong German defenses. If losing a war isn't enough to give people of a nation an inferiority complex, nothing is. The Russian people unconsciously accepted the flood of western standards into Russia between 1890 and 1914. Not surprisingly, the Russians with their extra-long- sleeved shirts were complacent to this infuse of foreign culture, wanting to do anything to feel equal to Europeans. The years of revolution between 1907 and 1914 were not particularly bad ones for the peasants. Stolypin's reformation plan had given more land to the peasants (who already owned most of the land in the first place). Though taxes had increased un expectantly under Witte's system, Stolypin quickly lowered the rates and eased the tax burden on the peasants. Rural goods-cooperatives had expanded and even introduced technolical advancements. The literacy rate had risen as the government put more emphasis on elementary education. Even under the political restrictions imposed by Stolypin and his successors, with the creation of the Duma and political parties, people felt freer. Educational planners predicted that there would be schools for every child in Russia built by 1922. Russia's contacts with western Europe grew, as they even began contributing to the fashions in art, literature, and philosophy. Not looking at these years from a pessimistic, intellectually political point of view, these were Russia's version of our "roaring twenties." By 1916, all of this had changed. Peasants were forced into the army as punishment for striking. Much of the army was made up of peasants, and hundreds of thousands of men died. No one believed the war was a noble cause to fight for. At the beginning of 1917, an estimated 1.5 million people deserted the Russian army. All of this amounted to one thing everyone knew for sure; they were in for another storm of revolution. With the first aborted revolution attempt of 1905, the people were like half a splinter removed; there was a momentary relief, but later the pain returned with an infection. All of Russia knew something had to be done by 1917, and up until that point no one could decide upon what should take place. Russia had been torn apart politically by a weak Emperor, festering with indecision, and socio- economically with World War I, class wars, and the increasing state of industrialization's unrest and bread lines. It was a time for change, and in 1917, Russia was clearly "overripe" for revolution. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Tet Offensive.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ More About The 1968 Tet Offensive For several thousand years, Vietnamese Lunar New Year has been a traditional celebration that brings the Vietnamese a sense of happiness, hope and peace. However, in recent years, It also bring back a bitter memory full of tears. It reminds them the 1968 bloodshed, a bloodiest military campaign of the Vietnam War the North Communists launched against the South. The "general offensive and general uprising" of the north marked the sharp turn of the Vietnam War. Today there have been a great number of writings about this event. However, it seems that many key facts in the Communist campaign are still misinterpreted or neglected. In the mid-80, living in Saigon after being released from the Communist "re-education camp," I read a book published in the early 1980's in America about the story of the 1968 Tet Offensive. It said that the North Vietnamese Army supreme command had imitated one of the greatest heroes of Vietnam, King Quang Trung, who won the most spectacular victory over the Chinese aggressors in the 1789 counter-attack - in planning the 1968 operations. The book quoted King Quang Trung's tactic of surprise. He let the troops celebrate the 1789 Tet Festival one day ahead so that he could launch the attacks on the first three days of the lunar new year while the Chinese troops were still feasting and not ready to organize their defense. Those who claimed the similarity between the two campaigns certainly did not know the whole truth, but jumped into conclusion with wild imagination after learning that the North Vietnamese attacking units also celebrated Tet "one day ahead" before the attacks. In fact, the Tet Offensive broke out on the Tet's Eve - in the early morning of January 30, 1968 at many cities of Central Vietnam, such as Da Nang and Qui Nhon, as well as cities in the central coastal and highland areas, that lied within the Communist 5th Military Region.. The other cities to the south that included Saigon, were attacked 24 hours later at the small hours of January 31. Thus the offensive lost its element of total surprise that every tactician has to respect. But It surprised me that some in the American media were still unaware of such tragic story. The story started some 5 months previously. On August 8, 1967, the North Vietnam government approved a lunar calendar specifically compiled for the 7th time zone that covers all Vietnam, replacing the traditional lunar calendar that had been in use in Asia for hundreds of years. That old calendar was calculated for the 8th time zone that Beijing falls right in the middle. It was accepted in general by a few nations such as China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Hong Kong and somewhat in Japan and Korea, mostly for traditional celebrations and religious purposes. South Vietnam used this calendar. With common cultural origin, these countries needed not have their own calendar, particularly it has not been used for scientific and administrative activities. The North Vietnam new lunar calendar differs from the common calendar about some dates, such as the leap months of certain year (1984 and 1987) and the Tet's Eve of the three Lunar New Years: Mau Than (1968), Ky Dau (1969) and At Suu (1985). South Vietnam celebrated the first day of the Mau Than lunar year on January 30, 1968, while North Vietnam celebrated it on Jan 29, 1968. It was obviously that the North Vietnamese leaders had ordered the offensives to be launched on the night of the first day of Tet to take the objectives by total surprise. By some reason, the North Vietnamese Army Supreme Command was not aware of the fact that there were different dates for Tet between North and South Vietnam. Therefore, most NVA units in the Communist 5th Military Region - closer to North Vietnam - probably used North Vietnamese calendar, and conducted their attacks in the night between Jan 29 and 30, while their comrades farther to the south attacked in the night from Jan 30 to 31. Many in the intelligence branch of the South Vietnamese Armed Forces were well aware of the reason why the Communist forces launched their attacks at two different dates. Information from sources among NVA prisoners of war and ralliers about the new calendar of North Vietnam should have been neglected by the American side. The information was also available in broadcast from Hanoi Radio. In military operations, nothing is more important than surprise. So the Communist forces lost their advantage of surprise on more than half of the objectives. Had the Vietnamese Communists conducted their coordinated attacks at the same H-hour, South Vietnam would have been in much more troubles. The large scale offensive resulted in drastic human and morale losses of the Communist forces. However, the offensive caused an extreme negative effect in the American public opinion and boosted the more bitter protests against the war. Until lately, the Ha Noi propaganda and political indoctrination system has always claimed the Tet offensive their military victory, and never insisted on their victory over the morale of the American public.. Obviously, Ha Noi leaders won a priceless victory at an unintended objective. In South Vietnam, on the contrary, the offensive created an unexpected attitude among the people. After the first few hours of panic, the South Vietnamese armed forces reacted fiercely. There were hundreds of stories of brave soldiers and small units who fought their enemies with incredible courage.. A large number of those who were playing fence-sitters especially in the region around Hue City then took side with the nationalist government. Several mass graves were found where thousands unarmed soldiers, civil servants and civilians were shot, stabbed, or with skulls mashed by clubs and buried in strings of ropes, even buried alive. A large number of VC-sympathizers who saw the horrible graves, undeniable evidence of the Communist barbarian crimes, changed side. The most significant indication of such attitude could be observed from the figures of young volunteers. to join the army. After the first wave of Communist attacks, a great number of youth under draft age - below 20 years old - voluntarily enrolled in the army for combat units, so high that thousands of young draftees were delayed reporting for boot camps. On the Communist side, the number of ralliers known as "chieu hoi" increased about four times. The offensive planners apparently expected the so-called "people upraising," so most secret cells were ordered to emerge. When the attacking units were crushed, cell members had to flee to the green forests. Thus the Tet offensive helped South Vietnam neutralize much of the Communist infrastructure before the Phoenix Campaign got rid of many others. Unfortunately, such achievements were nullified by the waves of protests in America. As in any other developing countries, nobody takes heed of a speech from a Vietnamese official. But the same thing from an American statesman or even a protester could be well listened to and trusted. So information from the Western media produced rumors that the USA was about to sell off South Vietnam to the Communist blocks. The rumors were almost absolutely credible to the Vietnamese - particularly the military servicemen of all ranks - because of another hearsay that until now have a very powerful impact on the mind of a great number of the South Vietnamese. There have been no poll on the subject, but it was estimated that more than half of the soldiers strongly believed that "it was the Americans who helped the Communist attack the South Vietnamese cities." Hundreds of officers from all over South Vietnam asserted that they "saw" NVA soldiers moving into the cities on US Army trucks, or American helicopters transporting supplies to NVA units. In Saigon, most people accepted the allegation that the Americans deliberately let the Communists infiltrate the capital city because the American electronic sensor defense system around Saigon was able to detect things as small as a mouse crossing the hi-tech fences. Another hearsay among the South Vietnamese military ran that "none of the American military units or installation and agencies - military or civilian - was under Communist first phase of the offensive (February) except for the US Embassy. And only after nearly three weeks did the US Marines engaged in the battle of Hue, in the old Royal Palace" The allegation seemed to be true. The American combat units, however, were fighting fierce battles in phase 2 (May 1968) and phase 3 (September 1968). Similar rumors might have been of no importance if they were in America.But in Vietnam, they did convince a lot of people. In the military, they dealt deadly blows on the soldiers' morale. Their impacts still lingered on until the last days of April 1975. The truth in the rumors did not matter much. But the fact that a great numbers of the fighting men strongly believed the rumors turned them into a deadly psychological weapon which very few or maybe none has ever properly treated in writings about the Vietnam War. Most authors studied the war at high echelons, but neglected the morale of the buck privates and the effect of the media in the Vietnam War. No military plan even by top strategists in the White House could succeed if half of the privates believed that they would be defeated before long. So why should they go on fighting? For years, I have been wondering how much the American public was uninformed about the Vietnam War. From "My War" (unpublished) by L.T. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The 18th Century thesis essay.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THESIS ESSAY The early nineteenth century was an era of tremendous growth and change for the new nation. This is a thesis statement that will be proven true in my essay. And why don't I begin with one of our greatest presidents, Thomas Jefferson. On March fourth, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was elected President of the United States of America. Thomas Jefferson was a Republican. Republicans strongly supported farmers, and they wanted an agrarian nation. An agrarian nation means some changes had to be made in the country. The country needed strong trade with other countries, and they also needed more land to farm on. This led to the Louisiana Purchase. The French owned a huge amount of land west of the United States. Inside all of this land was the mouth of the Mississippi River, New Orleans. Because the Republicans wanted a farming nation, America needed a port like New Orleans. Jefferson didn't think that Napoleon would sell all of this land, but he asked him anyway if he was willing to sell. To his surprise Napoleon did want to sell this land because he needed more money for his fight with Great Britain. So Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory, and doubled the nation's size. This purchase was a mastermind move by Jefferson that let the farming nation trade using the whole Mississippi. Another achievement of Thomas Jefferson was the exploration of the Louisiana Territory. He hired Lewis and Clark to explore the uncharted territory. He told them to search the land for a river passage to the Pacific Ocean. Jefferson also told them to keep diaries and make maps. This was Clark's task. In May, 1804, forty-four men set out on the expedition. The travelers tried to be friendly with the Indians on their way. When they reached North Dakota they hired the French trapper Toussaint Charbonneau, and his wife Sacajawea to be guides and interpreters. With them they traveled all the way to the Pacific Coast and back. Even though many people were disappointed upon their return that they had not found an all water route, Lewis and Clark were the first to map most of this land we call America. They also aroused an interest in the people to move westward in the growing nation. Let's go back a little bit to when Napoleon sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States. He needed money to fight in the war he was having with Great Britain. Since the United States had a small military, it did not want to be involved in the French-British War. America tried to stay neutral while trading with Europe, but France and Great Britain kept on violating their neutrality rights. The United States kept on trying to trade, but both sides put blockades on each others ports. This meant that the other countries took their ships. The British, however, not only took their ships, but they also impressed American sailors. During all of this mayhem President Madison came to power. Because of Britain's violations of America's sailors, he asked congress to declare war against Britain. Congress voted yes to the war. Afterwards, it was named the War of 1812. After two years of fighting, General Andrew Jackson came out victorious. A treaty was signed in Belgium, and the growing nation finally earned a little respect. They did this by changing the attitude of the Europeans towards them. Following the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828 and won. Jackson is said to be the first western president. President Jackson was odd in a the way he sided with states on some things and on other things he did not. He wanted to remove the Indians, get rid of the National Bank, and in 1828 he let a tariff pass that taxed imports. This angered Vice President Callhoon, and other people from South Carolina who said it was unfair. The consequence was that South Carolina nullified the tariff, Callhoon resigned, and South Carolina threatened to form their own government. Even though the Civil War wasn't until many years later, this was a sign of internal conflict that could threaten the growth of the country. Part of the reason that there was this internal conflict was that our nation was growing very rapidly, and each area of the country had huge differences. For example I will take political parties. The Republicans were farmers. They wanted a farming nation much like the South was. The Federalists were much different being from New England. They supported industry and manufacturing goods. An example of party differences is that of the Whisky Rebellion. In this the Federalists who were in power at the time past a law which put a twenty-five percent tax on whisky. This angered Republican farmers who turned their grain into whisky. A full scale revolt came out of this which threatened the ever-changing young country. Another difference was in the people themselves. Many Germans and Irish people immigrated to the United States. The Germans left their country because of their bad government, war, persecution, and because of unemployment. The Germans came to America looking for land, gold, opportunity, and adventure. About 1.5 million German immigrants came to America from 1820 to 1859. The Germans settled in the Midwest because most of them were skilled farmers with enough money to move there and buy land. The Irish, however, were a different story. They left their country for most of the same reasons as the Germans, but they also were having a food shortage because of the Potato Famine. They came to America looking for a new life. Their journey was terrible because they were poor and unskilled people. Many of them died on their way. The Irish mostly settled in the ports and worked for dirt cheap because they were poor. About 2 million Irish people came to the United States from 1820 to 1859. These different people helped change the new nation. The different people of the nation faced new hardships in their new country. The immigrants could be imprisoned or expelled from the country if the president thought the foreigner was dangerous. This was known as the Alien Act. Another act that disturbed the people was the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act restricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press which was unconstitutional. The Irish were the ones who really had hardships though. They had to settle right in the port in the town and because they had no money or skills, factories like Lowell Mills and other businesses took advantage of them, making them work for pennies. The Lowell Mill was a cotton factory. Mostly young women whose family needed money worked there, and that was about everybody. They worked 13 hours a day during the summer and from dawn until dusk in the winter. They had 30 to 45 minutes to eat until the bells rang, and they were rushed off. The mill was hot, loud, and very dangerous. In the boarding house six girls were in each room, and two girls had to share a bed. There was no privacy, and the girls had a miserable time. Even though it was almost like slavery it did help the American Economy grow. For all of these reasons the early nineteenth century was an era of tremendous growth and change for the new nation. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The 1960s.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1960's Many social changes that were addressed in the 1960s are still the issues being confronted today. the '60s was a decade of social and political upheaval. in spite of all the turmoil, there were some positive results: the civil rights revolution, john f. Kennedy's bold vision of a new frontier, and the breathtaking advances in space, helped bring about progress and prosperity. however, much was negative: student and anti-war protest movements, political assassinations, and ghetto riots excited american people and resulted in lack of respect for authority and the law. The decade began under the shadow of the cold war with the soviet union, which was aggravated by the u-2 incident, the berlin wall, and the cuban missile crisis, along with the space race with the ussr. The decade ended under the shadow of the viet nam war, which deeply divided americans and their allies and damaged the country's self-confidence and sense of purpose. Even if you weren't alive during the '60s, you know what they meant when they said, "tune in, turn on, drop out." you know why the nation celebrates Martin luther king, jr.'s birthday. all of the social issues are reflected in today's society: the civil rights movement, the student movement, space exploration, the sexual revolution, the environment, medicine and health, and fun and fashion. The Civil Rights Movement The momentum of the previous decade's civil rights gains led by rev. Martin luther king, jr. carried over into the 1960s. but for most blacks, the tangible results were minimal. only a minuscule percentage of black children actually attended integrated schools, and in the south, "jim crow" practices barred blacks from jobs and public places. New groups and goals were formed, new tactics devised, to push forward for full equality. as often as not, white resistance resulted in violence. this violence spilled across tv screens nationwide. the average, neutral american, after seeing his/her tv screen, turned into a civil rights supporter. Black unity and white support continued to grow. in 1962, with the first large-scale public protest against racial discrimination, rev. Martin luther king, jr. Gave a dramatic and inspirational speech in washington, d.c. After a long march of thousands to the capital. the possibility of riot and bloodshed was always there, but the marchers took that chance so that they could accept the responsibilities of first class citizens. "the negro," King said in this speech, "lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity and finds himself an exile in his own land." King continued stolidly: "it would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the negro. this sweltering summer of the negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality." when King came to the end of his prepared text, he swept right on into an exhibition of impromptu oratory that was catching, dramatic, and inspirational. "I have a dream," King cried out. the crowd began cheering, but king, never pausing, brought silence as he continued, "i have a dream that one day on the red hills of georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." "I have a dream," he went on, relentlessly shouting down the thunderous swell of applause, "that even the state of mississippi, a state sweltering with people's injustices, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. i have dream," cried King for the last time, "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Everyone agreed the march was a success and they wanted action now! but, now! remained a long way off. president kennedy was never able to mobilize sufficient support to pass a civil rights bill with teeth over the opposition of segregationist southern members of congress. but after his assassination, president johnson, drawing on the kennedy legacy and on the press coverage of civil rights marches and protests, succeeded where kennedy had failed. However, by the summer of 1964, the black revolution had created its own crisis of disappointed expectations. rioting by urban blacks was to be a feature of every "long, hot, summer" of the mid-1960s. In 1965, King and other black leaders wanted to push beyond social integration, now guaranteed under the previous year's civil rights law, to political rights, mainly southern blacks' rights to register and vote. king picked a tough alabama town to tackle: selma, where only 1% of eligible black voters were registered to vote. the violence, the march, the excitement all contributed to the passage of the second landmark civil rights act of the decade. even though there was horrendous violence, rev. king announced that as a "matter of conscience and in an attempt to arouse the deepest concern of the nation," he was "compelled" to lead another march from selma to montgomery, alabama. The four-day, 54-mile march started on the afternoon of sunday, march 21, 1965, with some 3500 marchers led by two nobel prizewinners, the rev. Martin luther king, jr. And ralph bunche, then u.n. Under secretary for special political affairs. in the march, whites, negroes, clergymen and beatniks, old and young, walked side by side. president johnson made sure they had plenty of protection this time with 1000 military police, 1900 federalized alabama national guardsmen, and platoons of u.s. Marshals and fbi men. When the marchers reached the capital of alabama, they were to have presented a petition to then governor george wallace protesting voting discrimination. however, when they arrived, the governor's aides came out and said, "the capital is closed today." About this same time, the term, "black power" was coming into use. it was meant to infer long-submerged racial pride in negroes. Martin luther king, jr. Specifically sought to rebut the evangelists of black power. "it is absolutely necessary for the negro to gain power, but the term black power is unfortunate, because it tends to give the impression of black nationalism. we must never seek power exclusively for the negro, but the sharing of power with white people," he said. Unfortunately, the thing that really moved the civil rights movement along significantly was the murder of rev. Martin luther king, jr. In late 1965. cruelty replaced harmony with nightmarish suddenness. rioting mobs in the negro suburb of watts, california, pillaged, burned and killed, while 500 policemen and 5000 national guardsmen struggled in vain to contain their fury. hour after hour, the toll mounted: 27 dead at the week's end, nearly 600 injured, 1700 arrested, and property damage well over $100 million. The good that came out of all of this, is that thousands of negroes were flocking to register in the nine counties in alabama, louisiana, and mississippi where the government posted federal examiners to uphold the voting law. in four days, 6,998 negro voters were added to the rolls in counties where there had previously been only 3,857. In that time of sorrow and guilt when King was murdered, there was an opening for peace between the races that might otherwise never have presented itself. president johnson pleaded, "i ask every citizen to reject the blind violence that has struck dr. King." he went on to say that to bring meaning to his death, we must be determined to strike forcefully at the consciences of all americans in order to wrest from tragedy and trauma, the will to make a better society. The Student Movement Americans who were young in the 1960s influenced the course of the decade as no group had before. the motto of the time was "don't trust anyone over 30." another, "tell it like it is," conveyed a real mistrust of what they considered adult deviousness. Youthful americans were outraged by the intolerance of their universities, racial inequality, social injustice, the viet nam war, and the economic and political constraints of everyday life and work. one group that formed during this time was s.d.s. (students for a democratic society). opposed to "imperialism," racism, and oppression, the s.d.s. found the american university guilty of all three. they did do some good at the beginning like organizing northern ghetto dwellers in projects such as chicago's jobs or income, now (join). but the viet nam war led to a change in their tactics. they became an independent radical force against society. the deluge of disorders made it harder and harder for most americans to keep events in perspective. they tended to forget that most of the nation's 6,700,000 collegians were studying hard at school and not causing trouble. an underlying pattern emerged in the american university. the university suddenly became a political arena. the students wanted to address the national problems of war, race, and poverty. as a result, the university lost some of its neutrality. students created a new u.s. institution: the political university. However, another element among youths was also emerging. They were called hippies. this movement marked another response to the decade as the young experimented with music, clothes, drugs, and a "counter-culture" lifestyle. in 1967, hippies preached altruism and mysticism, honesty, joy and nonviolence. they had a child-like fascination for beads, blossoms, and bells, strobe lights, ear-shattering music, exotic clothing and erotic slogans. they wanted to profess "flower power" and love. they were predominantly white, middle-class, educated youths, ranging in age from 17 to 25. Perhaps the most striking thing about the hippie phenomenon, is the way it touched the imagination of the "straight" society. hippie slang entered common usage and spiced american humor. boutiques sprang up in urban and suburban areas to sell the "psychedelic" color clothes and designs that resembled art nouveau. A major development in the hippie world was the "rural community," where nature-loving hippie "tribesmen" escaped the commercialism of the cities in an attempt to build a society outside of society. another development was the illicit use of drugs, creating the slogan, "tune in, turn on, drop out." "better living through chemistry" was another advertising slogan that was a sly joke to the young, but a real worry to their parents. Marijuana (pot, grass, mary jane, weed) was their favorite preparation. however, some were smoking hash, taking mescaline, peyote, lsd, barbiturates and sedatives. The list goes on and on. and it was only the beginning. Drug use was everywhere. rock musicians used drugs frequently and openly. their compositions were riddled with references to drugs, from the beatles' "i get high with a little help from my friends" to the jefferson airplane's "white rabbit." Space Exploration At the end of 1968, americans became the first human beings to reach the moon. seven months later, they were the first to actually walk on the moon. their telecast gave earthbound viewers an unforgettable view of the moon. Astronaut lovell reported, "the moon is essentially grey, no color. we can see quite a bit of detail. the craters are all rounded off." On christmas eve, the astronauts of apollo 8 (borman, lovell, and anders) gave their best description of the moon in a most impressive telecast. "this is apollo 8 coming to you live from the moon," reported borman, focusing his camera on the lunar surface. "the moon is a different thing to each of us," said borman. "my impression is that it's a vast, lonely, forbidding-type existence......it certainly would not be a very inviting place to live or work." Lovell agreed, but added, "the vast loneliness up here is awe-inspiring, and it makes you realize just what you have back there on earth." In apollo 11, the astronauts landed on the moon on july 25, 1969. astronaut neil armstrong called out the word everyone was waiting for......."houston," he called. "tranquility base here. the eagle has landed." all of america was on the edge of their seats. it was a very exciting time; cheers, tears and frantic applause went up around the nation. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," became the watchword when u.s. Astronaut armstrong said this as he placed his foot firmly on the fine-grained surface of the moon. after centuries of dreams and prophecies, the moment had come. man broke his terrestrial shackles and set foot on another world. the new view could help man place his problems, as well as his world, in a new perspective. The Sexual Revolution The medical introduction of the "pill" changed the interaction between the sexes dramatically in 1964. Americans discovered that the freedom from fear of unwanted pregnancy went hand in hand with other kinds of sexual freedom. it became an era in which morals were held to be both private and relative, in which pleasure was being considered almost like a constitutional right rather than a privilege, in which self-denial became increasingly seen as foolish rather than virtuous. The "pill" is a tablet that contains as little as one thirty-thousandth of an ounce of chemical. it used to cost 1 1/4 cents to manufacture and a month's supply sold for $2.00, retail. yet, in a mere six years, it changed and liberated the sex and family life of a large segment of the u.s. Population. did the convenient contraceptive promote promiscuity? are americans paying the price today for the decline in morals and values? The Environment A book written by rachel carson, silent spring, earned her a reputation not only as a competent marine biologist, but as a gifted writer. the villains in silent spring are chemical pesticides, against which miss carson took up her pen in alarm and anger. many readers were firmly convinced that most of the u.s. Was already laced with poison that would soon start taking a dreadful toll. the only way to fix the situation was to stop using chemical pesticides and let the "balance of nature" take care of the insects. Another "activist" of the day was lady bird johnson, president johnson's wife. she envisioned beautification all over america. she is generally credited with inspiring the highway beautification act of 1965. This is the decade when scientists were becoming more vocal about the ozone layer, pollution, and smoking cigarettes. americans became aware of the dangers they encountered everyday and would perhaps hand down to their children. the federal communications commission voted 6 to 1 to ban cigarette advertising on radio and tv. eventually, with congressional approval, cigarette packages had a new warning on them: "caution: cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health." Medicine and Health Mistakes made in the past caused great social and health problems to children around the world when it was discovered that using a tranquilizer called thalidomide caused severe birth defects. babies were born with hands and feet like flippers, attached close to the body with little or no arm or leg. as results of using thalidomide became apparent, every compound drug containing thalidomide was taken off the market. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Aboriginal People of Newfoundland.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Aboriginal People of Newfoundland The Beothuk people of Newfoundland were not the very first inhabitants of the island. Thousands of years before their arrival there existed an ancient race, named the Maritime Archaic Indians who lived on the shores of Newfoundland. (Red Ochre Indians, Marshall, 4.) Burial plots and polished stone tools are occasionally discovered near Beothuk remains. Some people speculate that, because of the proximity of the artifacts to the former lands of the Beothuk, the Maritime Archaic Indians and the Beothuk may have been related. It is not certain when the Beothuk arrived on the island. In fact little is actually known about the people, compared to what is known about other amerindian civilisations, only artifacts and stories told by elders tell the historians who these people really were. Some speculate that they travelled from "Labrador to Newfoundland across the strait of Belle Isle, which at one time was only 12 miles wide. By about 200 AD the Beothuk Indians were probably well settled into Newfoundland."(Red Ochre, 8) The Beothuk were not alone on Newfoundland wither. The Dorset Eskimos, who came from Cape Dorset regions of the north around 500 BC also shared the island. They presumably had contact with the Beothuk, exchanging tools or engaging in battle. In any case the Dorset Indians died out leaving Newfoundland empty to the control of the Beothuk people who now had no enemies and a wide vast territory. The Beothuk, although part of the Algonkian family developed their own language and culture. The 400 words that are still known from their language prove their Algonkian heritage. The development of their culture was a great success. The success of the Beothuk people as a whole was in part because of their skills in fishing, hunting and travel. They were the "only amerindian group to navigate on the high seas."(Grabowski lecture Oct 4,`96.) This was because of the construction of their canoes. Normally paddling on the high seas is dangerous, but Beothuk canoes were so designed to with stand high waves and stay accurately on course. The canoes "were made of a frame work of spruce and then covered with birch bark."(Red Ochre, 9) They curved high at the sides and a sharp bottom acted as a keel. The high sides protected as a barrier from wave swamping the boat. Because of hunting expeditions on the Funk islands, 60 kilometres from shore, ocean travel was evident and sea worthiness was essential. The knowledge of these canoes is only from documents produced by explorers and early settlers, all that is left of the original canoes are models of canoes found in burial sites. "The Beothuk were a migratory people..."(Red Ochre, 14) they moved with the seasons and with the hunt. In fall they hunted caribou inland, in spring seals on the coast, the summer months seafood and birds eggs were harvested. The fall hunt was the most important, as it would determine their success in surviving the winter months. The Beothuk followed the patterns of migration of the caribou and laid out large traps of fallen trees along the river banks. Trees would be left leaning against their stumps creating a triangle to the ground. The trees would be piled one over the next and so on and produced a "thicket that the caribou could not penetrate or jump over."(Red Ochre, 15.) Trapping the caribou in the water was the objective as " the animals could not move quickly in the water."(Red Ochre,15.) Indian people of North America have been called "red skins" for many years. This expression comes from the european settlers who arrived in Newfoundland and were met by the Beothuk. The Beothuk covered their entire bodies, clothing, and weapons with a "mixture of red ochre and oil."(Red Ochre, 4.)which protected them from the cold in winter and the mosquitoes and other bugs in summer. Other Algonkian tribes used it, although "not so lavishly as the Newfoundland indians."(Extinction, Rowe, 117) Some evidence shows that some juices were used "especially alder" to paint their bodies. "Sanku, a Micmac woman allegedly of part)Beothuk descent...(said that)... this painting of the body was done annually at special ceremonies which included the initiation of children born since the last ceremony. These body markings related to tribal identity and had religious significance."(Rowe, 118) Early European contact with the Beothuk began possibly with the arrival of the Vikings around 1000 AD. This can possibly be proven by the colour of the Beothuk's skin. Their complexion was light compared to that of the Micmac. Supposing that conflict arose between the Vikings and the Beothuk, it would be assumed that prisoners would be taken by the Beothuk. If these "prisoners included women or children, it would be unlikely that the Beothuk would put them to death."(Rowe, 118.) It is possible that assimilation of these prisoners into the community may have taken place. This might "explain why (John) Guy's observations showed that some of the Beothuks he encountered had yellow hair."(Rowe, 120.) In 1497, John Cabot arrived in Newfoundland and brought back the news about a new undescovered area in the north. Even before this, however, there was contact between the Europeans and the Beothuk. Fishermen from England, Spain, Portugal and Francehad been usign the land to set up dry)fisheries. Because the fishermen were primarily there only to fish, little documentation is available.After teh announcement to Britain had been proclaimed more and more fishermen arrived and began "using" the dry)fisheries already in place of teh Beothuk. Innitially relations had been friendly but as "using" turned into "stealing" the Beothuk bacame increasinglyenraged adn occationally mounted raids on European fishing camps. The fishermen accused the raiding parties of theft and because there was little missionary interest in the Beothuk, there was also little "law and order" in teh areas where Beothuk and European fishermen shared land. Desperatly, teh Beothuk fought back, and more fights ensued over fisheries equipment, but any "atttempt at disobedience (on the part of the Beothuk) resulted in strict punishment."(Grabowski, Oct.4) Bibliography Grabowski, Jan. Lecture His 2401, October 4, 1996. Email address: Howley, James Patrick. The Beothuks or Red Indians: The Aboriginal Inhabitants of Newfoundland. University of Cambridge Press., Cambridge, England. Marshall, Ingeborg. History and the Ethnography of the BeothukMcGill)Queens University Press.: 1996, Canada. Marshall, Ingeborg C.L.. Reports and Letters by George Christopher Pulling: Relating to the Beothuk Indians of Newfoundland Breakwater Books.: 1989, St.John's, Newfoundland. Marshall, Ingeborg. The red Ochre People: How Newfoundland'sBeothuk Indians Lived. J.J. Douglas Ltd.: 1977, Vancouver. Rowe, Frederick W.. EXTINCTION: The Beothuks of Newfoundland McGraw)Hill Ryerson Limited.: 1977, Toronto. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Airship.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE HISTORY OF THE AIRSHIP Airships. In the early years of War, these beasts were known for their majestic presence in the sky and were icons of a country's power and prestige. They reigned mostly as reconnaissance and transport utility aircraft but there was something about this "lighter-than-air" ship that made it far more than a mere utility workhorse. In this essay, I will discuss the ever-popular and ever-living king of the sky; the Airship. Airships, or dirigibles, were developed from the free balloon. Three classes of airships are recognized: the non-rigid, commonly called blimp, in which the form of the bag is maintained by pressure of the gas; the semi-rigid airship, in which, to maintain the form, gas pressure acts in conjunction with a longitudinal keel; and the rigid airship, or zeppelin, in which the form is determined by a rigid structure. Technically all three classes may be called dirigible (Latin dirigere, "to direct, to steer") balloons. Equipped with a bag containing a gas such as helium or hydrogen which is elongated or streamlined to enable easy passage through the air, these Airships could reach speeds up to 10mph with a 5hp steam engine propeller. The first successful airship was that of the French engineer and inventor Henri Giffard, who constructed in 1852 a cigar-shaped, non-rigid gas bag 44 m (143 ft) long, driven by a screw propeller rotated by a 2.2-kw (3-hp) steam engine. He flew over Paris at a speed of about 10 km/hr (about 6 mph). Giffard's airship could be steered only in calm or nearly calm weather. The first airship to demonstrate its ability to return to its starting place in a light wind was the La France, developed in 1884 by the French inventors Charles Renard and Arthur Krebs. It was driven by an electrically rotated propeller. The Brazilian aeronaut Alberto Santos-Dumont developed a series of 14 airships in France. In his No. 6, in 1901, he circled the Eiffel Tower. Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin, the German inventor, completed his first airship in 1900; this ship had a rigid frame and served as the prototype of many subsequent models. The first zeppelin airship consisted of a row of 17 gas cells individually covered in rubberized cloth; the whole was confined in a cylindrical framework covered with smooth-surfaced cotton cloth. It was about 128 m (about 420 ft) long and 12 m (38 ft) in diameter; the hydrogen-gas capacity totaled 1,129,842 liters (399,000 cu ft). The ship was steered by forward and aft rudders and was driven by two 11-kw (15-hp) Daimler internal-combustion engines, each rotating two propellers. Passengers, crew, and engine were carried in two aluminum gondolas suspended forward and aft. At its first trial, on July 2, 1900, the airship carried five persons; it attained an altitude of 396 m (1300 ft) and flew a distance of 6 km (3.75 mi) in 17 min. The first commercial means of regular passenger air travel was supplied by the zeppelin airships Deutschland in 1910 and Sachsen in 1913. At the beginning of World War I, 10 zeppelins were in service in Germany, and others were built for the military services. By 1918 the total number of zeppelins constructed was 67, of which 16 survived the war. Those not captured were surrendered to the Allies by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. At the outbreak of the war, France had a fleet of semi-rigid airships, developed by officers of the French army. The experience of the war, however, in disclosing the vulnerability of airships to airplane attack, caused the abandonment of the dirigible for offensive military purposes. Non-rigid airships became useful for aerial observation, coastal patrol, convoying, and locating enemy submarines and mines, because of their abilities to hover over a given location and to remain in the air for longer periods than the airplane. Toward the end of World War I, the British began intensive development of rigid airships, stimulated by the prospect that nonflammable helium gas would soon be available in quantities sufficient to inflate large ships. The R34, with a length of 196 m (643 ft) and a gas capacity of 56,067,355 liters (1,980,000 cu ft), was commissioned in 1919. It made the first transatlantic flight of an airship, flying by way of Newfoundland, Canada, from East Fortune, Scotland, to Mineola, New York, and returning to Pulham, England. The total flying time for the round trip was 183 hr and 15 min and the aggregate distance traveled about 11,200 km (about 7000 mi). In 1921 the R38, some 25 percent larger than the R34, was completed; both were wrecked that same year. The famous German-built Hindenburg had a length of 245 m (804 ft) and a gas capacity of 190,006,030 liters (6,710,000 cu ft). After making ten transatlantic crossings in regular commercial service in 1936, it was destroyed by fire in 1937 when it was landing at Lakehurst, New Jersey; 36 of its 92 passengers and crew were killed. Since the destruction of the Hindenburg, airship activity has been confined to the non-rigid type of craft. In 1938 all military blimps in the U.S. were placed under navy jurisdiction, with the Naval Air Station at Lakehurst as center of operations. During World War II, blimps were employed for patrol, scouting, convoy, and antisubmarine work. A private commercial firm in the U.S. developed several small, non-rigid airships that have been used to provide aerial television views of sports events, to take people on rides, and for advertising purposes. After World War II the U.S. Navy continued to develop the airship for such purposes as antisubmarine warfare, intermediate search missions, and early-warning missions. The largest of navy airships, the ZPG-2 type, was 99 m (324 ft) long and had a capacity of 24,777,240 liters (875,000 cu ft) of helium. An airship of this type stayed aloft without refueling for more than 200 hr. The navy discontinued the use of airships in 1961; however, during the later-1980s there was a renewal of military interest in airships, and both the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy began to study the feasibility of using airships for airborne early warning and electronic warfare as well as antisubmarine warfare. Some countries were also showing an equal interest in airships for civil aviation and advertising purposes. In present day, airships may be observed at any given football game as the "Goodyear Blimp" hovers high above the stadium and transfers live video feed to the viewers at home. In conclusion, ever since man has learned to fly, there have been airships. These seemingly harmless giants can pack an enormous punch now-a-days either with heavy weaponry (not common) or through data transfer and electronic warfare. These masters of the sky may always be valuable to the human race as they deliver an advantage that no other aircraft can deliver: a walk in the clouds with a giant chunk of world history. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Ancient Olympics.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Early Western Civilization A Gift of Peace from the Past, The Ancient Olympics Since 1896, the year the Olympics were resurrected from ancient history, the Olympics have been a symbol of the camaraderie and harmony possible on a global scale. The gathering of athletic representatives, the pride of the pack, from participating governments, even throughout the recent Cold War period, is proof that world unity is possible; just as it was in Ancient Greece with the polis or city-states. Olympic Games were held throughout Ancient Greece, but the most famous are the games that were held in Olympia in honor of Zeus every four years from August 6th to September 19th. The first record of these games is of one Coroebus of Elis, a cook, winning a sprint race in 776 BC. Most historians believe the games to have been going on for approximately 500 years before this. In the year Coroebus was made a part of history, there was apparently only one simple event, a race called the stade. The track was said to be one stade long or roughly 210 yards. In subsequent games, additional events were to be added, most likely to increase the challenge to these amazing athletes. In 724 BC, the diaulos, a two stade race, was added, followed by a long distance race, about 2 1/4 miles and called the dolichos, at the next games four years later. Wrestling and the famous Pentathlon were introduced in 708 BC. The Pentathlon consisted of five events; the long jump, javelin throw, discus throw, foot race, and wrestling. The Pentathlons, especially the successful ones, were often treated and even worshipped like gods. Because of their exquisite physiques, they were used as the models for statues of the Greek Gods. The superior athletic ability of these athletes affects the games even today. The twisting and throwing method of the discus throw, which originated in Ancient Greece, is still used today. The original events were even more challenging than those of today. The modern discus weighs in at just 5 pounds, one-third of the original weight, and the long jumps were done with the contestant carrying a five pound weight in each hand. The pit to be traversed in this jump allowed for a 50 foot jump, compared to just over 29 feet in our modern Olympics. Apparently, the carried weights, used correctly, could create momentum to carry the athlete further. Legend has it that one Olympian cleared the entire pit by approximately 5 feet, breaking both legs as he landed. One significant difference between the modern and ancient games; the original Olympians competed in the nude. Because of this, the 45,000 spectators consisted of men and unwed virgin women only. The only exception to this would be the priestess of Demeter who was also the only spectator honored with a seat. The young unwed women were allowed to watch to introduce them to men in all their splendor and brutality whereas it was felt that married women should not see what they could not have. In addition, the virgins had their own event which occurred on the men's religious day of rest. Called the Haria, in honor of Hara the wife of Zeus, the young women would race dressed in a short tunic which exposed the right breast. Traditionally, Spartan women dominated this event, being trained from birth for just this purpose. The religious undertones of the events became extremely apparent on the third day of the games when a herd of 100 cows were killed as a sacrifice to Zeus. In actuality, only the most useless parts were burned in honor of Zeus; most of the meat would be cooked and eaten that day. The sacrifices were conducted on a huge cone-shaped alter built up from the ashes of previously sacrificed animals. The mound was so large, the Greeks would cut steps into the cone after discovering it could be hardened by adding water and drying. Another ingenious invention was a system to prevent early starts in the foot races. It consisted of a bar in front of the runners to ensure they all start at the same time. This most likely was viewed as a blessing by the competitors, as previous to this, they would be beaten by the judges with rods for an early jump. This system led to the extravagant mechanisms used for starting the chariot races in 680 BC. Other introductions to the games were boxing in 688 BC, the pancratium, a no-holds barred form of wrestling, in 648 BC, and eventually some events for boys between 632 and 616 BC. The Olympics of old were entirely a man on man competition. No records were kept to be broken but a few amazing legends of the games have survived the test of time. Aegeus, for instance, was said to have completed his competition and then to run home to Argos, over 60 miles away, in one day. Milo, one of the most feared Olympians of Ancient Greece, was said to have carried a full grown bull to the arena, butchered it, and ate the entire animal in one day. Not surprisingly, he was said to have one many a wrestling match by the forfeiture of his opponent. He also walked away with six consecutive Olympic crowns. These legends, for all their blood, sweat, and tears, were awarded an olive branch from the tree behind the alter of Zeus when they won. Fortunately, the regions they represented were usually somewhat more grateful for bringing honor home. It was not uncommon for the victors to receive free food for life, money, or other valuable offers. They were often worshipped as gods and sometimes their sweat was preserved and sold as a magical potion. In the later years of the games, an additional event was added which signaled the end of the games and the return to the war ridden life of ancient history. Soldiers, adorned with a full body of armor weighing upwards of 50 pounds, would compete in a foot race. Unfortunately, even the apparent athletic ability of these soldiers could not prevent the fall of Greece to Rome in the middle of the second century BC. Under Roman rule, the Olympics began to lose its fervor until it was abolished in 393 AD by the Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I who most likely objected to the pagan rites associated with the Olympics. Some historians believe that even after the official abolishment of the Olympics, it may have survived for an additional 120 years. Its subsequent revival in 1896 was brought about by the discovery of the ancient stadium. Since that time, it has been held every four years, in accordance with tradition, being interrupted only for the two world wars. The competition of the nations in these events represents the age old competitive spirit of man. The need for people to take pride in something larger than themselves and feel as if they are part of a greater good. The Olympics, today as well as 3,000 years ago, offers a non-combative environment to do so. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Application of Science to Engineering.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4)The Application of Science to Engineering Improvements in engineering are very important to the industrialization and prosperity of a country. Although engineering improvements sometimes come through trial and error they are most often achieved by applying pure science and mathematics to engineering. Canadian engineering was improved a great deal in this manner. The engineering associated with building materials and long distance communication, two of Canada's most important industries, was improved through the application of pure science. One of the most important scientific discoveries of all time was the law of electromagnetic induction discovered by an englishman, Micheal Faraday, in 1831. This discovery was applied to mechanical generation of electricity which made tremendous improvements to communications throughout Canada. The electric telegraph, first discovered in 1837 by Samuel Morse, was a great improvement over the mechanical telegraph which required the use of a telescope and was much less effective. It encodes messages electrically, transmits them over facilities such as copper wire, coaxial cable, and fibre optics to their destination where they are decoded into their original form. Combinations of long and short bursts of electric current are sent through a circuit thereby encoding each letter of the alphabet. More efficient transmission facilities were developed as the mining industry developed. The discovery of electricity sped up the development of mining through electric lighting and better machinery and ventilation, which led to better materials for wires and cables. Telegraph lines were set up along the CPR in 1885 as a convenient root, but also to relay information about the position of each train along the track to avoid collisions. The telegraph was also the main source of information for newspapers. Like the telegraph, the telephone wouldn't have been possible without the discovery of electricity. The telephone was discovered by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876 and is much more advanced than the telegraph. It encodes variations in sound waves into variations of electric waves through vibrations of a diaphragm which are then transmitted. Electromagnets are used to send these vibrations through a cable, which are received on the other end by another diaphragm. For it's first few years the telephone was for public use only ( for calling fire stations, doctors...). A central exchange system was then set up and wealthy people began to gain access. The telephone quickly became essential in unifying and further developing the country. In the construction industry there were several huge advances in the technology of building materials. Two related materials with similar methods of production are cement and bricks. Cement production in Canada began in 1889 in Hull, Quebec. Portland cement was the principle type and consisted of lime, silica alumina and iron. This type of cement and others were produced using rotary kilns. Through chemical studies it was discovered that the kilns had to be heated up to temperatures of 1400 to 1650 degrees Celsius in order to cure the cement properly. To heat the kilns to these high temperatures new materials had to be developed to insulate them. It became possible to manufacture cement strong and durable enough for manufacturing. Sand, gravel and crushed rock were added to the cement to produce concrete. Concrete became crutiel in the construction of such things as the foundations of buildings, roads, bridges, dams, irrigation, and sewage systems. Near the same time as the development of cement was the introduction to brick manufacturing to Canada. Through chemical studies, clays were found to be good materials for making building blocks. Scientists discovered the proper temperatures to subject the clays to in order to get a uniform and durable brick. Different kilns, such as the downdraft and tunnel kilns were experimented with in order to achieve the appropriate temperatures and air circulation to produce these bricks. At this time brick manufacturing became extremely important in the construction of buildings. Bricks were used not only as a vencer but also to support the whole load of the building. The most important discovery for the construction industry in period two was that of steel.. The first process to manufacture steel was invented by a man named Sir Henry Bessemer in 1856. He created the Bessemer converter which was a pivoting container lined with silica clay or dolomite. Iron was smelted in the furnace and carbon and limestone added to the alloy iron. During early stages of steel production air was blown into the furnace as a carbon source. Latter coke was burned in the furnaces and some of the carbon reacted with the iron. Many other people have contributed to the process of steel production since Bessemer, among these people was Thomas Basic. In 1877 he designed a brick lined converter that could attain the temperatures needed to produce better steel. He also used limestone to absorb unwanted phosphorus and other impurities because of it's basic nature. Up until Hamilton began to produce steel in 1890, Canada imported all that they needed. Steel was found to be strong, durable and resistant against corrosion and therefore had many uses to the worlds industrializing nations. Therefore it had many uses and it influenced technological growth profoundly. It also had a huge impact on the mining and the transportation industries It doesn't really matter that many of the scientific discoveries applied to Canadian engineering did not occur in Canada. What really matters is that Canadian engineering was greatly improved through the application of scientific knowledge. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Aztec Empire History.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Aztec Empire History The center of the Aztec civilization was the Valley of Mexico, a huge, oval basin about 7,500 feet above sea level. The Aztecs were formed after the Toltec civilization occurred when hundreds of civilians came towards Lake Texcoco. In the swamplands there was only one piece of land to farm on and it was totally surrounded by more marshes. The Aztec families somehow converted these disadvantages to a mighty empire known as the Aztec Empire. People say the empire was partially formed by a deeply believed legend. As the legend went, it said that Aztec people would create an empire in a swampy place where they would see an eagle eating a snake, while perched on a cactus, which was growing out of a rock in the swamplands. This is what priests claimed they saw when entering the new land. By the year 1325 their capital city was finished. They called it Tenochtitlan. In the capital city, aqueducts were constructed, bridges were built, and chinapas were made. Chinapas were little islands formed by pilled up mud. On these chinapas Aztecs grew their food. The Aztec Empire included many cities and towns, especially in the Valley of Mexico. The early settlers built log rafts, then covered them with mud and planted seeds to create roots and develop more solid land for building homes in this marshy land. Canals were also cut out through the marsh so that a typical Aztec home had its back to a canal with a canoe tied at the door. In the early 1400s, Tenochtitlan joined with Texcoco and Tlacopan, two other major cities in the Valley of Mexico. Tenochtitlan became the most powerful member of the alliance. Montezuma I ruled from 1440 to 1469 and conquered large areas to the east and to the south. Montezuma's successors expanded the empire until it extended between what is now Guatemala and the Mexican State of San Luis Potosi. Montezuma II became emperor in 1502 when the Aztec Empire was at the height of its power. In 1519, the Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes landed on the East Coast of Mexico and marched inland to Tenochtitlan. The Spaniards were joined by many of the Indians who were conquered and forced to pay high taxes to the emperor. Montezuma did not oppose Cortes because he thought that he was the God Quetzalcoatl. An Aztec legend said that Quetzalcoatl was driven away by another rival god and had sailed across the sea and would return some day. His return was predicted to come in the year Ce Acatl on the Aztec Calendar. This corresponded to the year 1519. Due to this prediction, Montezuma II thought Quetzalcoatl had returned when Cortes and his troops invaded. He did not resist and was taken prisoner by Cortes and his troops. In 1520, the Aztecs rebelled and drove the Spaniards from Tenochtitlan, but Montezuma II was killed in the battle. Cortes reorganized his troops and resurged into the city. Montezuma's successor, Cuauhtemoc, surrendered in August of 1520. The Spaniards, being strong Christians, felt it was their duty to wipe out the temples and all other traces of the Aztec religion. They destroyed Tenochtitlan and built Mexico City on the ruins. However, archaeologists have excavated a few sites and have uncovered many remnants of this society. Language: The Aztec spoke a language called Nahuatl (pronounced NAH waht l). It belongs to a large group of Indian languages, which also include the languages spoken by the Comanche, Pima, Shoshone and other tribes of western North America. The Aztec used pictographs to communicate through writing. Some of the pictures symbolized ideas and others represented the sounds of the syllables. Food: The principal food of the Aztec was a thin cornmeal pancake called a tlaxcalli. (In Spanish, it is called a tortilla.) They used the tlaxcallis to scoop up foods while they ate or they wrapped the foods in the tlaxcalli to form what is now known as a taco. They hunted for most of the meat in their diet and the chief game animals were deer, rabbits, ducks and geese. The only animals they raised for meat were turkeys, rabbits, and dogs. Arts and Crafts: The Aztec sculptures, which adorned their temples and other buildings, were among the most elaborate in all of the Americas. Their purpose was to please the gods and they attempted to do that in everything they did. Many of the sculptures reflected their perception of their gods and how they interacted in their lives. The most famous surviving Aztec sculpture is the large circular Calendar Stone, which represents the Aztec universe. Religion: Religion was extremely important in Aztec life. They worshipped hundreds of gods and goddesses, each of whom ruled one or more human activities or aspects of nature. The people had many agricultural gods because their culture was based heavily on farming. The Aztecs made many sacrifices to their gods. When victims reached the altar they were stretched across a sacrificial stone. A priest with an obsidian knife cut open the victim's chest and tore out his heart. The heart was placed in a bowl called a chacmool. This heart was used as an offer to the gods. If they were in dire need, a warrior would be sacrificed, but for any other sacrifice a normal person would be deemed sufficient. It was a great honor to be chosen for a sacrifice to the gods. The Aztec held many religious ceremonies to ensure good crops by winning the favor of the gods and then to thank them for the harvest. Every 52 years, the Aztec held a great celebration called the Binding up of the Years. Prior to the celebration, the people would let their hearth fires go out and then re-light them from the new fire of the celebration and feast. A partial list of the Aztec gods: CENTEOTL, The corn god. COATLICUE, She of the Serpent Skirt. EHECATL, The god of wind. HUEHUETEOTL, The fire god. HUITZILOPOCHTLI, The war/sun god and special guardian of Tenochtitlan. MICTLANTECUHTLE, The god of the dead. OMETECUHLTI and his wife OMECIHUATL, They created all life in the world. QUETZALCOATL, The god of civilization and learning. TEZCATLIPOCA, The god of Night and Sorcery. TLALOC, The rain god. TONATIUH, The sun god. TONANTZIN, The honored grandmother. XILONEN, "Young maize ear," Maize represents a chief staple of the Aztecs. XIPE TOTEC, The god of springtime and re-growth. Aztec dances: The Aztec Dance is known for its special way of expressing reverence and prayer to the supernatural gods of the sun, earth, sky, and water. Originally, the resources accessible to the native Indians were limited, yet they were able to create lively music with the howling of the sea conch, and with rhythms produced by drums and by dried seeds which were usually tied to the feet of the dancers. Summary: Overall, I feel that the Aztec civilization was very advanced. It had a very complex structure in which there were lower class, middle class and upper class peoples. They had a good system of transportation and irrigation through the use of canals. They had a strong warfare system, which was seen by their conquering of many lands. They also had their own language, and their own mathematical system. Their scholars were also very intelligent, they had developed their own system of time measurement and a calendar system that was very accurate. Word Count: 1232 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\THE BLACK DEATHS INFLUENCE ON MEDIEVAL SOCIETY.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE BLACK DEATHS INFLUENCE ON MEDIEVAL SOCIETY The Black Death, also known as the Black Plague, or the Bubonic Plague killed one third of the population of Europe during its reign in the 13th and 14th centuries. The arrival of this plague set the scene for years of strife and heroism. Leaving the social and economic aspect in a standstill. The phantom of death became a subject of art, music and folklore and it influenced the consciousness of the people. The impact of this mass killer caused enormous chaos and havoc to the Medieval society because of its unknown origin, the unknown causes and preventions, its deathly symptoms and its breakdown of orderly life, therefore religion was greatly affected and changed. In 1347, a Tartar army under Kipchak khan Janibeg had been besieging the Genoese cathedral city and trading ports of Caffa on the Black Sea for a year. A deadly, ruthless plague hit the besieging army and was killing off soldiers at an unstoppable rate. It was plain to Janibeg Khan that he must call off the siege. But before he decided to retreat, he wanted to give the defenders a taste of what his army was suffering. So Janibeg used giant catapults to hurl the rotting corpses of the plagued victims over the walls of the town. By this means the infection spread among the Genoese defenders. Before long the Genoese were dying from the plague as fast as the Tartars on the outside. A few who thought themselves free of plague took to their ships and headed for the Mediterranean. The deathly disease was unleashed at every port the ship and its crew set foot on. The trading routes contributed to the spread of the disease throughout the continent. In October of 1347, several Italian merchant ships returned from a trip to the Black Sea. These ships carried a cargo of flea infested rats, which had guts full of the bacillus Yersinia pestis (the bacteria which causes the plague). Inspectors attempted to quarantine the fleet, but it was too late. Realizing what a deadly disaster had come to them, the people quickly drove the Italians from their city. But the disease remained, and soon death was everywhere. Fathers abandoned their sick sons. Lawyers refused to come and make out wills for the dying. Friars and nuns were left to care for the sick, and monasteries and convents were soon deserted, as they were stricken, too. Bodies were left in empty houses, and there was no one to give them a Christian burial. The terror of this seemingly unstoppable march of death was the unknown nature of its origin. The absence of an identifiable earthly cause gave the plague supernatural and sinister quality. The plague had stunned Europe and everywhere people were desperate for explanations and answers to their many questions. Most explanations were based on folklore, superstition, and rumor. Blame was frequently placed on travelers and other suspicious outsiders. Some blamed invisible particles carried in the wind, others talked of poisoned wells. An earthquake, which had a carved a path of wreckage from Naples to Venice in the summer of 1347, was blamed for releasing gases into the air which poisoned all on whom they fell. The scholars of the University of Paris stated that the Black Death resulted from a triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in the 40th degree of Aquarius, occurring on the 20th of March 1345' but added they didn't know how. Others blamed Jews for poisoning wells which inspired more than 350 massacres across Germany and Switzerland. Many Jews who escaped fled to Poland. Also, hysterical charges of sorcery and witchcraft were brought against eccentric or unpopular people. The violence against outsiders demonstrated, in a tragically negative manner, the nature and the limits of citizenship in Europe. This was a society which defined itself as Christians and recurrent plague changed religious practice, if no belief. Ordinary folk had their own theory about the plague: It was plainly God's punishment for man's wickedness. Bands of hooded men, wearing robes marked front and back with a red cross also believed in this theory and that by scourging themselves they can show mankind's repentance. They traveled in parties of 50 to 500, led by a layman. Moving from town to town, singing hymns and sobbing, the men beat themselves with scourges studded with iron spikes. The ritual was performed twice a day in public. The masses worshiped the flagellants, as they were known, as living martyrs. Religious donations soared, pilgrimages swelled. A million Christians trudged to Rome in 1350, a holy year by decree of Clement VI. The pope himself remained at Avignon, sitting between two fires in his private chamber, even in the summer, and rubbing an emerald ring, practices recommended to him to ward off the plague. Many peasants and uneducated folk believed the cause of the plague was a beautiful but an evil witch called the "plague maiden." It was said that when she passed by a house she could infect those inside simply by waving a red scarf through an open window. People seeking tips on avoiding infection were counseled to eat lots of figs and filberts before breakfast or not to sleep on their backs, and less pestilential air ran down their nostrils into the lungs. The plague occurred from the bite of an infected flea or by a scratch or bite while handling animals. Also it could be contracted from breathing in airborne droplets from people who already had the infection in their lungs. The first symptoms of the bubonic plague often appear within several days: headache and a general feeling of weakness, followed by aches and chills in the upper leg and groin, a white coating on the tongue, rapid pulse, slurred speech, confusion, fatigue, apathy and staggering gait. A blackish pustule usually would form at the point of the fleabite. By the third day, the lymph node begins to swell. Because the bite is commonly in the leg, the lymph nodes in the leg swell, which is how the disease got its name. The Greek word for "groin' is bubon, thus the name. The swelling then becomes tender, and perhaps as large as an egg. The heart begins to flutter rapidly as it tries to pump blood through swollen, suffocating tissues. Subcutaneous hemorrhaging occurs, causing purplish blotches on the skin. The victim's nervous system began to collapse, causing dreadful pain and bizarre neurological disorders. By the fourth day, wild anxiety and terror overtake the sufferer and then the sense of resignation, as the skin blackens and the rictus of death settles on the body. During all this confusion the church's leadership in the lives of people weakened. Before the arrival of the Black Death the church was seen as one of the wealthiest and most powerful landlords in all of Europe. Unsurprisingly, monasteries, converts, prisons, and other closed communities were doomed when plague was introduced to them. The Convents of Carcassonne and Marseille lost everyone. At Montpelier 133 Dominican Friars died out of 140. When the plague subsided, many towns were left without a priest. Those priests who had not fled but ministered to the dying during the plague were constantly exposed to the disease; many died. Consequently, new priests were often ordained without adequate training, and frequently the selection of priestly candidates was hasty and ill-advised, thus reducing the esteem people had for the church. Everywhere the Church was forced to resort to extraordinary ends to assure at least the semblance of the sacraments for the dying. Bishops in England, faced with a loss of priests to minister the sacraments gave permission to laymen to make confession t each other. Without the guidance and support which the church was recognized saints as models of the godly life and as mediators before God. A whole new series of "plague saints" came into existence along with new religious brotherhoods and shrines dedicated to protecting the population from the plague. With the start of the plague Europeans looked desperately for help to answer their many questions, on why God would allow such a thing to occur. People throughout Christendom had prayed devoutly for deliverance form the plague and when their prayers weren't answered they began to change their methods of administering the traditions which were attached to the church. They were left alone to live life without the powerful God which left awe and fear in all, during a very difficult era. Religion affected every aspect of everyday life and without it a new period of philosophical questioning lay ahead. Word Count: 1426 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Blackfoot Indians.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Blackfoot Indians The wind blows across the lone prairie, causing the golden heads of grass to sway in a synchronized motion. On the horizon stands a herd of buffalo with bowed heads silhouetted by the slowly sinking sun. In the east stands an Indian war party mounted on horseback, each individual in different multicolored attire, all with either bows or spears in hand. As they move in for the attack, the mystical scene slowly fades from vision.... This dreamlike scene was once everyday life to the American Indian before they were robbed of all that made their life real. The Indians originally came over to North America via the Bering Strait at a time when the ice age caused the gap to freeze over. They came from Asia by following herds and in search of more. During their travels, some decided to stop and settle down, hence the many different tribes. The Blackfoot occupied the region of modern day Alberta in Canada, and Montana in the U.S. The Blackfoot consisted of three main tribes: the Northern Blackfoot(Siksika), the Piegan(Pikuni), and the Blood(Kainah). The tribes differed little in their speech, but were politically independent. Blackfoot population varied, but was less affected by the arrival of the white man than some tribes due to their location. "In 1855, there were approximately 2,400 Northern Blackfoot, 2,000 Blood, and 3,200 Piegan. The total population of Blackfoot varied as follows: 15,000(1780), 9,000(1801), 7,600(1855), and 4,600(1932)" ( ). The decline of population was most likely due to the white man's diseases and the annihilation of the buffalo. In 1781, the Blackfoot had their first serious attack of smallpox. An epidemic of smallpox again occurred in 1838, 1845 1857, and 1864. In the winter of 1864, the tribe was struck with measles and about 780 died. In the winter of 1883 to 1884, more than 1/4 the Piegan population died of starvation (600). This was mainly the result of official stupidity and the disappearance of the buffalo. The Blackfoot were typically large-game hunters and were mainly dependant on the buffalo for their diet, clothing, and receptacles. They also hunted such animals as the elk, deer, and antelope. There were four main methods of hunting, one of which was the "surround". This method required the use of horses and was done by surrounding the herd, after which they were shot down. Another method was accomplished by driving the game down a cliff, in which the fall would injure the animal enough to hinder their escape. A third method used was impounding, which resembled modern day cow herding. The hunting party would build fences into which they would herd the animals. Yet another method was to encircle the herd with fire. The hunters would leave an opening at which they would wait since it was the animals' only escape. In times of need, the Blackfoot would catch fish by using crude basketry traps. They also made use of the wild plants, including berries, chokecherries, wild turnips, and many others. The wild turnip was dug up in large amounts in early summer and was peeled and dried for winter use. Maize, beans, squashes or pumpkins, and sunflowers were the principal crops grown. Most of the cultivation of agriculture was done by women. The Blackfoot, as all Indians, grew and used tobacco mainly for ceremonies and other solemn occasions. The seeds were inserted in early spring in separate fenced gardens, about 21 X 18 ft. In mid-June, the blossoms were picked and dried indoors. The blossom was more prized than the stem or leaves, which were picked just before the frosts came. The stems provided the greater part of the smoking tobacco. Both crops were oiled with buffalo fat before being stored in a pouch for future use. Seeds were set out for the following year without selection. The cultivating of the tobacco plant was done by old men, and women assisted them. Men were the main smokers of tobacco, but some women smoked it in small pipes. Being a superstitious people, some Blackfoot would not smoke while an old pair of moccasins were hanging up; others put the pipe on a slice of buffalo tongue before use. The peace pipe was always passed by the host to his vis-a-vis(left-handed neighbor), who puffed it several times and passed it on to his left. This left pass routine was continued until the end of the line was reached, at which time the end man either returned the pipe to the host or sent it back toward the right. No one would take a puff until the pipe was returned to the host, who smoked it and sent it around again. The Blackfoot were a nomadic tribe that lived throughout the year in tepees and had seasonal migrations. the tepee was originally covered with buffalo skins, but later they were covered with canvas due to the lack of buffalos. Women were considered the owner of the tepee and were in charge of it's care and maintenance. Blackfoot tepees consisted of four poles and among the Indians were the most elegant in shape and painted decoration. The Blackfoot tepee had a broad band of dark color painted around the base to represent earth, and on this a series of circles, or dusty stars. They had seasonal grouping of the tepees in a large circle. The fireplace was made in the center of the tepee, with an outlet for smoke at the top. The tent cover had flaps to which two poles were attached outside the general framework to form a closable doorway. The entrance to the tepee faced east with the place of honor in the rear. Ceremonial objects were kept in the rear also, along with the bedding, backrests, rawhide containers, and utensils such as wooden dishes, horn spoons, weapons, and implements. When the tribe traveled, the tepee was collapsed and carried on a horse. However, before the introduction of the horse, the tepee was probably smaller with lighter poles, and covered with bark or mats. Among the Blackfoot Indians, the hair was considered the "seat of the soul". Warriors combed a narrow lock of hair over the bridge of the nose, cutting it square. The Blackfoot were responsible for some of the most impressive costume on the Plains. They frequently used ermine in their clothing and decorated their war costumes with paint, beads, etc. These costumes were considered to have spiritual powers, and hence were rarely worn. However, such costumes were worn at certain special events as the "war parade", which was held to impress guests. The people formed lines or circles while featuring headdresses, shields, lances, painted ponies, and ermine fringes on clothing. They also wore animal skins from the animal they had the powers of as a symbol of a transfer of power. During moves, these "uniforms" were stored in containers that were proudly carried by the warriors' wives. For everyday attire, the men in warm weather wore a breechcloth and moccasins. In cold weather, men wore deerskin shirts, long skin leggings, and a buffalo robe. The women's attire in warm weather consisted of dresses made of deer or sheepskin. The length was below the knee and it was held on the shoulders by straps. In cold weather, sleeves could be added by tying skin cords at the back of the neck and moccasins, leggings, and buffalo robes were also worn. Men's leggings were above the knee while woman's were below. The Blackfoot Indians had fur-lined moccasins and fur caps with ear flaps. They also painted their bodies with bear grease to keep warm in the frigid temperatures. Myths and stories were an Indians only form of history teaching since it wasn't recorded in books, and therefore was vital to keep the past and it's mistakes alive. The myths and stories were about such things as the beginning of time, the sun, moon, and stars, the formation of the earth, powers of the animals, the wind, the clouds, and thunder and lightening. Stories were usually told around a campfire with many people both to tell the stories and listen to them. The stories always followed the same formal order, but each time they had a different emphasis. Each speaker had their own favorite introductions and narrative style that made each story unique. Children were encouraged to follow the stories' moral values, and each story taught a lesson to make one a better person. An example of the way a typical story went can be seen through the Blackfoot "Creation" story: In the beginning, Napi(Old Man) created everything: the earth, moon, animals, and people. From the east he journeyed to the west, spreading mud before him to form the earth and making this large so that there should be plenty of room. He went to the south and, touching northwards, made the birds and animals, all of which could understand him; he also made the prairies, mountains, rivers, and valleys, and put trees in the ground. So that the animals should have something to eat, he covered the prairies with grass; then he marked off a section in which he caused the various roots and berries to grow: the camass, bitter-root, sweet-root, sarvis berry, and so on. In certain places he put red paint in the ground. Since the Blackfoot were a nomadic tribe, transportation techniques were very important in their lives. Before the arrival of the horse, domesticated dogs were used to carry belongings. The dogs consisted of two different varieties: a large wolf-like, and a smaller coyote-like. Some tribes used the dog as a food source, but the Blackfoot did not. The dogs carried loads on their back or were trained to draw a "travois". The travois was formed by two long poles whose front tips converged for attachment to the dogs' shoulders. Midway down the poles, a frame was attached that was either in ladder form or a heap with netting and thongs. To this a 60 or more pound load was attached. The travois was also used to carry firewood; relieving the woman of this job. Dogs were named according to its appearance or deeds done by its master, such as Red-spot, Feather-lance-carrier, and Took-away-his-shield. The Blackfoot also trained their dogs for bear baiting and flushing smaller animals out of hiding. The horse was introduced by the Spanish after 1730. The Indians quickly adapted their travoises for horse use and made riding gear that mimicked that of the Spanish. Saddles were high- pommeled and reserved for women, while men used either a pad saddle or frame of elkhorn tree and cantle with wooden side bars. Stirrups were made of wood and were bound with rawhide. Horses were used as a form of money and determined one's status and wealth. Not only did a horse represent a better form of transportation, but also more prosperous buffalo hunts, and improved military position. To transport babies, the Blackfoot used a cradleboard. While on horse, the mother would sling the cradle from the saddle. The Blackfoot's cradleboard design was U-shaped at the top and tapered toward the bottom. To cross rivers, they would only use crude temporary hide rafts to ferry across a deep stream. It was towed by able-bodied men and woman, usually by swimming out and holding the tow lines with their teeth. Marriages were usually arranged with a go-between, but the couple was allowed to fall in love before they got married. A lover would convey a message to his beloved by playing a tune on his flute, with each tune meaning something different. The young men were shy and would wait near a stream hoping for a glance when the girls came to fill their bags. As a sign of acceptance of union, a girl would stand outside her familiy's tepee with a big blanket, and when her lover came, she would cover them both and they would talk about plans for the future. If a young man was in love with a certain girl, he would often prod his parents to take further steps. A young girl, on the other hand, had to be dutiful and accept her parents choice without complaint. Girls married young and looked forward to becoming mothers. It was custom for the bridegroom to give a gift of horses to the girl's family; not as a bride price, but as proof of his wealth and ability to take care of their daughter. Marriages were simple and men usually had two to three wives. This was in part because of the shortage of men due to warfare. The family unit was very close and consisted of an extended family. They camped together in several tepees that included grandparents, great-grandparents, unmarried brothers and sisters, parents, and children. It was the man's duty to supply meat and protection, while the woman was responsible for the household and moving. Women walked a few paces behind the men when in public, but ruled the tepee and wielded behind-the-scenes influence in major tribal decisions. Marriage was considered a permanent union between families instead of individuals. This is only a summary of the civilization once known as the Blackfoot. The tribe, its customs, and its child-like purity can never be brought back. They no longer exist. However they can be remembered and a lesson can be learned. It's amazing that the majority of American citizens have some form of Indian blood flowing through their veins, yet know nothing of this lost heritage beyond what those John Wayne and Gene Autry western shows taught them as children. We as Americans should learn from the mistakes that this country was founded on. People cannot leap into a situation without thinking about the results first else disaster will follow. In this case, human mistakes caused the annihilation of a race of people, along with its customs, traditions, and human rights. Even though we think we are the most knowledgable people, we could have learned much from the American Indian. Maybe we could have learned how to freely love other people and accept them regardless of their strange ways. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Causes of the Showa Restoration.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Restore the Emperor Expel the Barbarians": The Causes of the Showa Restoration Sonno joi, "Restore the Emperor and expel the Barbarians," was the battle cry that ushered in the Showa Restoration in Japan during the 1930's.Footnote1 The Showa Restoration was a combination of Japanese nationalism, Japanese expansionism, and Japanese militarism all carried out in the name of the Showa Emperor, Hirohito. Unlike the Meiji Restoration, the Showa Restoration was not a resurrection of the Emperor's powerFootnote2, instead it was aimed at restoring Japan's prestige. During the 1920's, Japan appeared to be developing a democratic and peaceful government. It had a quasi-democratic governmental body, the Diet,Footnote3 and voting rights were extended to all male citizens.Footnote4 Yet, underneath this seemingly placid surface, lurked momentous problems that lead to the Showa Restoration. The transition that Japan made from its parliamentary government of the 1920's to the Showa Restoration and military dictatorship of the late 1930s was not a sudden transformation. Liberal forces were not toppled by a coup overnight. Instead, it was gradual, feed by a complex combination of internal and external factors. The history that links the constitutional settlement of 1889 to the Showa Restoration in the 1930s is not an easy story to relate. The transformation in Japan's governmental structure involved; the historical period between 1868 and 1912 that preceded the Showa Restoration. This period of democratic reforms was an underlying cause of the militarist reaction that lead to the Showa Restoration. The transformation was also feed by several immediate causes; such as, the downturn in the global economy in 1929Footnote5 and the invasion of Manchuria in 1931.Footnote6 It was the convergence of these external, internal, underlying and immediate causes that lead to the military dictatorship in the 1930's. The historical period before the Showa Restoration, 1868-1912, shaped the political climate in which Japan could transform itself from a democracy to a militaristic state. This period is known as the Meiji Restoration.Footnote7 The Meiji Restoration of 1868 completely dismantled the Tokugawa political order and replaced it with a centralized system of government headed by the Emperor who served as a figure head.Footnote8 However, the Emperor instead of being a source of power for the Meiji Government, became its undoing. The Emperor was placed in the mystic position of demi-god by the leaders of the Meiji Restoration. Parliamentarians justified the new quasi-democratic government of Japan, as being the "Emperor's Will." The ultra-nationalist and militaristic groups took advantage of the Emperor's status and claimed to speak for the Emperor.Footnote9 These then groups turned the tables on the parliamentarians by claiming that they, not the civil government, represented the "Imperial Will." The parliamentarians, confronted with this perversion of their own policy, failed to unite against the militarists and nationalists. Instead, the parliamentarians compromised with the nationalists and militarists groups and the general populace took the nationalists' claims of devotion to the Emperor at face value, further bolstering the popularity of the nationalists.Footnote10 The theory of "Imperial Will" in Japan's quasi-democratic government became an underlying flaw in the government's democratic composition. It was also during the Meiji Restoration that the Japanese economy began to build up its industrial base. It retooled, basing itself on the western model. The Japanese government sent out investigators to learn the ways of European and American industries.Footnote11 In 1889, the Japanese government adopted a constitution based on the British and German models of parliamentary democracy. During this same period, railroads were constructed, a banking system was started and the samurai system was disbanded.Footnote12 Indeed, it seemed as if Japan had successfully made the transition to a western style industrialized state. Almost every other non-western state failed to make this leap forward from pre-industrial nation to industrialized power. For example, China failed to make this leap. It collapsed during the 1840s and the European powers followed by Japan, sought to control China by expropriating its raw materials and exploiting its markets. By 1889, when the Japanese ConstitutionFootnote13 was adopted, Japan, with a few minor setbacks, had been able to make the transition to a world power through its expansion of colonial holdings.Footnote14 During the first World War, Japan's economy and colonial holdings continued to expand as the western powers were forced to focus on the war raging in Europe. During the period 1912-1926, the government continued on its democratic course. In 1925, Japan extended voting rights to all men and the growth of the merchant class continued.Footnote15 But these democratic trends, hid the fact that it was only the urban elite's who were benefiting from the growing industrialization. The peasants, who outnumbered the urban population were touched little by the momentous changes this lead to discontent in a majority of the populace. During the winter of 1921-1922, the Japanese government participated in a conference in Washington to limit the naval arms race. The Washington Conference successfully produced an agreement, the Five Power Treaty. Part of the Treaty established a ratio of British, American, Japanese, Italian, and French ships to the ratio respectively of 5:5:3:1.75:1.75.Footnote16 Other parts of the Five Power Treaty forced other naval powers to refrain from building fortifications in the Pacific and Asia. In return, Japan agreed to give up its colonial possessions in Siberia and China.Footnote17 In 1924, Japan cut its standing Army and further reduced the size of the Japanese military budget. It appeared to all that Japan was content to rely on expansion through trade instead of military might.Footnote18 However, this agreement applauded by the Western Powers, symbolized to many of the nationalists and militarists that the Japanese Government had capitulated to the West. During the Showa Restoration, ten years later, these agreements were often cited as examples of where the quasi-democratic Japanese government had gone astray.Footnote19 The time preceding the Showa Restoration appeared at first glance to be the image of a nation transforming itself into a full-fledged democracy. But this picture hid huge chasms that were about to open up with the end of the 1920's. Three precipitating circumstances at the beginning of the 1930's shattered Japan's democratic underpinnings, which had been far from firm: the downturn in the world economy, Western shunning of Japan, and the independence of Japan's military. Thus, the shaky democracy gave way to the Showa Restoration. This Restoration sought to not only restore the Showa Emperor, Hirohito to power, but lead Japan into a new period of expansionism and eventually into World War II. The first event that put Japan on the path toward the Showa Restoration was the downturn in the world economy. It wrecked havoc with Japan's economy. World War I had permitted phenomenal industrial growth, but after the war ended, Japan resumed its competition with the other European powers. This renewed competition proved economically painful. During the 1920's, Japan grew more slowly than at any other time since the Meiji Restoration.Footnote20 During this time the whole world was in an economic slump, Japan's economy suffered inordinately. Japan's rural economy was particularly hard-hit by the slump in demand for its two key products, silk and rice. The sudden collapse of the purchasing power of the nations that imported Japanese silk such as America; and the worldwide rise in tariffs, combined to stagnate the Japanese economy.Footnote21 In urban Japan, there were also serious economic problems. A great gap in productivity and profitability had appeared between the new industries that had emerged with the industrialization of Japan and the older traditional industries. The Japanese leadership was not attuned to such obstacles and thus was slow to pass legislation to deal with its problems.Footnote22 The Meiji government had supported its economic planning by claiming it would be beneficial to the economy in the long-run. When Meiji government promises of economic growth evaporated, the Japanese turned toward non-democratic groups who now promised them a better economic future.Footnote23 The nationalist and militaristic groups promised that they would restore Japanese economic wealth by expanding Japanese colonial holdings which the democratic leaders had given up. At the same time that Japan was struggling economically, and capitulating to the West in adopting democratic principals, many in Japan believed that western nations did not fully accept Japan as an equal. It appeared to Japan, that the West had not yet accepted Japan into the exclusive club of the four conquering nations of World War I.Footnote24 Events such as the Washington Conference, at which the Five Power Treaty was signed, seemed to many Japanese hostile to Japan. (This belief was held because the Treaty forced Japan to have a number of ships smaller than Britain and the United States by a factor of 3 to 5.) The Japanese Exclusion Act passed in 1924 by America to exclude Japanese immigrants again ingrained in the Japanese psyche that Japan was viewed as inferior by the West.Footnote25 This view became widely believed after the meetings at Versailles, where it appeared to Japan that Europe was not willing to relinquish its possessions in Asia. Added to this perceived feeling of being shunned was the Japanese military conception that war with the west was inevitable. This looming confrontation was thought to be the war to end all wars saishu senso. Footnote26 The third circumstance was the independent Japanese military that capitalized on the economic downturn and capitulation of the Japanese government to the West.Footnote27 The Japanese military argued that the parliamentarian government had capitulated to the west by making an unfavorable agreement about the size of the Japanese Navy (the Washington Conference and the Five Powers Treaty) and by reducing the size of the military in 1924. With the depression that struck Japan in 1929; the military increased their attack on the government politicians for the failure of the Meiji Restoration. Throughout the 1920's, they demanded change. As the Japanese economy worsened their advocacy for a second revolutionary restoration, a "Showa Restoration" began to be listened to.Footnote28 They argued that the Showa Restoration would restore the grandeur of Japan. Leading right-wing politicians joined the military clamor, calling for a restoration not just of the Emperor but of Japan as a global power.Footnote29 1929 marked the world wide Great Depression. International trade was at a standstill and countries resorted to nationalistic economic policies. 1929 became a Japanese turning point. The Japanese realized that they had governmental control over only a small area compared to the large area they needed to support their industrializing economy.Footnote30 Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands had huge overseas possessions and the Russians and Americans both had vast continental holdings. In comparison, Japan had only a small continental base. To many Japanese, it appeared they had started their territorial acquisitions and colonization too late and had been stopped too soon. The situation was commonly described as a "population problem."Footnote31 The white races had already grabbed the most valuable lands and had left the less desirable for the Japanese. The Japanese nationalists argued that Japan had been discriminated against by the western nations through immigration policies and by being forced to stop their expansion into Asia. The only answer, the nationalists claimed, was military expansion onto the nearby Asian continent. The nationalists and independent military became the foremost advocates of this new drive for land and colonies. Young army officers and nationalist civilians closely identified with the "Imperial Way Faction."Footnote32 The relative independence of the Japanese armed forces from the parliament, transformed this sense of a national crisis into a total shift in foreign policy. These "restorationists" in the military and in the public stepped up the crisis by convincing the nation that there were two enemies, the foreign powers and people within Japan.Footnote33 The militarists identified the Japanese "Bureaucratic Elite" and the expanding merchant class, the "Zaibutsu" as responsible for Japan's loss of grandeur. It was the Bureaucratic Elite who had capitulated to the Western powers in the Washington Conference and in subsequent agreements, that decreased the size of the Japanese military,Footnote34 and made Japan dependent of trade with other nations. The independence of the Japanese military allowed them to feed this nationalist sense of crisis and thus transform Japanese foreign policy. On September 18, 1931 a group of army officers with the approval of their superiors who were angry at the government for its passage of the Five Powers Treaty, bombed a section of the South Manchurian Railway and blamed it on unnamed Chinese terrorists.Footnote35 Citing the explosion as a security concern, the Japanese military invaded Manchuria and within six months had set up the Puppet State of Manchukuo in February, 1932.Footnote36 Following the invasion of Manchuria, Japanese nationalism overwhelmed Japan. The Japanese public and military continued to blame the former quasi-parliamentarians for the economic woes and for capitulating to the Western. The Japanese populace saw the military and its nationalist leaders as strong, willing to stand up to Western power and restore the grandeur of Japan. Unlike the parliamentarian leaders, these new nationalist leaders backed by the military, had a vision and the public flocked to their side.Footnote37 This new mood in Japan brought an end to party cabinets and the authority of the quasi-democratic government. It seemed now that the parliamentary democracy of the TaishoFootnote38 and Meiji eras had been fully usurped by the independent military. Nationalism swept through Japan after the invasion of Manchuria, thus further strengthening the hand of the military. In the invasion of Manchuria and its aftermath, all the discontent with the Meiji system of government come together and combined with the military claim to leadership ordained by the power of the Emperor. With this convergence of events, the shallow roots of democracy and the liberal reformism of the Meiji Restoration were uprooted and replaced with a combination of nationalism and militarism embodied under the idea of the Showa Restoration. When League of Nations condemned Japan for the Manchurian invasion, Japan, now controlled by the military, simply walked out of the conference.Footnote39 The parliamentary cabinet of the 1930's became known as "national unity" cabinets and the parliament took on more and more of a symbolic role as the military gradually gained the upper hand over policies. The Japanese Parliament continued in operation and the major democratic parties continued to win elections in 1932, 1936 and 1937. But parliamentary control was waning as the military virtually controlled foreign policy.Footnote40 Japan's political journey from its nearly democratic government of the 1920's to its radical nationalism of the mid 1930's, the collapse of democratic institutions, and the eventual military state was not an overnight transformation. There was no coup d'etat, no march on Rome, no storming of the Bastille, no parliamentary vote whereby the anti-democratic militaristic elements overthrew the democratic institutions of the Meiji Era. Instead, it was a political journey that allowed a semi-democratic nation to transform itself into a military dictatorship. The forces that aided in this transformation were the failed promises of the Meiji Restoration that were represented in the stagnation of the Japanese economy, the perceived capitulation of the Japanese parliamentary leaders to the western powers, and an independent military. Japanese militarism promised to restore the grandeur of Japan, a Showa Restoration. ---------- Footnote1 Ruth Benedict, The Chrysanthemum And The Sword (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989) 76. Footnote2 Marius B. Jansen Sakamoto Ryoma and the Meiji Restoration (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971) 147-164. Marius B. Jansen makes clear in this book that the Meiji Restoration (1868-1912) was a movement centered around returning the Meiji Emperor to power. Only later did the Meiji Restoration come to embody liberal reformism. Footnote3 Frank Gibney Japan the Fragile Superpower (New York: Meridian, 1985) 158-159. Footnote4 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 121. In 1925 universal male suffrage was enacted. Footnote5 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 113. Footnote6 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 170-171. Footnote7 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 375-376. During the Meiji Restoration Japan saw its mission to be to catch up with the already industrialized Western powers. Footnote8 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987)125. Footnote9 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 115. Footnote10 Edwin O. Reischauer The Japanese Today (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) 98. Footnote11 Frank Gibney Japan the Fragile Superpower (New York: Meridian, 1985) 165-166. Footnote12 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 119. During the Meiji Restoration Samurais were stripped of their positions and even prohibited from wearing the Samurai Sword in 1869. Footnote13 Frank K, Upham Law and Social Change in Japan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987) 49. The Japanese constitution was adopted in 1889. It set up a British type parliament. The constitution did not provide the parliamentary government with power over the military branch. Footnote14 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 38. At the turn of the century Japan had started its colonizing effort in China and other parts of Asia. It was these efforts at Colonization that developed into the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). After winning the war Japan continued with even more gusto to snatch up colonies in Asia. Footnote15 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 121. In 1925 universal male suffrage was enacted although in most elections ballots were only made available to the urban elite. Footnote16 Edwin O. Reischauer The Japanese Today (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) 96. Footnote17 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 150. Footnote18 James B. Crawley Japan's Quest For Autonomy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966) 270-280. Footnote19 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 128. Footnote20 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 380-381. In her Book Karel van Wolferen writes, "The Success of the Meiji oligarchy in stimulating economic development was followed by a further great boost for Japanese industry deriving from the First World War. This good fortune came to an end in 1920, and a 'chain of panics' caused successive recessions and business dislocation". Footnote21 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 117. Reischauer makes the point in his book that external factors significantly hurt Japan's economy. Unlike a nation like the United States which had vast reserves of natural resources when projectionist trade laws were implemented around the world Japan suffered significantly because it lacked raw materials and markets. Japan's economy which was guided during the Meiji Era to be primarily an export based economy. Footnote22 Nakamura Takafusa Economic Growth in Prewar Japan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 151-158. Nakamura Takafusa states that Japan was growing at vastly different rates between the urban areas and rural areas. Footnote23 Frank Gibney Japan the Fragile Superpower (New York: Meridian, 1985) 165-166. Footnote24 James B. Crawley Japan's Quest For Autonomy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966) 270-280. Footnote25 David M. Reimers Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America (New York: Columbia Press, 1992) 27. Footnote26 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 128. "The exclusion of Japanese Immigrants by the United States in 1924 and the growth of mechanized Soviet Power on the Asian continent all confirmed in the Japanese public eye the impending confrontation with the west." Testsuo views the rise of Japanese nationalism and militarization resulting in the Showa Restoration to be to a large degree the fault of the west for its maltreatment of Japan diplomatically. Tetsuo also views the Showa Restoration to be largely caused by external factors that in consequence unbalanced the fragile Japanese political system. Footnote27 Robert Story The Double Patriots (London: Chatto and Windus, 1957) 138. Footnote28 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 380-381. Footnote29 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 114. One of the famous political leaders of the time Miyake Setsurei called for a new Japan that had "truth, goodness, and beauty". Footnote30 James Morley Dilemmas of Growth in Prewar Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971) 378-411. Footnote31 Peter Duus The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976). Many of the nationalists of this period claimed the West had tricked Japan into giving up its colonies in Asia so it could take them. The Nationalists also claimed that renewed Japanese expansionism would liberate the Asians of their European Colonizers. Footnote32 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 130. The Imperial Way Faction was a right wing political party that called for the Showa Restoration. It was lead by Kita Ikki, Gondo Seikei, and Inoue Nissho. Footnote33 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 381-382. Footnote34 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 128. Footnote35 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 138. Historians such as Testuo Najita cite this incident as the turning point in the military role in Japan. For after this incident the Military realized that the parliamentary government did not have the will or the power to stop the military power. Footnote36 Edwin O. Reischauer The Japanese Today (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) 96. Footnote37 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 171. Edwin O Reischauer writes in his book, "There could be no doubt that the Japanese army in Manchuria had been eminently successful, The people as a whole accepted this act of unauthorized and certainly unjustified warfare with whole hearted admiration". Footnote38 Peter Duus The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976) 156. The period preceding the Showa Restoration and coming after the Meiji Era is known as the Taisho Era. It is named after the Taisho Emperor who was mentally incompetent and thus the parliamentarians during this time had control of the government. His reign lasted only a decade compared to the Meiji Emperor's 44 year reign. Footnote39 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 171. Footnote40 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 138. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The City of Today.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The City of Today Glorious, glorious England. As the Empire spreads some say "so does its glory"; others mumble of the price which we pay for our greatness. Many of us Londoners have read, if not discussed, the intriguing debate transpiring between Sir Andrew Ure and Sir James Phillips Kay. Are the cities of great England truly representative of the jewels in Her Majesty's Crown? Or are they the stain of exploitation and abuse that some have proclaimed? Sir James Phillips Kay, an M.D. at Edinburgh and the Secretary to the Manchester Board of Health, has recently published a work titled, "The Moral And Physical Conditions of the Working-Class Employed in Cotton Manufacturing in Manchester." (Kay/Ure Debate, Handout) He argues quite persuasively about those poor wretches living in the most hideous of conditions. Half the blame he attributes to the Irish and the other half to the environment of an industrialised city. The Irish immigrants have brought to Manchester a system called "cottier farming". Sir James argues that this system is responsible for the "demoralisation and barbarism" of the working-class. If that is not bad enough, the potato has been introduced as a main article of food. Influenced by the Irish subsistence living, the working-class are abandoning those values which promote increasing comfort. They seemingly have given up the hope of betterment and adopted hopelessness. Sir James does well in his description of the living conditions of the working class is living in. The mere thought of such suffering and misery is shocking to the soul. The problem Kay argues, is caused by combinations of poor living and working conditions, lack of education, influence by a lesser culture and the presence of great immorality. This recently published work is a plea to the Capitalist, to convince him to concern himself with his workers. Andrew Mearns, another prominent fellow on these matters goes into even greater detail in his work, "The Bitter Cry of Outcast London". Making a study of our city, he has reported, with astonishing detail, that the filth present in Manchester can be found in this city! Mr. Mearns makes his argument to the church in his call to unite and fight this growing misery together. He cites examples of immorality, poverty and heart-breaking misery. His call also addresses the need for the state to intervene on the behalf of the organisations trying to elevate the working-classes' misery. What can be done for the motherless children, diseased and ailing siblings and the poor forced into thievery for filthy lucre? Nothing! Yes, that is correct. We are to do nothing. Sir Andrew Ure, an M.D., who teaches in the university at Glasgow is a proponent of this controversial mind set. Traveling to these various "terrible" places, Sir Andrew came to a completely different conclusion. First, the workers suffering is being greatly exaggerated. Upon visiting these "horror zones" (factories), both on announced and unannounced visits, no such extremes were found. Instead of the finding the bleak picture Sir James and Mr. Mearns painted, Ure found something quite the opposite. Children play outside in playgrounds during their breaks, and factories provide a safe haven for the children from the ill-use of their bad parents. Second, the terrible food situation is an exaggeration as well. The amount of food given to the factory workers is sufficient. It is comparable, if not surpassing to that food consumed in the rural communities from where the working class came from. What is to be the conclusion of this bitter argument? one thing is certain, the Kay/Ure debate will continue with us as long as we have factories with a working class. This much can be assured. 19th Century Evangelical Christianity In England Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 Religion was an important facet of the British Victorian society. It molded public opinion, dictated morals and values, and created social divisions. The dominant religion of the middle-class during this time was Evangelical Christianity. This essay will discuss the relationship between Evangelicalism and the middle-class. It will also argue how Evangelicalism affected the attitudes towards different races and the role of the British empire in the world. Evangelicalism was the strongest ideological influence present in the Victorian Age. This religious movement , a product of the Church of England, was mainly comprised of the middle-class bourgeoisie. In addition, the leadership of the Evangelical movement was greatly influential in politics. As high-ranking members of the Whig party, they played a crucial part in both policy making in the government and establishing the party's power base.1 The most important leaders of the Evangelicals were the Clapham Sect. They had two basic issues which acted as both a political platform and a social order. The first issue concerned the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in England. Many political battles were fought over the issue of slavery and its trade, but its abolition in the early 1800s was a great political and social victory for the Evangelicals.2 The second issue was its was the Evangelical transformation of national morality. Catharine Hall argued that in the Clapham sect the "concern was to redefine the available cultural norms and to encourage a new seriousness and respectability in life."3 This issue was supported and propagated as if it were a political campaign. Pamphlets, the media and church sermons in church were used to spread this word. The greatest influence of Evangelicalism was on the British society itself. It set standards for defining family and home-life. A crucial aspect of Evangelicalism was its definition of a woman's role in society. They defined a women as a homemaker, a wife and a mother. Detailed instructions on how to become a good "mistress" were easily accessible. An excellent example of this was the writings of Isabella Beeton. She went into detail about what attitudes and habits a mistress should have. Mrs. Beeton argued that "there is no more fruitful source of family discontent than a housewife's badly-cooked dinners and untidy ways."4 The Evangelicals rejected the notion of equality between the sexes. This Evangelical belief stemmed from a fundamental difference in the position of men and women. They were "naturally distinct".5 Evangelical doctrine also argued that, although a woman should be educated, it is for the sole purpose of making her a better wife and mother.6 This idea of sexual equity and other radical ideas emerged from France even before the infamous Revolution took place. The ideology coming from France both before and after the revolution was never accepted in England. The English bourgeoisie used the evangelical ideas to combat the foreign influence of the French Another important sphere of influence to Evangelicalism was the home. This arena was viewed as the building block of British society and culture. If national morality was to be changed, and in some cases created, then morality must be taught at home. The home "was one place where attempts could be made to curb sin."7 Evangelicalism was not merely a national fad. As the Clapham Sect and other influential politicians began their campaign for the abolition of slavery, the slave trade was also targeted. This created the need for international intervention. It was not enough that slavery was to cease being a legal commodity of labor, or to be viewed as immoral. The entire industry of the slave trade was immoral. It was seen as a infringement on the individuals natural rights. In the book, White Dreams In Black Africa, the British empire began to target the African tradesmen who sold the slaves for Christianization. The plan was to export the greatest gift the English could give, thus creating a moral society, educated, and most importantly, the elimination of the slave trade. This gift was Evangelical Christianity. Africa was not the only target for evangelism. The Irish, who were predominantly catholic, united with England January 1, 1801. This unification caused Irish culture to be spread abroad in the working class of England. This spread of Irish influence was described by James Phillips Kay as, "debased alike by ignorance and pauperism".8 He blamed the penetration of British culture by Irish values as the cause for the debauchery and immorality in the working class. This posed as a proverbial splinter in the lion's paw for the evangelicals. This was brought to the attention of the middle-class moralists, which tried even harder to "persuade" their moral standards on the Irish. This persuasion came about by the merging of the Church of England with the Catholic Church of Ireland. The national church was Anglican by denomination and protestant. Needless to say, the Irish were not happy with the arrangements nor with the tithe that they were required to pay.9 In conclusion, England during its Victorian Age was tremendously influenced by religion. This influence dominated the society and culture of Britain. Its effect can be traced from the home and family life to the heirachy of the Parliament. The relationship between Evangelicalism and the English middle-class was strong. It also affected the Empire's attitudes towards other races of people and defined some of its foreign policy concerning the slave trade. Ireland and England in the Active Union 1801-1920 January 1, 1801 Ireland joined with Britain in what is called the Active Union. The Active Union was an attempt of both states to integrate themselves on a political level. This union lasted approximately 120 years and was wrought with constant turmoil. A common term used by British Members of Parliament was the "Irish question", or what to do with the Irish. The real question, however, concerned the identity of Ireland. Was Ireland a Integral part of Britain or another British colony? An analysis of this union revealed three basic areas of contention that shed light on this topic: politics, religion and economics. These areas show that parity between the two states was never achieved. This essay will address the question of identity in the special case of Ireland and its engagement with Britain during the Active Union. The political problem of the Active Union was the unequal nature of the agreement. Both parliaments passed the amendment which stipulated a dissolving of the Irish parliament. Upon this elimination of the Irish parliament, 100 elected M.P.s were sent to England for Irish representation. Parliament consisted of 615 members and required majority voting for bills to be passed. The Irish were proclaimed to be equal partners, but, in reality, were grossly out-numbered. However, no other colony possessed direct representation of its people in Parliament. The British law stated that only protestants were allowed to sit for government. Ireland's population was 80 percent catholic and 20 percent protestant. This restriction of representation of the religious majority in Ireland furthered the inequality of the union. Ireland's true political desires were neither voiced nor given much attention. In the Empire the head of government and most of the local government administrations were British and protestant. The English never attempted to make the Irish, English citizens, which would have given them equality in the Empire. In fact, the common British interpretation of their relationship with Ireland was understood in terms of occupation. These facts identified a severe disparity between the two states. The political aspects clearly pointed to a unique form of colonization of Ireland which was established with Ireland's consent. Thus, Ireland as a political entity was, by all means and purposes, a colony of England. The area of Religion related directly to society . Religion helped form national identity, social order and morals/ethics. As previously stated Ireland's population was predominantly catholic. Upon merging, parliament voted that the "national" church of the two states was to be the Church of England. This specific church was of the Anglican Denomination and protestant. As a result, the Irish population was subjected to mass conversion by the English. Further, the Church of England imposed a tithe on the Irish peasantry. This behavior was categorized as belligerent and was not congruent with the concept of equal partnership. To force religion or any other ideal on a society does not promote peace nor does it exemplify equality. The economic relationship between Ireland and England was severely unbalanced. Ireland's economy is 80 percent agrarian. The Active Union caused no growth in the Irish Industrial sector. In fact, Irish industrial production, per capita, receded. Creating a free trade zone, which had been done by the Active Union agreement, put the ailing Irish industry into direct competition with England's enormous industrial sector. Ireland joined the English empire voluntarily, assuming there would be an equitable relationship between the two states. The relationship was to provide political parity, religious cooperation and a mutual economic boom. Consequently, Ireland was reduced to colonial status by superior British power. Ireland was consider to be a colony of England politically, religiously and economically. The result of this union was 120 years of constant political strife and the eventual separation of the two states. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Devil in the Shape of a woman.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ American history has few subjects as interesting as witchcraft, because it confronts us with many Ideas about women. It confronts us with fears about women, the place of women in society, and with women themselves. Also, it confronts us with violence against women and how the problems of society were often blamed on women. Even though some men were executed as during periods of witch hunting, witches were generally thought of as women and most who died in the name of witchcraft were women. In the United States, witchcraft took place among too educated of people to dismiss it as mere "superstition." (P.10) The first person that was executed, as a witch, in America was Margaret Jones, in 1648. Jones was a midwife and lay healer, who was accused of several different practices. Minister John Hale, who witnessed Jones's hanging in Boston when he was a boy, later said that she "was suspected partly because that after some angry words passing between her and her Neighbors, some mischief befell such neighbors in their Creatures, or the like: [and] partly because some things supposed to be bewitched, or have a Charm upon them, being burned, she came to the fire and seemed concerned." (P.20) Hale included neither of these charges in his list of the evidence presented against Jones, but suggested that the crimes had to do with her medical practice. She was accused of having a "malignant touch," Hale noted, and her medicines were said to have "extraordinary violent effects." When people refused to take her medical advice, he added, "their diseases and hurts continued, with relapse against the ordinary course, and beyond the apprehension of all physicians and surgeons."(P.21) Hale also mentioned that Jones was believed to possess psychic powers: "some things which she foretold came to pass accordingly; other things she could tell of ... she had no ordinary means to come to the knowledge of."(P.20) John Hale pointed out that several of Jones's neighbors tried to get her to confess and repent. One of them, he said, "prayed her to consider if God did not bring this punishment upon her for some other crime, and asked, if she had not been guilty of stealing many years ago." (P.22)Jones admitted the theft, but she refused to accept it as a reason for her conviction as a witch. Hale's writings, on the other hand, showed that stealing, and other crimes such as fornication and infanticide, were regularly associated with witchcraft, by both the clergy and the larger population . . . " (p. 22) This first account, in Karlsens' study, brings to the surface some of the community's views of witchcraft. Most of the society of the time believed in witches, and those who did not were usually suspected of being one. Additionally, colonists had two differing views of witches. Some believed that witches were simply criminals that worked in supernatural ways that were threats to their neighbors. But more interesting, was the view of the clergy, and specifically the Puritan church. They saw witches as not only enemies of their neighbors, but also enemies of God. They believed that witches had entered into an evil contract with the Devil, in which they would recruit others to destroy the Puritan churches. Without significant support for at least one of the views, the accuser in some cases could be brought up on slander charges. When both views had support, the accused person was likely to be declared a witch. Then they were considered an enemy of the New England society and the Puritan Faith. Additionally, when both of these views were very intense, the accusations would multiply and would effect the lives of not just one or two, but many. Many of the societies problems were often blamed on witchcraft. The witches in New England were said to be able to harm others in supernatural ways, so major illnesses were often blamed on them. Also, people believed witches had powers over animals and crops. They were often accused for bad harvests and livestock dying. They were also commonly blamed for miscarriages, non-conception, and birth-defects. Another problem that was explained with witch craft was the problems of lunacy. Lunatics were believed to be crazy because a witch had possessed them. Although, women were generally accused of being a witch for causing harm to others, some were actually accused of witchcraft for helping cure illnesses that doctors could not. Even though they did some good, people strongly believed that they received their powers from Satan. In return Satan would give her worldly desires, and the witch would use the powers, given to her, to help his efforts to overcome the Kingdom of Christ. Some witches would tell fortunes by looking into a glass ball or an egg. Another belief, was that witches had imps. Imps were some kind of demonic animal that nourished itself on the witch and would perform evil acts at her command. Likewise, it was a belief that they could turn themselves into animals in order to carry out Satan's evil deeds without being recognized. Although there were a few men executed as witches, witchcraft was generally associated with women. There were 344 persons accused of being witches in America. Two-hundred and sixty-seven were female and 75 were male (p. 47). The majority of the women that were accused either were widows or had never been married. Other women that were accused were most likely related to someone who was already determined to be a witch. The men that were accused were usually the husbands of a confirmed witch. Women were generally more likely to be confirmed a witch, because men were the ones who would judge them. Another factor that contributed to accusing women of being witches was, during this time in our history women had practically no voice in society. Men received vastly different treatment. For example, one man confessed to being a witch and the court ordered that he was to be whipped and fined for "telling a lie"(p.59). Although there were many women who were executed, there were only 12 men who were confirmed to be witches and put to death. Most often, accused persons were likely to be tortured until they would confess. Women were more likely to confess under the torture. They did not have as much to loose, because most often they had no land or wealth. Men were more likely to be land owners and generally held more wealth. Some of the men were tortured to death. Most of the never admitted guilt, because, their land would be stripped from their families. One man was tortured by a method called pressing. During this torture, the person is strapped down and weights are placed on the person. As the torture goes on, more and more weight is placed on the person. This happened to this man for two days until it finally killed him. Even though his pain must have been great, he never admitted guilt, for fear of losing his land for his children. Another factor that lead to the accusation of a witch was economics. It was not uncommon for women in families without male heirs to be accused of witchcraft shortly after the deaths of fathers, husbands, brothers, or sons. This would happen because these women were part of a society with an inheritance system designed to keep property in the hands of men. Decade by decade this pattern continued. Most of the women who were accused committed no real crimes. They were simply the victims of their society, who stood in the way of the orderly exchange of property from on generation of males to the next. Yet another factor that led to the accusations of some women of being witches, was adultery. Women were often held responsible for adultery. The man adulterer would often receive little or no punishment. Women however, were often whipped and humiliated. The women were also expected to bear the consequences of the fornication. Meaning, that if pregnancy resulted from the adultery, the women would bear the financial responsibility of raising the child as well as the humiliation. Women were held more accountable then men, because it was believed that the women would entice the men into bed with them. Much like Eve enticed Adam to eat the apple. One Puritan minister said, "adultery is one of Satan's whorish acts."(P.209) Because of these beliefs, women who committed adultery were likely to be accused of witchcraft. The end of the serious outbreaks, of witchcraft accusations, can be attributed to the "Enlightment" thinking and some new views of womanhood. The development of scientific and reasonable thinking was spreading throughout the educated community and some of New Englands more prominent figures started to become more reasonable. Along with the "Enlightment" thinking, a new view of womanhood expressed the fears and goals of an emerging industrial society. This view of woman hood viewed the women as the morally pure. This view depicted that all women (white middle and upper class women) were good. Now evil in women seemed to be formed by race. These women were now viewed as having the characteristics of the witch. To be a real woman was to use their influence to protect domestication. Acceptance of this thinking assured the white women of the middle and upper classes that they were not evil. Overall, witchcraft effecting mainly women in America was portrayed rather effectively in The Devil in the Shape of a Woman in many ways. First, I was impressed by the many statistical elements that Carol F. Karlsen acquired and added to her book. Many of these statistics complimented her idea that women were the main targets of witchcraft accusations. The stats also did a good job of convincing me of that idea. Next, I found it fascinating that Karlsen took more of a documentary approach her study. She detailed events taken from a numerous collection of stories and then put them into chronological order. She added things such as the religious ideology and economics of the times to strengthen her arguments. I was especially amazed by how much political power the Puritan church had, more specifically, the males in the Puritan church. Another interesting idea she had was that some of the accused witches were accused simply as a conspiracy to steal their wealth. Although, I agreed with the rest of her arguments, I found this one hard to believe. I do not think that the people of that time were so ignorant that they could not see a conspiracy as shallow as that. Finally , the stories in her study were absolutely fascinating. I think what made these stories more fascinating to me was the fact that all these stories are true. This book made me realize just how much women have achieved in our society since the days of witchcraft accusations. Also, it gave me a insight into what it would have been like to live through this tough era in our history. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Devils Shadow.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Time Setting: The Devil's Shadow by Clifford Lindsey Alderman took place in the late seventeenth century from 1692-1693. This is the time period that the Salem Witch Trials took place. The main plot of the story rested on the events leading up to the Salem Witch Trials, the trials themselves, and the aftermath of the trials. Detailed accounts of witch executions, the actual trials, and the events that caused the trials were discussed in the story. Place Setting: Most of the action in this story took place in Salem, Massachusetts. This was the birthplace of the witchcraft hysteria and it was also the actual site of the Salem Witch Trials. The town of Salem, Massachusetts in the late seventeenth century was a small puritan community that was largely uneducated and very superstitious. Since many lacked education, they did not understand many events that happened in their daily lives. Many things that went wrong in their daily lives would be blamed on witchcraft or sorcery. Such common things as burnt bread or broken plates would be blamed on the supernatural. Many people, especially the uneducated, firmly believed in the existence of witches and warlocks. They believed that such individuals had the power to perform "black magic" that caused some kind of trouble. Every time something bad happened they would blame it on witches and witchcraft. Main Characters: One of the main characters in this story was Tituba, an African slave woman from Barbados. She was purchased in Barbados by a merchant named Samuel Parris. She lived in Barbados until Samuel Parris brought her to Salem to work as his servant. She was known to practice Obeah, an African cult sorcery. People who performed or practiced Obeah were said to be able to predict the future, make magical charms, and drive away evil spirits. Tituba was accused of teaching witchcraft to a small group of girls in Salem. Samuel Parris, another main character in this story, was a merchant who attended Harvard University. He was the owner of Tituba and her husband. He had studied to become a minister before he left Harvard. He was a business man who traded slaves, sugar, and rum in Barbados. Things began to not work out for him when he started making less and less money. He gave up his career as a merchant in 1689 and moved to Salem to become a minister. Other main characters in this story include the girls that were taught witchcraft by Tituba, the judges in the courtroom, and the men and women who were accused of witchcraft. Two Important Events: One important event in this story was when the hysterical girls are assumed to have been influenced by Tituba's witchcraft. This event fit into the story because it triggered the witchcraft hysteria that followed it. Many people suddenly became accused after the girls became associated with Tituba and witchcraft. This event gave a good illustration of life in the late seventeenth century by showing how paranoid people were about the presence of witchcraft in their society. They were ready to believe that people were witches at the drop of a hat, and because of this, they unjustly accused and murdered hundreds of people. This can be seen as the starting point of the witchcraft hysteria in Salem that killed so many people. Another important event in this story was when everything began to get out of control and people were being accused of witchcraft by the dozens. It became a choice on whether or not you were going to accuse someone else in order to save yourself. People that were accused just accused different people in order to save themselves from hanging. Soon, everyone was accusing everyone else, and the trials had gone into utter chaos. This changed the course of history because it made people realize how pointless the while witchcraft hysteria really was. It was also the first step towards the end of the hysteria. Class Differences in Society: By reading this story, I learned about the class differences in the society of Salem in the late seventeenth century. The fact that all of the blame was put on an African American slave woman from the start shows that the higher class people tended to blame the lower class people for their problems. Also, people accused of witchcraft instantly became looked down on in society. This relates to the fact that people tended to accuse people that were already looked down on by society in order to lend credibility to their accusation. All of these things have helped me to realize that class differences are evident in every society. It has also led me to believe that class differences significantly affect the outcome of many historical events. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Different Conceptions of the Veil in The Souls of Black F.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Different Conceptions of the Veil in The Souls of Black Folk "For now we see through a glass, darkly" -Isiah 25:7 W.E.B. Du Bois's Souls of Black Folk, a collection of autobiographical and historical essays contains many themes. There is the theme of souls and their attainment of consciousness, the theme of double consciousness and the duality and bifurcation of black life and culture; but one of the most striking themes is that of "the veil." The veil provides a link between the 14 seemingly unconnected essays that make up The Souls of Black Folk. Mentioned at least once in most of the 14 essays it means that, "the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second sight in this American world, -a world with yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others."Footnote1 The veil is a metaphor for the separation and invisibility of black life and existence in America and is a reoccurring theme in books about black life in America. Du Bois's veil metaphor, "In those somber forests of his striving his own soul rose before him, and he saw himself, -darkly as though through a veil"Footnote2, is a allusion to Saint Paul's line in Isiah 25:7, "For now we see through a glass, darkly."Footnote3 Saint Paul's use of the veil in Isiah and later in Second Corinthians is similar to Du Bois's use of the metaphor of the veil. Both writers claim that as long as one is wrapped in the veil their attempts to gain self-consciousness will fail because they will always see the image of themselves reflect back to them by others. Du Bois applies this by claiming that as long as on is behind the veil the, "world which yields him no self-consciousness but who only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world."Footnote4 Saint Paul in Second Corinthians says the way to self consciousness and an understanding lies in, "the veil being taken away, Now the lord is the spirit and where the spirit of the lord is there is liberty." Du Bois does not claim that transcending the veil will lead to a better understanding of the lord but like Saint Paul he finds that only through transcending "the veil" can people achieve liberty and gain self-consciousness. The veil metaphor in Souls of Black Folk is symbolic of the invisibility of blacks in America. Du Bois says that Blacks in America are a forgotten people, "after the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil."Footnote5 The invisibility of Black existence in America is one of the reasons why Du Bois writes Souls of Black Folk in order to elucidate the "invisible" history and strivings of Black Americans, "I have sought here to sketch, in vague, uncertain outline, the spiritual world in which ten thousand Americans live and strive."Footnote6 Du Bois in each of the following chapters tries to manifest the strivings of Black existence from that of the reconstruction period to the black spirituals and the stories of rural black children that he tried to educate. Du Bois in Souls of Black Folk is grappling with trying to establish some sense of history and memory for Black Americans, Du Bois struggles in the pages of the book to prevent Black Americans from becoming a Seventh Son invisible to the rest of the world, hidden behind a veil of prejudice, "Hear my Cry, O God the reader vouch safe that this my book fall not still born into the world-wilderness. Let there spring, Gentle one, from its leaves vigor of thought and thoughtful deed to reap the harvest wonderful."Footnote7 The invisibility of Black existence is a recurring theme in other books about Black history. In Raboteau's book slave religion is called, "the invisible institution of the antebellum South."Footnote8 Raboteau tries to uncover and bring to light the religious practices of Black slaves, he tried to bring their history out of the veil. Rabatoeu writes how religion for slaves was a way in which, "slaves maintained their identity as persons despite a system bent on reducing them to a subhuman level... In the midst of slavery religion was for the enslaved a space of meaning, freedom, and transcendence."Footnote9 Because slave religion was an invisible institution hidden by a veil from white slave masters it provided a way in which slaves could resist social death. The history of Black women is also the history of a people made invisible; hidden behind the veil. Bell Hooks in her study of Black women and feminism tries to bring to light the forgotten past of black women who have also been hidden behind a veil, " Traditionally, scholars have emphasized the impact of slavery on the black male consciousness, arguing that black men more so than black women were the real victims of slavery."Footnote10 To Bell Hooks the veil which makes black women invisible to white society is made from an inseparable cloth woven from the threads of racism and sexism. The Black reconstruction period is another area in which scholars have grappled with the consequences of the veil which has hidden the history of black striving and struggle from view. Eric Foner's book on the reconstruction was the first major study of the period since Du Bois's book on the period fifty years earlier.Footnote11 The reconstruction which Foner terms America's unfinished revolution could also be called American invisible revolution due to the lack of scholarship on the area. The most striking examples of the theme of the veil and invisibility is in literature about Blacks struggling with their identity and with oppression. In Beloved Setha's rational for killing her child can not be understood by the white police system which sentence her to prison. In Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man the main character says, "I am an invisible man, No I am not a spook like those that haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood movie ectoplasm's. I am a man of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids- and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible understand because people refuse to see me."Footnote12 Ralph Ellison's invisible man like the history of black women, slavery, reconstruction, and many other elements of black life are hidden behind "the veil" making them invisible to much of society. The veil is also a metaphor for the separation both physically and psychologically of blacks and whites America. Physically the veil separates blacks and whites through Slavery, Jim Crow laws, economic inequality, and the voluntary segregation that followed the end of the civil war. The veil acts as a physical barrier that permanently brands black Americans as an "other"; the veil is the metaphorical manifestation of the train tracks that divide the black and white parts of town. Du Bois in Chapter two lays out the creation of the veil from the end of the civil war to the failure of reconstruction. The following chapters then tell of those who have acted to strengthen the veil such as Booker T. Washington or who suffered behind the veil such as the school children Du Bois taught. The veil also acts as a psychological barrier separating blacks from whites. The theme of the psychological separation of blacks and whites is a central metaphor of the book starting with the first lines where Du Bois recalls his encounters with whites who view him not as a person but as a problem, "They half approach me in a half-hesitant sort of way, eye me curiously or compassionately, and then instead of saying directly how does it feel to be a problem? They say, I know an Excellent colored man in my town."Footnote13 The veil in this case hides the humanity of blacks which has important implications to the types of relations that developed between blacks and whites. With their humanity hidden behind "the veil" black and white relations at the time of the writing of the Souls of Black Folk were marked by violence: draft riots in New York during the Civil War, riots following the reconstruction period, the lynching of Blacks, and the formation of the Klu Klux Klan.Footnote14 The theme of separation caused by the veil is repeated in many other black texts. In Raboteau's book slave religious practices were separate from white religious practices.Footnote15 Although many time slaves and their masters worshipped together religion during the slavery period provided to very separate things for master and slaves. For the master religion was a way to justify slaveryFootnote16 and for slaves religion became a form of resistance and hope; a way to resist social death. In Eric Foner's book on reconstruction a veil separated black and white interpretations of reconstruction.Footnote17 For blacks reconstruction was a time of hope and freedom; for whites reconstruction was a time in which the north repressed a defeated region, with ignorant former slaves, who unable to act constructively for themselves were pawns of the northern intruders. The veil, a metaphor for separation both physically and psychologically hides the humanity of blacks, and created deep divisions between the races. Du Bois in Souls of Black Folk unlike other blacks is able to move around the veil, operate behind it, lift it, and even transcend it. In the forethought Du Bois tells the reader that in the following chapters he has, "Stepped with in the veil, raising it that you may view faintly its deeper recesses, -the meaning of its religion, the passion of its human sorrow, and the struggle of its greater souls."Footnote18 Du Bois in the first Chapter steps outside the veil to reveal the origin and his awareness of the veil. And it is Du Bois's awareness of the veil that allows him to step outside of it and reveal the history of the Negro, "his two-ness, -an American, a Negro, two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings, two warring ideals in one dark body."Footnote19 Now that he has lifted the veil in the following chapters Du Bois shows his white audience the history of the Black man following reconstruction, the origins of the black church. Du Bois then talks about the conditions of individuals living behind the veil from his first born son who, "With in the veil was he born, said I; and there with in shall he live, -a Negro and a Negro's son.... I saw the shadow of the veil as it passed over my baby, I saw the cold city towering above the blood read land."Footnote20 In this passage Du Bois is both with in and above the veil. He is a Negro living like his baby within the veil but he is also above the veil, able to see it pass over his child. After Du Bois's child dies he prays that it will, "sleep till I sleep, and waken to a baby voice and the ceaseless patter of little feet-above the veil."Footnote21 Here Du Bois is living above the veil but in the following Chapter he once again travels behind the veil to tell the story of Alexander Crummell a black man who for, "fourscore years had he wondered in this same world of mine, within the Veil."Footnote22 Du Bois then in the last Chapter "Sorrow Songs" travels back into the veil from which he came, to return to the spiritual. Du Bois's ability to move around the veil could create some confusion as to whether the writer is black. For this reason Du Bois says in his introduction says that, "I who speak here am bone of the bone and flesh of the flesh of them that live within the veil."Footnote23 Du Bois's ability to move in and out of the veil gives him the ability to expose to whites that which is obscured from their view. It also lends Du Bois authority when speaking about his subject matter for he alone in the book is able to operate on both sides of the veil. In the Chapter on "Sorrow Songs" Du Bois implores the reader to rise above the veil, "In his good time America shall rend the veil and the prisoner shall go free."Footnote24 Du Bois likens the veil to a prison that traps Blacks from achieving progress and freedom. According to Du Bois the veil causes Blacks to accept the false images that whites see of Blacks. Du Bois although not explicitly in Souls of Black Folk critique's Booker T. Washington for accepting the veil and accepting white's ideas of Blacks. Booker T. Washington an accomidationist accepts the white idea that blacks are problem people; not a people with a problem caused by white racism.Footnote25 Booker T. Washington seeks to work behind the veil by pursuing polices of accommodation. Du Bois in contrast wants blacks to transcend the veil by politically agitating and educating themselves. Du Bois's conception of the veil contradicts some of the other theme's in Souls of Black Folk. First, how can the problem of the twentieth century be that of the color-line when blacks are invisible behind a veil of prejudice? Second, how can Du Bois speak from behind the veil as he does in parts of certain chapters and yet present a resemble critique of society? Third, how can the veil both make blacks invisible and separate them at the same time and make the separations so apparent to society. Fourth, how can Du Bois say blacks are gifted with "second sight" when Du Bois says blacks are looking at their past and present through a veil? And Fifth, Du Bois's prescription for lifting the veil, education and political activism, are only small steps to lifting the stifling iron veil that keeps blacks invisible and separated from white America. Du Bois's metaphor has limitations and internal contradictions; but these internal contradictions are minor compared to the power that "the veil" has as a symbol of black existence in America. The veil in Souls of Black Folk is a metaphor that connotes the invisibility of black America, the separation between whites and blacks, and the obstacles that blacks face in gaining self-consciousness in a racist society. The veil is also a metaphor that reoccurs in other novels about black strivings. The veil is not a two dimensional cloth to Du Bois but instead it is a three dimensional prison that prevent blacks from seeing themselves as they are but instead makes them see the negative stereotypes that whites have of them.Footnote26 The veil is also to Du Bois both a blind fold and a noose on the existence of "ten thousand thousand" Americans who live and strive invisible and separated from their white brothers and sisters. Du Bois wrote Souls of Black Folks to lift the veil and show the pain and sorrow of a striving people. Like Saint Paul's letter to the Corinthians Du Bois's "letter" to the American people urges people not to live behind the veil but to live above it. So, wed with truth, I dwell above the Veil. Is this the life you grudge us, O knightly America? -W.E.B. Du Bois ---------- Footnote1 W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (New York: Bantam Company, 1989) 3. Footnote2 Ibid., 6. Footnote3 Arnold Rampersad, Slavery and the literary imagination: Du Bois's The Souls of Black Folk (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1989) 104-125. Rampersad in his book says that Du Bois's metaphor of the veil is an allusion to Saint Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Footnote4 W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (New York: Bantam Company, 1989) 3. Footnote5 Ibid., 3. Footnote6 Ibid., xxxi. Footnote7 Ibid., 189. Footnote8 Albert Rabatoteau, Slave Religion: The invisible institution "in the Antebellum South" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980) 212-318. Footnote9 Ibid., 318. Footnote10 Bell Hooks, Ain't I a Women: black women and feminism (Boston: South End Press, 1981) 20. Footnote11 Eric Foner, Reconstruction America's Unfinished Revolution (New York: Harper & Row Company, 1989) xix-xxvii. Footnote12 Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (New York: Random House Publishing, 1990) 3. Footnote13 W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (New York: Bantam Company, 1989) 1. Footnote14 Eric Foner, Reconstruction America's Unfinished Revolution (New York: Harper & Row Company, 1989) 119. Footnote15 Albert Rabatoteau, Slave Religion: The invisible institution "in the Antebellum South" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980) 294-300. According to Rabatoteau slaves stressed the stores of Exodus and the Sermon on Mount thus providing them with hope in the darkness of slavery. Footnote16 Slave owners out special emphasis on sections of the Bible which justified slavery, such as the Hamitic Hypothesis, the Apostle Paul's letter to Phileon a slave owner, and the Hebrew Slaves. Footnote17 Eric Foner, Reconstruction America's Unfinished Revolution (New York: Harper & Row Company, 1989) xxi-xxiv.. Footnote18 W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (New York: Bantam Company, 1989) xxxi. Footnote19 Ibid., 3. Footnote20 Ibid., 147. Footnote21 Ibid., 151. Footnote22 Ibid., 153. Footnote23 Ibid., xxxii. Footnote24 Ibid., 187. Footnote25 August Meier, Negro thought in America 1880-1915 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966) 230-232. Footnote26 Paula Giddings, When and Where I Enter (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1984) 184. Paula Giddings points out how black women were stereotyped into three categories, the sexless suffering Aunt Jamima, the seductive temptress Jezebel, and the evil manipulative Sapphire. These are just some of the negative stereotypes of Blacks that formed on the white side of the veil. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The French and Indian War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The French and Indian War The French and Indian War was fought on July 9, 1755. This battle took place at Fort Duquesne, in western Pennsylvania, which was one of the many French forts in the Ohio Valley. The fight was between the English army, which was led by General Edward Braddock and the French army, which was led by Captain Beaujeau. The English army included 1,750 British regulars and 450 colonial militia. The French army, which included Indians, included less than 1,000 men. The English army and General Edward Braddock marched through the wilderness towards the French fort, Fort Duquesne. The uniforms that the British wore were easy to see through the forest. They were red and very bright. Some soldiers carried flags, some just marched and carried their guns, some were on horses, and others played music to which the army marched. General Braddock and his British soldiers believed that the right way to fight a battle was to position themselves in an open area. The French and Indians hid behind trees and rocks which was smart because more British bullets hit trees than French and Indian soldiers when the two armies fought. Ten miles from Fort Duquesne, Captain Beaujeau and his French army made a surprise attack on the English. Most of the British soldiers were killed and injured. While riding horses, General Braddock had four of them shot from under him before he himself was killed. When George Washington was 23 years old, he led the colonial militia on a retreat to safety. Two horses were shot from under him and four bullet holes were found in his coat, but Washington himself was not killed. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The GermanGreat Britain Trade Rivalry in Relation to the Cur.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The German-Great Britain Trade Rivalry in Comparison to the U.S.- Japan Trade Rivalry? The German-Great Britain trade rivalry like the U.S.-Japan trade rivalry involved a rising power cutting into the trade of an already dominant trading power. There were several causes of the German-Great Britain trade rivalry according to Hoffman. The first was German's industry's zeal in procuring new contracts and expanding markets. They did this by fulfilling contracts even if they were very small and constantly trying to stay up with market demand. Second, Germans had a knowledge of languages that the English firms lacked. Third, German industry was aided by their government. In contrast Great Britain did not even supply consular assistance in helping develop markets in British colonies. Fourth, British trade was hurt by the conservatism of British manufacturers who were unwilling to develop new markets or hold onto those it already possessed. These four factors are just some of the factors that helped German industry grow and rival that of Great Britain. These four factors are all very similar to the Japan-U.S. trade rivalry. Japan like Germany was able to catch up to the U.S. because the U.S. was large and arrogant and refused to believe it could face competition from Japan. Like Britain, U.S. industry believed that they could hold onto markets and would not face competition. British and U.S. industry were startled by the fast rate of growth and industrialization that allowed Germany and Japan to transform themselves quickly into trading rivals. This fast rate of growth also caused friction between both sets of countries. Relations between Germany and Great Britain were damaged as they bickered over markets in particular colonies in Africa . This is similar to the friction between the U.S. and Japan unfair trading practices and closed markets. Both the U.S. and Great Britain in response to losing markets toyed with the idea of economic nationalism and tariffs. As Britain lost markets to Germany many in Britain felt that Britain should adopt tariffs on goods while others known as the free traders believed that a free trade would benefit Britain by creating markets. This split between Tariff Reformers and Free Traders is similar to the split in the U.S. between those in favor of free trade and those opposed to it. Germany's grab for new markets in the 1890's through commercial treaties such as the 1891 treaty with Austria-Hungry is similar to both the United States and Japan's free trade zones with neighboring countries using treaties such as ASEAN and NAFTA. The German-Great Britain trade rivalry is different then the U.S.-Japan trade rivalry because a large sector of Japan's market for selling goods is the United States who it is competing against; this was not true of Germany. Both Britain and Germany were competing for markets outside of both their countries. Also the trade rivalry between Japan and the United States did not involve a fight over colonies. Trade rivalries between rising and dominant powers change little over time. The German-British trade rivalry and the Japan U.S. rivalry were very similar in their causes, effects, and the solutions that both sets of governments used to overcome their trading rival. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Golden Age of Greece.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Golden Age of Greece The ancient statues and pottery of the Golden Stone Age of Greece were much advanced in spectacular ways. The true facts of Zeus's main reason for his statue. The great styles of the Kouros and the Kore. The story of The Blinding of Polphemus, along with the story of Cyclops. The Dori and Ionic column stone temples that were built in Greece that had an distinctive look. The true colors of the vase, Aryballos. The vase that carried liquids from one place to another. The Lyric Poetry that was originally a song to be sung to the accompaniment of the lyre. Zeus was considered, according to Homer, the father of the gods and of mortals. He did not create either gods or mortals; he was their father in the sense of being the protector and ruler both of the Olympian family and of the human race. He was lord of the sky, the rain god, and the cloud gatherer, who wielded the terrible thunderbolt. His breastplate was the aegis, his bird the eagle, his tree the oak. Zeus presided over the gods on Mount Olympus in Thessaly. His principal shrines were at Dodona, in Epirus, the land of the oak trees and the most ancient shrine, famous for its oracle, and at Olympia, where the Olympian Games were celebrated in his honor every fourth year. The Nemean games, held at Nemea, northwest of Argos, were also dedicated to Zeus. Zeus was the youngest son of the Titans Cronus and Rhea and the brother of the deities Poseidon, Hades, Hestia, Demeter, and Hera. According to one of the ancient myths of the birth of Zeus, Cronus, fearing that he might be dethroned by one of his children, swallowed them as they were born. Upon the birth of Zeus, Rhea wrapped a stone in swaddling clothes for Cronus to swallow and concealed the infant god in Crete, where he was fed on the milk of the goat Amalthaea and reared by nymphs. When Zeus grew to maturity, he forced Cronus to disgorge the other children, who were eager to take vengeance on their father. Zeus henceforth ruled over the sky, and his brothers Poseidon and Hades were given power over the sea and the underworld, respectively. The earth was to be ruled in common by all three. Beginning with the writings of the Greek poet Homer, Zeus is pictured in two very different ways. He is represented as the god of justice and mercy, the protector of the weak, and the punisher of the wicked. As husband to his sister Hera, he is the father of Ares, the god of war; Hebe, the goddess of youth; Hephaestus, the god of fire; and Eileithyia, the goddess of childbirth. At the same time, Zeus is described as falling in love with one woman after another and resorting to all kinds of tricks to hide his infidelity from his wife. Stories of his escapades were numerous in ancient mythology, and many of his offspring were a result of his love affairs with both goddesses and mortal women. It is believed that, with the development of a sense of ethics in Greek life, the idea of a lecherous, sometimes ridiculous father god became distasteful, so later legends tended to present Zeus in a more exalted light. His many affairs with mortals are sometimes explained as the wish of the early Greeks to trace their lineage to the father of the gods. Zeus's image was represented in sculptural works as a kingly, bearded figure. The most celebrated of all statues of Zeus was Phidias's gold and ivory colossus at Olympia. The standing nude youth (kouros), the standing draped girl (kore), and the seated woman. All emphasize and generalize the essential features of the human figure and show an increasingly accurate comprehension of human anatomy. The youths were either sepulchral or votive statues. Examples are Apollo (Metropolitan Museum), an early work; Strangford Apollo from Límnos (British Museum, London), a much later work; and the Anavyssos Kouros (National Museum, Athens). More of the musculature and skeletal structure is visible in this statue than in earlier works. The standing, draped girls have a wide range of expression, as in the sculptures in the Acropolis Museum, Athens. Their drapery is carved and painted with the delicacy and meticulousness common to the details of sculpture of this period. The Blinding of Polyphemus. Polyphemus, a Cyclops, the son of Poseidon, god of the sea, and of the nymph Thoösa. During his wanderings after the Trojan War, the Greek hero Odysseus and his men were cast ashore on Polyphemus's island home, Sicily. The enormous giant penned the Greeks in his cave and began to devour them. Odysseus then gave Polyphemus some strong wine and when the giant had fallen into a drunken stupor, bored out his one eye with a burning stake. The Greeks then escaped by clinging to the bellies of his sheep. Poseidon punished Odysseus for blinding Polyphemus by causing him many troubles in his subsequent wanderings by sea. In another legend, Polyphemus was depicted as a huge, one-eyed shepherd, unhappily in love with the sea nymph Galatea. Cyclops, giants with one enormous eye in the middle of the forehead. In Hesiod, the three sons-Arges, Brontes, and Steropes-of Uranus and Gaea, the personifications of heaven and earth, were Cyclopes. The Greek hero Odysseus was trapped with his men in the cave of the Cyclops Polyphemus, a son of Poseidon, god of the sea. In order to escape from the cave after the giant devoured several men, Odysseus blinded him. Dori and Ionic Columns. Aware of Egyptian temples in stone, Greeks in the 7th century began to build their own stone temples in a distinctive style. They used limestone in Italy and Sicily, marble in the Greek islands and Asia Minor, and limestone covered with marble on the Greek mainland. Later they built chiefly in marble. The temples were rectangular and stood on a low, stepped terrace in an enclosure where rituals were performed. Small temples had a two-columned front porch, sometimes with a portico before it. Larger temples, with front and back porches, might have a six- columned portico before each porch or be entirely surrounded by a colonnade. The colonnade supported an entablature, or lintel, under the gabled, tiled roof. Architects developed two orders, or styles of columns, the Doric and the Ionic (see Column). Doric columns, which had no bases and whose capitals consisted of a square slab over a round cushion shape, were heavy and closely spaced to support the weight of the masonry. Their heaviness was relieved by the tapered and fluted shaft. On the entablature, vertical triglyphs were carved over every column, leaving between them oblong-later square-metopes, which were at first painted and later filled with painted reliefs. The Doric style originated on the mainland and became widespread. The Doric temples at Syracuse, Paestum, Selinus, Acragas, Pompeii, Tarentum (Taranto), Metapontum, and Corcyra (Kérkira) still exist. Especially notable is the Temple of Poseidon at Paestum (450 BC). Columns in the Ionic style, which began in Ionia (Asia Minor) and the Greek islands, are more slender, more narrowly fluted, and spaced farther apart than Doric columns. Each rests on a horizontally fluted round base and terminates in a capital shaped like a flat cushion rolled into volutes at the sides. The entablature, lighter than in the Doric style, might have a frieze. Examples of Ionic temples are in Ephesus near modern Izmir, Turkey, in Athens (the Erechtheum), and (some traces) in Naucratis, Egypt. There are three standard types of columns in Greek classical architecture. The oldest is the Doric, which is the widest, has no base, and is topped by a simple abacus with an echinus directly underneath it. The Ionic column has a base and a capital made of scroll-shaped volutes directly beneath the abacus. The most elaborate column is the Corinthian. It has the most complex base, and the capital is made of layers of carved acanthus leaves ending in volutes. All three columns have fluted shafts. The Aryballos was a very colorful vase. The black figure technique and the very Eastern-looking panther are characteristic of the Orientalizing style. Also characteristic are the flower like decorations, which are blobs of paint scored with lines. The musculature and features of the panther are also the result of scoring. The most characteristic shape was that of the aryballos, a polychromed container for carrying liquids. The Corinthian artist developed a miniature style that made use of a wide variety of eastern motifs-sphinxes, winged human figures, floral designs-all of them arranged in bands covering almost the entire surface of the vase. White, yellow, and purple were often used to highlight details, produced a bold and striking effect. The small size of the pot mad them ideal for exporting. The vases are well made, the figures lively, and the style instantly recognizable as Corinthian-an important factor for commercial success. Lyric Poetry. The lyric was originally a song to be sung to the accompaniment of the lyre. Two main types of lyrics were composed in ancient Greece: the personal and the choral lyric. The personal lyric was developed on the island of Lesbos (modern Lésvos). The poet and musician Terpander, who was born on Lesbos but lived much of his life in Sparta, introduced the seven-string lyre and set the poems of Homer to music. Most of his poems were nomes, or liturgical hymns, written in honor of a god, especially of Apollo, and sung by a single performer to the accompaniment of the lyre. The surviving fragments of his work are of doubtful authenticity. Terpander was followed later in the 7th century BC by the great poets of Lesbos. Alcaeus treated political, religious, and personal themes in his lyrics and invented the Alcaic strophe. Sappho, the greatest woman poet of ancient Greece, invented the Sapphic strophe and wrote also in other lyric forms. Her poems of love and friendship are among the most finely wrought and passionate in the Western tradition. The Lesbian poets, as well as a number of later lyric poets from other Greek cities, composed their poems in the Aeolic dialect. In the 6th century BC the playful lyrics of the poet Anacreon on wine and love were written in various lyric meters. Subsequent verse similar in tone and theme was known as anacreontic. The choral lyric was first developed in the 7th century BC by poets who wrote in the Dorian dialect. Dominant in the region around Sparta, the Dorian dialect was used even in later times, when poets in many other parts of Greece were writing choral lyrics. The Spartan poets first wrote choral lyrics for songs and dances in public religious celebrations. Later they wrote choral lyrics also to celebrate private occasions, such as a victory at the Olympian Games. The earliest choral lyric poet is said to have been Thaletas, who in the 7th century BC reputedly came from Crete to Sparta in order to quell an epidemic with paeans, or choral hymns addressed to Apollo. He was followed by Terpander, who wrote both personal and choral lyrics; by Alcman, most of whose poems were partheneia, processional choral hymns sung by a chorus of young girls and partly religious in character and lighter in tone than the paeans; and in the late 7th century by Arion. Arion is said to have invented both the dithyramb, or hymn to Dionysus, and the tragic mode, which was used extensively in Greek drama. Later great writers of choral lyrics include Sicilian poet Stesichorus, a contemporary of Alcaeus, who introduced the triadic form of choral ode, consisting of a series of groups of three stanzas; Ibycus of Rhegium, author of a large extant fragment of a triadic choral ode and of erotic personal lyrics; Simonides of Ceos, whose choral lyrics included epinicia, or choral odes in honor of victors at the Olympian Games, encomia, or choral hymns that celebrated particular persons, and dirges, as well as personal lyrics, including epigrams; and Bacchylides of Ceos, a nephew of Simonides, who wrote both epinicia, of which 13 are extant, and dithyrambs, of which 5 are extant. The ancient statues and pottery of the Golden Stone Age of Greece were much advanced in spectacular ways. The statue of Zeus was done for a very good reason. The statue represents being the lord of the sky, the rain god and the cloud gatherer. When I look at this statue, I see a whole bunch of different things, for example, I see a statue that has great muscular shapes which to me it represents that he had power over some town or group of people. I personally would be afraid of a statue that looks like Zeus. The Kore and the Kouros both emphasize and generalize the essential features of the human figure and show an increasingly accurate comprehension of human anatomy. The youths were either sepulchral or votive statues. The Blinding of Polyphemus, the son of Poseidon, god of the sea, and of the nymph Thoosa. Odysseus gave Polyphemus some strong wine and when the giant had fallen into a drunken stupor, bored out his one eye with a burning stake. The Dori and Ionic columns were rectangular and stood on a low, stepped terrace in an enclosure where rituals were performed. These columns were very much done with a great deal of intelligence. I personally do not understand how the people of the Golden Age had such intelligence in the columns for where they can build one or two to hold up a building, and it now still stands. It's incredible. The Aryballos are a very colorful vase. They Golden Age folks had great artistic talent to dray out on a vase the beautiful colors and drawings that it has. The Vase has an organizing style. The vase were used for carrying liquids. Vases like the Aryballos are now worth a fortune, why? Well, it took a great deal of time and talent to make these vases. The vases are probably worth about one million a piece. The height of the vases are varied, depending on the designs that were put on it. I think that the people of the Golden Age were very talented. The objects that we have from back then is very remarkable. The objects are had a great deal of time put into each of them. The pottery for example was what had really gotten to me because of the art that were drawn on it and the why they used there colors. I think that if It wasn't people like the Golden Age people who had drew these great objects, we would be way behind on the art that we have today. I like to look at it like our fathers before us that are teaching us what we know now. I must say, living in the nineties are much more better, relaxing, stress less, and more of a easy life now than before. I that god that I am here now with the knowledge that I know now. If I was a Nejeh in the Golden Age, I would probable commit suicide, if I wasn't killed by someone else. I can not complain. We have it good, we must thank God for being where we are. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Grange.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Grange was the first major farm organization and began in the 1860's. This organization was created mostly as a social and self-help association not originally an organization of protest. During the depression of 1873, this group of bonded friends, became an "agency for political change." They knew in ordered to help themselves they must become a voice in this new government in order to survive. With the depression farm product prices began to decrease. More farms joined the Grange to band together to resolve the issues before them. Beginning as a small group of friends learning from each other what worked and what didn't, by 1875 the Grange boasted of over 800,000 members and 20,000 local lodges; claiming chapters in almost every state, being the strongest in the states that produced the most: the South and Midwest. As a group (strong in member) they made their statement to the world on an appropriate day, Independence Day 1873. The framers Declaration of Independence informed those listening they were ready to fight back. The Declaration stated they would use "all lawful and peaceful means to free themselves from the tyranny of monopoly". Many of the members opened stores and other businesses so they could begin to buy and sell to each other. However most of these were farmers, with families, not businessmen and many companies didn't survive because of their lack of real business knowledge and the pressures of the middlemen who wanted them to fail. They worked as a team to get candidates elected who agreed with the need for governmental control of the railroads. With the control of the Legislatures they implemented governmental controls on railroad rates and practices. However the railroad was also very wealthy. They hired lawyers who soon destroyed the new regulations. With these defeats and with the new rise in farm prices in the late 1870's the Grange began to lose strength and power, dwindling to a membership to only 100,000 by 1880. The Grange was the springboard for another banding together of farmers, the Farmers Alliances. This new movement began in the Southern states and quickly spread beyond what the Grange had been. One of the most notable differences within the Alliance, was the approval of women to vote and become speakers and leaders for their cause. The Alliance however, had similar problems as the Grange. Many of the cooperations, stores, banks, processing plants and other resources began to suffer the same fate. Lack of solid management and the market forces operating against them caused them to fail. These disappointments aided the forming of a national political organization. This merger held their own national convention in Ocala, Florida in 1889, in which they introduced their Ocala Demands. Going even further they met and formed a third party. In July 1892, Omaha, Nebraska they met approved an official set of principles and nominated candidates for the presidency and vice presidency. Thus the People's Party, more often called the Populist Party was born. In the years that soon followed the Populist Party won the elections for Presidency (James B. Weaver of Iowa), three governorships, five senate and ten congressional seats. Also elected were many Republicans and Democrats who sided with the Populists. Most of the Populist leaders were middle class, professional people or long time politicians. Most were not small farmers. Populism lasted for two decades as a third political party, however it was a losing struggle. One main theory as to their fall was one of the nations leading historians in the 1950s, Richard Hofstadter wrote in his book The Age of Reform published and expounded this view of the Populism group and their likeness to Communism. He stated " the farmers were very committed to the capitalist system they claimed to abhor." He stated further that Populism "was permeated with bigotry and ignorance" revealing "anti-Semitic tendencies and their displayed animosity toward intellectuals, easterners, and urbanites." What began as a united group of "victims of economically marginal agricultural regions victimized by drought and debt". The Grangers turned into an organized group who backed many politicians who won and made changes to protect the small farmer, established a network of warehouses were farmers could deposit their crops and use these as collateral for borrowing money from the government at low rates and wait for the price of their crop to increase before selling, and the acceptance of silver as a form of money. Because of these two decades in our history we can see our power to influence and change politics. Alone these unimportant, unpowerful, poor people could do nothing, however when they came together elected leaders, their sheer numbers made people listen and shaped laws protecting their lives and rights as citizens of these f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Great Inflation.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Great Inflation In late-1922 the German government were forced to ask the Allies for a moratorium on reparations payments; this was refused, and she then defaulted on shipments of both coal and timber to France. By January of the following year, French and Belgian troops had entered and occupied the Ruhr. The German people, perhaps for the first time since 1914, united behind their government, and passive resistance to the occupying troops was ordered. A government-funded strike began as thousands of workers marched out of their factories and steel works. The German economy, already under massive pressure, gave way. The huge cost of funding the strike in the Ruhr and the costs of imports to meet basic consumer needs were met by the familiar expedient of the printing presses. Note circulation increased rapidly, and by November 1923 had reached almost 92 trillion marks. With less than three per cent of government expenditure being met from income and with the cost of one dollar at four billion marks, Germany was in the throes of economic and social chaos. Starvation became a reality for millions of people, despite a bumper cereal harvest, as shops reverted to the barter system. Farmers refused to accept the effectively worthless, banknotes in exchange for grain, and food quickly began to run short in the cities. Prices rose one trillion-fold from their pre-war level. More importantly, for the long-term political future of Germany, the middle and working classes saw their savings wiped out. These were, in essence, the people who were later to become the hard-core of the Nazi vote. Economists will argue that runaway hyperinflation has two sources. Firstly, it arises through a fall in the foreign exchange value of a currency, when an adverse balance of payments reduces foreign investors demand for the currency. A falling exchange rate increases the cost of imports and, therefore, the cost of living. Wages rise as workers try to maintain their standard of living, especially if previous institutional arrangements have linked wages to living costs. Firms paying higher wages raise the price of the goods they sell, prices rise still further, the foreign exchange value of the currency falls still more, and the cycle continues. Secondly, it arises through a large budget deficit which no one believes will narrow in the future. Faced with the prospect of budget deficits for many years to come, the usual sources of credit available to the government decline to make further loans; the government can no longer borrow to cover the deficit between revenue and expenditure. The only alternative is to print more and more banknotes. As government workers and suppliers present their bills to the Treasury, it pays them off with newly-printed pieces of paper. This puts more banknotes into the hands of the public and they then spend them. In Germany, as we have seen, the problem was that there were trillions of marks worth of paper currency in circulation. Prices could rise one thousand times between a worker being paid and his reaching the shops. A common analogy used is that if one could afford a bottle of wine today, one should keep the empty bottle which would be worth more tomorrow than the full bottle was today. Eventually, the power to boost government spending by printing money goes. When the government can no longer gain, even in the short-term, a budgetary balance through inflation, the situation becomes so intense that stabilisation through a currency board, a new finance minister or a link to the gold standard is implemented, and reform can be successful. It was at this point that some sanity was injected into the German economy by the election of Gustav Stresemann. He called a halt to resistance in the Ruhr, and set out to stabilise the mark. Luther, StresemannÆs Finance Minister, introduced the rentenmark the value of which was based on GermanyÆs staple, rye, rather than gold. In fact the rentenmark represented a mortgage on GermanyÆs land and industry, which could never be redeemed. It did not matter. The point was that the currency was stabilised and became exchangeable at a rate of one billion old marks to one new mark, and at the pre-war parity of 4.2 marks to the dollar. The new currency was quickly accepted by the population, and food and consumer goods began to appear in the shops. The government could now attempt to regain budgetary control in a climate of low inflation. The Dawes Plan was brokered, and a sum of some 39 billion dollars was lent to Germany of the following five years. However, this new economic prosperity had its basis in foreign investment, and thus the fate of Germany was now effectively held in the hands of Wall Street. The consequences of the Great Inflation to Germany are many fold, and there is no doubt that politically, the first warning signs of a move away from fascism were seen. In the elections of May 1924, both the Nazi and Communist Parties made gains at the expense of the centre. The faith of the people in the Republic suffered a severe blow. As Shirer points out: æWhat good were the standards and practices of such a society, which encouraged savings and investment and solemnly promised a safe return from them and then defaulted? Was this not a fraud on the people? And was not the democratic Republic, which had surrendered to the enemy and accepted the burden of reparations, to blame for the disaster?Æ Upper middle class savings in Germany were wiped out during the hyperinflation. Such savings had usually been invested in bonds and bank accounts, so the collapse of the real value of the mark carried with it the collapse of the value of the bonds. Debtors benefited substantially, for their debts were effectively wiped out. The relatively small, financially unsophisticated savers who made up GermanyÆs upper middle class had nothing left. This may have been the most important aspect of GermanyÆs early-1920s hyperinflation. People who are not rich but are comfortably off, pillars of their community, in middle-age, who have done well in life and saved enough to feel comfortable were the strongest supporters of relatively democratic, relatively liberal governments. Having learned the lessons of the Great Inflation, these were the people who remembered 1923 when the mark collapsed for the second time. These were the people who voted for the Nazi Party in their millions. The causes, then, of the Great Inflation are not perhaps the reparations clauses of the Treaty of Versailles which are commonly blamed for GermanyÆs ills. German financial practices during the war undoubtedly sowed the seeds of the disaster which was to strike in 1921. The failure of her Republican governments to act, by implementing austerity measures, through a fear of their own weakness of position, led to the inflationary printing of more paper money. The reparations clauses were clearly side- stepped by the very same governments who pleaded they did not have the means to pay. This suited the government, and also GermanyÆs industrialists and landowners who profited immensely from inflation. Avoidance of reparations, in fact, became more important than the welfare of the German people. The Republic was built on weakness: the idea that the fledgling Republic had æstabbed Germany in the backÆ by surrendering was widespread, and therefore led to the perceived necessity of avoiding reparations. This policy was doomed to failure, particularly in the face of French belligerence. More short-sightedness was to blame for the passive resistance in the Ruhr. Whilst clearly wishing to prevent German production from falling into French hands, it is clear that the government could not afford to finance the resistance for long and, as we have seen, this was the proverbial straw which broke the camelÆs back. There were, of course, external influences: the manipulation of the mark by foreign speculators was a side effect, as was Allied insistence on reparations. These were, however, merely a side-show to the main event. The fault of the inflation rests firmly in the hands of the government. In terms of the consequences of the inflation, the signposts to the future were in place. It was clear that a relatively well-off middle and upper middle class had little of no interest in anything other that centrist democracy. The swing towards extremism in 1924 was an indicator of what was to come in 1930. This is demonstrated by the gains made by the Nazis and Communists in May 1924, but also reflected in their poor performances in the ægolden yearsÆ of late-1924 to 1928. Following the second collapse of the mark in 1929, both these parties made huge gains at the expense of the centre. Voters do have memories, and those memories of two financial disasters in less than a decade were extremely strong. Finally, the fate of Germany, which since 1918 had been held in the hands of foreign governments, was essentially transferred into the hands of international financial institutions. The same people who structured the loans which helped to end the Great Inflation were the very same as those who speculated Germany - and, to be fair, the rest of the world - into the financial collapse of 1929. Germany, kept militarily weak by the allies, financially weak by her government and her industrialists was waiting in the wings for her moment to come. When that moment came, the ætwenty year truceÆ was ended by Adolf Hitler. That isperhaps the most damning indictment of both Republican mismanagement and world indecision that can be made. John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, (London: 1920), p.64. William R. Keylor, The Twentieth Century World, (Oxford: 1984)., pp. 84-85. William Gutteman and Patricia Meehan, The Great Inflation: Germany 1918 - 1923, (London: 1976), p.71. Eberhard Kolb, æThe Weimar RepublicÆ, (London: 1995), pp. 39 - 41. William L. Shirer, æThe Rise and Fall of the Third ReichÆ, (New York: 1980), pp. 58-61. David Hackett Fischer, æThe Great WaveÆ, (Oxford: 1996), pp. 192- 193. Erik Achorn, æEuropean Civilization and Politics since 1815Æ, (London: 1935), pp. 561 - 562. Kolb, op. cit., pp. 40 - 41. Shirer, op. cit., p. 63. David Fischer, op. cit., p. 193 The argument in this paragraph is drawn from David Fischer, op. cit., pp193 -194, Paul Kennedy, æThe Rise and Fall of the Great PowersÆ, (London: 1989, pp. 357 - 373, and D. H. Aldcroft, æFrom Versailles to Wall StreetÆ, (New York: 1977), chs. 1 & 2. David Blackman, æEuropean Inflationary Trends: 1815 - 1945Æ, (London: 1954), pp. 321 -322. David Fischer, op. cit., pp. 194 - 5. Kolb, op. cit., pp. 194 -195. Shirer, op. cit., p. 61. PAGE § PAGE 1§ Footnote Text iy, the provisions of the Treaty of Versaillesflation profiteeringÆ. Successive German governments failed to implement anti-inflationary policies and, it has been argued, this represented the cynical use of inflation as a reason for reducing, or not meeting, reparations payments. This is not to say that the reparations clauses did not have an effect on the German economy - of course they did. The Allies, however, failed to set a final reparations figure until the London Ultimatum of 1921; this long delay produced, as William Keylor argues: æàwidespread economic uncertaintyàForeign and domestic investors were understandably reluctant to commit their savings to an economic system that was saddled with an uncertain, and potentially enormous, claim on its productive resources.Æ In terms of the broader consequences of the Great Inflation, it is easily argued that the control of GermanyÆs fiscal affairs ultimately passed into the hands of the international banking community, which was to have disastrous long-term effects on Germany. It is also arguable that, as æthe foster-child of the Great InflationÆ, Adolf Hitler would come to power as a long term effect. The total cost of the First World War to Germany was, it has been calculated, in excess of 164 billion marks. This massive cost was met by raising some 93 billion marks in war loans, 29 billion from discounted Treasury Bills and the balance by the simple - if potentially disastrous - expedient of printing paper money. By late-1918 over 35 billion paper marks were in circulation, and more paper money was used to invest in yet more Bills. There was little fear that inflation - already beginning in Germany - would have a serious long-term effect on the economy. This financial mismanagement was justified by the belief, in both financial and government circles, that the defeated enemy would pay for the cost of the war. Germany had already indicated her willingness to fund her wars in this way, as can be seen in the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and her treaty with France in 1871. Karl Helfferich, Reich Secretary to the Treasury, had said in a wartime speech to the Reichstag: æAfter the war we shall not forego our claim that our enemies shall make restitution for all the material damage they have caused by the irresponsible launching of this war against us.Æ However, because of the inflationary means by which the imperial government had financed the war, the German mark in 1919 was worth less than 20 per cent of its pre-war value. After the formation of the Republic in 1919that can be made. John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, (London: 1920), p.64. William R. Keylor, The Twentieth Century World, (Oxford: 1984)., pp. 84-85. William Gutteman and Patricia Meehan, The Great Inflation: Germany 1918 - 1923, (London: 1976), p.71. Eberhard Kolb, æThe Weimar RepublicÆ, (London: 1995), pp. 39 - 41. William L. Shirer, æThe Rise and Fall of the Third ReichÆ, (New York: 1980), pp. 58-61. David Hackett Fischer, æThe Great WaveÆ, (Oxford: 1996), pp. 192- 193. Erik Achorn, æEuropean Civilization and Politics since 1815Æ, (London: 1935), pp. 561 - 562. Kolb, op. cit., pp. 40 - 41. Shirer, op. cit., p. 63. David Fischer, op. cit., p. 193 The argument in this paragraph is drawn from David Fischer, op. cit., pp193 -194, Paul Kennedy, æThe Rise and Fall of the Great PowersÆ, (London: 1989, pp. 357 - 373, and D. H. Aldcroft, æFrom Versailles to Wall StreetÆ, (New York: 1977), chs. 1 & 2. David Blackman, æEuropean Inflationary Trends: 1815 - 1945Æ, (London: 1954), pp. 321 -322. David Fischer, op. cit., pp. 194 - 5. Kolb, op. cit., pp. 194 -195. Shirer, op. cit., p. 61. Word Count: 2401 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The History of Greek Theater.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The History of Greek Theater Theater and drama in Ancient Greece took form in about 5th century BCE, with the Sopocles, the great writer of tragedy. In his plays and those of the same genre, heroes and the ideals of life were depicted and glorified. It was believed that man should live for honor and fame, his action was courageous and glorious and his life would climax in a great and noble death. Originally, the hero's recognition was created by selfish behaviors and little thought of service to others. As the Greeks grew toward city-states and colonization, it became the destiny and ambition of the hero to gain honor by serving his city. The second major characteristic of the early Greek world was the supernatural. The two worlds were not separate, as the gods lived in the same world as the men, and they interfered in the men's lives as they chose to. It was the gods who sent suffering and evil to men. In the plays of Sophocles, the gods brought about the hero's downfall because of a tragic flaw in the character of the hero. In Greek tragedy, suffering brought knowledge of worldly matters and of the individual. Aristotle attempted to explain how an audience could observe tragic events and still have a pleasurable experience. Aristotle, by searching the works of writers of Greek tragedy, Aeschulus, Euripides and Sophocles (whose Oedipus Rex he considered the finest of all Greek tragedies), arrived at his definition of tragedy. This explanation has a profound influence for more than twenty centuries on those writing tragedies, most significantly Shakespeare. Aristotle's analysis of tragedy began with a description of the effect such a work had on the audience as a "catharsis" or purging of the emotions. He decided that catharsis was the purging of two specific emotions, pity and fear. The hero has made a mistake due to ignorance, not because of wickedness or corruption. Aristotle used the word "hamartia", which is the "tragic flaw" or offense committed in ignorance. For example, Oedipus is ignorant of his true parentage when he commits his fatal deed. Oedipus Rex is one of the stories in a three-part myth called the Thebian cycle. The structure of most all Greek tragedies is similar to Oedipus Rex. Such plays are divided in to five parts, the prologue or introduction, the "prados" or entrance of the chorus, four episode or acts separates from one another by "stasimons" or choral odes, and "exodos", the action after the last stasimon. These odes are lyric poetry, lines chanted or sung as the chorus moved rhythmically across the orchestra. The lines that accompanied the movement of the chorus in one direction were called "strophe", the return movement was accompanied by lines called "antistrophe". The choral ode might contain more than one strophe or antistrophe. Greek tragedy originated in honor of the god of wine, Dionysus, the patron god of tragedy. The performance took place in an open-air theater. The word tragedy is derived from the term "tragedia" or "goat-song", named for the goat skins the chorus wore in the performance. The plots came from legends of the Heroic Age. Tragedy grew from a choral lyric, as Aristotle said, tragedy is largely based on life's pity and splendor. Plays were performed at dramatic festivals, the two main ones being the Feast of the Winepress in January and the City Dionysia at the end of March. The Proceeding began with the procession of choruses and actors of the three competing poets. A herald then announced the poet's names and the titles of their plays. On this day it was likely that the image of Dionysus was taken in a procession from his temple beside the theater to a point near the road he had once taken to reach Athens from the north, then it was brought back by torch light, amid a carnival celebration, to the theater itself, where his priest occupied the central seat of honor during the performances. On the first day of the festival there were contests between the choruses, five of men and five of boys. Each chorus consisted of fifty men or boys. On the next three days, a "tragic tetralogy" (group made up of four pieces, a trilogy followed by a satyric drama) was performed each morning. This is compared to the Elizabethan habit of following a tragedy with a jig. During the Peloponnesian Wars, this was followed by a comedy each afternoon. The Father of the drama was Thesis of Athens, 535 BC, who created the first actor. The actor performed in intervals between the dancing of the chorus and conversing at times with the leader of the chorus. The tragedy was further developed when new myths became part of the performance, changing the nature of the chorus to a group appropriate to the individual story. A second actor was added by Aeschylus and a third actor was added by Sophocles, and the number of the chorus was fixed at fifteen. The chorus' part was gradually reduced, and the dialogue of the actors became increasingly important. The word "chorus" meant "dance or "dancing ground", which was how dance evolved into the drama. Members of the chorus were characters in the play who commented on the action. They drew the audience into the play and reflected the audience's reactions. The Greek plays were performed in open-air theaters. Nocturnal scenes were performed even in sunlight. The area in front of the stages was called the "orchestra", the area in which the chorus moved and danced. There was no curtain and the play was presented as a whole with no act or scene divisions. There was a building at the back of the stage called a skene, which represented the front of a palace or temple. It contained a central doorway and two other stage entrances, one at the left and the other at the right, representing the country and the city. Sacrifices were performed at the altar of Dionysus, and the chorus performed in the orchestra, which surrounded the altar. The theatron, from where the word "theater" is derived, is where the audience sat, built on a hollowed-out hillside. Seated of honor, found in the front and center of the theatron, were for public officials and priests. he seating capacity of the theater was about 17,000. The audience of about 14,000 was lively, noisy, emotional and unrestrained. They ate, applauded, cheered, hissed, and kicked their wooden seats in disgust. Small riots were known to break out if the audience was dissatisfied. Women were allowed to be spectators of tragedy, and probably even comedy. Admission was free or nominal, and the poor were paid for by the state. The Attic dramatists, like the Elizabethans, had a public of all classes. Because of the size of the audience, the actors must also have been physically remote. The sense of remoteness may have been heightened by masked, statuesque figures of the actors whose acting depended largely on voice gestures and grouping. Since there were only three actors, the same men in the same play had to play double parts. At first, the dramatists themselves acted, like Shakespeare. Gradually, acting became professionalized. Simple scenery began with Sophocles, but changes of scene were rare and stage properties were also rare, such as an occasional altar, a tomb or an image of gods. Machinery was used for lightning or thunder or for lifting celestial persons from heaven and back, or for revealing the interior of the stage building. This was called "deus ex machina", which means god from the machine, and was a technical device that used a metal crane on top of the skene building, which contained the dressing rooms, from which a dummy was suspended to represent a god. This device was first employed by Euripides to give a miraculous conclusion to a tragedy. In later romantic literature, this device was no longer used and the miracles supplied by it were replace by the sudden appearance of a rich uncle, the discovery or new wills, or of infants changed at birth. Many proprieties of the Greek plays were attached to violence. Therefore, it was a rule that acts of violence must take place off stage. This carried through to the Elizabethan theater which avoided the horrors of men being flayed alive or Glouster's eyes being put out in full view of an audience (King Lear). When Medea went inside the house to murder her children, the chorus was left outside, chanting in anguish, to represent the feelings the chorus had and could not act upon, because of their metaphysical existence. The use of music in the theater began very simply consisting of a single flute player that accompanied the chorus. Toward the close of the century, more complicated solo singing was developed by Euripides. There could-then be large-scale spectacular events, with stage crowds and chariots, particularly in plays by Aeschylus. Greek comedy was derived from two different sources, the more known being the choral element which included ceremonies to stimulate fertility at the festival of Dionysus or in ribald drunken revel in his honor. The term comedy is actually drawn from "komos", meaning song of revelry. The second source of Greek comedy was that from the Sicilian "mimes", who put on very rude performances where they would make satirical allusions to audience members as they ad-libbed their performances. In the beginning, comedy was frank, indecent and sexual. The plots were loosely and carelessly structured and included broad farce and buffoonery. The performers were coarse and obscene while using satire to depict important contemporary moral, social and political issues of Athenian life. The comedy included broad satire of well known persons of that time. Throughout the comedic period in Greece, there were three distinctive eras of comedies as the genre progressed. Old comedy, which lasted from approximately 450 to 400 BCE, was performed at the festivals of Dionysus following the tragedies. There would be contests between three poets, each exhibiting one comedy. Each comedy troupe would consist of one or two actors and a chorus of twenty-four. The actors wore masks and "soccus", or sandals, and the chorus often wore fantastic costumes. Comedies were constructed in five parts, the prologue, where the leading character conceived the "happy idea", the parodos or entrance of the chorus, the agon, a dramatized debate between the proponent and opponent of the "happy idea" where the opposition was always defeated, the parabasis, the coming forth of the chorus where they directly addressed the audience and aired the poet's views on most any matter the poet felt like having expressed, and the episodes, where the "happy idea" was put into practical application. Aristotle highly criticized comedy, saying that it was just a ridiculous imitation of lower types of man with eminent faults emphasized for the audience's pleasure, such as a mask worn to show deformity, or for the man to do something like slip and fall on a banana peel. Aristophanes, a comic poet of the old comedy period, wrote comedies which came to represent old comedy, as his style was widely copied by other poets. In his most famous works, he used dramatic satire on some of the most famous philosophers and poets of the era. In "The Frogs" he ridiculed Euripides, and in "The Clouds" he mocked Socrates. His works followed all the basic principles of old comedy, but he added a facet of cleverness and depth in feeling to his lyrics, in an attempt to appeal to both the emotions and intellect of the audience. Middle comedy, which dominated from 400 to 336 BCE, was very transitional, having aspects of both old comedy and new comedy. It was more timid than old comedy, having many less sexual gestures and innuendoes. It was concerned less with people and politics, and more with myths and tragedies. The chorus began its fade into the background, becoming more of an interlude than the important component it used to be. Aristophanes wrote a few works in middle comedy, but the most famous writers of the time were Antiphanes of Athens and Alexis of Thurii, whose compositions have mostly been lost and only very few of their found works have been full extant plays. In new comedy which lasted from 336 to 250 BCE, satire is almost entirely replaced by social comedy involving the family and individual character development, and the themes of romantic love. A closely knit plot in new comedy was based on intrigue, identities, relationships or a combination of these. A subplot was often utilized as well. The characters in new comedy are very similar in each work, possibly including a father who is very miser like, a son who is mistreated but deserving, and other people with stereotypical personas. The chief writer of new comedy was Menander, and as with the prominent writers of the middle comedic era, most of his works have been lost, but other dramatists of the time period, like Terence and Platus, had imitated and adapted his methods. Menander's The Curmudgeon is the only complete extant play known by him to date, and it served as the basis for the later Latin writers to adapt. Adventure, brilliance, invention, romance and scenic effect, together with delightful lyrics and wisdom, were the gifts of the Greek theater. These conventions strongly affected subsequent plays and playwrights, having put forth influence on theater throughout the centuries. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The History of the Red Book of China in Relation to Internal .TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Red Book and the Power Structure of Communist China Propaganda in China during the Cultural Revolution took on many forms; there were mass Red Guard demonstrations in Tianamen Square in support of Mao Zedong, pictures of Mao were put up in every conceivable location from restaurants to the wallpaper in nurseries, and pamphlets and books of Mao's teachings were distributed to every Chinese citizen. One of these propaganda publications Quotations from Chairman Mao which later became known as the Little Red Book contained quotes from Mao Zedong and was distributed to every Chinese citizen. The history of the Red Book provides one of the best ways in which to analyze Chinese propaganda during the Cultural Revolution and see the ways in which the Chinese government was able to produce and effectively indoctrinate the Chinese people with Mao Zedong Thought. Official Chinese magazines from the period of 1967 to 1970 are filled with many pictures of citizens holding, reading, and memorizing the Red Book. This proposal will trace the rise and fall of images of the Red Book in the official Chinese publication China Reconstructs. This proposal will use a graphical analysis of pictures in this publication from 1966 to 1973 to show that propaganda was not just a tool of the Communist party but also a reflection of internal power struggles within the party during the Cultural Revolution. The Red Book was written several years before it became the object of national adoration and a tool for the Cultivation of Mao's personality Cult. The history of the Red Book and its meteoric rise from a hand book for military recruits to compulsory reading for all Chinese citizens, is closely tied to its developer Lin Biao's rise to power. Lin Biao was born in 1907 and was fourteen years younger then Mao; he joined the communist party in 1925 and until the communists captured control of China was at various times in charge of resistance forces, and armies of communist soldiers. When the communists took control in 1949 Lin Biao was behind Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Chen Yun, and Deng Xiaoping in rank (Yan and Gao, 1996: 179). But eighteen years later during the height of the Cultural Revolution Lin Biao by winning favor with Mao by publishing and championing the Red Book and the Cult of Mao became second only to the Chairman in power and position (Ming-Le, 1983: 80). In 1959 Peng Dehua was dismissed as minister of defense and Lin Biao was appointed in his place. At an armed forces meeting for high cadres during September of that year Lin Biao, energetically started promoting the Cult of Mao saying, "Learning the writings of comrade Mao Zedong is the shortcut to learning Marxism-Leninism. Chairman Mao's writings are easy to learn and can be put to use immediately. Diligent work will pay dividends many fold." (Yan and Gao, 1996: 182) His references to "shortcut" and "quick dividends" in his speech went unnoticed at the time as few foresaw the effects of creating a Cult around Mao. But looking back on the Cultural Revolution and Lin Biao, we can see his using the Cult of Mao was indeed a shortcut that produced huge dividends both for himself and for Mao. Mao to the Chinese people was a symbol sovereignty and the construction of socialism; to them praise for Mao was fitting with his symbolic role in society. Starting in 1959 Lin Biao in front of military audiences in order to help buildup support for the Cult of Mao used such phrases as, "the dire necessity of acquiring Mao Zedong's thought," "to study the writings of Mao Zedong with questions in mind is to shoot arrows with target in sight," "we must arm our minds with Mao Zedong's thought" (Yan an Gao, 1996: 181). Lin Biao's goal of building up both himself and the Cult of Mao lead him in September of 1960 to pass a resolution at the meeting of the Military Commission, which called for more political education among the armed forces (Yan and Gao, 1996: 181) Mao Zedong Thought is the compass for the Chinese people's revolution and socialist construction, the powerful ideological weapon against imperialism, and the powerful ideological weapon against revisionism and dogmatism..... raise high the red banner of Mao Zedong Thought, go further and mobilize the minds of all officers and soldiers with Mao Zedong Thought, and resolve to make sure that Mao Zedong Thought, and resolve to make sure that Mao Zedong Thought is in command in all phases of work... Really learn by heart the Mao Zedong Thought! Read Chairman Mao's books, listen to Chairman Mao's words, follow Chairman Mao's directives, and serve as Chairman Mao's good soldiers! Shortly after the passage of the resolution by Lin Biao, the fourth volume of the selected works of Mao Zedong was published. On the occasion of it being sold to the public Lin Biao wrote an article calling upon all people in the military to read and study the works of Chairman Mao and dedicate to memory Mao Zedong Thought (Yan and Gao, 1996: 183). On April 1964 Lin Biao direct the military presses to publish a selection of quotes from Mao in a Little Red Book. The book titled Quotations From Chairman Mao was aimed at providing military recruits a shortened version of Maoist thought (Yan and Gao, 1996: 183). Military recruits before the publication of the Red Book were encouraged to study the Selected Works of Mao Zedong. But this set of books had grown so large (it's four volumes contained over fifteen hundred pages) many of the military's recruits who were from peasant backgrounds were unable to read its complicated articles. The Little Red Book in contrast with its hand picked quotes and introduction by Lin Biao was short with easy to read quotes. Before the publishing of the Red Book the study of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong greatly increased in the military this was in large part due to the encouragement and directives issued by Lin Biao. In 1961 Lin Biao while inspecting a contingent of troops said that the works of Chairman Mao Zedong, were a guide to those in the military, "Every lesson in political education must use the works of Chairman Mao Zedong as an ideological guide." (Yan and Gao, 1996: 183) Lin Biao also directed the military press to publish sections from the Red Book in the Liberation Army Daily the official publication of the PLA (People's Liberation Army). The Red Book provided many of the military recruits who were mostly uneducated peasants with a grounding in Maoist thought. The quotes selected in the Red Book such as, " Carry on the workers struggle, down with rightist revisionism" were sufficient vague as to allow recruits to draw from the Red Book what they wanted to. Lin Biao's efforts to promote the study of Maoist thought were done to win favor with Mao and increase his position in the party (Tsou, 1986: 49). Lin Biao's cultivation of the Cult of Mao Zedong soon earned him Mao's notice. During a meeting in 1961 Mao applauded Lin Biao's work in the armed forces saying, "Recently comrade Lin Biao inspected the forces as far down as the company level and showed understanding of a good many things, including the problems of construction among our forces, and he made very good suggestions about various tasks of construction." (Yan and Gao, 1996: 182) Lin Biao feeling that his work at publicizing Mao's teachings was paying off redoubled his efforts at promoting Mao Zedong Thought. He insisted that quotes from Mao Zedong could be used to accomplish tasks within the military and made the Red Book required reading for all in the military (Tsou, 1986:50). In January of 1962 the Part Central held an enlarged work session called a seven thousand person meeting. This meeting was aimed at rectifying the mistakes of The Great Leap Forward, and to promote the economy. A large majority at the meeting criticized Mao Zedong; but Lin Biao who believed that his future was inextricably linked to that of Mao gave one of the lone speeches in support of Mao (Yan and Gao, 1996: 182). Lin Biao said at the conference that the reason The Great Leap Forward had not a success was because the dictates of Chairman Mao had not been followed closely enough. After the economy started to improve in 1963 and Mao gained back wide support Mao looked back and remembered that Lin Biao was one of the few who had stood by him and did not criticize him during the Party Central meeting. This event shows how Lin Biao was a shrewd political thinker who saw that his future was connected with that of Mao and winning Mao's approval. By 1962 Lin Biao's chief tool at achieving this objective was the promotion of Mao Zedong Thought (Dutt and Dutt, 1970: 63). After May of 1961 the Liberation Army Daily followed Lin Biao's directive and printed selection's from the Selected Works of Mao Zedong. By May of 1964 with a further directive from Lin Biao the general publication department of the Liberation Army, edited and published the Red Book accompanied by the publication of the selected reader of the workers of Mao suggested by Lin Biao (Yan and Gao, 1996: 183). The Red Book had an inscription on its cover written in calligraphy by Lin Biao that read, "Study Chairmen Mao's writings, follow his teachings, and act accordingly" (Kraus, 1991: 109). The fact that the inscription on the Red Book was in Lin Biao's handwriting was significant in that it symbolized the connection between the Red Book, Lin Biao, and the Cult of Mao. Both of these publications were published in large quantities and distributed among the armed forces. There now was a fervor for the studying of works by Mao in military ranks, illiterate soldiers were able to recite long passages from memory and military troops studied the Red Book during their breaks. With such a backdrop Lin Biao recognized that the time was right for increasing his position within the party. The cultivation of the Cult of Mao had support from Mao Zedong and when he started the Cultural Revolution in August of 1966 Mao saw that Lin Biao's thought education in the military could be applied to the whole nation (Rodzinski, 1988:96). The period before the Cultural Revolution provides some very important insights into the development of the Red Book and of Lin Biao's connection to the Red Book. In the period before August of 1966 the Red Book was not read by those outside of the military. A graphical analysis of pictures before 1967 shows that the Red Book was not a widely used method of propaganda as it did not appear in many pictures and the pictures it did appear in were of soldiers in the PLA. Although studying Maoist thought was important during the period prior to the Cultural Revolution in society as a whole it was not very important. There are several reasons: First, there was no reason to Cultivate the Cult of Mao Zedong Thought during this time, Mao prior to 1966 was not trying to lead any mass movements in which he would need popular support. The Great Leap Forward and the anti-rightist campaign's came during times in which Mao was powerful within the party so he did not need wide spread support outside of the central command. Second, Mao prior to the Cultural Revolution was more interested in promoting communist economics then ideology. Mao promoted The Great Leap Forward which was not a ideological campaign but instead an economic campaign to promote industrialization (Rodzinski, 1988:74). And in the period from 1961 to 1965 Mao was chiefly concerned with getting the economy back on track following the disastrous Great Leap Forward. But by 1966 the economy of China was back on track and Mao had once more gained back the support of the central leaders of the communist party. The Cultural Revolution launched in 1966 lasted depending on the author until 1971 or 1976 and was initiated by Mao Zedong to renew the spirit of the Chinese Revolution. Fearing that China would develop along the lines of the Soviet model and concerned about his own place in history, Mao threw China into turmoil in a monumental effort to reverse what Mao saw as a rightist movement within China. During the 1960's tensions with Russia increased and Mao became convinced that the Russian Revolution had stalled and become rightist, Mao feared that China was following the same path (Yan and Gao, 1996: 7). Mao theorized that to keep China from becoming social stratified and elitist the process of continuos revolution had to be initiated by the government. To Mao the Cultural Revolution that he initiated had four goals: to replace party members with leaders more faithful to his thinking; to reenergize the Chinese Communist party and Purge the rightists; to provide China's youth with a revolutionary experience; and to change society such that specific systems such as education, healthcare, and cultural systems such as opera and music became less elitist (Mitchell and Kua, 1975: 465). Mao launched the Cultural Revolution at the Eleventh Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee in August 1966. In the following weeks Mao shut down the schools in order to allow young people to take part in the revolution (Mitchell and Kua, 1975: xii). Mao also established a national mobilization of the countries youth. They were organized into Red Guard groups and encouraged to attack all tradition values, symbols, and leaders who were rightist or bourgeois. Mao believed that the attacks would both provide the youth with a revolutionary experience thus continuing the cycle of continuos revolution and they would strengthen the party by removing the rightist elements. Mao also saw the Cultural Revolution as a way to strengthen his own political base because the Red Guards acted to remove all who opposed Mao Zedong. The movement quickly escalated; intellectuals party officials, teachers, and the elderly were both physically attacked and verbally abused made to wear dunce caps in the streets and to denounce themselves. Temples, restaurants, and all signs of old values were ransacked by the Red Guard youths. The Cultural revolution put middle school and high school students in charge of the nation and like a version of Lord of the Flies the nation fell into anarchy and paralysis The Cultural Revolution also lead to changes within the structure of the communist party. Before the Cultural Revolution Liu Shaoqi was Mao Zedong's designated successor, but during the early stages of the Cultural Revolution Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping and many others who Mao deemed as being rightists were removed from the party. In their place Mao installed those who had been most loyal to him in the past; one of those men was Lin Biao (Dutt and Dutt, 1970: 80). Mao rightly saw that the best way to provide both direction for the Red Guards and to make himself immune from their attacks upon party official would be to foster a personality Cult. Thus under the guidance of Lin Biao who after Liu Shaoqi was removed; become the successor to Mao Lin Biao helped foster a personality Cult for Mao. Lin Biao used the same types of techniques that he used in the army to help foster this Cult of Mao. Lin Biao used the same organization to disseminate propaganda that he had devised for the Army. Lin Biao continued to head the army till his death in 1971 but his role was expanded as he became the high priest of the Cult of Mao (Yan and Gao, 1996: 334). The reading of the Red Book was encouraged by both Mao, party directives written by Lin Biao, Chen Boda, and Kang Sheng who during the Cultural Revolution became Mao's closest advisors. All three of these advisors worked tirelessly to promote the Cult of Mao because they saw it as their way to curry favor with Mao Zedong and their efforts met with whole hearted approval. Mao in an interview near the end of the Cultural Revolution commented that Krushchev could have avoided loosing his power if he had created an appropriate Cult for himself (Yan and Gao, 1996: 313). Mao relied on the power of propaganda to enlarge his Cult during the Cultural Revolution. The Red Book became his most powerful weapon. Quotations from the Red Book replaced the usual front page section entitled today's important news in the People's Daily. Various other newspapers and journals increased their coverage of Mao Zedong printing his speeches, pictures, and quotes. Some even retold stories of his days fighting the Japanese and the KMT (Yan and Gao, 1996: 215). The major newspapers in June of 1966 started writing editorials and stories encouraging the public to study the thought of Chairman Mao by reading . On June 6 both the Liberation Army Daily and the People's Daily simultaneously published a front page article calling on the Chinese people to study Mao Zedong Thought and reading Selected Works of Mao Zedong. The headline read, "Raise high the Great Red Flag of Mao Zedong, Carry to the end the great proletariat revolution." (Yan and Gao, 1996: 215) It was no coincidence that the Liberation Army Daily and the People's Daily both carried the same story about increasing Mao Zedong thought study. It symbolized the rise in power of Lin Biao who with the start of the Cultural Revolution and the expulsion of Liu Shaoqi had increased his power within the communist party. Lin Biao's ideas of education and indoctrination into Maoist thought had with the publishing of the story in the People's Daily in June of 1966 moved from the army to all of China. From this point on until he lost favor with Mao in 1970 Lin Biao became the cheerleader of the Cult of Mao directing the national frenzy that enveloped China with its adoration of Mao Zedong (Dutt and Dutt, 1970: 80). Under the leadership of Lin Biao the leading newspapers in China printed stories urging readers to read the works of Mao. As of yet the only books available to the public was the four volume long Selected Works of Mao Zedong; the Red Book had not yet become available to the pubic. In the fall of 1966 the People's Daily published such headlines as, 'Mao Zedong thought is the red sun within our bosom," and stories in newspapers were filled with such lines as, "Chairman Mao's books are not gold, but are more precious then gold; not steel, but stronger then steel." (Yan and Gao, 1996: 183) Pictures from this time depicted happy Chinese citizens reading pamphlets by Mao such as the, "Man Who Moved The Mountain." But as of yet the number of pictures in 1966 that pictured Red Books was limited and only included members of the armed forces. But the stories in the newspapers and other propaganda put out by the government such as radio broadcasts stirred up a great fever in support of Mao and the study of Mao Zedong Thought. On August 12 following the Eleventh Plenum of the Eighth party congress copies of The Selected Works of Mao Zedong were distributed at major universities before they were shut down to prepare for the Cultural Revolution. During the rest of 1966 newspapers reported daily on the sale on The Selected Works of Mao Zedong. The government lowered the price of the set of books to two yuan so that every person could posses a copy of the Selected Works. Sales were brisk then starting in January of 1967 Lin Biao made Quotations From Chairman Mao available to the public. Everyone immediately wanted to buy it. Group study sessions of the book became common. At many Red Guard rallies during the next several years Red Guard troops set whole pages of the book to song (Yan and Gao, 1996: 248). Lin Biao ordered the presses of China to print millions of copies of the Red Book and distribute them to the public. The Chinese media encouraged the reading of the Red Book by printing stories extolling the virtues of those who committed the book to memory. (Yan and Gao, 1996: 249) Granny Liu spent days and nights studying the works of Chairman Mao. When she forgot, she called other to teach her. Granddaughter Yuhzen slept with her and would thus be awakened ten times a night. Even though the granddaughter could not sleep well, Granny Liu would say endearingly to her, "Yuhzen, one more word you can teach granny is one more measure of loyalty to Chairman Mao and one more bullet for Liu Shaoqi."....Granny Liu also eagerly disseminated Mao Zedong Thought. For more than sixty years she, had not known how to sing. Now, learning from her daughter and granddaughter, she sang every where....Proudly Granny Liu said, "This old women can't really handle a tune. But what I sing is my feeling for Chairman Mao. When I disseminate Mao Zedong Thought, the more I sing the younger I get." Thus from January of 1967 to Lin Biao's death and the end of the Cultural Revolution everyone in China it seemed wanted to be a Granny Liu; a person who worked for the greater glory of Mao Zedong and China. The Red Book provided the Chinese people both with a basic although cryptic introduction to Maoist thought and it also provided them with a connection to their leader. Lin Biao was able to successfully indoctrinate the entire nation not just in an idolization of Mao but also in a frenzied studying of his quotes. The period from 1966 to 1971 is marked by Chinese publications filled with pictures of Chinese citizens studying the Red Books on communes, in fields, in classrooms, at rallies, and at ad-hoc study groups that met from along the Pearl River in the south of China to the plains of Tibet. The number of pictures in China Reconstructs of people holding Mao books increased from just a trickle prior to 1967 to almost fifty percent of all at the Height of the Cultural Revolution. Along with this upward trend in the number of Mao books was an increasing number of flattering articles about Lin Biao. One article in 1968 called him both a valiant fighter for the revolution and a loyal follower of Mao. The irony of this quote was probably missed by most readers at the time but looking back it was Lin Biao who created the Cult of Mao to further his own goals within the communist party and not Lin Biao's goals of helping Mao. The percentage of pictures of the Red Book and articles about Lin Biao during this time reflected not just the frenzy over the Cult of Mao in China but also the power of Lin Biao it was through his work that the Red Book became a talisman for the Chinese people. Chinese citizens read the Red Book because of the appeal and aura that surrounded it. The Red Book connected individual Chinese citizens with their leader. It enabled the average citizen who would never meet Mao in their lifetime to possess a piece of him and his words. During the Cultural Revolution Mao became a god in the eyes of the Chinese people no criticism of him could be tolerated, nor the slightest deviation from his instruction permitted. Every word he uttered was taken as truth he became in effect a living Buddha, and like Buddha his writings became like sutra's. His quotes like passages from the sutra's were memorized, chanted, set to song, and reproduced on billboards and on the beams of houses. (Rodzinski, 1988:121) The Red Book became during the Cultural Revolution a holy sutra carried by every citizen everywhere and studied endlessly. Some would say that the Red Book became the bible of the Cultural Revolution but this theory has several flaws. First, if this is true then the Mao would be the Jesus Christ of his time, but Mao unlike Jesus reached unquestioned power during his lifetime and unlike Jesus had no one above him; Mao was god not the son of god in China. Second, the Red Book is not parallel to the bible in its symbolism. The bible is not committed to memory by most Christians unlike the sutras which Buddhists learn long passages from. Mao followed in the footsteps of the Buddhist framework of religious organization. Under the Cultural Revolution Buddhism and Confucianism were wiped out, Red Guards destroyed Buddhist temples and tortured monks; but in this religious vacuum Mao placed himself as Buddha and his writings as Sutra's. The Red Book during the Cultural Revolution provided a semblance of structure and unity in the chaos of the time. Even though rival Red Guard factions frequently clashed and the nation was thrown into turmoil the Red Book acted as a bond between the Chinese; they were all followers of Mao even as their nation dissolved into anarchy. The Red Book provided a framework in which for people to criticize others and also a bond between citizens, the party, Red Guards, and Mao. The study of the Red Book also provided a de-facto type of education while the schools were shut down. People learned to read in study groups while learning the Red Book's quotes. In these ways the Red Book was valuable in that it created a type of order out of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. One of the fascinating things about the Red Book was that nearly ever Chinese citizen possessed one but only a few of them could read it. This was one of the things that made the Red Book so popular was that it created with the idea that the Chinese populace was educated while many remained illiterate. This was one of the reason study groups were formed; so that a reader could read the Red Book to a group of illiterate peasants who would then memorize long passages so that they could feign literacy. In many places all other books but those by Chairman Mao were banned. Reading in Chinese society was held in high esteem even under communism and the idea of each citizen being a scholar was an appealing idea to both the peasants and served the purposes of Lin Biao who saw that the more widely the Cult of Mao and Mao Zedong Thought was spread the more his power would increase. But by 1970 the end of the Cultural Revolution had begun. Many within the party believed the Cultural Revolution had gone to far, destroyed to much, and were scared that they would become the next party member to be openly criticized by Red Guards. Lin Biao's success in promoting the teachings of Mao made him the successor to Mao starting in August of 1966 but his role was formalized in at the Ninth Party Congress convened in April of 1969 (Ming-Le, 1983: 49). After this Lin Biao tightened the grip of the military on Chinese Society. Lin Biao maneuvered to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet Border clashes in the spring of 1969 to declare martial law. Lin Biao quickly encountered opposition to his growing power. Mao himself became concerned about what he saw as a successor to eager to assume power, and starting in the fall of 1970 Mao maneuvered to limit the power of Lin Biao (Ming-Le, 1983: 47-52). In August of 1970 a national conference was held called the Second Plenum which was a conference of people chosen at the 1969 national conference to decide national policy. The Second Plenum was held in Lushan and chaired by Mao Zedong. At this conference Lin Biao maneuvered to make himself president of the republic. His clique of followers which included Chen Boda circulated such statements as, "Lin Biao is an uncommon genius he is one of the great teachers like Marx, and Lenin and Mao" (Ming-Le, 1983: 50) Lin Biao saw that holding the office of the presidency which became vacant after the death Liu Shaoqi in 1969 was a tool by which he could assume control over China and fulfill his lifetime ambition. On August 25, 1970 Mao convened the conference and upon hearing of Lin Biao's plan destroyed it in a matter of two days. Mao did this in three ways. First, he sentenced Chen Boda to self-examination, this was a clear warning to Lin Biao to stop his grab for power. Second, Mao threatened the members of the conference by saying that he would leave if they brought up the issue of the presidency. Third, Mao wrote in a public letter called, "Some Views of Mine," a criticism of those who claim but do not really understand Marxism. This letter was clearly speaking about Lin Biao although it did not say so directly. The conference at Lushan was a turning point for Lin Biao is symbolized his fall from the graces of Mao because of what Mao perceived as his impatience to become president. Mao was able to effectively eliminate Lin Biao as a threat by joining forces with Zhou Enlai and by isolating Lin Biao's assistant Chen Boda. (Yan and Gao, 1996: 309) By January of 1971 Lin Biao was no longer in Mao's clique of advisors and Mao further distanced himself from Lin Biao and his work at creating a cult of Mao by saying in December of 1970 that he felt the cult created around him had grown to large (Yan and Gao, 1996: 313), what happened between then and Lin Biao's death in September of the year is the object of much speculation. The official Chinese government's story is that Lin Biao died on September 13, 1971, in an airplane crash in Mongolia as he was fleeing to the Soviet Union after having plotted unsuccessfully to overthrow Mao. According to this account during the whole of 1971 Lin Biao was organizing a coup among military officers. This account is very much in doubt and their is much speculation that Lin Biao after falling out of favor with the party leadership was assassinated by communist party (Ming-Le, 1983:228). This has been reinforced by Mongolian reports in 1990 that say that Lin Biao a was not on the plane that crashed in 1971. The years of 1970 to 1971 were also marked by the winding down of the Cultural Revolution as schools were reopened and Red Guard groups disbanded. It is a historic irony that Lin Biao who gave Mao so much power by building up his cult following was in the end a victim of the power that he created for Mao when he tried to gain control of the presidency in 1970. The death of Lin Biao in 1971 brought to China a silent liberation from the Cult of Mao. The people discovered that the person that they had for so long recognized as the high priest of the Maoist Cult and Mao's most loyal supporter was in fact a Janus faced person who was in fact planning to overthrow Mao. Lin Biao's two-faced appearance awakened in the Chinese public a distrust in politics and a feeling of deception in the Cult of Mao. The death of Lin Biao marked the end of the mass rallies in Tianamen Square and the end of the Cultural Revolution's crazed delirium (Yan and Gao, 1996: 335). The fall of Lin Biao is closely connected with the end of the Red Book. After Lin Biao fell from the inner circle of Mao newspapers stopped publishing accounts of Lin Biao's genius and stopped also publishing pictures of the Red Book. A graphical analysis of pictures during this period shows a sharp decline in the number of pictures of the Red Book following December of 1970. This closely correlates with the demise of Lin Biao as a member of Mao's inner circle. By the time Lin Biao died in September of 1971 barely any pictures of Lin Biao's Red Book were published in place of pictures of the Red Book and slogans urging education in Mao Zedong Thought; were tractors, workers in factors, and farmers plowing fields. All around China images of Lin Biao and his calligraphy were destroyed (Kraus, 1991: 111) On of the most telling pictures is that of the Albanian Nation Basketball team in 1972 being received by Mao in Beijing the accompanying story says that the Albanians received Chinese handicrafts from their hosts. In a nearly identical article published in 1967 the Albanian Basketball team is pictured meeting Chairman Mao and Lin Biao and the accompanying story says they received copies of the Red Book translated into Albanian. These two articles show the tremendous transformation that took place in China during the intervening years between the articles. The rise and fall of Lin Biao is inextricably connected with the rise and fall of his Red Book. When Lin Biao first became head of the army in 1959 he saw that if he wanted to rise in power he could do this only by currying favor with Mao Zedong; to this end he promoted Mao Zedong Thought within the army and later throughout China. Lin Biao built up the Cult of Mao Zedong Thought through a combination of playing on the needs of the Chinese people during a time of chaos by publishing the Red Book and by extolling the virtues of memorizing Mao's quotes in newspapers. The story of Lin Biao is the fascinating story of a man who rode the production of propaganda to great heights but his story also provides an insight into propaganda and what it tells us about China. Pictures in China Reconstructs from 1966 to 1974 show that propaganda was not just a tool of the Communist party but also a reflection of internal power struggles within the party during the Cultural Revolution. When Lin Biao gained power so did the number of images of the Red Book and when Lin Biao lost power the number of images of his Red Book dropped to nearly zero. Propaganda during the Cultural Revolution was not just a way for the communist party to control the people but it also was a reflection of individuals power within the party. The history of Lin Biao meteoric rise and demise is told not only in the history books but also in ascent and fall of his most prized piece of propaganda the Red Book. References: Dutt, Gargi and Dutt, V.P. (1970) China's Cultural Revolution. India: National Printing Works. Kraus, Richard (1991). Brushes With Power: Modern Politics and the Chinese Art of Calligraphy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kua, Michael (1975). The Lin Piao Affair. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press. Ming-Le, Yao (1983). The Conspiracy and Murder of Mao's Heir. London: Collins. Rodzinski, Witold. (1988). The People's Republic of China: A Concise Political History. New York: The Free Press. Tsou, Tang. (1986). The Cultural Revolution and Post-Mao Reforms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yan, Jiaqi and Gao, Gao. (1996). The Turbulent Decade: A History of the Cultural Revolution. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Impact of Infectious Disease in the New World.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Impact of Infectious Disease in the New World "It is often said that in the centuries after Columbus landed in the New World on 12 October, 1492, more native North Americans died each year from infectious diseases brought by the European settlers than were born." (6) The decimation of people indigenous to the Americas by diseases introduced by European invaders is unprecedented. While it is difficult to accurately determine the population of the pre-Columbian Americas, scholars estimate the number to have been between 40 and 50 million people. The population in Mexico alone in 1519 is believed to have been approximately 30 million. By 1568, that number was down to 3 million inhabitants. Although there were other causes for the population reduction such as "alcoholism, warfare, genocide, cultural disruption, and declines in fertility", it is now known that disease played a central role in the depopulation of the Americas. But how is it that these native peoples harbored virtually no immunity to the European diseases? What were these diseases and how did they come to be so feared? Who introduced them to this New World? How did this biological disaster affect the social structure of the Indians? This brief will attempt to answer the preceding questions. How is the presence or absence of disease in the New World determined? Archeologists are able to determine if a society or individual fell prey to disease by examining teeth, bones, coprolites(feces), and artistic depictions. Through the excavations of burial mounds, scientists have discovered that certain afflictions existed even before the white man landed. "Missing limbs, skin diseases, blindness, cleft palate, clubfoot, "dental disease, parasites, arthritis, and tuberculosis are all thought to have existed in pre-Columbian America. However, tracing epidemiology in the 15th century is difficult because so little was done to identify and classify diseases and their symptoms during this time period. One might say that the New World was "ripe" for the onslaught of hitherto unknown diseases due to several demographic shifts prior to 1492. These are parallel to shifts that occurred in Europe such as the creation of large urban areas. Since city planning wasn't what it is today, cities were overcrowded, sewers were nonexistent or inefficient, and disease carrying vermin multiplied. This created a welcome mat for infectious disease in addition to the general uncleanliness of the population and the great number of transient people such as soldiers, students, thieves and the mentally ill. Another factor leading to the assault of disease on medieval Europe was the domestication of large mammals. These animals were the origins of some of the most cursed afflictions of the time. Smallpox is a derivative of cowpox, measles of canine distemper, and influenza of hog diseases. "At first, neither young or old were spared. After generations, susceptible individuals were eliminated and resistant survivors dominated the gene pool. Diseases went from epidemics to childhood ills." (6) It was in this form that diseases were carried to the New World by unsuspecting conquistadors, to a population that had experienced its' own shifts to largely urban and sedentary lifestyles that become fertile ground for such an unseemly weapon of destruction. "Smallpox made its American debut in 1519, when it struck the Caribbean island of Santo Domingo, killing up to half of the indigenous population. From there outbreaks spread across the Antilles islands, onto the Mexican mainland, through the Isthmus of Panama and into South America." (2) Some of the other diseases that followed this path were measles, plagues(bubonic and pulmonary), gonorrhea(from soldiers raping native women), mumps, typhoid, and cholera. Two African diseases, malaria and yellow fever, also came to Central American probably because of the ideal weather conditions in this region. Prior to 1492, the Americas harbored relatively few infectious diseases. It is believed that the New World lived in virtual biological isolation from the rest of the planet due to the absence of domesticated animals and because of the path in which the Indians predecessors traveled. We know from origins of disease in Europe, that domesticated animals were to blame for the start of many epidemics. The New World lacked domesticated animals due to the extinction of large mammals, with which to draw from in the last ice age. Also, the remaining large mammals were not suitable for domestication for one reason or another. At the time of migration across the North American land bridge, cattle and sheep were still not utilized by society and therefore were not a cause for the spread of disease. It is also believed that the path of migration across Beringia created a type of "germ filter" thanks to the harsh Arctic climate that killed off any bacteria or disease carriers such as worms or mosquitoes. In addition, the remoteness of clusters of migrants created a natural quarantine. By the time one group fell prey to an infectious disease they were unable to travel the great distances to infect other groups thereby extinguishing the disease. "While the New World had its native infections, including Chagas and Carrion's diseases, trichinosis, tapeworm, and perhaps syphilis, few were deadly, and none (with the possible exception of syphilis), seriously threatened whole communities of European colonists."(6) The impact that this biological isolation had on the conquest of the Americas is obvious. Along with the weapons and horses that the Europeans brought to conquer the New World came disease. This was by far the most horrific instrument of destruction. After returning to Tenochtitlan from defeated a Spanish mission sent to est him and bringing with him only 1250 Spaniards and 8000 allied Tlaxcallan warriors, Cortes attacked the Aztecs which had pinned down the itinerant lieutenant left to govern them. His forces outnumbered and overcome by the Aztecs, he retreated and hours later Tenochtitlan was being ravaged by the previously unknown smallpox. It is believed that one of the soldiers picked up on the way back to Tenochtitlan by Cortes was suffering from smallpox. This disease wiped out Aztec leaders and warriors and subsequently cleared the path for Cortes to retake the city of 1.5 million. This victory was clearly not attributable to advanced weaponry, horses, or military genius but rather disease. Upon returning to the city, Cortes chronicler Bernal Diaz wrote, "'I solemnly swear that all the houses and stockades in the lake were full of heads and corpses. It was the same in the streets and courts...We could not walk without treading on the bodies and heads of dead Indians. Indeed, the stench was so bad that no one could endure it...and even Cortes was ill from the odors which assailed his nostrils.'" (2) Indeed it is from these first hand accounts, not skeletal remains, which provide us with the most evidence of destruction caused by disease. These authors include Las Casas, Father Acuna, and Diaz del Castillo. Before long the smallpox epidemic spread all over Central and South America. Infected natives, yet to develop symptoms, would flee their villages and travel to other villages carrying the disease with them. "...that any Indian who received news of the Spaniards could also have easily received the infection." (2) The reason that smallpox traveled so fast is because it could live in a dormant state on blankets and clothing or be transmitted by human breath. The incubation period was a long 10-14 days and because of this unsuspecting traders carried the virus all over the New World. "In general, the epidemics moved from east to west, loosely following the extent of European-American Indian contact:" (4) This was compounded by the high population densities of large Inca and Aztec cities and a more sedentary lifestyle for the Indians. By the time Pizarro and his conquistadors reached Peru in the 1520's, the Incas had already suffered from the ravages of smallpox. The epidemic left their leader dead with no clear successors which caused political unrest and the civilization was split into two easily defeated armies. One Spanish contemporary wrote at the time,"Had the land not been divided, we would not have been able to enter or win."(1) Clearly, the reason the Europeans were so successful in their campaign against the native populations despite being outnumbered was because of disease. Not only did disease result in military defeat but also enabled the Europeans to usurp property left behind by dead Indians and consequently fill the empty space with their own colonists. The spread of disease in the New World contributed to the decay of the culture there. Indians became too weak to harvest food or care for their young. It is believed that the Indians became depressed by the upheaval caused by recent events and became complacent and suicidal. There was a large scale abandonment of traditions such as marriage customs, which became difficult to observe because of the scarcity of marriage partners. Survivors of dying tribes banded together and formed new tribes. And the most lasting effect was the undermining of the Indian religions that caused the large-scale conversions for which the Spanish missionaries had hoped. "The defeats suffered by indigenous peoples always had a religious dimension-the traditional gods seemed to have lost their power to save their worshipers' lives. The argument that these abandoned then accepted whatever awaited them at the hands of their conquerors is however, the subject of continuing debate." (3) The Indians were devastated. Their devastation was evident by the writings of the time. "Great was the stench of death. After our fathers and grandfathers succumbed, half the people fled to the fields. The dogs and vultures devoured the bodies. The mortality was terrible. Your grandfathers died, and with them died the son of the king and his brothers and kinsmen. So it was that we became orphans, oh, my sons! So we became when we were young. All of us were thus. We were born to die!(1) One disease that may have originated in the New World is syphilis. Syphilis is named after a character in a poem written by Giraolamo Fracastoro in 1530 about a Greek shepherd Syphilis, who offended the goddess Venus and was punished. The term venereal disease comes from the name Venus. There are three theories concerning the origin of syphilis: 1. Syphilis originated completely in the New World and was transmitted by Columbus' men to the Old World in 1493. 2. That syphilis was documented in Europe only after the discovery of the New World and that it already existed in the Americas is a complete coincidence. 3. Syphilis existed in Europe prior to 1492 but was not the venereal strain but rather a milder strain. Most information about the origin of syphilis supports the first theory, that syphilis was a New World disease and was transmitted sexually to the invading Spanish by Indian women. For example, most knowledge about syphilis after 1492 was mostly contained to the Spanish ports of Seville and Lisbon which were gateways to and from the New World. This would implicate that sailors coming from the Americas were treated here. There was consequently a leadership of Spanish and Portuguese physicians in the area of knowledge and therapy for syphilis. Also, there was no concrete name for syphilis in Europe before 1493. Symptoms that are similar to this form of venereal disease were widely referred to as leprosy, which was used to identify any disfiguring disease. In addition, there were no writings about syphilis. On the contrary hundreds of Indian tribes had names for syphilis and evidence of it's pre-Columbian existence is found in skeletal remains. In addition, several historical accounts support the New World origin theory. Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo and Bartolome de Las Casas claimed syphilis was in the New World for a long time before discovery and that few were spared from this cursed disease. Dr. Ruy Diaz de Isla claims he treated Columbus' crew members upon returning from Hispaniola and that this disease was not known in Europe before then. Dr. Diaz de Isla should have known. He was the leading authority on syphilis in Europe, being a syphilis specialist in Lisbon from 1495-1521. He wrote, "'there is not a village in all Europe with a hundred inhabitants in which ten persons have not died(of syphilis) and a third of the people have not been infected.'" (3) Venereal syphilis didn't discriminate between its' victims. Royalty, as well as children, and grandchildren were affected because of transmission from mother to child. It's victims were crippled, disfigured, if not killed by it. "Next to tobacco, it was the most harmful gift of the New World to the Old."(3) The New World origin detractors claim that although this theory was circulated in 1539 there are some questions with this logic. The 1539 theory was that syphilis entered Mediterranean ports from ships returning from the Americas. From here it spread to Naples and was picked up by invading French forces under the command of Charles VIII in 1494. However, there were no reports of infection during Columbus' first return voyage in 1493 but by the return of the second voyage in 1496, syphilis was already spreading through Europe. By 1498, syphilis had arrived in India with Vasco de Gama and in 1505 arrived in China and Japan. However devastating syphilis was to Europe it cannot be compared to the effect that infectious diseases had on the New World. "Biologically, this was the most spectacular thing that has ever happened to humans." (2) Infectious disease brought over by the Europeans decimated the indigenous populations and enabled the conquering of civilizations that greatly outnumbered the arriving forces. Nor was the impact of smallpox and other diseases short -lived. "After 1492, it would take nearly 500 years of exposure to repeated epidemics and the advent of modern medicine, before their populations would begin to rebound.(6) Epidemic Timetable 1518 - Smallpox hits Espaniola. 1520 - Mexico with Cortes 1525, 26 - Peru, Pizarro conquers Cuzco 1530,31 - Measles hits Mexico and Peru 1546 - Typhus arrives 1556-60 - Influenza hits Europe and Japan 1558,59 - Influenza hits the New World 16th and 17th c. - Diphtheria, mumps, smallpox(again), and Influenza(again)(1) Bibliography 1. McNeill, William. Plagues and Peoples. 2 .Cowley, Geoffrey. The Great Disease Migration. Newsweek, Fall-Winter 1991 vol. 118, pg.54 . 3. Lunenfeld, Marvin. 1492 Discovery, Invasion, Encounter. Lexington, Mass. and Toronto, D.C. Heath and Company, 1991. 4. Bedini, Silvio A., Editor. The Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia. Vol 1. New York, NY, Simon and Schuster, 1992 5. Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Conquest of Paradise, Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy. New York, NY, Penguin Group, 1990 6. Meltzer, David J. How Columbus Sickened the New World. New Scientist, Oct. 10, 1992 v. 136 pg. 38 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Japanese Colonial Legacy In Korea.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Japanese Colonial Legacy In Korea North and South Korea are nations that while filled with contempt for Japan have used the foundations that Japan laid during the colonial period to further industrialization. Japan's colonization of Korea is critical in understanding what enabled Korea to industrialize in the period since 1961. Japan's program of colonial industrialization is unique in the world. Japan was the only colonizer to locate various heavy industry is in its colonies. By 1945 the industrial plants in Korea accounted for about a quarter of Japan's industrial base. Japan's colonization of Korea was therefore much more comparable to the relationship between England and Ireland then that of European colonization of Asia or Africa. Japan's push to create colonial industry lead Japan to build a vast network of railroads, ports, and a system of hydro-electric dams and heavy industrial plants around the Yalu River in what is now North Korea. The Japanese to facilitate and manage the industrialization of a colony also put in place a strong central government. Although Japan's colonial industrialism in Korea was aimed at advancing Japanese policies and goals and not those of the Korean populace; colonization left Korea with distinct advantages over other developing countries at the end of World War Two. Korea was left with a base for industrializing, a high level of literacy, experience with modern commerce, and close ties to Japan. Japan's colonial heavy industrial plants were located primarily around the Yalu River in North Korea. Because of this the North had an edge in industrialization. For many years the North had the fastest growth rates of the communist countries, and its cities were on par with those of Eastern Europe. It was not until the early 1970's that the South surpassed the North in levels of industrialization. Because most of the heavy industrial plants were either located in North Korea or destroyed by the Korean War the groundwork for industrialization that South Korea received from Japanese colonialism consisted mostly of social changes. During colonialism Korea's populace in increasing numbers moved to cities and became urbanized these new urbanites worked in factories and were used to the organization of modern commerce. The Japanese also let a small number of Koreans develop into a semi-elite. Although this group never held powerful positions many of them were educated in Japanese schools, and became either involved in the military or worked as businessmen, bureaucrats, lawyers, and doctors. This elite provided much of the leadership and framework for post World War Two Korean Government in Korea. They had an intimate knowledge of Japanese companies, language, organizational structure, and government. The Korean elites that emerged after the liberation of 1945 and helped steer Korea's economic policies under Park Chung Hee had an intimate knowledge of Japan. Some of them like Park had been educated in Japanese schools, some had worked for the Japanese, and nearly all of them spoke fluent Japanese. It was this closeness to Japan both geographically and culturally that made it natural for the Koreans to use the Japanese model of industrialization when Japan's economy boomed in the 1960's and 1970's. The leaders of Korea were ambivalent about relying on Japan, on one hand they felt a profound respect for Japan and its successes and on the other a deep hatred for what Japan had done to Korea in the past. But Japan still served as a model for Park Chung Hee who normalized relations with Japan in 1965 and turned to Japan for technology, equipment, and a model for development. Some nationalistic Korean scholars say that Japan's colonialism slowed Korea's growth by exploiting Korea and disturbing its economy. But these views of Korea ignore the fundamental role that Japan's policies of industrial colonialism played in allowing Korea to Industrialize during the 1960's. Japan's colonialism improved infrastructure, urbanized the nation, educated much of the populace, gave the pubic experience with modern commerce, and indoctrinated Korean elites in the Japanese language and culture. It was Korean elites history and close ties with Japan that made them turn naturally to Japan to provide a development model. Japan's legacy of colonialism in Korea is felt not only in the many graves and monuments that attest to Japanese brutality but also in the modern cities of South Korea and the heavy industries along the Yalu River in the North. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The JFK Assassination.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The JFK Assassination: Conspiracy or Single-gunman? Adolf Hitler, the Nazi dictator of Germany during World War II, once said, "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.". Although this may sound ludicrous, we can see many example of this in the world's history. One example would have to be the John Fitzgerald Kennedy assassination. For over thirty years the people of the United States were led to believe that a single gunman shot and killed Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, at 12:30 p.m... However, in this paper, I will dispute the ancient analization of the facts that show a single gunman was involved, and try to show that a conspiracy must have been present. According to the old facts regarding the case of the JFK assassination, Kennedy was killed by a single gunman. On November 22, 1963, at 12:30 p.m. CST (Central Standard Time), Kennedy was riding in an open limousine through Dallas, Texas. At this time, Kennedy was shot in the head and neck by a sniper. He was then taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Later, police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine, at a nearby theater. By the next morning, Oswald was booked for the murder of President John F. Kennedy. Two days later, Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, a Dallas nightclub owner, while he was being moved from the city to the county jail. At a glance, the above story sounds as if this should be an open-and-shut case. After all, according to the facts above, Oswald must have killed Kennedy. However, you must take a deeper look into this case. Many people who witnessed the murder of John F. Kennedy dispute the facts above, saying that they heard shots from places besides the book depository, and other things that may contradict what is stated above. One of these witnesses, Abraham Zapruder, captured the entire assassination on his Bell and Howell eight millimeter movie camera. This movie, cleverly called the Zapruder Film, is the single best piece of visual evidence in this case. In order to more clearly understand the Zapruder Film, it is necessary to break it down into frames. The particular Bell and Howell movie camera that Zapruder was using ran at eighteen and three-hundredths (18.3) frames per second. When using this frame system, you must remember that all shots were actually fired several frames before the number that is assigned to them. For example, the fatal heard wound, called Z313, was probably fired at Z310, since it took 2-3 frames at 18.3 frames per second for the bullet to reach the victim. Also, you must remember that sound travels at about one thousand-one hundred (1,100) feet per second, or a little over half as fast as the Mannlicher Carcano's bullets. When keeping this in mind, it is expected that witnesses heard the shot at some point after the bullet passed. The following shows a break down of the frames of the Zapruder film: - The Presidential limousine first comes into view at frame 133 (the starting point of this timeline.) - The first shot at (or just before) Z187 would have passed through both Governor Connally and the President. - The second shot, which passed above the limousine at Z284, missed the President and hit the curb near witness James Tague. This caused his minor would. - At Z313, the fatal shot occurs, which blew out major portions of the Presidents brain and skull. - A fourth shot occurred at Z323 (slightly 1/2 second after the fatal wound at Z313). Due to the proximity of this report to the one at Z313, as well as it's more distant origin, most witnesses were unable to hear this shot. Thus, the above is when the bullets hit either Kennedy or Connally, or passed through the frames of the Zapruder film (in the case of the second shot). Of the one-hundred seventy-eight (178) witnesses at Dealey Plaza, one-hundred thirty-two (132) said that they hear exactly three shots. If Oswald was a single gunman, it would have taken him at least 2.3 seconds to reload his Mannlicher Carcano rifle. However, the general consensus of the witnesses is that they heard a single shot, followed by silence, with the second and third shots bunched together. For example, Lee Bowers, one of the witnesses, testified, "I heard three shots, one, then a slight pause, then two very close together.". Also, Warren W. Taylor, a Secret Service agent, said, "As a matter of course, I opened the door and prepared to get out of the car. In the instant that my left foot touched the ground, I heard two more bangs and realized that they must be gun shots.". Lastly, when Miss Willis, a witness, was asked if she heard any shots, she testified, "Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.". Thus, it would have been impossible for one gunman to fire a shot with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle, reload, fire again, and fire again in a very short amount of time in order to make the shots sound close together. Also, when the fatal shot hit Kennedy, his head went back and to the left, implying that the bullet came from the front and right, not from the back. Although many people dispute the single bullet theory, this may be true. To understand why, you must understand the trajectory of the bullet and the angles involved. The bullet, if fired from the Texas School Book Depository, should have hit Kennedy at a 21 degree angle, and, in fact, it did. (See the pictures on the subsequent pages.) Also, President Kennedy was sitting nearly six inches above the level of Connally's seat. Thus, when the bullet left the President, it hit Connally, who was turned 15-20 degrees. When the bullet hit Connally, the hole in his back was 5/8 inches wide by 1/4 inches high, or more than twice as wide as tall. This means that the bullet was partially turned sideways when it entered Connally's back. Thus, the bullet must have hit something before it hit Connally. Also, the bottom of the bullet that was found was broken open and was extruding tiny particles of lead. X-rays taken at Parkland showed precisely that type of particle embedded in the Governor's wrist and thigh wounds. However, even if the single bullet theory is true, it in no way lessens the fact that there were multiple gunmen, and there was a conspiracy. (The "magic bullet" is thought to be bullet one on the Zapruder film.) Lastly, one has to consider what the biggest motives would be to kill the President. One motive has to deal with President Kennedy trying to get out of Vietnam. This war was the biggest business in America at the time. It brought in over eighty billion dollars a year. Thus, since the President was trying to get out of the war, he would have been costing business men a lot of money. Also, vice-president Johnson would have profited a lot because he was the next to become president. Thus, people, including the vice-president, had motives to kill the President. As you can see, the killing of John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy. There is no way a single gunman could have fired all the bullets that hit Kennedy and Connnally in that short period of time. Also, since Kennedy's head went back and to the left, the bullet must have been fired from the front and right of Kennedy. This shows that there was another gunman, which makes this a conspiracy. Someday, it would be nice if the truth is revealed about who fired the bullets, and how many gunmen there actually were. Marino, 6 Marino, 7 Bibliography 1. Harris, Robert. "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Reassessment of Original Testimony and Evidence." 2. Harris, Robert. "The Single Bullet Theory: A Question of Probability." 3. Newman, John. "Oswald and the CIA." Carroll and Graf Publishers, Inc. New York: 1995. 4. Summers, Anthony. "Conspiracy." McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York: 1981. 5. "JFK" Directed by Oliver Stone. Warner Bros., Inc. 1991. .From the courtroom scene in Oliver Stone's JFK. .From "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Reassessment of Original Testimony and Evidence," at http://www.thuntek.net/~rharris/1.html .From, "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Reassessment of Original Testimony and Evidence," at http://www.thuntek.net/~rharris/1.html. .From, "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Reassessment of Original Testimony and Evidence," at http:///www.thuntek.net/~rharris/1.html. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Killer Angels.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joseph E. Seguin Ms. Weis U.S. History AP 5 December 1996 The Killer Angels Opinion and Commentary In the novel The Killer Angels, Mr. Shaara's historical accuracy is unquestionable. He has written this fabulous (Pulitzer Prize winning) novel. Although the heroic suicidal charge of the 10th Minnesotans on the second day of the battle was left out, Shaara focuses on Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the 20th Maine which makes up for the lapse. It is safe to say that no other novel has so closely allowed the reader to understand the peculiar madness of this civil war. After reading this powerful, exciting novel one assumes that whenever cultures clash, there will be a final conflict. By showing the reader what the principals of this great battle were (and may have been) current thinking on multiculturalism are highlighted in a new and perplexing way. This was a great feet for a book written in 1974 to be so magnificent. The Killer Angels has been made into a five hour long motion picture and is called 'Gettysburg.' The novel is so compelling that the story seldomly deviates from the movie. The movie illustrates Mr. Shaara's ability to tell a complex story with clarity. The novel shows a great depiction of the tragedy of war, like in the part when Armistead races into battle, even though he is fighting his best friend (Hancock), and they both get shot. It really shows the views of each side, and what each character felt. The Killer Angels' will satisfy both the history buff and the Civil War buff. But, the sense of duty, honor, and the appalling loss of life as well as the unbelievable heroism displayed by both sides in the battle will move many readers. The Killer Angels Summary This outstanding historical novel depicts four days at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania which occur during summer of 1863. These crucial days are the turning point of the American Civil War and the strong days of the Confederacy. In just three days of slaughter in Eastern Pennsylvania, there was one-third as many casualties as during the three years of the Korean War. At the beginning, General Robert E. Lee leads a confident, flawless Confederate Army north into Pennsylvania. There, they hope to demolish the Union Army by provoking it into an attack. Colonel Chamberlain leads a desperate charge of the 20th Maine. For Colonel Chamberlain's actions, he later received the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is told with such force and clarity that the reader smells the gun smoke, hears the rebel yells, feels the heat and desperation and experiences the exhaustion and relief of the Union troops when the day is finally won. At one point, Buford finishes a battle and goes to the cemetery on the hill. He had been hit on his left arm. There were barely any of his calvary left. This scene described a sadness that Buford experienced. On the third and final day of actual conflict, Pickett's Charge is told with great patience and sensitivity. This was a highlight of the novel. During this run, 15,000 Confederate troops attacked a stable Union position that was spread across almost a mile of open ground. Many men died at this event. The conflicting strategies, which confronted General Lee, led him to order this ill-fated attack. These strategies are then further explained. Mr. Shaara offers some insights into the nature of men (Killer Angels) and war. He states that the war was fought because of a clash in cultures and that the Union Army fought, not for plunder, loot, or power, but to make people free. He also makes it clear that the Confederate leaders and soldiers also fought for a different sense of freedom. The conflicts within men, who having vowed in happier times to never take arms against each other, yet nevertheless find themselves on opposite sides of a battlefield. The book closes with General Lee leading his weakened forces on a retreat south to the safety of Virginia after having lost thousands of men in furious assaults on Union positions. BIBLIOGRAPHY Shaara, Michael. The Killer Angels. New York: Ballantine Books, 1974. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Knights Templar.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Militant Monks The Knights Templar, a military order of monks answerable only to the Pope himself, were founded in 1118. Their primary responsibility, at least initially, was to provide protection to Christians making pilgrimages to the Holy Land. They rose in power, both religious and secular, to become one of the richest and most powerful entities in Christendom. By the time of their disbandment in 1307, this highly secretive organization controlled vast wealth, a fleet of merchant ships, and castles and estates spanning the entire Mediterranean area. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem from the Muslims in 1099, the Church encouraged all faithful Christians to visit that holy city in order to affirm their faith. The area, however, was still subject to sporadic attacks from various non-Christian factions. A small group of knights, led by Hugh de Payens, vowed to protect the pilgrims. The group was granted quasi-official status by King Baldwin II of Jerusalem, who allowed them quarters in a wing of the royal palace near the Temple of Solomon. It is from this initial posting that the order derived its name. They took the standard vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and were bound to the rules of the Augustinian order. [Upton-Ward 1] The order languished in near-anonimity for several years, despite generous contributions from various European personages. In 1126, Count Hugh of Champagne, having donated his estates to Bernard of Clairvaux for use in building a monestary for the Cistercian order, arrived in Jerusalem to join the Templars. This action indirectly obligated Bernard to support the newly chosen advocacy of his benefactor. He wrote to the count, "If, for God's work, you have changed yourself from count to knight and from rich to poor, I congratulate you." [Howarth 49] In the year 1126, King Baldwin found two reasons for wanting official recognition of the order. First, he had, perhaps prematurely, bestowed upon Hugh de Payens the title of Master of the Temple. Second, the king had the opportunity to launch an attack on the city of Damascus, but he needed more knights. Papal recognition would allow open recruiting in Europe for the order. King Baldwin sent a letter to Bernard of Clairvaux, the order's primary patron, later known as Saint Bernard, asking him to petition the Pope for official recognition of the order. [Howarth 50-51] The King's letter was hand-carried to Bernard by two loyal and trusted knights, Andrew de Montbard, maternally related to Bernard, and Gondemare. Upon their arrival at Clairvaux, the two knights presented Bernard with Baldwin's letter, which came right to the point. [Upton-Ward 3] "The brothers Templar, whom God has raised up for the defence of our province and to whom he has accorded special protection, desire to receive apostolic approval and also their own Rule of life ... Since we know well the weight of your intercession with God and also with His Vicar and with the other princes of Europe, we give into your care this two-fold mission, whose success will be very welcome to us. Let the constitution of the Templars be such as is suitable for men who live in the clash and tumult of war, and yet of a kind which will be acceptable to the Christian princes, of whom they have been the valuable auxiliaries. So far as in you lies and if God pleases, strive to bring this matter to a speedy and successful issue." [qtd. in Howarth 50-51] Bernard realized at once the genius of the proposal to combine religious and military endeavors. Through such organizations, the borders of Christendom could be extended and fortified. He immediately granted his approval of the plan and pledged his full support. He petitioned Pope Honorius II for a special council to consider the matter, and he notified Hugh of his actions. [Howarth 51] The Council of Troyes convened on January 13, 1128, a bitterly cold Saint Hilary's Day, for the primary purpose of considering the request of the Knights Templar. Despite the delays of written communications, Hugh de Payens, accompanied by several brother knights, arrived from the Holy Land in time to attend the meetings of the Council. [Howarth 51] William of Tyre wrote an account of the events: "Nine years after the founding of this order, the knights were still in secular garb. They wore such garments as the people, for salvation of their souls, bestowed upon them. During this ninth year, a council was held at Troyes in France. There were present the archbishops of Rheims and Sens, with their suffragans; the bishop of Albano, the Pope's legate; the abbotts of Citeaux, Clairvaux, Potigny; and many others. At this council, by order of Pope Honorious and of Stephen, patriarch of Jerusalem, a rule was drawn up for this order and a habit of white assigned them." [qtd. in Burman/Templars 27] Although referred to in William's account by the generic title Abbott of Clairvaux, Bernard, in actuality controlled the proceedings of the council. There was little doubt Bernard's request would be met with approval; he was well known for his successes in reforming monastic life. He was held in the utmost respect by religious and lay leaders alike; in many circles he was referred to as the second pope. In fact, many of the popes were supplied by the mendicant orders. [Robinson 66-67] At a time when monks were more highly regarded than priests, and considered closer to God because of their ascetic life-styles, Benard said, "The people cannot look up to the priests, because the people are better than priests." [Robinson 67] Bernard's offer to personally assist in the formulation of the Rules of the order was gratefully accepted by all. Bernard based his Rule of the Templars on that of his own Cistercian order, which was itself based on the older Benedictine Rule. [Robinson 67] The Rule of the Templars was a strict and complex system of 686 written laws, meant to cover every possible aspect of daily life. As an example, Rule 25, On Bowls and Drinking Vessels, states: Because of the shortage of bowls, the brothers will eat in pairs, so that one may study the other more closely, and so that neither austerity nor secret abstinence is introduced into the communal meal. And it seems just to us that each brother should have the same ration of wine in his cup. [qtd. in Upton-Ward 26] In 1139, Pope Innocent II issued a Bull, titled Omne Datum Optimum, declaring that the Knights Templar were under the direct and sole control of the Pope. This freed the Knights to operate throughout Christendom and the Levant unencumbered by local ecclesiastical and secular rulers. This unprecedented autonomy was due, in no small part, to the personal petitions of the new Grand Master, Robert the Burgundian. While Hugh had been an excellent warrior, Robert was an ideal administrator who understood politics. [Howarth 80] The Order was authorized to have chaplain brothers, who were authorized to hear the confessions of their fellow brothers, and thereby absolve them of their sins. There were, however, five specific crimes for which granting of absolution was reserved by the Pope. These were: "the killing of a Christian man or woman,; violently attacking another brother; attacking a member of another order or a priest; renouncing holy orders in order to be received as a brother; and entering the order by simony." [Upton-Ward 5] It was also during the mastership of Robert that the Rules were translated from Latin into French. Church documents were normally in Latin only, but since most of the Knights were soldiers rather than educated clerics, they were unable to read Latin. In 1147, the Knights were authorized to wear a red cross upon their white mantles, despite rule 18, which forbade any decorations on their clothing. [Upton-Ward 12] As the Knights Templar gained political and economic strength, they found themselves involved in many aspects of secular life. They established the first truly international banking service; travelers not wanting to travel with large sums could deposit their monies at any Temple and collect a like amount at their destination. [Burman/Templars 85] The Templars were the primary bankers for the Holy See. Since the order was a papal creation which was administered directly by the Pope himself, their significance as papal bankers is understandable. Less obvious is the Templars' function as royal bankers for several of Europe's royal houses. The two greatest Temples outside the Levant were located in Paris and London. These two Temples offered a full range of financial services to the royal houses, including collecting taxes, controlling debts and administering pension funds. [Burman/Templars 87-88] The treasury of the King of France was kept safely within the vault of the Temple of Paris. [Sinclair 36] The Templars owned a great fleet of merchant ships with which to convey all manner of goods, e.g., pepper and cotton, as well as pilgrims, between Europe and the Holy Land. People wanting to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, but lacking the resources to do so, were allowed to assign rights to their houses and property, upon their death, to the Templars in exchange for passage on a Templar ship. To avoid accusations of usury, this procedure was legitimized by the papal bull Quantum Praedecessores, issued by Pope Eugenius II in 1145. [Burman/Templars 75-78] The Holy Land was divided into four Crusader States: Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli and Edessa. Shifting alliances, complicated by the plotting of independent Arab emirates, posed a complicated and often confusing backdrop for the Knights' military operations. Their first action was in the northern sector of the Principality of Antioch. They captured the March of Amanus, which formed a natural barrier between the city of Amanus and Asia Minor. [Burman/Templars 50] The Knights Templar frequently fought side-by-side with their counter- parts, the Knights Hospitaller, another military order, founded to provide shelter to sick, wounded or destitute pilgrims. Together, these two warrior orders afforded the Holy Land a formidable fighting force. Although some histories allude to a deep and bitter rivalry between the two, it is more likely that they cooperated well during the battles, keeping any such pettiness for the monotonous weeks between actions. [Upton-Ward 6-7] The first military action of the Templars was in the northern sector of the Holy Land. In 1131, they captured the March of Amanus in Antioch. It was a natural barrier between the city and Asia Minor, which afforded control of two roads into Antioch. The same year, King Fulk, Baldwin's successor, travelled to the site and granted ownership to the Templars. [Burman/Templars 52] Control of the various areas of the Holy Land see-sawed back and forth between the Crusaders and the Arabs, with neither side enjoying a decisive victory. Then the balance of power began to change with the rise of the great Arab leader Salah-ad-Din Yusuf ibn-Aiyub, known to westerners as Saladin. Descended from a long line of military heroes, he was born in 1138 in Baalbek, Syria, where his father was military governor. He began to develop his warrior skills by accompanying his father and uncles on various campaigns. [Burman/Templars 98] Saladin's rise to power was rapid and successful. His adherance to the orthodox Sunni faith caused him to initiate dramatic changes in his Shi-ite army. Upon his ultimate rise to the position of Sultan, he declared a 'jihad', or holy war, against the Crusaders. This intense re-focusing of the Moslem effort began a gradual shift in power. Christian strongholds fell in increasing numbers, creating a domino effect. By the middle of 1187, Saladin had captured Acre, Nablus, Jaffa, Toron, Sidon, Beirut and Ascalon. Jerusalem fell on 2 October, 1187. [Burman/Templars 108] The fall of Jerusalem was a disaster from which the Crusades never recovered. Among Saladin's prisoners were the King of Jerusalem and Raynald de Chatillon, commander of the fortress at Moab. After entertaining the two in his tent, Saladin had Raynald killed. The King saw his fellow prisoner executed and thought he was surely next, but Saladin had him brought back i nto his tent and told him, "It is not the habit of kings to kill kings." Saladin's victory was complete. [Payne 223-4] In the disarray that followed, the orders began to disperse. The Hospitallers removed their headquarters, first to Rhodes and then to Malta; and, with the ultimate fall of Acre in 1291, the Templars lost their base of operations and relocated to Cyprus. In effect, the orders had lost their original reason for existence. [Upton-Ward 9] As the Knights had their policital patrons, so had their enemies. In 1305, Philip IV of France, known as Philip the Fair, seized control of the Holy See and relocated the papacy to Avignon. From there, he initiated a series of papal decrees, ostensibly issues by Pope Clement V, a puppet pope under his absolute control. Eyeing the vast fortunes and resources of the Templars, he conceived a plot of treachery against them. Since he also controlled the Inquisition in France, he had no difficulty leveling a whole laundry list of horrible, but adsurd and largely unsupportable, crimes against the Knights. [Burman/Inquisition 95] The role of the Inquisition, under the auspices of Chief Inquisitor Guillaume of Paris, was to obtain confessions and conduct trials. On Friday the 13th of September, 1307, the warrant was issued for the arrest of the Knights and seizure of their property. Many of the Temples were 'tipped off' by the local sheriffs about the impending sweep, but Grand Master Jacques de Molay and his associates were arrested in their bed clothes. The interrogations, aimed at soliciting evidence of any wrongdoing with which to prove the allegations against the order, dragged on for years. Ultimately, the Grand Master, along with other high-ranking Templars, were executed by burning in March, 1314, on an island in the Seine. [Howarth 17] The years between the arrest of Templars and the order's final dissolution afforded plenty of time for knights on the lam to become absorbed by the underground. Knights in England were never pursued, due largely to a rift between the King and the Church, and many were thought to have participated in the war between Scotland and England, on the side of Robert the Bruce. [Robinson 150-51] The vast fleet of Templar merchant ships was never found. There is no record of the 18 Templar ships which had been based at La Rochelle on the French coast, nor any of the various Templar ships normally anchored in the Thames or other English seaports. There is some speculation that the Barbary Pirates, who gained worldwide noteriety by plundering European shipping well into the 19th century, were founded by seagoing Templars with revenge on their minds. Many of the order's ships were galleys, which were particularly suited for piracy. [Robinson 165] One of the more mysterious tenets of the Freemasons can be found in the initiation of a Master Mason. The initiate is told his degree "will make you a brother to pirates and corsairs." [Robinson 165-66] In 1813, a merchant ship, captained by a Freemason, was captured and boarded by pirates. In desperation, the captain rendered the Grand Hailing Sign of Distress of a Master Mason. The pirate captain apparently recognized the secret sign and allowed the merchant ship to proceed unharmed. [Robinson 166] The destruction of the Knights Templar by Philip the Fair was due to what he saw as wealth, arrogance, greed and secrecy on the part of the order. Even Philip's lawyer admitted "perhaps not all of them had sinned." It took more than suspicion of guilt to bring about the downfall of such a powerful entity as the Knights Templar. The final blow, however, was probably three-fold: a general unpopularity of the order among the European aristocracy, due in part to jealousy; a chronic shortage in the French treasury, despite heavy taxation; and Master de Molay's refusal to consider a merger of the Templars with the Hospitallers, as suggested by the Pope. The fact remains, however, that no evidence of heresy was ever found. [Burman/Templars 180] An order founded by nine knights in Jerusalem came to amass great wealth and power, which speaks well of their integrity and discretion. They became the "shock troops" of the Holy See. When they lost their original mission of protecting pilgrims upon the fall of Jerusalem, their downfall became inevitable. [Sinclair 37] Works Cited: Burman, Edward. The Inquisition. New York: Dorset, 1984. --. The Templars. Rochester, VT: Destiny, 1986." Howarth, Stephen. The Knights Templar. New York: Dorset, 1982. Payne, Robert. The History of Islam. New York: Dorset, 1987. Robinson, John J. Born in Blood. New York: Evans, 1989. Sinclair, Andrew. The Sword and the Grail. New York: Crown, 1992. Upton-Ward, J. M. The Rule of the Templars. Suffolk: Boydell, 1992. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Kurds A Nation Without a State.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Kurds- A Nation Without a State Introduction Of all the ethnic groups in the world, the Kurds are one of the largest that has no state to call their own. According to historian William Westermann, "The Kurds can present a better claim to race purity...than any people which now inhabits Europe." (Bonner, p. 63, 1992) Over the past hundred years, the desire for an independent Kurdish state has created conflicts mainly with the Turkish and Iraqi populations in the areas where most of the Kurds live. This conflict has important geographical implications as well. The history of the Kurdish nation, the causes for these conflicts, and an analysis of the situation will be discussed in this paper. History of the Kurds The Kurds are a Sunni Muslim people living primarily in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. The 25 million Kurds have a distinct culture that is not at all like their Turkish, Persian, and Arabic neighbors (Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). It is this cultural difference between the groups that automatically creates the potential for conflict. Of the 25 million Kurds, approximately 10 million live in Turkey, four million in Iraq, five million in Iran, and a million in Syria, with the rest scattered throughout the rest of the world (Bonner, p. 46, 1992). The Kurds also have had a long history of conflict with these other ethnic groups in the Middle East, which we will now look at. The history of Kurds in the area actually began during ancient times. However, the desire for a Kurdish homeland did not begin until the early 1900's, around the time of World War I. In his Fourteen Points, President Woodrow Wilson promised the Kurds a sovereign state (Hitchens, p. 54, 1992). The formation of a Kurdish state was supposed to have been accomplished through the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 which said that the Kurds could have an independent state if they wanted one (Bonner, p. 46, 1992). With the formation of Turkey in 1923, Kemal Ataturk, the new Turkish President, threw out the treaty and denied the Kurds their own state. This was the beginning of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. At about this same time, the Kurds attempted to establish a semi-independent state, and actually succeeded in forming the Kingdom of Kurdistan, which lasted from 1922-1924; later, in 1946, some of the Kurds established the Mahabad Republic, which lasted for only one year (Prince, p. 17, 1993). In 1924, Turkey even passed a law banning the use of the Kurdish language in public places. Another group of people to consider is the Kurds living in Iraq. Major conflict between the Kurds and Iraqis did not really begin until 1961, when a war broke out that lasted until 1970. Around this time, Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. In 1975, Hussein adopted a policy of eradicating the Kurds from his country. Over the next fifteen years, the Iraqi army bombed Kurdish villages, and poisoned the Kurds with cyanide and mustard gas (Hitchens, p. 46, 1992). It is estimated that during the 1980's, Iraqis destroyed some 5000 Kurdish villages (Prince, p. 22, 1993). From this point, we move into the recent history and current state of these conflicts between the Kurds and the Turks, and the Kurds against the Iraqis. Causes for Conflict The reasons for these conflicts have great relevance to geography. The areas of geography relating to these specific conflicts are a historical claim to territory on the part of the Kurds, cultural geography, economic geography, and political geography. These four areas of geography can best explain the reasons for these Kurdish conflicts. First, the Kurds have a valid historical claim to territory. They have lived in the area for over 2000 years. For this reason, they desire the establishment of a Kurdish homeland. Iraqis and Turks, while living in the area for a long period of time, cannot make a historical claim to that same area. The conflict arises, however, because the area happens to lie within the borders of Iraq and Turkey. Even though the Kurds claim is valid, the Turks and Iraqis have chosen to ignore it and have tried to wipe out the Kurds. Second, and probably most important, is that this conflict involves cultural geography. The Kurds are ethnically and culturally different from both the Turks and the Iraqis. They speak a different language, and while all three groups are Muslim, they all practice different forms. The Kurds have used this cultural difference as a reason to establish a homeland. However, the Turks and Iraqis look at the contrast in ethnicity in a much different sense. The government of Turkey viewed any religious or ethnic identity that was not their own to be a threat to the state ("Time to Talk Turkey", p. 9, 1995). Saddam Hussein believed that the Kurds were "in the way" in Iraq and he perceived them as a threat to "the glory of the Arabs" (Hitchens, p. 46, 1992). For this reason, he carried out his mass genocide of the Kurds in his country. A third factor in these conflicts is economic geography. The areas of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria that the Kurds live in is called Kurdistan, shown on the map "Confrontation in Kurdistan" (Hitchens, 1992, p.37, map). Kurdistan is a strategically important area for both Turkey and Iraq because it contains important oil and water resources which they cannot afford to lose (Hitchens, p. 49, 1992). Also, there has been no significant economic activity in the region, due to the trade embargo against Iraq that has been in place since 1991 (Prince, p. 22, 1993). Still, an independent Kurdish state would be economically viable and would no longer have an embargo placed against it. A final cause of the conflict is political geography. The Turks and Iraqis do not wish to lose their control over Kurdistan, and have resorted to various measures such as the attacks previously described. The Kurds, on the other hand, have political problems of their own. There is a sharp difference of opinion between the two main Kurdish political parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) (Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). The parties are at odds about how to resolve the conflicts in which their people are involved. Until this internal conflict among the Kurds is solved, it will be difficult for them to deal with the Turks and Iraqis. Recent History and the Current Situation In 1991, after the defeat of his country in the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein had the Iraqi army attack the Kurds again. As a result, the United States and its allies launched Operation Provide Comfort in April 1991 that created a safe haven for the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan. Eventually, the Kurds were able to secure a small measure of autonomy in Kurdistan and on May 19, 1992, the Kurds held their first free elections in Iraq (Prince, p. 17, 1992). The Kurds had sovereignty in part of Kurdistan, called Free Kurdistan, but not to the point of being recognized as an independent state. Seeing how the Kurds in Iraq were able to hold elections, the Turks got scared and banned the People's Labor Party, a legal Kurdish party in Turkey, from the Turkish Parliament (Marcus, p. 9, 1994). In Turkey, a civil war between the Kurds and Turks has been going on for the last ten years; approximately 15,000 people have been killed so far ("Time to Talk Turkey, p. 9, 1995). The Turks launched an invasion they called Operation Steel against the Kurds in March 1995, sending 35,000 troops against them, but the plan backfired, as only 158 Kurdish rebels were killed in the first week (Possant, Doxey, & Borrus, p. 57, 1995). To sum up the Turks attitude toward the Kurds, Tansu Ciller, the Turkish prime minister, said, "Turkey has no Kurdish problem, only a terrorist problem" (Marcus, p. 9, 1994). As far as the United States is concerned, Kurdistan probably should not exist. During Operation Provide Comfort, the U.S. helped out the Kurds in Iraq, but did nothing to help the Kurds in Turkey. The reason for this is that Turkey is a NATO ally, while Iraq is one of the U.S.'s worst enemies (Marcus, p. 9, 1994) By helping out the Kurds, the U.S. would be siding with enemies of the Turks, which could create problems that the U.S. government would rather not deal with. This type of situation does not exist in Iraq, however, since the U.S. is not on friendly terms with Hussein's regime. There are two main views on how to deal with the conflicts. The KDP, led by Masoud Baranzi, seeks limited political autonomy within Iraq (Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). Interestingly, many Kurds would accept being a state of Iraq, holding some autonomy, provided that Hussein was removed from power, a democracy was installed, and the Kurds were treated as equals (Bonner, p. 65, 1992). This means that some of the Kurds do not believe it is absolutely necessary that they have their own state, only that they are recognized as equals by the Iraqi government. On the other hand, Jalal Talabania's PUK says that the Kurds should hold out for more political concessions from Iraq (Hitchens, p. 36, 1992). It is possible that they would try to use guerrilla warfare tactics to frighten the Iraqi army into meeting its demands. Analysis: Looking Ahead to the Future Looking at the current state of the conflict, the end does not seem to be near. On one hand, the Kurds have been struggling to gain their independence for a number of years, and even though they have been locked in a ten year guerrilla war with the Turks, have come too far to stop fighting and accept the harsh treatment they have received from the Turks and Iraqis. Even though Turkey has lost a large number of troops dealing with the perceived Kurdish "menace", they do have the support of the U.S., and that in itself seems to be a good enough reason to keep the war going. As for the situation in Iraq, the situation is a bit more complicated. The plan of KDP seems like a plausible solution. However, the plan is not likely to succeed until Hussein dies or is forced out of power. The Iraqis also do not seem very willing to give up their territory to the Kurds. The plan of the PUK has a small chance to work, assuming that guerrilla tactics would scare the Iraqi government. By simply holding out, the Kurds would gain nothing, because the Iraqis are not threatened by the Kurds per se. However, by attacking the Iraqis, the Kurds run the risk of a counterattack which they probably could not effectively deal with. Basically, that would make the situation for the Kurds even worse than before. Conclusion Without the support of a large powerful nation such as the U.S., the Kurds will probably never establish an independent Kurdish state. The Kurds do not have enough military power to fight off the Turks and Iraqis without help. The Iraqis and Turks would not be willing to give up their economically important territory to people which they perceive a "threat" to their way of life and will most likely continue to fight the Kurds. The Kurds have no choice but to continue fighting until either they or the Turks and Iraqis are defeated, as both groups are unwilling to allow them to remain in their countries. The future definitely looks bleak for the Kurds. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The League of Nations.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ American History The League of Nations and It's Impact on World Peace Through my studies and research I have come to the following conclusion about the League of Nations: despite all of President Woodrow Wilson's efforts, the League was doomed to fail. I feel this was so for many reasons, some of which I hope to convey in the following report. From the day when Congress voted on the Fourteen Points, it was obvious that the League had a very slim chance of being passed in Congress, and without all of the World powers, the League had little chance of surviving. On November 11, 1918 an armistice was declared in Europe. Wilson saw the opportunity to form an international organization of peace to be formed. He acted quickly. On January 18, 1919 he released his fourteen points. The Fourteen Points consisted of many things, but the most important was the fourteenth-the establishment of a league of nations to settle international disputes and to keep the peace. After congress had voted, only three of Wilson's fourteen points were accepted without compromise. Six of the others were rejected all together. Fortunately the League was compromised. Wilson then went to Europe to discuss the Treaty of Versailles. Representatives from Italy, France, and Britain didn't want to work with the nations they had defeated. They wanted to hurt them. After much fighting and negotiating, Wilson managed to convince them that a league of nations was not only feasible, it was necessary. The Senate supported most of the Treaty of Versailles but not the League. They thought it would make the U.S.A. too involved in foreign affairs. Wilson saw that the League may not make it through Congress, so he went on the road and gave speeches to sway the public opinion. Unfortunately, Wilson's health, which was already depleted from the negotiations in France, continued to recede. Wilson's battle with his health reached its climax when Wilson had a stroke on his train between speeches. After Wison's stroke, support of the League weakened, both in Congress and in the public's opinion. In 1920 G. Harding, who opposed the League, was elected as president. The League formed but the U.S. never joined. The first meeting of the League was held in Geneva, Switzerland on November 15, 1920 with fourty two nations represented. During twenty-six years the League lived, a total of sixty-three nations were represented at one time or another. Thirty-one nations were represented all twenty-six years. The League had an assembly, a council, and a secretariat. Before World War II, the assembly convened regularly at Geneva in September. There were three representatives for every member state each state having one vote. The council met at least three times a year to consider political disputes and reduction of armaments. The council had several permanent members, France, Great Britan, Italy, Japan, and later Germany and the Soviet Union. It also had several nonpermanent members which were elected by the assembly. The council's decisions had to be unanimous. The secretariat was the administrative branch of the League and consisted of a secretary, general, and a staff of five hundred people. Several other organizations were associated with the League- the Permanent Court of International Justice, also called the World Court, and the International Labor Organization. One important activity of the League was the disposition of certain territories that had been colonies of Germany and Turkey before World War I. Territories were awarded to the League members in the form of mandates. The mandated territories were given different degrees of independence in accordance with their geographic situation, their stage of development, and their economic status. The League, unfortunately, rarely implemented its available resources, limited through the were, to achieve their goal, to end war. The League can be credited with certain social achievements. these achievements include settlement of disputes between Finland and Sweden over the Aland Islands in 1921 and between Greece and Bulgaria over their mutual border in 1925. Great powers preferred to handle their affairs on their own; French occupation of the Ruhr and Italian occupation of Corfu, both in 1923, went on in spite of the League. The League failed to end the war between Bolivia and Paraguary over the Gand Chaco between 1932 and 1935. The League also failed to stop Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, which began in 1935. Although Germany joined in 1926, the National Socialist government withdrew in 1933 as did Japan, after their attacks on China were condemned by the League. The League was now powerless to prevent the events in Europe that lead to World War 2. In 1940 the secretariat in Geneva was reduced to a skeleton staff and moved to the U.S. and Canada. In 1946 the League voted to effect its own dissolution, whereupon much of its property and organization were transferred to the United Nations which had resently been founded. Never truly effective as a peace keeping organization, the lasting importance of the League of Nations lies in the fact that it provided the groundwork for the United Nations. This international alliance, formed after World War 2, not only profited by the mistakes of the League but borrowed much of the organizational machinics of the League of Nations. Bibliography: Mothner, Ira. Woodrow Wilson, Champion of Peace. New York Watts Inc., 1969 Mason, Lorna; Garcia, Jesus; Powell, Frances; Risinger, Fredrick. America's Past and Promise. Boston McDougal Littell, 1995 Albright, Madeleine. "America and the League of Nations, Lessons for Today" Speech United States Department of State 1994 McNally, Rand. Atlas of World History. New York Reed International Books Limited, 1992 Microsoft. "The League of Nations." Excarta 95. 1995 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Life And Works Aristotle.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ When Plato died in 347 bc, Aristotle moved to Assos, a city in Asia Minor, where a friend of his, Hermias (died 345 bc), was ruler. There he counseled Hermias and married his niece and adopted daughter, Pythias. After Hermias was captured and executed by the Persians, Aristotle went to Pella, the Macedonian capital, where he became the tutor of the king's young son Alexander, later known as Alexander the Great. In 335, when Alexander became king, Aristotle returned to Athens and established his own school, the Lyceum. Because much of the discussion in his school took place while teachers and students were walking about the Lyceum grounds, Aristotle's school came to be known as the Peripatetic ("walking" or "strolling") school. Upon the death of Alexander in 323 bc, strong anti-Macedonian feeling developed in Athens, and Aristotle retired to a family estate in Euboea. He died there the following year. Works Aristotle, like Plato, made regular use of the dialogue in his earliest years at the Academy, but lacking Plato's imaginative gifts, he probably never found the form congenial. Apart from a few fragments in the works of later writers, his dialogues have been wholly lost. Aristotle also wrote some short technical notes, such as a dictionary of philosophic terms and a summary of the doctrines of Pythagoras. Of these, only a few brief excerpts have survived. Still extant, however, are Aristotle's lecture notes for carefully outlined courses treating almost every branch of knowledge and art. The texts on which Aristotle's reputation rests are largely based on these lecture notes, which were collected and arranged by later editors. Among the texts are treatises on logic, called Organon ("instrument"), because they provide the means by which positive knowledge is to be attained. His works on natural science include Physics, which gives a vast amount of information on astronomy, meteorology, plants, and animals. His writings on the nature, scope, and properties of being, which Aristotle called First Philosophy (Protè philosophia), were given the title Metaphysics in the first published edition of his works (circa 60 bc), because in that edition they followed Physics. His treatment of the Prime Mover, or first cause, as pure intellect, perfect in unity, immutable, and, as he said, "the thought of thought," is given in the Metaphysics. To his son Nicomachus he dedicated his work on ethics, called the Nicomachean Ethics. Other essential works include his Rhetoric, his Poetics (which survives in incomplete form), and his Politics (also incomplete). Methods Perhaps because of the influence of his father's medical profession, Aristotle's philosophy laid its principal stress on biology, in contrast to Plato's emphasis on mathematics. Aristotle regarded the world as made up of individuals (substances) occurring in fixed natural kinds (species). Each individual has its built-in specific pattern of development and grows toward proper self-realization as a specimen of its type. Growth, purpose, and direction are thus built into nature. Although science studies general kinds, according to Aristotle, these kinds find their existence in particular individuals. Science and philosophy must therefore balance, not simply choose between, the claims of empiricism (observation and sense experience) and formalism (rational deduction). One of the most distinctive of Aristotle's philosophic contributions was a new notion of causality. Each thing or event, he thought, has more than one "reason" that helps to explain what, why, and where it is. Earlier Greek thinkers had tended to assume that only one sort of cause can be really explanatory; Aristotle proposed four. (The word Aristotle uses, aition, "a responsible, explanatory factor" is not synonymous with the word cause in its modern sense.) These four causes are the material cause, the matter out of which a thing is made; the efficient cause, the source of motion, generation, or change; the formal cause, which is the species, kind, or type; and the final cause, the goal, or full development, of an individual, or the intended function of a construction or invention. Thus, a young lion is made up of tissues and organs, its material cause; the efficient cause is its parents, who generated it; the formal cause is its species, lion; and its final cause is its built-in drive toward becoming a mature specimen. In different contexts, while the causes are the same four, they apply analogically. Thus, the material cause of a statue is the marble from which it was carved; the efficient cause is the sculptor; the formal cause is the shape the sculptor realized-Hermes, perhaps, or Aphrodite; and the final cause is its function, to be a work of fine art. In each context, Aristotle insists that something can be better understood when its causes can be stated in specific terms rather than in general terms. Thus, it is more informative to know that a "sculptor" made the statue than to know that an "artist" made it; and even more informative to know that "Polycleitus" chiseled it rather than simply that a "sculptor" did so. Aristotle thought his causal pattern was the ideal key for organizing knowledge. His lecture notes present impressive evidence of the power of this scheme. Doctrines Some of the principal aspects of Aristotle's thought can be seen in the following summary of his doctrines, or theories. Physics, or Natural Philosophy In astronomy, Aristotle proposed a finite, spherical universe, with the earth at its center. The central region is made up of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. In Aristotle's physics, each of these four elements has a proper place, determined by its relative heaviness, its "specific gravity." Each moves naturally in a straight line-earth down, fire up-toward its proper place, where it will be at rest. Thus, terrestrial motion is always linear and always comes to a halt. The heavens, however, move naturally and endlessly in a complex circular motion. The heavens, therefore, must be made of a fifth, and different element, which he called aither. A superior element, aither is incapable of any change other than change of place in a circular movement. Aristotle's theory that linear motion always takes place through a resisting medium is in fact valid for all observable terrestrial motions. He also held that heavier bodies of a given material fall faster than lighter ones when their shapes are the same, a mistaken view that was accepted as fact until Galileo and his experiment with weights dropped from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Biology In zoology, Aristotle proposed a fixed set of natural kinds ("species"), each reproducing true to type. An exception occurs, Aristotle thought, when some "very low" worms and flies come from rotting fruit or manure by "spontaneous generation." The typical life cycles are epicycles: The same pattern repeats, but through a linear succession of individuals. These processes are therefore intermediate between the changeless circles of the heavens and the simple linear movements of the terrestrial elements. The species form a scale from simple (worms and flies at the bottom) to complex (human beings at the top), but evolution is not possible. Aristotelian Psychology For Aristotle, psychology was a study of the soul. Insisting that form (the essence, or unchanging characteristic element in an object) and matter (the common undifferentiated substratum of things) always exist together, Aristotle defined a soul as a "kind of functioning of a body organized so that it can support vital functions." In considering the soul as essentially associated with the body, he challenged the Pythagorean doctrine that the soul is a spiritual entity imprisoned in the body. Aristotle's doctrine is a synthesis of the earlier notion that the soul does not exist apart from the body and of the Platonic notion of a soul as a separate, nonphysical entity. Whether any part of the human soul is immortal, and, if so, whether its immortality is personal, are not entirely clear in his treatise On the Soul. Through the functioning of the soul, the moral and intellectual aspects of humanity are developed. Aristotle argued that human insight in its highest form (nous poetikos, "active mind") is not reducible to a mechanical physical process. Such insight, however, presupposes an individual "passive mind" that does not appear to transcend physical nature. Aristotle clearly stated the relationship between human insight and the senses in what has become a slogan of empiricism-the view that knowledge is grounded in sense experience. "There is nothing in the intellect," he wrote, "that was not first in the senses." Ethics It seemed to Aristotle that the individual's freedom of choice made an absolutely accurate analysis of human affairs impossible. "Practical science," then, such as politics or ethics, was called science only by courtesy and analogy. The inherent limitations on practical science are made clear in Aristotle's concepts of human nature and self-realization. Human nature certainly involves, for everyone, a capacity for forming habits; but the habits that a particular individual forms depend on that individual's culture and repeated personal choices. All human beings want "happiness," an active, engaged realization of their innate capacities, but this goal can be achieved in a multiplicity of ways. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is an analysis of character and intelligence as they relate to happiness. Aristotle distinguished two kinds of "virtue," or human excellence: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue is an expression of character, formed by habits reflecting repeated choices. A moral virtue is always a mean between two less desirable extremes. Courage, for example, is a mean between cowardice and thoughtless rashness; generosity, between extravagance and parsimony. Intellectual virtues are not subject to this doctrine of the mean. Aristotle argued for an elitist ethics: Full excellence can be realized only by the mature male adult of the upper class, not by women, or children, or barbarians (non-Greeks), or salaried "mechanics" (manual workers) from whom, indeed, Aristotle proposed to take away voting rights. In politics, many forms of human association can obviously be found; which one is suitable depends on circumstances, such as the natural resources, cultural traditions, industry, and literacy of each community. Aristotle did not regard politics as a study of ideal states in some abstract form, but rather as an examination of the way in which ideals, laws, customs, and property interrelate in actual cases. He thus approved the contemporary institution of slavery but tempered his acceptance by insisting that masters should not abuse their authority, inasmuch as the interests of master and slave are the same. The Lyceum library contained a collection of 158 constitutions of the Greek and other states. Aristotle himself wrote the Constitution of Athens as part of the collection, and after being lost, this description was rediscovered in a papyrus copy in 1890. Historians have found the work of great value in reconstructing many phases of the history of Athens. Logic In logic, Aristotle developed rules for chains of reasoning that would, if followed, never lead from true premises to false conclusions (validity rules). In reasoning, the basic links are syllogisms: pairs of propositions that, taken together, give a new conclusion. For example, "All humans are mortal" and "All Greeks are humans" yield the valid conclusion "All Greeks are mortal." Science results from constructing more complex systems of reasoning. In his logic, Aristotle distinguished between dialectic and analytic. Dialectic, he held, only tests opinions for their logical consistency; analytic works deductively from principles resting on experience and precise observation. This is clearly an intended break with Plato's Academy, where dialectic was supposed to be the only proper method for science and philosophy alike. Metaphysics In his metaphysics, Aristotle argued for the existence of a divine being, described as the Prime Mover, who is responsible for the unity and purposefulness of nature. God is perfect and therefore the aspiration of all things in the world, because all things desire to share perfection. Other movers exist as well-the intelligent movers of the planets and stars (Aristotle suggested that the number of these is "either 55 or 47"). The Prime Mover, or God, described by Aristotle is not very suitable for religious purposes, as many later philosophers and theologians have observed. Aristotle limited his "theology," however, to what he believed science requires and can establish. Influence Aristotle's works were lost in the West after the decline of Rome. During the 9th century ad, Arab scholars introduced Aristotle, in Arabic translation, to the Islamic world. The 12th-century Spanish-Arab philosopher Averroës is the best known of the Arabic scholars who studied and commented on Aristotle. In the 13th century, the Latin West renewed its interest in Aristotle's work, and St. Thomas Aquinas found in it a philosophical foundation for Christian thought. Church officials at first questioned Aquinas's use of Aristotle; in the early stages of its rediscovery, Aristotle's philosophy was regarded with some suspicion, largely because his teachings were thought to lead to a materialistic view of the world. Nevertheless, the work of Aquinas was accepted, and the later philosophy of scholasticism continued the philosophical tradition based on Aquinas's adaptation of Aristotelian thought. The influence of Aristotle's philosophy has been pervasive; it has even helped to shape modern language and common sense. His doctrine of the Prime Mover as final cause played an important role in theology. Until the 20th century, logic meant Aristotle's logic. Until the Renaissance, and even later, astronomers and poets alike admired his concept of the universe. Zoology rested on Aristotle's work until Charles Darwin modified the doctrine of the changelessness of species in the 19th century. In the 20th century a new appreciation has developed of Aristotle's method and its relevance to education, literary criticism, the analysis of human action, and political analysis. Not only the discipline of zoology, but the world of learning as a whole, seems to amply justify Darwin's remark that the intellectual heroes of his own time "were mere schoolboys compared to old Aristotle." f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Lost Colony at Roanoke.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Lost Colony at Roanoke The first effort made by the English to establish a colony in America, occurred in the late sixteenth century, at Roanoke Island. Starting in 1584 efforts were made to explore the east coast of North America as far south as Spanish claims. It was in 1587 that a permanent colony was finally created. However great this accomplish was for the colonists and England, it proved to be one of the greatest American mysteries when the colony was discovered abandoned in 1590. In this presentation of the lost Roanoke Colony, I plan to describe how the colony was settled, those persons involved in the settlement and the discovery of it's abandonment. Roanoke Island is an island just off the coast of present day North Carolina. The Albemarle Sound, Croatan Sound, Roanoke Sound, and the Pamlico Sound are four bodies of water that surround the island. The Atlantic Ocean is less than ten miles away from Roanoke on it's eastern coast, but direct contact with the ocean is impeded by a strip of land called Bodie Island, which is part of the Outer Banks. The western coast of the Island is also less than ten miles from the mainland of North Carolina. The history of the settlement can be found in England's increasing interest in laying claim to a portion of the New World during the late 1570's. This interest was even more apparent, when in the same decade, Queen Elizabeth encouraged exploration and settlement of new lands by issuing charters for this task, and it was during this time period when Roanoke Island was discovered by the English. However it was not until March 25, 1584 when the significant history of Roanoke was made with the re-issuing of the charter to Sir Walter Raleigh. It was the responsibility of Raleigh to make the necessary provisions to complete the journeys to the New World and accomplish the goals of the charter. This meant hiring ship captains and their crews, recruiting possible colonists, purchasing food and other supplies, and finding those who would invest capital in the missions. Raleigh however does not actively participate in the journeys to Roanoke Island; he was just the organizer and major financier. There are a total of four expeditions, under the Raleigh charter, which comprise the story of the lost colony. The first and second expeditions take place from 1584 to 1586. The accomplishments of these missions include producing contact and establishing friendly relations with a native tribe called the Croatoan, the fortification of the island, and searching for an appropriate place for a permanent settlement. It is during the second expedition that there was an attempt to leave a small force of men behind, while the ships returned to England for supplies. They left a few more than one hundred men, which were need to finish fortifying the island, to continue the search for a permanent settlement sight, and to keep an English hold on the island. The effort failed due to the lack of supplies, weather conditions, and the strained relations with the Croatoans and other more violent native tribes. The situation becomes extremely desperate for the men when they resort to their dogs as a source of food. Luckily for the colonists, a ship came to their rescue and takes all but fifteen men back to England. The mystery of Roanoke begins with the third expedition of 1587. John White was named governor of the colonist, which would now include women children. The permanence of this mission was believed to be insured by the involvement of entire families. To further insure success, the colonist themselves were the investors. The third expedition of almost one hundred twenty people (men, women and children) ready for colonization, arrived on the island in the spring of 1587. Their intent was to locate the fifteen men who were left behind in the second expedition, and then find an new settlement sight. It was discovered that the fortifications built by the colonists the year before had been abandoned and there were no clues as to the fate of the fifteen men. The next step was to find a new sight for settlement. It had been decided in England by Raleigh and John White, that the new settlement should be located in the Chesapeake Bay area to the north on the mainland. The colonist were denied the agreement that Raleigh and White had suggested. This was due to the strained relations between White and the ship captain. Therefore the colonists were forced to settle in the area of the abandoned fortifications for the time being. While the colonists were assembling their homes, contact with the Croatoans was reestablished. In their communications the fate of the fifteen men left behind in the previous expedition was revealed. The Croatoans explain how an enemy tribe attacked the fort and killed some of the men, but how many was not known. John White, upset with the news of the dead men and the recent discovery of a dead colonist, decides to launch an attack against the enemy, the Powhatans. Instead of attacking the enemy John White's men attack their friends, the Croatoans. With this violation of trust, the relations between the Croatoans and the colonists had deteriorated. Thus the Croatoans refuse to supply the colonists with food, and the supplies brought with them had begun to spoil. With the shortage of supplies and winter soon approaching, it was decided by the colonists that someone must return to England with the ships in order to relieve them of their supply shortage. John White was sent for the supplies in the late summer of 1587. He leaves approximately one hundred sixteen men, women, and children on Roanoke Island. John White does not return with the requested supplies until 1590. This three year delay was caused by a war between England and Spain. When he arrives he finds the colony abandoned. There is only a small clue as to where the colonist could be. This clue was the word Croatoan, carved into a tree. This word indicated to White that the colonists moved near or with the Croatoans, but White cannot determine whether his assumption was correct. Before White could make any more progress the captain and his crew, having no interest in the colonists fate wanted to return to England. This fourth expedition then returns to England not knowing the fate of the Roanoke Colonists. In late 1590 White tries to convince investors and Sir Walter Raleigh to send yet another expedition. Due to the lack of interest in Roanoke by investors and Raleigh , White was unsuccessful in his attempt. It is not until the Jamestown settlement twenty years later, that a firm effort was made to find the true fate of the 1587 colonists of Roanoke Island. Due to the fact that an investigation was not launched until twenty years later, no one knows what became of the colonists. Therefore there are several theories that attempt to explain their disappearance. John Smith was the first to gather information about the outcomes of the Roanoke settlement. He questioned the local natives about Roanoke. From this line of questioning he came up with three similar stories. One story was the attack of the settlement and the massacre of all the colonists. In another story the settlement was attacked and the women and children were assimilated only. The final story was that the entire colony was peacefully assimilated into the local native tribes. No new information or theories are concluded until many years later. These theories include the possibilities of an attack by the Spanish, disease, starvation, and an attempt to return to England in a small ship and then being lost at sea. Only spurts of interest in the fate of the colonists occurred throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There was also major destruction of the fort on Roanoke Island during the American Civil War, so most of the artifacts that could shed light upon the mystery had been destroyed. I feel that the efforts made by those involve with establishing the Roanoke Colony were a learning experience for both investors and those who became colonists. We can see that England was involved in many activities during the attempts to establish permanent colony in Roanoke. These activities being a war with Spain, and acquiring treasures and natural resources to enrich England. Granted this was a new and unfamiliar part of the world for the colonists, I feel proper efforts were not made to ensure a permanent colony. For example, instead of raising their own crops and using hunting skills, they relied on the food supplies that were brought with the ships and then relied on the kindness of the natives to supply their food needs. The Roanoke colonists made matters worse when John White decided to teach the enemy native tribe a lesson by attacking them in retaliation of killing one of the colonists and the men left behind in the second expedition. Instead of attacking their enemy they attacked their friends the Croatoans by accident. This was the second time an incident of this nature had happened. It had occurred in the second expedition with Ralph Lane (Governor of the colony left by the second expedition). Also I believe that mistakes of this nature reveal the possible fate of the lost colony, by assuming that relations between the colonist and the Croatoans had deteriorated. However, I do not believe that this tribe killed the members of Roanoke, I think that they refused to supply them with food supplies. From here I believe that the colonists had ventured into the interior of present day North Carolina, in search of food and a more suitable settlement. But in their venturing I believe the men were attacked by unfamiliar tribes. The women and children would have been spared and assimilated into their culture because it was the custom of the natives of this area. It was not until 1959 that a theory was openly agreed upon by a group of historian and scholars. They theorized that the colony did go to the Croatan village and may have been assimilated into the tribe. It was possible that they later moved to one of two areas; the Chesapeake Bay area or the Chowan River area. They also agreed that there was the possibility that the group disbanded. If the colonists did not go to the Croatan village, it was surmised that they were attacked by the Powhatan and the women and children were taken captive. However, the panel did not agree on one solid theory because they lack any physical evidence. These few possibilities may be as close as anyone will get to an answer. Bibliography Article Kupperman, Karen Ordahl. "Roanoke: Lost and Found." Reviews In American History 14 (March 1986): 55-60. Books Lefler, Hugh T., and William S. Powell. Colonial North Carolina, A History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973. Lefler, Hugh Talmage, and Albert Ray Newsome. The History of a Southern State, North Carolina. 3rd ed. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1973. Quinn, David B. North America From Earliest Discovery To First Settlements. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1975. Quinn, David B., ed. The Roanoke Voyages, 1584-1590. 2 vols. London: Cambridge University Press, 1955. Quinn, David B. Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584-1606. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Schoenbaum, Thomas J. Islands, Capes, and Sounds; The North Carolina Coast. Winston-Salem: John F. Blair, 1982. Stick, David. The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1958. Stick, David. Roanoke Island, The Beginnings of English America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The New Age After the 1500s.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The New Age After the 1500s After 1500 there were many signs that a new age of world history was beginning, for example the discovery of America and the first European enterprises in Asia. This "new age" was dominated by the astonishing success of one civilization among many, that of Europe. There was more and more continuous interconnection between events in all countries, but it is to be explained by European efforts. Europeans eventually became "masters of the globe" and they used their mastery to make the world one. That resulted in a unity of world history that can be detected until today. Politics, empire-building, and military expansion were only a tiny part of what was going on. Besides the economic integration of the globe there was a much more important process going on: The spreading of assumptions and ideas. The result was to be "One World." The age of independent civilizations has come to a close. The history of the centuries since 1500 can be described as a series of wars and violent struggles. Obviously men in different countries did not like another much more than their predecessors did. However, they were much more alike than their ancestors were, which was an outcome of what we now call modernization. One could also say that the world was Europeanized, for modernization was a matter of ideas and techniques which have an European origin. It was with the modernization of Europe that the unification of world history began. A great change in Europe was the starting-point of modern history. There was a continuing economic predominance of agriculture. Agricultural progress increasingly took two main forms: Orientation towards the market, and technical innovation. They were interconnected. A large population in the neighborhood meant a market and therefore an incentive. Even in the fifteenth century the inhabitants of so called ³low countries² were already leaders in the techniques of intensive cultivation. Better drainage opened the way to better pasture and to a larger animal population. Agricultural improvement favored the reorganization of land in bigger farms, the reduction of the number of small holders, the employment of wage labor, and high capital investment in buildings, drainage and machinery. In the late sixteenth century one response to the pressure of expanding population upon slowly growing resources had been the promoting of emigration. By 1800, Europeans had made a large contribution to the peopling of new lands overseas. It was already discernible in the sixteenth century when there began the long expansion of world commerce which was to last until 1930. It started by carrying further the shift of economic gravity from southern to north-western Europe, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, which has already been remarked. One contribution to this was made by political troubles and wars such as ruined Italy in the early sixteenth century. The great commercial success story of the sixteenth century was Antwerp's, though it collapsed after a few decades in political and economic disaster. In the seventeenth century Amsterdam and London surpassed it. In each case an important trade based on a well-populated hinterland provided profits for diversification into manufacturing industry, services, and banking. The Bank of Amsterdam and The Bank of England were already international economic forces in the in the seventeenth century. About them clustered other banks and merchant houses undertaking operations of credit and finance. Interest rates came down and the bill of exchange, a medieval invention, underwent an enormous extension of use and became the primary financial instrument of international trade. This was the beginning of the increasing use of paper, instead of bullion. In the eighteenth century came the first European paper currencies and the invention of the check. Joint stock companies generated another form of negotiable security, their own shares. Quotation of these in London coffee-houses in the seventeenth century was overtaken by the foundation of the London Stock Exchange. By 1800 similar institutions existed in many other countries. It was also the time of some spectacular disastrous investment projects, one of which was the great English South Sea Bubble. But all the time the world was growing more commercial, more used to the idea of employing money to make money, and was supplying itself with the apparatus of modern capitalism. One effect quickly appeared in the much greater attention paid to commercial questions in diplomatic negotiation from the later seventeenth century and in the fact that countries were prepared to fight over them. The English and Dutch went to war over trade in 1652. This opened a long era during which they, the French and Spanish, fought again and again over quarrels in which questions of trade were important. Governments not only looked after their merchants by going to war to uphold their interests, but also intervened in other ways in the working of the commercial economy. One advantage they could offer were monopoly privileges to a company under a charter; this made the raising of capital easier by offering some security for a return. Such activities closely involved government and therefore the concerns of businessmen shaped both, policy and law. The most impressive structural development in European commerce was the sudden new importance to it of overseas trade from the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. This was part of the shift of economic activity from Mediterranean to northern Europe. By the late seventeenth century. Rising populations and some assurance of adequate transport (water was always cheaper than land carriage) slowly built up an international trade in cereals. Shipbuilding itself promoted the movement of such commodities as pitch, flax or timber. More than European consumption was involved; all this took place in a setting of growing colonial empires. By the eighteenth century there were already present an oceanic economy and an international trading community which does business -- and fights and intrigues for it -- around the globe. In this economy an important and growing part was played by slaves, most of them black Africans. In Europe itself, slavery had by then all but withered away. Now it was to undergo a vast extension in other continents. Soon a permanent slaving station was set up in West Africa. This shows the rapid discovery of the profitability of the new traffic. It was already clear that it was a business of brutality. As the search for slaves went further inland, it became simpler to rely on local potentates who would round up captives and barter them wholesale. Early industrial centers grew by accretion, often around the centers of established European industries closely related to agriculture. This long continued to be true. These old trades had created concentrations of supporting industry. Antwerp had been the great port of entry to Europe for English cloth; as a result, finishing and dyeing establishments appeared there to work up further commodities flowing through the port. The twentieth century needs no reminders that social change can quickly follow economic change. We have little belief in the immutability of social forms and institutions. Three hundred years ago, many men and women believed them to be virtually God-given and the result was that although social changes took place in the aftermath of inflation, they were muffled by the persistence of old forms. Superficially much of European society remained unchanged between 1500 and 1800. Yet the economic realities underlying changed a great deal. Rural life had already begun to show this in some countries before 1500. As agriculture became more and more a matter of business, traditional rural society had to change. Forms were usually preserved. Although feudal lordship still existed in France in the 1780s, it was by then less a social reality than an economic device. Europe was divided roughly along the Elbe. To the west lay countries evolving slowly by 1800 towards more open social forms. To the east lay authoritarian governments presiding over agrarian societies where a minority of landholders enjoyed great powers over a largely tied peasantry. In this area towns did not often prosper as they had done for centuries in the West. They tended to be overtaxed islands in a rural sea, unable to attract from the countryside the labor they needed because of the extent of serfdom. Over great tracts of Poland and Russia even a money economy barely existed. Much of later European history was implicit in this difference between east and west. In the time span between the sixteenth and the eighteenth century states that were once powerful fell in rank, namely Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Ottoman Empire. This led to the rise of the new great powers such as Austria-Hungary, England, France, Prussia, and Russia. Factors to their rise were their geography, financial system, military strategy, and a new form of bureaucracy. Laws ensured the people¹s security , whereas religion did not interfere. Furthermore a new form of government was introduced, where there was more than just an exclusive group at power. With these changes a new system of modern bureaucracy began to rise. With that a major contradiction seemed to come up. How could capitalism, promoting free enterprise, and bureaucracy, which was a complex system of regulations and restrictions, coexist? However, taking a closer look at today¹s capitalistic societies one can clearly detect an advantage of that constellation. In Germany for example the capitalistic business world is strongly restricted by government regulations, decreasing the companies¹ profits, but benefiting society. In Brazil, on the other hand, where the so called "capitalismo salvage" prevails, the business world lives of the people, leaving them in poor conditions. The ³Treaty of Utrecht² benefited most of central Europe by establishing a balance of power and restoring peace. Russia benefited of Sweden¹s decline, and a large bureaucratic machinery collected a lot of taxes. Ivan the Terrible build up an extremely efficient system of espionage, which preserved his own power and increased state revenues. Likewise, Prussia prospered from its modern legal system, its strong state apparatus, where bureaucrats were state servants with some duties and many privileges. Prussia was also known for its disciplined army with advanced weapons. One could say that Prussia was a very well organized efficient power. Austria-Hungary was also able to maintain its status as a great power for a long time. The bureaucracy remained efficient due to the separation of power that existed between the prince and the people. In this case, the elements of finance, geography, and military strategy were not as crucial to the rise of this organization. France kept an effective and rational bureaucracy that consisted of royal officials who acted as state authorities along with the king. The collection of revenue was direct and strictly enforced by the bureaucracy. While France was a prominent Great Power, it also faced numerous problems. Their military strategy was extremely weak. The allotment of revenue that went towards defense was split between land and sea powers; creating a mediocre military in both areas. Thus, France was unable to turn to the offensive. The taxes collected were not enough to uphold the maintenance of the state. France's financial situation was inferior to that of England's since they had no system of credit which England already developed. France also relied heavily on the importation of goods from colonies. This constant trade drained the economy because it called for a strong navy which was not possible. England became superior to France in many ways. This was largely due to the industrial revolution that made England a powerful force while France suffered because of structural problems. England experienced success in the coal, iron, textile, and steel industry. England was the leading nation in Europe in mining and heavy manufacturing. Then came more innovations such as the invention of the steam engine in 1712. This success led only to more prosperity in many areas. The rise of the mentioned powers was greatly influenced by the adaptation of a new system of bureaucracy. This new system utilized at least one of the important factors that brought about the rise of these nations: finance, geography, or military strategy. England proves to be the best example of this modern bureaucratic system because it used all three elements while striving for maximum efficiency and power. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The occupation of Japan.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The occupation of Japan was, from start to finish, an American operation. General Douglans MacArthur, sole supreme commander of the Allied Power was in charge. The Americans had insufficient men to make a military government of Japan possible; so t hey decided to act through the existing Japanese gobernment. General Mac Arthur became, except in name, dictator of Japan. He imposed his will on Japan. Demilitarization was speedily carried out, demobilization of the former imperial forces was complet ed by early 1946. Japan was extensively fire bomded during the second world war. The stench of sewer gas, rotting garbage, and the acrid smell of ashes and scorched debris pervaded the air. The Japanese people had to live in the damp, and col d of the concrete buildings, because they were the only ones left. Little remained of the vulnerable wooden frame, tile roof dwelling lived in by most Japanese. When the first signs of winter set in, the occupation forces immediately took over all the s team-heated buildings. The Japanese were out in the cold in the first post war winter fuel was very hard to find, a family was considered lucky if they had a small barely glowing charcoal brazier to huddle around. That next summer in random spots new ho uses were built, each house was standardized at 216 square feet, and required 2400 board feet of material in order to be built. A master plan for a modernistic city had been drafted, but it was cast aside because of the lack of time before the next winte r. The thousands of people who lived in railroad stations and public parks needed housing. All the Japanese heard was democracy from the Americans. All they cared about was food. General MacAruther asked the government to send food, when they refus ed he sent another telegram that said, "Send me food, or send me bullets." American troops were forbidden to eat local food, as to keep from cutting into the sparse local supply. No food was was brought in expressly for the Japanese durning the first six months after the American presence there. Herbert Hoover, serving as chairman of a special presidential advisory committee, recommended minimum imports to Japan of 870,000 tons of food to be distributed in different urban areas. Fi sh, the source of so much of the protein in the Japanese diet, were no longer available in adequate quantities because the fishing fleet, particularly the large vessels, had been badly decimated by the war and because the U.S.S.R. closed off the fishing g rounds in the north. The most important aspect of the democratization policy was the adoption of a new constitution and its supporting legislation. When the Japanese government proved too confused or too reluctant to come up with a constitutional reform that satisfied MacArthur, he had his own staff draft a new constitution in February 1946. This, with only minor changes, was then adopted by the Japanese government in the form of an imperial amendment to the 1889 constitution and went into effect on May 3, 1947. The new Constitution was a perfection of the British parliamentary form of government that the Japanese had been moving toward in the 1920s. Supreme political power was assigned to the Diet. Cabinets were made responsible to the Diet by having the prime minister elected by the lower house. The House of Peers was replaced by an elected House of Councillors. The judicial system was made as independent of executive interference as possible, and a newly created supreme court was given the power to review the constitutionality of laws. Local governments were given greatly increased powers. The Emperor was reduced to being a symbol of the unity of the nation. Japanese began to see him in person. He went to hospitals, schools, mines, industrial plants; he broke ground for public buildings and snipped tape at the opening of gates and highways. He was steered here and there, shown things, and kept muttering, "Ah so, ah so." People started to call him "Ah-so-san." Suddenly the puybli c began to take this shy, ill-at-ease man to their hearts. They saw in him something of their own conqured selves, force to do what was alien to them. In 1948, in a newspaper poll, Emperior Hirohito was voted the most popular man in Japan. Civil liberties were emphasized, women were given full equality with men. Article 13 and 19 in the new Constitution, prohibits discrimination in political, economic, and social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status, or family origen. This is one of the most explicitly progressive statements on human rights anywhere in law. Gerneral Douglas MacArthur emerged as a radical feminist because he was "convinced that the place of women in Japan must be brought to a level consistent with that of women in the western democracies." So the Japanese women got their equal rights amendment long before a concerted effort was made to obtain one in America. Compulsory education was extened to nine years, efforts were made to make education more a traning in thinking than in rote memory, and the school system above the six elementary grades was revised to conform to the American pattern. This last mechanical change produced great confusion and dissatisfaction but became so entrenched that it could not be re vised even after the Americans departed. Japan's agriculture was the quickest of national activities to recover because of land reform. The Australians came up with the best plan. It was basis was this: There were to be no absentee landlards. A person who actually worked the land could own up to 7.5 arcers. Anyone living in a village near by could keep 2.5 acres. Larger plots of land, exceeding these limits, were bought up by the government and sold on easy terms to former tenants. Within two years 2 million tenants became landowners. The American occupation immediately gained not only a large constituency, for the new owners had a vested interest in preserving the change, but also a psychological momentum for other changes they wanted to ini tiate. The American labor policy in Japan had a double goal: to encourage the growth of democratic unions while keeping them free of communists. Union organization was used as a balance to the power of management. To the surprise of the American authorties, this movement took a decidedly more radical turn. In the desperate economic conditions of early postwar Japan, there was little room for successful bargaining over wages, and many labor unions instead made a bid to take over industry and o perate it in their own behalf. Moreover large numbers of workers in Japan were government employees, such as railroad workers and teachers, whose wages were set not by management but by the government. Direct political action therefore seemed more meani ngful to these people than wage bargaining. The Japanese unions called for a general strike on February 1, 1947. MacArthur warned the union leadership that he would not countenace a nationwide strike. The strike leaders yieled to MacArthur's will. The re after the political appeal of radical labor action appeared to wane. The Americans wanted to disband the great Zaibatsu trust as a means of reducing Japan's war-making potential. There were about 15 Zaibatsu families such as - Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Yasuda, and Sumitomo. The Zaibatsu controled the industry of Japan. MacArthur's liaison men pressured the Diet into passing the Deconcentration Law in December 1947. In the eyes of most Japanese this law was designed to cripple Japanese business and i ndustry forever. The first step in breaking up the Zaibatsu was to spread their ownership out among the people and to prevent the old owners from ever again exercising control. The stocks of all the key holding companies were to be sold to the public. Friends of the old Zaibatsu bought the stock. In the long run the Zaibatsu were not exactly destroyed, but a few were weakened and others underwent a considerable shuffle. The initial period of the occupation from 1945 to 1948 was marked by reform, the second phase was one of stabilization. Greater attention was given to improvement of the economy. Japan was a heavy expense to the United States. The ordered breakup of the Zaibatsu was slowed down. The union movement continued to grow, to the ult imate benefit of the worker. Unremitting pressure on employers brought swelling wages, which meant the steady expansion of Japan domestic consumer market. This market was a major reason for Japan's subsequent economic boom. Another boom to the economy was the Korean War which proved to be a blessing in disguise. Japan became the main staging area for military action in Korea and went on a war boom economy with out having to fight in or pay for a war. The treaty of peace with Japan was signed at San Francisco in September 1951 by Japan, the United States, and forty-seven other nations. The Soviet Union refused to sign it. The treaty went into effect in April 1952, officially terminating the United States military occupation and restoring full independence. What is extraordinary in the Occupation and its aftermath was the insignificance of the unpleasant. For the Japanese, the nobility of American ideals and the essential benignity of the American presence assuaged much of the bitterness and anguish of defeat. For the Americans, the joys of promoting peace and democracy triumphed over the attendant fustrations and grievances. Consequently, the Occupation served to lay down a substantial capital of good will on which both America and Jap an would draw in the years ahead. BIBLIOGRAPHY Christopher, Robert C. /The Japanese Mind/. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1983 La Cerda, John. /The Conqueror Comes to Tea/. New Brunswick: R utgers University Press, 1946 Manchester, William. /American Caesar/. New York: Dell Publishing Company, Inc., 1978 Perry, John Curtis. /Beneath the Eagle's Wings/. New York: Dodd, Mead And Company, 1980 Reischauer, Edwin O. / The Japanese/. London: Belknap Press, 1977 Seth, Ronald. /Milestones in Japanese History/. Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1969 Sheldon, Walt. /The Honorable Conquerors/. New York: The Macmillan Company., 1965 . f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Old Regime.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Old Regime The Old Regime was a period of time often considered by many to be representative of a crashed society. Under the Old Regime in France, the king was the absolute monarch. King Louis XIV had centralized power in the royal bureaucracy, the government departments that took care of his policies. King Louis' reign in France played a significant role in its history and economy. He was a king to all during the most important events of the time, but he was also a financial king to the rich because he created a tax system that only benefited those who were wealthy. During the time of the Old Regime, society was broken down into three orders or classes, known traditionally as estates. The most important class of the three consisted of the rebellious Nobility of the Second Estate which contained about 400,000 individuals who held all the public offices in the kingdom.1 The first two estates numbered the least but held the most influence in the whole kingdom. Most of the King's ministers of state were of Noble birth, and even the highest order of the First Estate, the Clergy, was filled with the younger sons of Noble families.2 Like the First Estate, the Second Estate paid hardly any taxes and generally consisted of the richest members of society. The First and Second Estates were grouped together because they had similar political beliefs. The Third Estate strongly resented the advantages of the first two estates. The first two estates were the richest of the three estates. The First Estate consisted of the Clergy, or the Church. The First Estate owned nearly ten percent of all the land in France. This estate paid no taxes, but to support church activities such as running schools and caring for the poor, it collected a tithe, or a tax on income.3 In addition, this estate was made up of the Nobles who lived luxurious lives in major French cities such as Versailles and Paris. The First Estate perfectly illustrates the amount of power and wealth possessed by the Church during a time when Church and State were not separated. The Second Estate in French life was mainly comprised of the Nobility. This class, generally characterized by the richest members of society, enjoyed extensive rights and privileges, great land, and much wealth. The Nobles accumulated their wealth by collecting taxes, rents, and dues for the use of their farms or estates. Noblemen traditionally lived by the values of loyalty, courage, refined manners, and service to the King.4 However, while these aristocrats still claimed the privileges of their estate, many had forgotten their duties and values.5 This estate shows how lopsided society was; most members of the Second Estate weren't even rich, but were born into a Noble family and were therefore considered Nobility. The Third Estate consisted of French citizens who weren't classified as either Clergy or Nobility. Since the first two estates were exempt from taxes, the Third Estate had to provide almost all of the country's income. Yet the Third Estate, easily the largest since it encompassed every Frenchman who was neither an aristocrat nor a clergyman, was the least influential of the estates. In general, the Third Estate was composed of three groups: the Peasants, the Middle Class, and the Urban Workers. Peasants mainly led the lives of farmers. In contrast, the Middle Class was composed of the most important people in society. However, the Middle Class often worried about its social status, for it wasn't socially recognized because it was part of the Third Estate. The Urban Workers, on the other hand, held much weight in society before and during the Revolution. Their anger at low wages and shortages of bread and other staple foods often resulted in mob violence during the Revolution.6 While the first two orders enjoyed many advantages, the commoners of the Third Estate had none. Barred by law and custom from possessing any kind of political power, these people were also burdened with taxes.7 They were forced to pay taxes on their income, land, property, crops, salt, tobacco, wine, cider and even their lives. If a peasant sold a piece of land, he or she paid a sales tax, as well as an additional tax, on the money he or she received. These taxes were just too much for a hard working individual to pay; thus, this class system caused human life to be unequal. Ironically, these people were taught that all were born equal; therefore, they learned that classifying mankind must was wrong. However, restrictions were still put upon the subordinated Third Estate. In addition to financial constraints, peasants and farmers were forbidden to kill any game animals, even those that threatened their crops. On top of all these restrictions the commoners had to bear, they were faced with yet another burden -- forced military service. Once in the army, these people were paid very poorly and fed even worse. These restraints were only levied upon the Third Estate; thus, this estate became quite infuriated. As a result of these restrictions, the whole Third Estate was living in an inferior state of mind that caused those within this estate to want more. The people of the Third Estate were tired of being treated unfairly throughout their everyday lives. The first two estates were enjoying their tax-free lifestyles while the poor paid for this injustice. Clearly, such a system could not survive for long. During the 1780's, France's financial crisis grew daily as kings drained the country's treasury. The Peasants wanted relief from their ancient and dated duties while the Middle Class desired freedom as a reward for their industry labor.8 Despite this growing tension in France, the King continued to resist the demands of his people. As a result of his constant refusal to grant his people equal rights, many rebellions and wars broke out and diminished the country's treasury. Furthermore, a series of bad harvests between 1688 and 1694 brought about total catastrophes.9 For example, the cold and wet summers reduced harvests by more then one-third. The overall result was widespread starvation, and, in many provinces, a death rate that rose to several times the normal figure.10 These unfortunate circumstances hurt the Peasants even more than the disadvantages they faced before the famine. In addition to these events, food riots, lack of work, and the issuance of political pamphlets all played key roles in fuelling the fire of the French Revolution.11 This revolution symbolized equality for all classes around the world. The Metropolitan Museum offered many different kinds of displays of French art and architecture that illustrated the contrasting classes of French society. Upon inspection of these displays, one can easily notice that kings and nobles dominated French art and paintings. These displays show an observer the unequal society that the people of that day were forced to live in. For example, the paintings exemplified the prestige, privileged, and rich nature of the Nobles; these were conditions that the Third Estate could not experience. The first two estates endured very fruitful lives, and this is reflected in the art exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum. Peasants weren't considered anything but lowly peasants, and were thus never really recognized until during the Revolution. The Peasants in the Third Estate became accustomed to their lifestyles and knew they would never become part of the rich society. There were two rooms in the Metropolitan Museum that illustrated the wealth and honor possessed by the first two estates. The first room had to be the bedroom of King Louis XIV, for this room was nothing less then perfect. The walls, surrounded by angels, looked like they belonged to the room of a god. The walls also contained pictures, one being of King Louis himself. The King's portrait was godlike as well, for he bore a confident stance. This room contained a masterful fireplace, which would have definitely been a sight to any peasant who would have had the honor to see it. The other room that would catch the eye of any commoner would have to be the room of the Hotel De Cabris. At first glance, any observer could see that this room signified wealth with its rich furniture and atmosphere. These two rooms show how the rich lived and how happy they were while the Third Estate struggled to exist. While the first two estates lived in harmony and only worried about what they wanted, Third Estate members were concerned with how they would continue to live under the restrictions put upon them. These two rooms would give peasants a sense of disappointment -- they would feel that they wouldn't amount to anything because they weren't born into a wealthy or noble family. These rooms, or any rooms of Nobility, would be nothing more than a reminder of how unequal the society of their time was. The architecture of that day was nothing less then spectacular; however, it was constructed only to the satisfaction of the rich, and a lot of the things that they built didn't need to be built. Since having money was natural to the rich, they decided to live in luxury rather than help the poor societies. One example of an unnesscary building that was built would have to be the Palace at Versailles. The King erected this building because he wanted all the French Nobles to live together, yet this place became nothing more then a prison for the Nobility. This building did not have to be made, but it was created to show the greatness of the King and his entire kingdom. These examples of architecture show that a peasant, who was considered to be low in societal status, would feel regret in any of these places because they contained things that were built lavishly for the wealthy. In a society that has nothing left but hope, the rich are often resented. The French Society in the 17th century was made up of unequal classes. Even though the lowest class made up more than half of the French society during that time, it was treated the worst and given nothing but trouble. King Louis XIV might have had a tight financial hold on France, but he did so at the expense of the poor. A peasant would feel totally out of place in a rich setting like the one within the Metropolitan Museum. End Notes 1) Dowd, David. French Revolution (New York: American Heritage Pub, 1965) pg. 13 2) Dowd, David. French Revolution, pg. 14. 3) Corzine, Phyllis. The French Revolution (San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc. 1995)pg. 15. 4) Corzine, Phyllis. The French Revolution, pg 16. 5) Corzine, Phyllis. The French Revolution, pg. 16. 6) Otfinoski, Steven. Triumph and Terror (New York: Facts on File, Inc. 1993)pg. 9 7) Corzine, Phyllis. The French Revolution, pg. 20. 8) Otfinoski, Steven. Triumph and Terror, pg. 10. 9) Dowd, David. The French Revolution, pg. 15. 10) Mckay, John P., Hill, Bennett D., Buckler, John, A History of Western Society. 6th Ed. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999) pg. 544. 11) Mckay, John P., Hill, Bennett D., Buckler, John, A History of Western Society. 6th Ed. Pg. 545. 12) Otfinoski, Steven. Triumph and Terror, pg. 13. Word Count: 1870 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Ottoman Empire.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Ottoman Empire: Focus on Society By the 16th century, the vast and mighty empire of the Ottomans had reached the zenith of its power. The lands under Ottoman rule stretched from the heart of Central Europe to the deserts of Arabia. In nearly every respect, the Ottoman Empire was strong and well-organized. As such, it comes as no surprise that the people under Ottoman rule were organized in a neat power structure as well. From the royal Sultan to the villagers in the rayyah class, the people of the Empire each had a unique position in Ottoman society. At the very top of the pyramidal societal structure was the Sultan, absolute commander of all, and executor of decisions concerning politics and state wealth (for the purposes of serving the state's interests). A step below the Sultan were a small group of wealthy, esteemed leaders, who were ascribed special status because they were essentially the Sultan's "slaves". The main duties of this select little group were to protect and enlarge the financial assets of the state for the benefit of the Sultan and the Empire. These leaders also ruled and defended the far-flung Ottoman Empire. While the Sultan invested wealth and the leaders protected it, the majority of commoners, the rayyahs, had the task of actually producing the wealth. The rayyahs had to pay part of their profits from industry, commerce, and farming to the state in the form of taxes. Townsfolk, villagers, and pastoral peoples made up the eclectic mix of the rayyah class. The word "rayyah" literally translates into "the protected flock of the Sultan". While Ottoman society was clearly divided into distinct social classes, these classes were neither closed nor confining, meaning that with the proper attributes and luck, a man could raise his social status. For example, to be a member of the small ruling class below the Sultan, one had to possess the following three qualities: - deep-rooted patriotism and loyalty for the Empire and the Sultan. - acceptance and practice of Islam, which was integrated into the Ottoman lifestyle. - knowledge and practice of the Ottoman Way, which consisted of complex customs, behavior, and language. If a rayyah possessed these qualities, he had a chance of becoming one of the numbered leaders. On the other hand, if a leader appeared to be lacking one or more of these qualities, he could just as easily be removed from his position and sink to being a rayyah again. The shaping force behind the Ottoman Empire was most definitely the religion of Islam. As a result, religion became a foremost guiding factor in people's lives. To maintain religious harmony and unity among the diverse Muslim and non- Muslim sects of the Empire, the rayyah class were given the right to organize themselves as they wished. What happened next is that people gravitated towards religion-dictated groups. The people of each important religion and/or sect organized themselves into self-centered, self-governing communities called millets. Millets were like mini-states, that regulated smaller civic matters such as marriages, deaths, etc. In a sense, the Ottoman Empire was like the United States is today; a powerful "federal" government that ruled from the seat of power in Istanbul, while "millet state" governments ruled over their small vicinities. The significance of millets is that they kept diverse peoples from clashing too much, since each cultural/religious group maintained a dignified distance from each other. This is not to say that the populace of the Ottoman Empire could not get along together though. The people of the Ottoman Empire were united through other common interests, morals, and ideals, as well as by an overwhelming unanimous loyalty to the Sultan himself. Such was the harmonious and organized society of the Ottoman Empire, the huge empire that left its mark on Turkey - and the world - forever. Neatly categorized into unique positions, each individual in the Ottoman Empire had his or her own part to play in society, a role to fulfill in order to contribute to the overall success of the state. Word Count: 614 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\THE PANAMA CANAL.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE CRITIQUE OF THE PANAMA CANAL: The Crisis in Historical Perspective In 1825, a group of American businesspeople announced the formation of a canal building company, with interests in constructing a canal system across the Isthmus. This project was to take place in an area now called Panama. The endeavor was filled with controversy. Though the canal itself was not built until the early 1900's every step toward the building and ownership, was saturated with difficulty. Walter LaFeber illustrates the dilemmas in a historical analysis. In his work he states five questions that address the significance of the Panama Canal to United States. This paper will discuss the historical perspective of the book's author, address pertinent three questions and give a critique of LaFeber's work, The Panama Canal. For proper historical analysis one must understand the importance of the Canal. The Panama Canal and the Canal Zone (the immediate area surrounding the Canal) are important areas used for trade. Even before the canal was built there were to large ports on both sides of the Isthmus. Large amounts of cargo passed through the Isthmus by a railroad that connected the two ports. The most important cargo was the gold mined in California before the transcontinental railroad was completed in the United States. It has strategic significance because of its location, acting as a gateway connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This allows for rapid naval deployment between fleets in either ocean. These two facets make the Panama Canal very important in the region. LaFeber notes that Panamanian nationalism played a large role in the creation of the canal and, consequently, the cause for the area's constant instability. The first expression occurred in the late 1800's with Panamanian struggle for independence from Columbia. The United States eager to build the canal, and control its operation, used and backed Panamanian nationalist. During the Roosevelt administration, not only did the United States manipulate factors isolating Panama from other world powers through the Monroe Doctrine; but it committed troops aiding the revolutionaries against another sovereign state. The reason this is a surprise is because the Roosevelt administration normally held a position favoring stability. The United States had no legal right to use force against Columbia. Nationalism came back to haunt the United States. With the treaty signed and a 99-year lease given to the United States, the Canal was built. Since then, the United States has varied on its stance of ownership and the principles of sovereignty concerning the Canal. The ever persistent debate of who owns the Canal and who should have sovereign control over it, has not been solved. The United States has occasionally attempted to "claim" the Canal zone through various methods such as military occupation, exclusion of Panamanians for important jobs in Canal operations and even through the customary aspect of international law. However, each time the Panamanians have managed to maintain claim to the Canal despite the United State's imperialistic posturing to get it. The most recent and notorious of the United States' attempts to annex the Canal Zone was during the Reagan administration. President Reagan said that the Canal Zone could be equated as a sovereign territory equal to that of Alaska. The question here is, was he correct? LaFeber points out that, "the United States does not own the Zone or enjoy all sovereign rights in it." He uses the treaty of 1936 in Article III that states, "The Canal Zone is the territory of the Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States." The entire topic was summed up neatly by Ellsworth Bunker, a negotiator in the region, when he said, "We bought Louisiana; we bought Alaska. In Panama we bought not territory, but rights." A second important question, is the Canal a vital interest to the United States? LaFeber gives three points suggesting that it is not. First, the importance of the Canal decreased after 1974, because of the end of the Vietnam War and all related military traffic ceased. Second, is the age of the antique machinery dating back to 1914. Inevitably the machinery will need to be replaced. Lastly, the size of the new tankers and cargo ships. The capacity of the canal is too small to handle such a large amount of tonnage. These are viable factors; however, the first argument is concerning whether a war is taking place. It is circumstantial in providing a solid reason for increased traffic through the Zone. This can easily change through and emergence of a new conflict or trading habits of other countries. Thirdly, why have the Panamanians insisted on assuming total control of the Canal. The Panamanians are making millions of dollars annually and the United States run the Canal efficiently. LaFeber points in the direction of economics as the principal factor and nationalism as secondary. The Panamanians fear the amount of reliance they have on U.S. investments. The fear is enhanced by the large dependence of their national economy on MNC's, American banks and mining companies. LaFeber continues saying that Panamanians find it difficult to cross the Zone because of check points and resent their country being split in half. Continuing he asserts that perhaps if the Panamanians were to have complete control the Zone the amount of revenue would increase. Panamanians could also develop spinoff industries such as drydocks and ship building creating an increase in profits. Walter LaFeber develops a persuasive argument for the interpretation of historical events surrounding the creation of the Panama Canal. As is consistent with other LaFeber's works, his research and fact finding technique in The Panama Canal is complete if not exhaustive. He presents an objective outlook on issues surrounding the Canal. He uses a historical approach in presenting his contribution to a subject that is lacking in information and scholarly examination. In conclusion, this paper has addressed the historical perspective that the author of the book used. A discussion also included three important questions concerning the Canal, its importance and the relationship between the United States and Panama. Furthermore, this paper examines the effectiveness and usefulness of LaFeber's, The Panama Canal. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The passivness of the Counquered Peoples.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Many students of African history wonder why the native people of Africa did not rise up in violent rebellion against their Imperialist conquerers. What many do not know though, is that some tribes did. One of these tribes was the nation that we now know as Senegal. In the 1800's, there was no Senegal but there was a nation that became Senegal much later. The tribe was ruled by Samori Toure when the Europeans started coming. Samori Toure signed an agreement with the French in an effort to keep the land they had owned for centuries. Unfortunately, the French broke the agreement and war broke out for 7 years. The people of Senegal were defeated in 1898. This war was one of the few examples of overt resistance during the colonization of Africa. The geographical situation of the people of Senegal was one of the reasons that lost the war. First of all, Senegal is located on the North Western coast of Africa, making it easily accessible for the Europeans. Also, one very negative feature was the flatness of the land, which made the natives face the superior weapons of the French head on. Websters Concise World Atlas Barnes and Noble Books, New York 1995 Scramble for Africa Anthony Nutting E.P. Dutton and Co. , San Francisco 1971 World History Burton F. Beers Prentice Hall , New York 1993 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Policies the Meiji Government Used to Further Industriali.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Strategies The Meiji Government Used to Achieve Economic Development? The Meiji government during the 1880's created both an institutional and constitution structure that allowed Japan in the coming decades to be a stabile and industrializing country. Two major policies and strategies that reinforced stability and economic modernization in Japan were the creation of a national public education system and the ratification of the Meiji constitution. Both these aided in stability and thus economic growth. The creation of a national education system aided in creating stability because it indoctrinated youth in the ideas of loyalty, patriotism, and obedience. Japan's education system at first stressed free thought and the ideas of individual's exploration of knowledge but by 1890 the education system of Japan became a tool for indoctrination into what Peter Duus calls "a kind of civil religion" with the Imperial Rescript on Education. This Rescript stressed two things. First, it stressed loyalty to the emperor and to a lesser extant to the state. In every classroom a picture of the emperor was placed. Second, the education system stressed self sacrifice to the state and family. Filial piety was taught in schools and applied not only to the family but also to the national family which included father, teacher, official and employer. The Japanese education system also created a system of technical schools and universities both public and private that educated a growing class of Japanese on how to use new western machinery, administrate government and run private industries. The Japanese education system following the Rescript on Education served primarily to teach people what to think and not how to think; and as Edwin Reischauer stated, "Japan pioneered in the modern totalitarian technique of using the educational system for indoctrination and was in fact decades ahead of countries like Germany in perfecting these techniques." Japan's education system was a tool in creating for Japan a reliable citizenry who respected the government and had the knowledge to act as "technically efficient clogs" in the new industries and administration that an industrializing state created. The ratification of the Meiji constitution drafted in the summer of 1887 and signed into law in 1889 helped create a stable constitutional order in Japan. The constitution was a gift of the emperor to the people and was made up of a complicated set of checks and balances between the emperor, his cabinet, and the Diet. The constitution although it granted voting rights to only one percent of the population in Japan was well received by the people and played a critical role in lending legitimacy to the oligarchy (Genro) who ran the government. Before the constitution the Genro had little basis in theory for their continued rule other then they spoke for the emperor. But the constitution with its elections and bicameral diet lender legitimacy to the rule of the oligarchy. The constitution also brought Japan at least in the minds of the oligarchy to parity with western political institutions. Indeed, the ruling group in Japan passed the constitution through not because of popular pressure but because they thought a constitution and parliamentary government was a necessary part of the political machinery that helped make western powers strong. In the long term the parliamentary government of Japan and its constitution provided a stable government with its mix of oligarchy, monarchy, and a little democracy for the wealthy. It ensured investors and the Zaibutsu a say in government and promoted growth by creating a stabile government that was critical to ensuring investors will put capital in businesses. Both the new education and governmental structure of Japan passed in the 1880's and 1890's was essential to Japanese stability and economic and industrial growth. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Psychological Affects of the Holocaust.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Psychological Affects of the Holocaust The Holocaust was a tragic point in history which many people believe never happened. Others who survived it thought it should never have been. Not only did this affect the people who lived through it, it also affected everyone who was connected to those fortunate individuals who survived. The survivors were lucky to have made it but there are times when their memories and flashbacks have made them wish they were the ones who died instead of living with the horrible aftermath. The psychological effects of the Holocaust on people from different parts such as survivors of Israel and survivors of the ghettos and camps vary in some ways yet in others are profoundly similar. The vast number of prisoners of various nationalities and religions in the camps made such differences inevitable. Many contrasting opinions have been published about the victims and survivors of the holocaust based on the writers' different cultural backrounds, personal experiences and intelectual traditions. Therefore, the opinions of the authors of such books and entries of human behavior and survival in the concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Europe are very diverse. The Survivors of the Holocaust: General Survey Because the traumatization of the Holocaust was both individual and collective, most individuals made efforts to create a "new family" to replace the nuclear family that had been lost. In order for the victims to resist dehumanization and regression and to find support, the members of such groups shared stories about the past, fantasies of the future and joint prayers as well as poetry and expressions of personal and general human aspirations for hope and love. Imagination was an important means of liberation from the frustrating reality by opening an outlet for the formulation of plans for the distant future, and by spurring to immediate actions. Looking at the history of the Jewish survivors, from the beginning of the Nazi occupation until the liquidation of the ghettos shows that there are common features and simmilar psychophysiological patterns in their responses to the persecutions. The survivors often experienced several phases of psychosocial response, including attempts to actively master the traumatic situation, cohesive affiliative actions with intense emotional links, and finally, passive compliance with the persecutors. These phases must be understood as the development of special mechanisms to cope with the tensions and dangers of the surrounding horrifying reality of the Holocaust. There were many speculations that survivors of the Holocaust suffered from a static concentration camp syndrome. These theories were proved to have not been valid by research that was done immediately after liberation. Clinical and theoretical research focused more on psychopathology than on the question of coping and the development of specific adaptive mechanisms during the Holocaust and after. The descriptions of the survivors' syndrome in the late 1950's and 1960's created a new means of diagnosis in psychology and the behavioral sciences, and has become a model that has since served as a focal concept in examining the results of catastrophic stress situations. After more research was done, it was clear the adaptation and coping mechanisms of the survivors was affected by the aspects of their childhood experiences, developmental histories, family constellations, and emotional family bonds. In the studies and research that were done, there were many questions that were asked of the subjects: What was the duration of the traumatization?, During the Holocaust, was the victim alone or with family and friends?, Was he in a camp or hiding?, Did he use false "Aryan" papers?, Was he a witness to mass murder in the ghetto or the camp?, What were his support systems- family and friends- and what social bonds did he have? These studies showed that the experiences of those who were able to actively resist the oppression, whether in the underground or among the partisans, were different in every way from the experiences of those who were victims in extermination camps. When the survivors integrated back into society after the war, they found it very hard to adjust. It was made difficult by the fact that they often aroused ambivalent feelings of fear, avoidence, guilt, pity and anxiety. This might have been hard for them, but decades after the Holocaust most of the survivors managed to rehabilitate their capacities and rejoin the paths their lives might have taken prior to the Holocaust. This is more true for the people who experienced the Holocaust as children or young adults. Their families live with a special attitude toward psychobiological continuity, fear of separation, and fear of prolonged sickness and death. The experience of the Holocaust shows how human beings can undergo extreme traumatic experiences without suffering from a total regression and without losing their ability to rehabilitate their ego strength. The survivors discovered the powers within them in whatever aspect in their lives that were needed. Survivors of Ghettos and Camps The Jews, arrested and brought to the concentration camps during WWII were under sentence of death. Their chances of surviving the war minimal. Their brutal treatment on the part of the camp guards and even some of the other prisoners influenced the Jews. The months or years already spent in the ghettos, with continuous persecutions and random selections, had brought some to a chronic state of insecurity and anxiety and others to apathy and hopelessness, even though passive or active resistance had also occured. This horrible situation was worsened by overcrowding, infectious diseases, lack of facilities for basic hygiene and continuous starvation. When the people were transported to the concentration camps, they lived in horrible conditions such as filth and lack of hygiene, diseases and extreme nutritional insufficiency, continuous harassment, and physical ill treatment, perpetual psychic stress caused by the recurrent macabre deaths- all combined to influence deeply the attitudes and mental health of camp inmates. Observations and descriptions by former prisoners, some of whom were physicians and psychologists differ drastically. Some described resignation, curtailment of emotional and normal feelings, weakening of social standards, regression to primative reactions and "relapse to animal state" whereas others show feelings of comeradeship, community spirit, a persistant humanity and extreme altruism- even moral development and religious revelation. Afer liberation, most of the Jewish camp inmates were too weak to move or be aware of what was happening. Prisoners were not restored to perfect health by liberation. Awakening from nightmares was sometimes even more painful than captivity. In the beginning of physical improvement , the ability to feel and think returned and many realized the completeness of their isolation. To them, the reality of what had happened was agonizing. They lived with their overwhelming personal losses whose impact is beyond intellectual or emotional comprehension. They also clung to the hope of finding some family member still alive in the new DISPLACED PERSONS' camps that were now set up. Many of the people admitted to those camps lost all sense of initiative. After the war, organizations such as THE UNITED NATIONS RELIEF and REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION, THE JOINT DISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE and the International Refugee Organization were founded. Their work was useful but their methods were not suitable. The ex- prisoner, now a "displaced person", was brought before boards set up by different countries which decided on his or her worthiness to be received by that country. Most survivors tried to make their way to Palestine. Then Israel was founded and they integrated quickly into a new society. The majority of the people adapted adequately to their changed life, in newly founded families, jobs and kibbutzim, many however still suffered from chronic anxiety, sleep disturbances, nightmares, emotional instability and depressive states. The worst however were those people who went to the United States, Canada, and Austrailia, some of them with extreme psychological traumatizations. They had to adjust to strange new surroundings, learn a new language, and adapt to new laws, in addition to building new lives. After the survivors received compensation from the West German government, they were examined by specialists in internal and neurological medicine. In most cases, no ill effects directly attributable to detainment in camps were found. The reason for this was because the repeated selection of Jewish victims for extermination in ghettos, on arrival at the camps, again at the frequent medical examinations, in the sick bays, and at every transferment that all those showing signs of physical disease had already been eliminated. Many survivors described themselves as incapable of living life to the fullest, often barely able to perform basic tasks. They felt that the war had changed them and they had lost their much needed spark to life. Investigations show that the extreme traumatizations of the camps inflicted deep wounds that have healed very slowly, and that more than 40 years later, the scars are still present. There has shown to be clear differences between camp victims and statistically comparable Canadian Jews: the survivors show long term consequences of the Holocaust in the form of psychological stress, associated with heightened sensitivity to anti-semitism and persecution. The survivors, normal people before the Holocaust, were exposed to situations of extreme stress and to psychic traumatization. Their reactions to inhuman treatment were "normal" because not to react to treatment of this kind would be abnormal. Survivors of Israel There were few studies done, following the Holocaust that were made in Israel of the psychological effects of the Nazi persecution even though the number of survivors was high as time passed, research increased and in 1964, a comparison was made between Holocaust survivors now in Israel and non-Jewish Norwegians who returned to Norway after being deported to camps. The results showed that the Jewish survivors suffered more from the total isolation in the camps, from the danger of death, which was greater for Jews, and from "survivor guilt", than did the Norwegians. It also showed that most Israeli survivors were suffering from symptoms of the so called survivors syndrome, but were active and efficient, and often held important and responsible jobs and social positions. Another study, of Israeli Holocaust survivors in kibbutzim (collective settlements), revealed that survivors who could not mourn their losses immediately, after the war began mourning and working through their grief when they adjusted to life in the kibbutz. The study also indicated that many Holocaust survivors had a low threshold for emotional stress. This was brought out during situations that reminded them of the Holocaust- especially during the EICHMANN TRIAL, when they had to testify against Nazi criminals, and during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. These were the times when they suffered periods of depression and tension. Studies made in Israel more than 30 years after WWII did not show significant differences in the extent of psychological damage between people who were in hiding during Nazi occupation and former concentration camp inmates. The only difference that was found was that the inmates experienced more pronounced emotional distress than those who survived the occupation outside the camps. The research done on the elderly Holocaust survivors in Israel indicated that they encountered particular difficulties in absorption because of the serious problems they had to overcome (loss of family and of the social and cultural backround they had known before the Holocaust). The community in Israel tried to provide them with personal and professional care. Nevertheless, to those survivors who immigrated to Israel when elderly it was more difficult to adjust than the younger survivors. There was also a study done in the University Psychiatric Hospital in Jerusalem 40 years after liberation. It revealed a difference between hospitalized depressive patients who had been inmates of Nazi concentration camps and the match group of patients who had not been persecuted. The camp survivors were more belligerent, demanding, and regressive than the control group. Oddly enough their behavior may have helped their survival. Despite the many hardships and difficulties faced by the survivors in Israel, their general adjustment has been satisfactory, both vocationally and socially. In the end it has been more successful than that of Holocaust survivors in other countries. When looking at it from a general point of view, the survivors, for the most part have shown to be as strong as humanly possible. Not one person who hasn't seen what they saw can possibly imagine how they feel. Many people are greatly affected by things the survivors would consider menial. There is no other way they are supposed to act. These people were lucky to have survived but there is no doubt that there have been times when their memories have made them think otherwise. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bettelheim,B. The Informed Heart. Glencoe, Ill.,1960 Des Pres,T. The Survivor:An Anatomy of Life in the Death Camps. New York, 1976 Dimsdale,J.E.,ed. Survivors, Victims, and Perpetrators:Essays on the Nazi Holocaust. New York, 1980. Eitinger, L., Concentration Camp Survivors in Norway and Israel. London, 1964. Krystal, H.,ed., Massive Psychic Trauma. New York 1968. Lifton, R.J."The Concept ofm the Survivor." in Survivors, Victims, and Perpetrators:Essays on the Nazi Holocaust, edited by J.E. Dimsdale, pp.106-125. New York, 1980. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE HOLOCAUST Rabbi Stern Antoanela Ciomo Gari Fox f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Red Scare.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The tumult and the shouting dies, The captains and the kings depart. -Kipling, The Recessional. Mr. Kipling was wrong. War does not always end with the last cry on the battlefield. World War I certainly did not. After the war formally ended on November 18, 1918, there was an ideological war still going on in the US. An ideological war which prompted mass paranoia and caused, among many other things, what would be known as the Red Scare, which began in 1919 and ended in 1921. Red Scare was the label given to the actions of legislation, the race riots, and the hatred and persecution of "subversives" and conscientious objectors during that period of time.. It is this hysteria which would find itself repeated several decades later in history when Senator Joeseph R. Macarthy accused high government officials and high standing military officers of being communist.. Undoubtedly the most important topic of an investigation into a historical occurrence is its inception. What caused the Red Scare? At the heart of the Red Scare was the conscription law of May 18, 1917, which was put in place during World War I for the armed forces to be able to conscript more Americans. This law caused many problems for the conscientious objector to WWI, because for one to claim that status, one had to be a member of a "well-recognized" religious organization which forbade their members to participation in war. As a result of such unyeilding legislation, 20,000 conscientious objectors were inducted into the armed forces. Out of these 20,000, 16,000 changed their minds when they reached military camps, 1300 went to non-combat units, 1200 gained furloughs to do farm work, and 100 did Quaker relief work in Europe. 500 suffered court-martial, and out of these, 450 went to prison. However, these numbers are small in comparison with the 170,000 draft dodgers and 2,810,296 men who were inducted into the armed forces.. Nevertheless, the conscientious objectors were targeted in the Red Scare after the war. They were condemned as cowards, pro-German socialists, although that was not everything. They were also accused of spreading propaganda throughout the United States. Very few conscientious objectors stood up for themselves. Roderick Siedenberg, who was a conscientious objector, wrote that "to steal, rape, or murder" are standard peacetime causes for imprisonment, but in time of war "too firm a belief in the words of Christ", and "too ardent a faith in the brotherhood of man" are more acceptable.. Some organizations such as the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which would later be renamed the American Civil Liberties Union, took up the task of standing up for the rights of conscientious objectors. Before the war, the NCLB-ACLU opposed American involvement, and afterward defended the rights of the objectors. Later, the ACLU would gain a reputation for helping people with liberal cases who were too poor to pay for their own representation in court. After the real war ended in 1918, the ideological war, which was gaining speed at home, turned against conscientious objectors and other radical minorities such as Wobblies, who were members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), and Socialists as well. These Wobblies and Socialists were damned as being subversives who were trying to overthrow the United States government. Wobblies, in particular, were persecuted against for speaking out against the capitalist system. Although most of what they said was only to attract attention to their cause, their rhetoric was taken seriously by the government and its officials. From the very beginning of the Red Scare, the Wobblies were the subject of attack by the government, because they were a symbol of radicalism. The government put in place legislation, not only against the Wobblies, but also against Socialists and Communists, due to the fact that the government did not distinguish one of its enemies from another. One such action taken by the government prevented Wobblies who were not yet citizens from naturalization, even if they quit their organization. In 1917, the US government made a law which gave the Secretary of Labor the power to arrest or deport any alien "advocating or teaching" destruction of property or the "overthrow of government by force.". Words such as "advocating" and the vague language used in the law allowed the government to use deportation as a cure for the anti-government views of its enemies, namely the Wobblies, Communists, and Socialists. After all the unfair legislation passed by the government, the scene was set for a disaster. All that was left was for someone to take advantage of the anti-radical legislation, and the bomb would soon explode. This is basically what Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer did in the years 1919-1920. Palmer used the laws set down in 1917 to deport members of the IWW. He did not only reserve his weapon for the Wobblies; the American Communists and many other radical groups were not to be left out. When the Palmer Raids began, which will be discussed in more detail later, there were two main targets: the Communist Party, and the Communist Labor Party. These groups grew out of the IWW, the Socialist Party of America, and the Socialist Labor Party. The largest of the three, the Socialist Party of America, had split because of a dilemma over World War I. This split occurred when Europe entered the war. For the most part, American Socialists opposed the war, unlike their European brethren who were much more nationalistic and supported their countries armies. However, some of the more prominent American Socialists, each for his own reasons, strongly supported the war. This break in beliefs of the Socialist Party hurt it, but did by no means destroy it. Many who were not Socialists opposed the draft, but the Party itself was the true focal point of this opposition. Accordingly, these people became targets for attack by American nationalists and the American government. Heinous acts such as the burning of Socialist documents and the lynching of its members were commonplace. While all this was taking place, an American Communist Party was emerging from the ashes of the former Socialist strongholds which were all along the eastern seaboard of the US. There, Russian immigrants identified with the Bolshevik revolution in Mother Russia because of their similar lives of poverty and squalor. These conditions of dispair were in part due to the exclusion of immigrants from unions and their not being permitted to vote. These people held strong anti-government/anti-capitalist views, often advocating the immediate overthrow of capitalism. Indeed, they were asking for trouble. And they would get it. As dangerous as these people appeared to be at the time, they were in fact only one-thousandth of one percent of the voting American public. Even the two parties who made up this minute percentage of voters were riddled with corruption and dissent. After the war formally ended in 1918, all the groups which opposed the war came under fire. They were seen as destructive to the peace and security of the American nation. The focus of the attacks was no longer on the conscientious objectors, for many of them were already jailed during the war, and were still in jail at the time; it had switched over to the Socialists and the Wobblies, for they, unlike the conscientious objectors, were a still viable target. One way that these people were targeted was by use of the Espionage Act of 1918. This act penalized anyone who obstructed the operation of the armed forces, was insubordinate, or displayed disloyalty within the forces. Because of the law's vauge language, the Justice Department convicted more than 1000 people. Among this number were a large number of Socialists and Wobblies. The Espionage Act was not the only form of legislation to discriminate against anti-war groups. In October 1918, Congress passed the Alien Act, which gave the Secretary of Labor the power to deport " any alien who, at any time after entering the United States, is found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become thereafter a member of any anarchist organization.". The extremely broad language used in this bill and the way it was interpreted gave Palmer the authority to conduct his raids, during which thousands of people were arrested and detained without actually having been charged. Because they anticipated what was to come, the suspect organizations worked for the repealing of the legislation aimed against them. Many Socialists became prominent figures due to their attempts to gain release for their imprisoned comrades. Another reason for the Red Scare was the strike held by mine workers. They were thought to be making threatening moves against the Capitalist system through subversive Socialist organizations. These strikes were part of a series of events which took place in 1919. This strike, which occurred in February, was of 60,000 coal mine workers.. In that September, steel workers struck. All of the available blame was put upon the American Communists, although many communists tried to oppose this strike. Nationalist Americans called for a halt to this "Bolshevik Revolution" which was taking place on American soil. As a result of this panic traveling through American society, a series of bombings occurred. The Socialists were immediately assumed to be responsible. Newspapers had a field day publicizing these bombings. Attorney General Palmer took advantage of the widespread panic of the public and media and asked Congress for fund appropriations to help avoid further danger. Congress obliged, not only supplying funds, but going one step further. The message was then made clear: foreign radicals were to all be deported. The government had formulated and put into effect their plan to rid the country of unwanted foreign radicals, but the problem remained as what to do with those radicals were citizens of the United States. This was not to go unanswered for long, however. In June of 1919, New York state officials raided the Rand School of Social Science in New York, as well as the headquarters of the I.W.W. and the Socialists.. These raids were a product of a New York legislature action that created the Lusk Committee. The idea behind this committee was anit-radical, and the tactics of said committee spread nationwide very quickly, or their methods of "defending the republic". Even with all the legislation in place, Attorney General Palmer complained that not enough was not enough was being done to deport aliens. It is ironic that after the Red Scare, he argued for the release of a Socialist that was imprisoned during the Scare. However, during it he helped convict many in a similar situation. It is highly probable that he held his anti-liberal veiws only because he had presidential ambitions. But it must also be considered that he himself was the target of a bombing. His actions may merely have been out of fear, but his wavering attitudes hold no true reason.. In the August of that same year, Palmer created an intelligence department to deal with problems originating with anarchists and that ilk. He appointed J. Edgar Hoover to lead this newly founded agency. Hoover created files on each "subversive" organization. One of the first field assignments of this agency was to raid The Union of Russian Workers in New York.. Palmer was not the most extreme of these anti-radicals. Senator Kenneth McKellen of Tennessee went so far as to propose sending all native-born radicals to a special penal colony on the island of Guam.. Liberal journalists held very caustic opinions of the actions of Palmer and his comrades. One journalist went as far as to say "Will it stop unrest? Yes! Just as shaving the dog will keep his hair from growing. In fact, shaving is said to promote growth.". Palmer didn't care what the journalists said. He went on with the raids which he was so famous for. On December 27, around 250 deportees sailed for Russia from New York ion the U.S.S. Buford, promptly labeled as the "Soviet Ark.". On Friday, January 2, 1920, agents of the Justice department raided a Communist headquarters and began to arrest thousands of people throughout America's major cities. In a period of two days, 5000 people were arrested and 1000 jailed.. There was no regard for due process, and the treatment of the prisoners unacceptable. The Red Scare finally came to an end after a series of actions by high government officials, especially in the Justice Department itself, which showed dissent from Palmer's philosophy. Assistant Secretary of Labor Louis F. Post began to reject most of the cases brought before him concerning the immigrants. Even the Secretary of Labor himself, William B. Wilson turned against Palmer. Out of 6,000 warrants issued during the raids, less than 1,000 deportations resulted.. Even with all this opposition to his actions, Palmer still aspired to the office of the Presidency. He was never nominated. By 1920, the Red Scare was dying down, and by 1921 it was virtually dead. It is obvious that the Red Scare was a product of World War I and the anti-liberalism that ensued on the homefront. The truth is that Mr. Palmer did not really cause the Red scare, he only participated in it. What is known as the Red Scare of 1919-1921 set precedent to the witch hunts of the McCarthy era, where he accused two presidents (Dwight D. eisenhower was even a member of his own party) of being Communists Even today, many lessons can and have been learned from this experience. The main lesson learned is that the freedom of expression and of thought is so important, that if it is taken away, in particular by the government, justice cannot be either carried out or achieved. Since the McCarthy era, nothing like the Red Scare has ever occurred in American society or government. People have become very cautious not to repeat the mistakes of the past, especially ones so rediculous as the deportation of immigrants for their political beliefs. But the question remains as to whether America will always remember this episode of the early 1920's, or will she simply forget it and make the same mistakes over and over again. Perhaps Albert Einstein said it most eloquently in an interview on December 30, 1930... I never think of the future, It comes soon enough.. Bibliography I. The Pocket Book of Quotations: Henry Davidoff, Pocket Books, New York, N.Y. II. Into the Twenties: Burl Noggle, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, Illinois III. The American Heritage History of the 1920's & 1930's: Ralph K. Andrist, American Heritge Books, New York, N.Y. IV. Outgrowing Democracy: John Lukacs, Doubleday and Company, Inc. , New York . Source I, p. 423 . Source IV, p. 33 . Source III, p. 29 . Source II, p. 84 . Source II, p. 86 . Source II, p. 89 . Source II, p. 95-96 . Source II, p. 102 . Source II, p. 105 . Opinion taken from all sources except # I . Source II p. 107 . Source II p. 107- verification, Cong. Record., 66 Cong., sess. (Dec. 20, 1919), 990ff., 1334 . Source II, p. 108 . Source III, p. 30 . Source II, p. 108 . Source II, p. 110 . Source I, p. 107 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The reign of Edward VI saw a definite hardening of religious.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The reign of Edward VI saw great religious upheaval from a Protestant religion that was Catholic in nature to a more clearly defined and radical quasi-Calvinism. In that sense religious policy hardened. But the policies and ideal never became deeply entrenched and accepted throughout the country and often only existed to serve the interests of those who enacted them, and not the future stance of the church. Under Somerset the changes involved merely creating a Protestant facelift, and only under Northumberland did sweeping radical changes emerge. However, policy never hardened enough, or became accepted enough, to prevent it being disintegrated when Mary came to power in 1553. The religious situation was highly unstable at the time of Edward's ascendance. Although Henry had allowed Protestant leaning clerics to predominate in the later year of his reign, most religious statutes remained orthodox, and conservative. But under Somerset Protestants who had previously fled to Europe after the six articles, such as Hooper, Becon, and Turner, all returned. Many were writers banned under Henry VIII, along with Luther and other European Protestants. Guy points out that 159 out of 394 new books printed during the Protectorate were written by Protestant reformers. Reformers predominated the Privy council under Somerset, and reform was popular amongst the gentry of the time. But outside London and East Anglia Protestantism was not a major force. In terms of religious hardening, it is unlikely that the surge of Protestantism had any particular long term impact outside these areas. It was only in these areas that violent iconoclasm took place. Elsewhere far more moderate reforms such as vernacular Bibles and services were introduced. The legislation of the Somerset era also did little to aid a definite hardening of religious policy. The Privy council remained reluctant to make any radical moves. The Council, parliament, and the convocation all wanted reform, but not of the type that would firmly thrust the country into radical Protestantism. Moderate leanings were all that was desired, and this was reflected in the two major pieces of legislation, the Chantries Act and the Treason Act, which both did little to resolve doctrinal uncertainties. The new book of common prayer also trod a careful path between Protestantism and Catholicism. Jordan states that "These years ... were characterised by patience with the bishops, almost half of whom were conservative in their views and Catholic in their doctrinal sympathies, though all, trained as they were in the reign of Henry VIII, lent complete support to the Act Supremacy in all its constitutional and political implications ... the lesser clergy and the laity were with few exceptions under no considerable pressure to conform, even after the passage of the Act establishing the first Book of Common Prayer." Guy suggests that the Protestant stance was only ever introduced by Somerset to promote his own interests. "Although accurate figures are lacking, roughly one fifth of Londoners were Protestant by 1547 ... but elsewhere Protestantism had barely progressed. Yet London activists had a disproportionate influence on official policy ... secret cells of 'Christian brethren' existed to spread the word; links were forged with Lollard congregations , the Protestant book trade established ... Since so many of Somerset's supporters were radical, he had an incentive to assimilate the supremacy to their interests. The danger was that religious opinion would polarise and lead to civil discord; uniformity was the linchpin of order." Bush argues that due to the political motivation behind reform, real religious zeal was not apparent, the apparent hardening Protestantism only a token gesture. "The outstanding characteristic of the settlement was its moderate enforcement. Victims were relatively few, martyrs at the stake were non-existent, and the conservative bishops tumbled from office in any number only after Somerset's fall ... the regime certainly showed a noticeable leniency in the persecution of religious dissent within the context of the age." Northumberland presided over moves to a far more radical religion. Ridley was appointed Bishop of London and Hooper Bishop of Gloucester. Protestantism had already been hardened through doctrine and procedural changes. By Northumberland's fall, communion tables had been moved into the centre of the church, and second new prayer book was issued in 1552. Communion no longer resembled mass. Only plain surpluses were allowed, and the 1553 42 articles produced far more Protestant doctrinal changes than had been seen before. The new vernacular bible was reinforced by the new style of service. Also, the number of priests marrying under the new Protestant rule created a vested interest within the church for the prolongment of Protestantism. In the long term, this undoubtedly helped harden Protestant values at the grass roots level within the church. Such changes enacted a hardening of Protestantism in statute only. Throughout the country many middle class and gentry resented the stricter brand of Protestantism, and the erosion of Catholicism. The balance of the Privy council swung far more heavily to radical reformers under Northumberland, and this is probably reflected n the hardening of religious policy seen. Conservatives were quickly driven from office. Gairdiner was imprisoned in the Tower of London, Bishop Bonner of London was retired and deprived of his diocese, to be replaced by reformer Ridley. Reformers were subsequently installed into the bishoprics of Rochester, Chichester, Norwich, Exeter and Durham. Parliament was recalled in January 1552 and presented with a substantial program or religious reform. The new Treason Act, the Act of Uniformity, the limiting of Holy days to 25, the new and almost Calvinist Book of Common Prayer, the redefining of the Eucharist and a vestments ban were all introduced. However, it is unclear as to whether the intention was to secure a hardening of Protestantism. If it was, it didn't succeed. At the fall of Northumberland Protestantism was accepted but not widely supported. In the country Catholicism was still somewhat endearing. Certainly, there was little evidence that Protestantism was increasing in popularity in the country, or any evidence of a long term appeal. Jordan states that: "the thrust of Northumberland's policy had been n the direction of an evangelical Protestant party ... whose theological preferences were Zwinglian or Calvinistic, whose view of faith and worship displayed no nostalgia whatever for the ancient church, and whose principle interest it was that all remaining Roman survivals be swept away and that a pure, an undefiled, Protestantism be vigorously preached and enforced throughout the realm." That is what Northumberland preached, but it also poses significant doctrinal problems. Calvinism and Zwinglism were intrinsically different and could not be merged into some Protestant cocktail, yet Northumberland allowed both views to predominate. And more alarmingly, as Jordan reveals, "Northumberland died in 1553 a professed and a communicating Roman Catholic, making the staggering statement that his sympathies had been secretly Catholic during the whole of the Edwardian era." The government's subsequent pillaging of church wealth therefore presents a more likely incentive for religious zeal. In 1552 an exhaustive survey of church wealth was conducted, estimating a total value of over £1m. Northumberland then attacked the church to gain control of as much of this wealth as possible. For example the Bishopric of Durham was halved, inventories of gold and silver plate were conducted and removed. There is however, much evidence that Protestant religious policy was hardened during Edward's reign. In 1547 Somerset succeeded in making Parliament permit communion of both kinds, and to repeal the heresy laws, including the Act of Six Articles. The new Injunctions also strengthened the Protestant stance of the church.In 1549 the new Protestant prayer book merged traditional catholic ideal with more radical Lutheran notions, and by the time of the prayer book of 1552 Protestantism was even more evident. Priests were subsequently allowed to marry. The new prayer book was declared a monopoly, all previous edition were ordered to be destroyed. A new ordination rite was created that denied the full priesthood to ministers. Mass was reduced to little more than a token procedure and church monasteries and chapels were all dissolved during Edward's reign. The prayer book of 1552 was enforced by a new Act of Uniformity and the Forty Two Articles of 1553. At this stage religious policy had been hardened in that there was a distinct policy - the country was officially Protestant, in doctrine and in law. Previously there had been no such clear policy and the country as a whole had not known definitively where it stood. Only the appearances were beginning to change considerably. Catholic religious groups, chantries, educational establishments such as chantry schools seemed to remain untouched, except for their now increasing Protestant teaching. Such was the hardening of Protestantism in England, moderate Lutheran influences had given way to the more radical church-state ideals of Calvin and Zwingli by the end of the reign, ideals that would never have been tolerated under Henry VIII. Dickens suggests this led to the "reorientation from the Saxon to the Swiss emphasis becoming decisive." He continues, claiming, "when Cranmer sought to call a conference to unite European Protestants he was rebuffed by the unimaginative Lutherans. On the other hand, thousands of religious refugees, the great majority of them owing no direct allegiance to Luther's Wittenburg, came to settle in England. Martin Bucer and several other eminent foreign theologians occupied key posts in the universities, while the great company of foreigners in London were given the Austin Friars and there allowed by Cranmer to organise their congregations along Swiss lines." One way in which religious policy was arguably hardened was the way in which personal supremacy was undermined. Elton claims that "in the first place, the Edwardian Acts of Uniformity went a long way towards resting the liturgy and ceremonial of the church on the authority of Parliament; the second act could speak of the first Prayer Book as a 'very godly order set forth by authority of Parliament' and the second as annexed to the act. Instead of merely enforcing, by penalties, personal decree of the supreme head, Parliament thus fully participated in the ultimate exercise of his power, the definition of true faith. It could be argued that the hardened religious position was not a result of Protestantism but simply to strengthen the power of factions at court. Loades suggest: "the Edwardian church was every bit as much an instrument of government propaganda as that of Henry had been. Sermons, homilies and exhortation of every kind urged the sacred duty of obedience to the Prince, terming rebellion ' ...the puddle and sink of all sins against God and man.' So obvious was the alliance of convenience between the Protestant divines and the secular politicians that the conservative regarded the reservations of the former with pardonable suspicion ... the sincerity and religious conviction which actually inspired them became evident only when political power had been stripped away." In conclusion, the reign of Edward VI did see a hardening of religious policy in that such policy was clearly defined. Protestant ideals and ideas were strengthened, but not necessarily for devotional or theological motives. The key protagonist of radical change, Northumberland, still proclaimed his Catholisism on his death-bed. Also, the country as a whole did not view Protestantism as a great religious advancement, and only in London and East Anglia can local level religious policy be said to have hardened. Another factor is that none of the religious policy became steadfast or hardened to the extent that it could not be swept away even more quickly than it had been enacted. Guy, J. Tudor England, Oxford (1988), p203 Jordan. W, Edward VI, the Threshold of Power, George Allen & Unwin 1970, p240. Guy. J, Tudor England, Oxford 1988, p 204. Bush M., The Government Policy of Protector Somerset, Arnold 1975, p101. Jordan. W, Edward VI, the Threshold of Power, George Allen and Unwin 1970, p362. Jordan. W, Edward VI, the Threshold of Power, George Allen and Unwin 1970, p363. Dickens. A.G., The Reformation Crisis, Ed Joel Hurstfield, Edward Arnold 1965, p 53. Elton. G.R., The Tudor Constitution, Cambridge 1962, p335. Loades. D, Politics and the Nation, Fontana 1980, p200 "The reign of Edward VI saw a definite hardening of religious policy." Do you agree? f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Reign of Terror and the French Revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ History is said to be written by the winners, but is it possible to rewrite history? In a way, the French, like many who have preceded them, and many who will proceed them have done the impossible, rewriting history. From trivial folklore, such as George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, to the incredibly wrong, the African slave trade; people's views of history can be shaped and molded. The French have done a superb job of instilling all of us with the concept that their Revolution was a fight for liberty, justice and the good of all Frenchmen everywhere. Their glorification of the Bastille with it's depictions in painting and sculpture and how the Revolution was the beginning of a new age pales to some of the events during this period. In fact, the storming of the Bastille was merely a hole in the dike, and more would follow. The National Guard, the Paris Commune, the September Massacre, are all words that the French would prefer us not to hear. These events were a subtle dénouement to an climax that was filled with both blood and pain. The Reign of Terror, or the Great Terror, was a massive culmination to the horror of the French Revolution, the gutters flowing with blood as the people of Paris watched with an entertained eye. No matter what the French may claim, if one chooses to open his eyes and read about this tragedy, they are most certainly welcome. The revolution begins quietly in the fiscal crisis of Louis XVI's reign. The government was running deeply into bankruptcy, and at the urging of his financial advisors, he called the Estates General. The governing body had not been called for almost two centuries, and now it's workings seemed outdated. A small number of people said that the Third Estate, that which was drawn from the towns, should have power to equal the other Estates. Clubs of the bourgeoisie, the middle class, were formed, proclaiming, "Salus populi lex est." It was a simple cry meaning "the welfare of the people is law." To these people, the Estates General was like a pair of shoes that no longer fit. Reformed seemed iminent, the phrase, "The Third Estate is not an order, it is the nation itself" began to circulate.1 With much fanfare and circumstance, the three estates were called together. However, on trying to meet, the Third Estate found the doors to their meeting place locked. Moving to the tennis court, with much deliberation, an oath was sworn between the delegates and some clergy, proclaiming themselves as the National Assembly. They swore to remain indivisible until a constitution had been formed. As they met at the church of St. Louis, the King was delayed in his attempt to end this display of independence. Finally, he informed them, that he would not allow any reforms to be made, unless he approved of them. Unfortunately, their will would not be easily undone, and in a vote to four hundred ninety three to ninety four, the National Assembly declared that serious action would be taken against the King. With such an resounding opposition, on June 27th, 1789, Louis XVI gave into their demands. Educated in Paris, a young man of twenty six years, would be one of the first to set off the spark of revolution. Jumping on top of a table at the Palais Royale, a social gathering place in Paris, he spoke out against the enemies of the people in a well scripted oration. The crowd quickly fawned over their new found hero, marching through the streets of Paris, even interrupting a performance at the Paris opera. Military forces were required to remedy the situation, yet Paris only had six thousand troops with which to defend itself against the rampaging mob. At the Place Vendome, the cavalry attempted to control the riot, only to find their horses surrounded and unmovable through the dense crowd. The officers of the Swiss and Turkish armies attacked the rioters outright, but the garde-nationale was called in to stop this massacre. This chaos caused the Hotel de Ville to demand each tocsin, or summoning bell, cannon, drum, and church bell be used to summon the people of Paris. Drawing from the electoral populace of each section, four thousand and eight hundred men were given the task of protecting Paris, now named the Paris commune. They wore the colors of red and blue, symbolizing the colors of Paris. Armed with cannons and muskets, they had little powder with which to defend Paris. The Bastille was a prison, built of stone, it had eight round towers, with it's highest tower being seventy-three feet. It was built as a defensive fort against the British, and was not converted into a prison until under the rule of Charles VI. To the authors, sculptors and painters who glorified the taking of the Bastille, it was a dark and secret castle, where prisoners never returned from. Each prisoner hung from shackles until their dried bones were pushed into a corner, but the Bastille was nothing like that in reality. It was a prison for nobility, clergy, the occasional scandalous author, and juvenile delinquents whose parents had asked for them to be kept there. Most prisoners had more money spent on them, then it took for an average Parisian to subsist. The living quarters were octagonal rooms, sixteen feet in diameter. Pets were allowed to deal with the vermin, and prisoners were allowed furnishings, clothes, and other personal belongings. Even one of the most infamous criminals, the demented Marquis de Sade, made his home their, receiving his wife and other visitors on a regular basis. With only a few prisoners, the Bastille was an ideal place to store large amounts of ammunition. Bernard-Rene de Launay was in control of a force of just over a hundred men that were given the task of defending more then thirty-thousand pounds of powder. In the event of a siege, the Bastille would not be able to hold out long, only containing a two day food supply, and no internal water. The morning of July 14th, a large crowd of over eight hundred people set before the Bastille, calling for it's surrender. Delegates were sent in to speak with de Launay, yet he refused to capitulate until orders from the Hotel de Ville were presented to him. As the orders were being fetched, the crowd grew less patient, until finally a carriage-maker cut the lines of the drawbridge, allowing them access to the inner courtyard. As shots were fired on both side, the siege became imminent. For a day, desperate attempts on both sides finally ending in the surrender of the guards. The guards were then rounded up, decapitated, and their heads were paraded on pikes like the wax busts of French heroes. De Launay was stabbed, rolled into a gutter, then shot before his head was taken as a trophy. By the end of November of 1789, Palloy, a labor leader who had jumped the gun to begin demolition, the crews of Palloy had nearly finished destruction of the Bastille. The church had become split over those who did or did not support the revolution. The Papacy was on the side of the counter-revolutionaries, and could not support the King's signing of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1791. The seasons since 1789 had been quiet, violence sporadic and viewed as behind the new way of life in France. Unfortunately, the King did not appreciate his stay in the Tuilleries, and in the summer of 1791, an escape attempt was expected. The palace was surrounded with guards at every gate, river front, and over six hundred national guardsmen watching every possible escape route. Among the servants, a few were informants, and leaving the royal quarters required a pass. An extremely generous young cavalier, Count von Fersen, was willing to do anything to assist the King and Queen, and so on the night of June 20, 1791, they made their escape. They made it out of the palace, disguised, and made it as far as the town of Varennes in the north east. The ride back to Paris was an ordeal, followed by a mob and the National Guard. Riots began occurring in Paris, as the sans cullotes, or the poor of Paris, sued for their rights. Some sides wished for the king's freedoms, while the left sought to radicalize the revolution even further. The journalists Jacque Hebert and Jean-Paul Marat, they wrote the journals, Le pere Duchesne, and L'Ami du Peuple, respectively. Their attacks on established French Institutions were biting with much venom in their arguments. Marat suffered from a strange skin disease that gave him horrible lesions that reeked and sickened those that were around him. Of the two, he was the more violent insisting that, "Let the blood of the traitor's flow. That is the only way to save the country." In June of 1791, as the King attempted escape from the Tuilleries, the sans culottes armed themselves. Holding aloft a calf's heart they claimed to be the heart of an aristocrat, they found Louis, forcing him to wear a liberty cap and drink with them. As the weeks past, in the early days of August, the National Assembly declared that Paris would become the Insurrectionary Commune. They removed the royalists from any positions of power, along with replacing lawyers with artisans, and on August the 9th, they began their normal deliberations. A huge crowd of twenty thousand sans cullotes called for the King and Queen who had taken refuge with the National Assembly. A crowd broke through the gates, demanding that liberty and equality be maintained. In response, the National Assembly declared that the King be imprisoned and replaced by six ministers. The mood of Paris changed quite suddenly as stores closed and dignitaries left. Many attempted to escape from the city, fearing what would come. Paranoia in Paris reached a feverous pitch, as the sans cullotes feared that royalists, church spies, and counter revolutionaries would endanger the revolution. This fear extended into the government as vigilance committees were setup, passports were revoked, and hundreds were imprisoned if they were a suspected enemy of the revolution. When news of a recent military defeat reached Parisian ears, it was believed that treachery from inside the ranks had been the cause. Danton was a man of action and power, a lawyer, he was described as a "vehement tribune of the people", and "voice of the revolution." In Paris, with scarred facial features due to accidents upon the farm as a boy, Danton had become very powerful in the Insurrectionary Commune, becoming the minister of Justice. His power added to that of the Girondists, a party of lawyers and atheists, who were now the ruling party. By the beginning of September, Danton was calling for all able men of Paris to arm themselves and search every house to find any "enemy of the people". In his paper, Marat supported the execution of all counter revolutionaries. Rumors around Paris circulated that the prisons would be raided, and those inside would be killed. On the afternoon of September 2nd, the violence began as a mob surrounded a number of coaches filled with priests to be brought to the prison of L'Abbaye. The leader leapt onto the coach, thrusting and slicing with his rapier. He shouted to the shocked crowd that watched on, "So, this frightens you, does it, you cowards? You must get used to the sight of death." The words were quite prophetic, the even beginning the September Massacres. Within the next five days over twelve hundred people would be brutally slaughtered by the mass of armed Parisians. The next to be slaughtered was a group of one hundred and fifty priests. As they were decapitated, one of the priest's demanded a fair trial. A mock tribunal was set up, and the priests were decapitated one by one, their body's thrown into a well. Every prison, save for the ones that contained the prostitutes and debtors, was broken into as the semptembriseurs, named for the month, slaughtered those in side. They stopped only to eat and drink, sometimes on the naked corpses that littered the ground. Strangely enough, a few lives were spared, by either compassion of sheer luck, but it was nothing compared to the disgusting brutality with which many of the murders were committed. One woman, charged with mutilating her lover, had her breasts cut off as she was nailed to the ground, a bonfire set under her spread legs. One septembriseur sliced open the chest of a noble, removing the heart, squeezing it into a glass, and after drinking a sip, and forced Mme de Sombreuil to drink to save her father. Undoubtedly, one of the most gruesome acts was that of the Princess de Lamballe. She was raped, her body mutilated and her breasts sliced off. Her legs were shot of a cannon, and her genitals were cut off and paraded around Paris on a pike. The man who had cut off her genitals had also supposedly cooked and eaten her heart. Her head was placed upon a bar at a cafe' where those there were asked to drink to her death, before her head was placed on a pike and paraded under the Queen's window. At Bicetre, it was claimed that the prisoners were revolting, and that they had to be put down. However, the prison held a large number of adolescents who were detained there by their parent's wish. Forty three people were killed, all under the age of eighteen, of the one hundred and sixty two prisoners. By the end, the septembriseurs were not pursued, in fact, some in the commune commended their deeds as a necessary culling. To the outlying Provinces, the killing of nearly half of the prisoners of Paris, was a clear message. In the two weeks proceeding the deaths, members of the church and supporters of the king were executed. However, these troubles were soon followed by the battle of Valmy, which the army of France had defeated the Prussians. If the leader of the Prussian army, the Duke of Brunswick, would have moved swiftly enough, Paris might have been taken, ending the revolution. However, reports have it that Danton paid Brunswick to retreat back into Germany. The citizens in Paris left their thoughts of murder and celebrated the great victory. Goethe, a German novelist, concluded that, "Here and today begins a new era in the history of the world." as he watched the battle from a hill side. The statement found it's truth in France's use of the citizen as a soldier, and the mobilization of such a massive force. A new force met at Paris, the next day. On September 21st, 1792, the National Convention met. It looked like it's predecessors, composed of mostly the middle class with a few clergy and nobility, endorsing the Girondin. However, the more conservative Girondin were prevented from voting in Paris, allowing the radical Jacobin to gain power. However, one of the first acts of the Convention was to abolish the monarchy, and began the New Republic, with it's own strange calendar. However, the Convention was deeply divided, as the Girondin repeatedly tried to attack the Mountain, the highest seats in the convention that belonged to the Jacobin leadership. Yet the Girondin blatantly opposed the Parisians, their septembriseurs, and their Commune. They were in support of the trying the king, but the Montagard, the Mountain, along with Danton, would chose only to condemn him. Their deliberations on his fate lasted until the winter months of the year. By January, the King was in trial. On the 20th of the new year, the King was tried, found guilty, and was sentenced to be executed the following day. The Girondins hoped to save the king from death by proposing a bill to the people of France. However, their attempts were futile, and only served to anger the sans culottes. Those that gathered to watch the guillotining were mainly the angry poor, and when the blade came down, they threw their hats in the air shouting, "Vive la Nation! Vive la Republique!" Yet, not all was as well as it seemed for the Revolution. The enemies of the people had extended into foreign borders as European nations condemned the execution of Louis XVI. The value of their money had lessened, food was becoming more and more scarce, and the cost of living rose. The Convention took a united stand against the violence of the sans culottes but still persecuted the counter revolutionaries. The problems they faced were no small matter, especially the peasant rebellion occurring in the Vendee. The peasant's were loyal to the King, and anti-republican, not wishing to participate in the drafting for the National Guard. Attacking government offices and forcing the National Guard to retreat. The force of some ten thousand peasant's were quickly move to Rochefort to open the port for a British Invasion fleet. The Vendee was not the only spot of counter revolution, as troops were sent to Lyons, Nantes, Bordeaux and Marseille to crush anti-revolutionary support. They dealt with the enemies of the people by setting up a Revolutionary Tribunal, with which to try those who would otherwise have been killed by the sans culottes. Despite the objections of Vergniaud, a member of the Convention who shouted "Septembre" as they deliberated, the Tribunal began it's operations. The Convention decided to form the Committee of Public Safety, as foreign invasion became a more real threat. This cabinet would soon become the most powerful governing body, and Danton held one of the nine positions. Yet the Girondins had no support from the people of Paris, making the mistake of bringing Marat, a prominent Jacobin, before the Revolutionary Tribunal. Marat was easily acquitted, but they summoned him again. The argument was over corn prices, and the Jacobin stand of lowering them only won them more favor with the sans culottes. On Sunday June 2nd, a few days after a protest by the sans culottes, the Convention arrested the leading Girondins in the Convention, as the Tuilleries was surrounded by an angry mob of tens of thousands of sans culottes. The Committee seemed unfit to deal with the new problems that quickly became evident. The Austrians were quickly advancing into French territory, and counter revolutionaries in Lyons had seized control, executing Republican leaders. Toulon, the royalists were handing over twenty six of France's sixty one frigates over the Lord Hood, commander of the British navy. However, Maximilien Robespierre joined the Committee and would soon become the dominant revolutionary force. A man known for his virtue and upright moral standing, his rise to through the Jacobin club and the Assembly was that his ideas were supported by the Assembly and the people. In Paris, the Enrage, a group of those who wanted death to all who opposed the revolution and had guided the now abolished Insurectionary Commune, still troubled the government. Varlet still cried out for the needs of the poor and spurred them to riot against the price of food. The Committee was forced to deal with these problems when a supporter of the Girondin, Charlotte Corday, assasinated Marat as he lay in his therapeutic bath on July 13th. His death caused him to become a martyr to the radicals, much to Ropespierre's envy, and the Committee was forced by the prodding of the Enrages to institute warehouses to store the grain in Paris and give the death penalty to those that hoarded. The Committee also had to worry about it's critics that followed Danton, who was now President of the Convention after losing his seat to Robespierre. The Hebertists followed the freed journalist, who accused the Jacobins of ignoring him after he helped them overthrow the Girondin. With so much pressure, the Committee authorized the destruction of all federalists, royalists, and other counter revolutionaries. Those rebelling in the provinces were quickly dealt with. Still, the opposers wanted more, and a revolution on the Hotel de Ville, forced the Convention to allow the Hebertists, Varenne and Herbois into the Committee, and they declared that "Terror be the order of the day." Along with the Queen, the twenty two Girondin leaders that had been arrested were also brought to the guillotine in the same month. The former president of the Convention, and converted noble, the Duc d'Orleans, more commonly known as Philippe Egalite' was sentenced to death by the Tribunal also. The once mayor of Paris, Jean Bailly was also executed. The purpose of these killings that lasted in and out through the fall and winter of 1793 was the Committee's ruthless drive to destroy any and all enemies of the people, royalists and federalists alike. All in a effort to gain support from the sans culottes to continue their one handed control of France. The guillotine had struck over seventeen thousand necks in the Terror, and three thousand of those belonged to Parisians. Those who survived lived through the Terror fearing a knock on the door that would be their arrest. Robespierre himself said, "We must rule by iron those who cannot be ruled by justice...You must punish not merely traitors but the indifferent as well." Yet, those who were brought before the Tribunal were not just the enemies of the people, they were women, children, families, the elderly, and every social class was represented. Those who shed tears for the loss of their family were executed also, those who dared make the smallest misstep were dealt with harshly, the penalty death. The innocent lost their lives through clerical error, and some were killed being falsely accused by neighbors or enemies who wanted vengeance. In the Provinces, the guillotine could not work fast enough for some, and Joseph Fouche', a Jacobin representative, killed over three hundred with cannon fire. At Toulon, they were shot, at Nantes, thousands died in the disease ridden prisons, and thousands more were sunk in barges, causing ships that anchored to pull out corpses. To the sans culottes of Paris, it was a lively entertainment. They drank and ate, some placed bets, while others knitted. They eagerly anticipated the sounds of the execution, and death was a trivial thing. A young and eloquent opponent of the Girondins, Chaumette, led the movement of de-Christianization. He pushed for the republican calendar, likening it's divisions to the divisions of the highest Reason. Religious holidays and services were suspended, treasures of the church were seized, images of Mary replaced with Marat, and any religious paraphernalia was strictly prohibited. Festivals of Reason were celebrated, with prostitutes or others such women playing the head of all Reason, the Goddess of Reason. Towns, streets, squares all changed their names. Revolutionary names were much more popular then saintly names in some districts. Yet, religion could not be easily undone, and still it's hold was seen on France as threatening "acts of God" would force peasants back into the churches to ask for forgiveness. The war of a political nature raged silently, as the different factions of the Convention dared not fight openly. Upon returning to Paris, Danton immediately took the side of Robespierre, condemning the Enrages' and the Hebertists. However, Robespierre would not be easily won over by Danton. He believed that Danton wished to separate the Committee and the sans culottes to protect himself and his friends. Ropespierre's course of action was to crush both factions by use of the Tribunal. The Hebertists fell easily, many of their members being accused of a foreign plot. When they planned a journee' to revolt, this gave the Committee it's final nail, and drove it into the coffin of the Hebertists. Hebert and his followers were put to the guillotine March 14th, 1794. As for Danton, he had made many powerful enemies, all of which ardently spoke out against him. In spite of this Danton had little fear from these men, taunting and threatening them, believing that Robespierre would stick by him no matter what. Soon, their friendship grew weak, and on March 30th, the Committees of Public Safety and General Security met together. Saint-Just, a cold and calculating follower of Robespierre, produced the document to arrest Danton. At the trial was Camille Desmoulins, and many other accused. On April 3rd, they were sent to the guillotine, and eighteen men were put under the blade. Following in their path was Chaumette and even the widow of Camille, Lucille Desmoulins. The bloodshed only increased as the law of Prairial was passed, and the Tribunal no longer needed to bother with a trial. Of the fifteen hundred that died in the final eight weeks of the terror, only a small portion of the beheaded were noblemen are clergy, the remaining eighty five percent coming from the people, the peasants, and those who had begun the revolution. Ropespierre was far to virtuous to watch the executions, but he stated that, "At the point where we are now, if we stop too soon we will die. We have not been too severe...Without the revolutionary Government the Republic cannot be made stronger. If it is destroyed now, freedom will be extinguished tomorrow." As Danton had shouted at the Tribunal, "You will follow us, Robespierre.", the Revolution would soon be over. By Autumn of the same year, the Revolution turned decidedly to the right as the Robespierrists were sent from the Convention. He had gradually lost control of both Committee and Convention, and by July 27th, in the month of Thermidor, we was arrested. After being badly beaten, he was brought to the guillotine, and a newspaper reported, "The tyrant is no more." The government changed hands throughout the next year as the Jacobins were disbanded, and the Girondin returned to the Convention. It too was altogether disbanded as the Directory was set up in a rather feeble attempt to retain control of the republic. Even though Napoleon did not gain control until one year before the next century, the people of France no longer wanted their revolution. For my conclusion, I would like to step back and deliver my own opinion. In my brief time on this planet, I have never come across a more brutal depiction of man at his worst. The sad truth is that events of this nature have occurred with amazing regularity. Perhaps if the Reign of Terror was just one appalling moment of human cruelty, the world would be a different place. With such things as the Gulag, the Holocaust, the African Slave Trade, and even returning back to ancient times of the Assyrians and the Crusades, man has been known to slaughter his brethren wholesale. We are a race, bred with violence coursing through our veins, and we can do little about it. Perhaps my speculations are wrong, but if such tragedies have occurred over and over, can we truly ever change. The Reign of Terror is just the culmination to the bloodiness and the atrocities of the French Revolution. It is quite ironic that a Revolution based on the ideals of Reason and the fight for the people, would kill over thirty thousand of their countrymen. In conclusion, the Reign of Terror was the climax of this terrible Revolution. The violence and paranoia of the sans culottes, the lust for political power in the convention, and the petty differences of one person to another finally reached a head, exploding into a mass execution. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Rise and fall of Adolf Hitler.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Rise and fall of Adolf Hitler The Rise and Fall of Hitlers Reich Feeling that all was lost, Hitler shot himself on April 30, 1945. By orders formally given by him before his death, SS officers immersed Hitler's body in gasoline and burned it in the garden of the Chancellery. Soon after the suicide of Hitler, the Germ On Easter Sunday April 20, 1889, at an inn called the Gasth of Zum Pommer, the wife of an Austrian Customs official gave birth to a son, Adolf Hitler. He was the fourth child to the parents of Alois and Klara Hitler of Austria. Hitler was a good student. One of the teachers in his high school classified young Hitler as "notorious, cantankerous, willful, arrogant, and irascible. He has an obvious difficulty in fitting in at school." He did well enough to get by in some of his courses but had no time for Adolf saw no real reason to stay in high school. He left school at age sixteen without a leaving certificate. In September 1907, Hitler left home taking with him all the money left to him by his father, who had died a few years earlier. The money would preliminary examination, the applicant was asked to submit drawings. Biblical drawings were most preferred. Hitler's drawings were returned saying they were "too wooden and too lifeless." He was rejected. He tried three months later and did not get pa Hitler moved into an apartment with his friend in Vienna. He pretended to be a student living off his relatives money. He read many books and sat in on the Austrian government sessions . Hitler speaks of his life in Vienna as "five years in which I had In 1913, Hitler moved to Munich. Life was not much better there until the First World War started in 1914. While many people were frightened and sad at the thought of a world war, Hitler was delighted. He held the rank of corporal, and in forty-seven b On October 13th 1918, a month before Germany surrendered to the Allies, his good luck ran out. When Hitler and his fellow dispatch runners were waiting in line for their food rations, British troops began lobbing high explosive shells nearby. Some of th Hitler soon regained use of his eyes, but as he was about to rejoin his regiment, he got the terrible news of Germany's surrender. "Once again, everything went black before my eyes, and I tottered and groped my way back to the place where we slept and bu As part of Hitler's job, he investigated a party called "the German Workers' Party." He was disgusted how the group had no organization, although he was in favor of many of the party's ideas. To follow up with his job, he joined the group to make sure t Hitler finally found his talent as a great orator. He first became aware of his talent while teaching at the University of Munich. When he talked, he held his audiences spellbound. He would sometimes lose five pounds a night by getting so active in his He persuaded the other party members to rent one of the largest halls in Munich-one that seated at least 2,000 people. There Hitler made of list of demands to the German government. Point twenty-five said, "For modern society, a colossus with feet of cl Ernst Rohm, a friend of Hitler's, organized a group of storm troopers for Hitler. The German name for storm troopers was Storm Abtcilung, or SA for short. They first beat and killed hecklers at Nazi speakings. When there were no hecklers, they found Je By the summer of 1923, the Nazi party had grown to 150,000 members. With the Nazi movement growing so rapidly, Hitler knew it was time to make a move on Germany. November 11, 1923 seemed like a perfect time for Hitler to make the grab for power. It was Hitler captured the government leaders and forced them to join him. His 3,000 men then marched to Berlin in an attempt to take it over. The German police were waiting. Shots were fired and sixteen nazis and two policemen lay dead. Hundreds more were w The trial was a "political circus". Hitler was allowed to speak for hours at a time. During one of his speeches he said, "It is the External Court of History ... That court will judge us ... as Germans who wanted the best for their people and their fatherla Hitler served only nine months of his five-year sentence. The guards gave him a suite of several adjoining rooms where guests could come or go as they pleased. He was sent many gifts and grew visibly fatter. He wrote a book called Mein Kampf, or My Str The government banned the Nazi party after the revolt. There were also many reasons for lack of Nazi activity. The Allies had loosened their grip on the German economy. The French had left the Ruhr leaving Germany's industries intact, and the United St The depression in America caused the economic system in Germany to plummet. Because of the harsh times, Nazis got two million more votes then the Communist party. The election put them just under the Democratic party and gave them 107 more seats in the House. Hitler was planning on running for President of Germany against Paul Von Hinderburg, a social democrat. Hitler campaigned frequently, going to every major city and town. He was the f By 1932 the SA troops numbered 400,000. The SA's goal was to make people afraid, and they accomplished that with ease. One of the most popular chants of the SA troops is as follows: "Sharpen the knives on the sidewalk so that they can cut the enemy's bo In the election of 1932, Hitler could not beat out the eighty-five year old President Hindenburg. However, 230 Nazi candidates held seats, and Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany. It was the second highest position in the German government. With only Hitler still was not elected to the Presidency. Using force, Hitler got Hinderburg to pass a law that abolished freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly. Hitler then brought before the court the Enabling Act. This law gave Hitler the power of a After the bills were passed, the German military feared that when Hitler took full leadership of the country, they would lose control, and the SA would take over. Hitler assured the military that this was not true. To gain their trust, he gave them a li In August of 1934 President Hindenburg died. Hitler's last obstacle in his quest for complete power was removed. Using his unlimited powers, he combined the offices of president and chancellor. To everyone in Germany he was now Der Fuhrer, the leader. Avoiding capture by the approaching forces, Hitler shot himself on April 30, 1945. The world was never the same again. Hitler's Reich was over, and millions of jews were dead. Quite rightly, the world asked questions: How could this have happened? This is the eternal question Word Count: 1176 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Rise of Communism in Russia.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Rise of Communism in Russia Unless we accept the claim that Lenin's coup d'tat gave birth to an entirely new state, and indeed to a new era in the history of mankind, we must recognize in today?s Soviet Union the old empire of the Russians -- the only empire that survived into the mid 1980?sÓ (Luttwak, 1). In their Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels applied the term communism to a final stage of socialism in which all class differences would disappear and humankind would live in harmony. Marx and Engels claimed to have discovered a scientific approach to socialism based on the laws of history. They declared that the course of history was determined by the clash of opposing forces rooted in the economic system and the ownership of property. Just as the feudal system had given way to capitalism, so in time capitalism would give way to socialism. The class struggle of the future would be between the bourgeoisie, who were the capitalist employers, and the proletariat, who were the workers. The struggle would end, according to Marx, in the socialist revolution and the attainment of full communism (Groiler?s Encyclopedia). Socialism, of which ?Marxism-LeninismÓ is a takeoff, originated in the West. Designed in France and Germany, it was brought into Russia in the middle of the nineteenth century and promptly attracted support among the country?s educated, public-minded elite, who at that time were called intelligentsia (Pipes, 21). After Revolution broke out over Europe in 1848 the modern working class appeared on the scene as a major historical force. However, Russia remained out of the changes that Europe was experiencing. As a socialist movement and inclination, the Russian Social-Democratic Party continued the traditions of all the Russian Revolutions of the past, with the goal of conquering political freedom (Daniels 7). As early as 1894, when he was twenty-four, Lenin had become a revolutionary agitator and a convinced Marxist. He exhibited his new faith and his polemical talents in a diatribe of that year against the peasant-oriented socialism of the Populists led by N.K. Mikhiaiovsky (Wren, 3). While Marxism had been winning adherents among the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia for more than a decade previously, a claimed Marxist party was bit organized until 1898. In that year a ?congressÓ of nine men met at Minsk to proclaim the establishment of the Russian Social Democratic Worker?s Party. The Manifesto issued in the name of the congress after the police broke it up was drawn up by the economist Peter Struve, a member of the moderate ?legal MarxistÓ group who soon afterward left the Marxist movement altogether. The manifesto is indicative of the way Marxism was applied to Russian conditions, and of the special role for the proletariat (Pipes, 11). The first true congress of the Russian Social Democratic Workers? Party was the Second. It convened in Brussels in the summer of 1903, but was forced by the interference of the Belgian authorities to move to London, where the proceedings were concluded. The Second Congress was the occasion for bitter wrangling among the representatives of various Russian Marxist Factions, and ended in a deep split that was mainly caused by Lenin -- his personality, his drive for power in the movement, and his ?hardÓ philosophy of the disciplined party organization. At the close of the congress Lenin commanded a temporary majority for his faction and seized upon the label ?BolshevikÓ (Russian for Majority), while his opponents who inclined to the ?softÓ or more democratic position became known as the ?MensheviksÓ or minority (Daniels, 19). Though born only in 1879, Trotsky had gained a leading place among the Russian Social-Democrats by the time of the Second party Congress in 1903. He represented ultra-radical sentiment that could not reconcile itself to Lenin?s stress on the party organization. Trotsky stayed with the Menshevik faction until he joined Lenin in 1917. From that point on, he acomidated himself in large measure to Lenin?s philosophy of party dictatorship, but his reservations came to the surface again in the years after his fall from power (Stoessinger, 13). In the months after the Second Congress of the Social Democratic Party Lenin lost his majority and began organizing a rebellious group of Bolsheviks. This was to be in opposition of the new majority of the congress, the Menshiviks, led by Trotsky. Twenty-two Bolsheviks, including Lenin, met in Geneva in August of 1904 to promote the idea of the highly disciplined party and to urge the reorganization of the whole Social-Democratic movement on Leninist lines (Stoessinger, 33). The differences between Lenin and the Bogdanov group of revolutionary romantics came to its peak in 1909. Lenin denounced the otzovists, also known as the recallists, who wanted to recall the Bolshevik deputies in the Duma, and the ultimatists who demanded that the deputies take a more radical stand -- both for their philosophical vagaries which he rejected as idealism, and for the utopian purism of their refusal to take tactical advantage of the Duma. The real issue was Lenin?s control of the faction and the enforcement of his brand of Marxist orthodoxy. Lenin demonstrated his grip of the Bolshevik faction at a meeting in Paris of the editors of the Bolsheviks? factional paper, which had become the headquarters of the faction. Bogdanov and his followers were expelled from the Bolshevik faction, though they remained within the Social-Democratic fold (Wren, 95). On March 8 of 1917 a severe food shortage cause riots in Petrograd. The crowds demanded food and the step down of Tsar. When the troops were called in to disperse the crowds, they refused to fire their weapons and joined in the rioting. The army generals reported that it would be pointless to send in any more troops, because they would only join in with the other rioters. The frustrated tsar responded by stepping down from power, ending the 300-year-old Romanov dynasty (Farah, 580). With the tsar out of power, a new provisional government took over made up of middle-class Duma representatives. Also rising to power was a rival government called the Petrograd Soviet of Workers? and Soldiers? Deputies consisting of workers and peasants of socialist and revolutionary groups. Other soviets formed in towns and villages all across the country. All of the soviets worked to push a three-point program which called for an immediate peas, the transfer of land to peasants, and control of factories to workers. But the provisional government stood in conflict with the other smaller governments and the hardships of war hit the country. The provisional government was so busy fighting the war that they neglected the social problems it faced, losing much needed support (Farah, 580). The Bolsheviks in Russia were confused and divided about how to regard the Provisional Government, but most of them, including Stalin, were inclined to accept it for the time being on condition that it work for an end to the war. When Lenin reached Russia in April after his famous ?sealed carÓ trip across Germany, he quickly denounced his Bolshevik colleagues for failing to take a sufficiently revolutionary stand (Daniels, 88). In August of 1917, while Lenin was in hiding and the party had been basically outlawed by the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks managed to hold their first party congress since 1907 regardless. The most significant part of the debate turned on the possibility for immediate revolutionary action in Russia and the relation of this to the international upheaval. The separation between the utopian internationalists and the more practical Russia-oriented people was already apparent (Pipes, 127). The Bolsheviks? hope of seizing power was hardly secret. Bold refusal of the provisional Government was one of their major ideals. Three weeks before the revolt they decided to stage a demonstrative walkout from the advisory assembly. When the walkout was staged, Trotsky denounced the Provisional Government for its alleged counterrevolutionary objectives and called on the people of Russia to support the Bolsheviks (Daniels, 110). On October 10 of 1917, Lenin made the decision to take power. He came secretly to Petrograd to try and disperse any hesitancies the Bolshevik leadership had over his demand for armed revolt. Against the opposition of two of Lenin?s long-time lieutenants, Zinovieiv and Kamenev, the Central Committee accepted Lenin?s resolution which formally instructed the party organizations to prepare for the seizure of power. Finally, of October 25 the Bolshevik revolution took place to overthrow the provisional government. They did so through the agency of the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. They forcibly overthrew the provisional government by taking over all of the government buildings, such as the post office, and big corporations, such as the power companies, the shipyard, the telephone company. The endorsement of the coup was secured from the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which was concurrently in session. This was known as the ?October RevolutionÓ (Luttwak, 74) Through this, control of Russia was shifted to Lenin and the Bolsheviks. IN a quick series of decrees, the new ?sovietÓ government instituted a number of sweeping reforms, some long overdue and some quite revolutionary. They ranged from ?democraticÓ reforms, such as the disestablishment of the church and equality for the national minorities, to the recognition of the peasants? land seizures and to openly socialist steps such as the nationalization of banks. The Provisional Government?s commitment to the war effort was denounced. Four decrees were put into action. The first four from the Bolshevik Revolutionary Legislation were a decree on peace, a decree on land, a decree on the suppression of hostile newspapers, and a declaration of the rights of the peoples of Russia (Stossenger, 130). By early 1918 the Bolshevik critics individually made their peace with Lenin, and were accepted back into the party and governmental leadership. At the same time, the Left and Soviet administration thus acquired the exclusively Communist character which it has had ever since. The Left SR?s like the right SR?s and the Mensheviks, continued to function in the soviets as a more or less legal opposition until the outbreak of large-scale civil war in the middle of 1918. At that point the opposition parties took positions which were either equally vocal or openly anti-Bolshevik, and one after another, they were suppressed. The Eastern Front had been relatively quiet during 1917, and shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution a temporary armstice was agreed upon. Peace negotiations were then begun at the Polish town of Brest-Litovsk, behind the German lines. In agreement with their earlier anti-imperialist line, the Bolshevik negotiators, headed by Trotsky, used the talks as a discussion for revolutionary propaganda, while most of the party expected the eventual return of war in the name of revolution. Lenin startled his followers in January of 1918 by explicitly demanding that the Soviet republic meet the German conditions and conclude a formal peace in order to win what he regarded as an indispensable ?breathing spell,Ó instead of shallowly risking the future of the revolution (Daniels, 135). Trotsky resigned as Foreign Commissar during the Brest-Litovsk crisis, but he was immediately appointed Commissar of Military Affairs and entrusted with the creation of a new Red Army to replace the old Russian army which had dissolved during the revolution. Many Communists wanted to new military force to be built up on strictly revolutionary principles, with guerrilla tactics, the election of officers, and the abolition of traditional discipline. Trotsky set himself emphatically against this attitude and demanded an army organized in the conventional way and employing ?military specialistsÓ -- experienced officers from the old army. Hostilities between the Communists and the Whites, who were the groups opposed to the Bolsheviks, reached a decicive climax in 1919. Intervention by the allied powers on the side of the Whites almost brought them victory. Facing the most serious White threat led by General Denikin in Southern Russia, Lenin appealed to his followers for a supreme effort, and threatened ruthless repression of any opposition behind the lines. By early 1920 the principal White forces were defeated (Wren, 151). For three years the rivalry went on with the Whites capturing areas and killing anyone suspected of Communist practices. Even though the Whites had more soldiers in their army, they were not nearly as organized nor as efficient as the Reds, and therefore were unable to rise up (Farah, 582). Police action by the Bolsheviks to combat political opposition commenced with the creation of the ?Cheka.Ó Under the direction of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the Cheka became the prototype of totalitarian secret police systems, enjoying at critical times the right the right of unlimited arrest and summary execution of suspects and hostages. The principle of such police surveillance over the political leanings of the Soviet population has remained in effect ever since, despite the varying intensity of repression and the organizational changes of the police -- from Cheka to GPU (The State Political Administration) to NKVD (People?s Commissariat of Internal Affairs) to MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs) to the now well-known KGB (Committee for State Security) (Pipes, 140). Lenin used his secret police in his plans to use terror to achieve his goals and as a political weapon against his enemies. Anyone opposed to the communist state was arrested. Many socialists who had backed Lenin?s revolution at first now had second thoughts. To escape punishment, they fled. By 1921 Lenin had strengthened his control and the White armies and their allies had been defeated (Farah, 582). Communism had now been established and Russia had become a socialist country. Russia was also given a new name: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This in theory meant that the means of production was in the hands of the state. The state, in turn, would build the future, classless society. But still, the power was in the hands of the party (Farah, 583). The next decade was ruled by a collective dictatorship of the top party leaders. At the top level individuals still spoke for themselves, and considerable freedom for factional controversy remained despite the principles of unity laid down in 1921. Works Cited Daniels, Robert V., A Documentary History of Communism. New York: Random House Publishing, 1960. Farah, Mounir, The Human Experience. Columbus: Bell & Howess Co., 1990. Luttwak, Edward N., The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union. New York: St. Martin?s Press, 1983. Pipes, Richard, Survival is Not Enough. New York: S&S Publishing, 1975. Stoessinger, John G., Nations in Darkness. Boston: Howard Books, 1985. Wren, Christopher S., The End of the Line. San Francisco: Blackhawk Publishing, 1988. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\THE ROAD TO APPOMATTOX.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF A TRAGEDY THE ROAD TO APPOMATTOX The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the events surrounding the end of the American Civil War. This war was a war of epic proportion. Never before and not since have so many Americans died in battle. The American Civil War was truly tragic in terms of human life. In this document, I will speak mainly around those involved on the battlefield in the closing days of the conflict. Also, reference will be made to the leading men behind the Union and Confederate forces. The war was beginning to end by January of 1865. By then, Federal (Federal was another name given to the Union Army) armies were spread throughout the Confederacy and the Confederate Army had shrunk extremely in size. In the year before, the North had lost an enormous amount of lives, but had more than enough to lose in comparison to the South. General Grant became known as the "Butcher" (Grant, Ulysses S., Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, New York: Charles L. Webster & Co.,1894) and many wanted to see him removed. But Lincoln stood firm with his General, and the war continued. This paper will follow the happenings and events between the winter of 1864-65 and the surrender of The Confederate States of America. All of this will most certainly illustrate that April 9, 1865 was indeed the end of a tragedy. CUTTING OFF THE SOUTH In September of 1864, General William T. Sherman and his army cleared the city of Atlanta of its civilian population then rested ever so briefly. It was from there that General Sherman and his army began its famous "march to the sea". The march covered a distance of 400 miles and was 60 miles wide on the way. For 32 days no news of him reached the North. He had cut himself off from his base of supplies, and his men lived on what ever they could get from the country through which they passed. On their route, the army destroyed anything and everything that they could not use but was presumed usable to the enemy. In view of this destruction, it is understandable that Sherman quoted "war is hell" (Sherman, William T., Memoirs of General William T. Sherman. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1972). Finally, on December 20, Sherman's men reached the city of Savannah and from there Sherman telegraphed to President Lincoln: "I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah, with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition, and also about 25,000 bales of cotton" (Sherman, William T., Memoirs of General William T. Sherman. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1972). Grant had decided that the only way to win and finish the war would be to crunch with numbers. He knew that the Federal forces held more than a modest advantage in terms of men and supplies. This in mind, Grant directed Sherman to turn around now and start heading back toward Virginia. He immediately started making preparations to provide assistance to Sherman on the journey. General John M. Schofield and his men were to detach from the Army of the Cumberland, which had just embarrassingly defeated the Confederates at Nashville, and proceed toward North Carolina. His final destination was to be Goldsboro, which was roughly half the distance between Savannah and Richmond. This is where he and his 20,000 troops would meet Sherman and his 50,000 troops. Sherman began the move north in mid-January of 1865. The only hope of Confederate resistance would be supplied by General P.G.T. Beauregard. He was scraping together an army with every resource he could lay his hands on, but at best would only be able to muster about 30,000 men. This by obvious mathematics would be no challenge to the combined forces of Schofield and Sherman, let alone Sherman. Sherman's plan was to march through South Carolina all the while confusing the enemy. His men would march in two ranks: One would travel northwest to give the impression of a press against Augusta and the other would march northeast toward Charleston. However the one true objective would be Columbia. Sherman's force arrived in Columbia on February 16. The city was burned to the ground and great controversy was to arise. The Confederates claimed that Sherman's men set the fires "deliberately, systematically, and atrociously". However, Sherman claimed that the fires were burning when they arrived. The fires had been set to cotton bales by Confederate Calvary to prevent the Federal Army from getting them and the high winds quickly spread the fire. The controversy would be short lived as no proof would ever be presented. So with Columbia, Charleston, and Augusta all fallen, Sherman would continue his drive north toward Goldsboro. On the way, his progress would be stalled not by the Confederate army but by runaway slaves. The slaves were attaching themselves to the Union columns and by the time the force entered North Carolina, they numbered in the thousands (Barrett, John G., Sherman's March through the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956). But Sherman's force pushed on and finally met up with Schofield in Goldsboro on March 23rd. THE END IS PLANNED Sherman immediately left Goldsboro to travel up to City Point and meet Grant to discuss plans of attack. When he arrived there, he found not only Grant, but also Admiral David Porter waiting to meet with President Lincoln. So on the morning of the March 28th, General Grant, General Sherman, and Admiral Porter all met with Lincoln on the river boat "River Queen" to discuss a strategy against General Lee and General Johnston of the Confederate Army. Several times Lincoln asked "can't this last battle be avoided?" (Angle and Miers, Tragic Years, II) but both Generals expected the Rebels (Rebs or Rebels were a name given to Confederate soldiers) to put up at least one more fight. It had to be decided how to handle the Rebels in regard to the upcoming surrender (all were sure of a surrender). Lincoln made his intentions very clear: "I am full of the bloodshed. You need to defeat the opposing armies and get the men composing those armies back to their homes to work on their farms and in their shops." (Sherman, William T., Memoirs of General William T. Sherman. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1972) The meeting lasted for a number of hours and near its end, Lincoln made his orders clear: "Let them once surrender and reach their homes, they won't take up arms again. They will at once be guaranteed all their rights as citizens of a common country. I want no one punished, treat them liberally all around. We want those people to return to their allegiance to the Union and submit to the laws." (Porter, David D., Campaigning with Grant. New York: The Century Co., 1897) Well with all of the formalities outlined, the Generals and Admiral knew what needed to be done. Sherman returned to Goldsboro by steamer; Grant and Porter left by train back north. Sherman's course would be to continue north with Schofield's men and meet Grant in Richmond. However, this would never happen as Lee would surrender to Grant before Sherman could ever get there. THE PUSH FOR THE END General Grant returned back to his troops who were in the process of besieging Petersburg and Richmond. These battles had been going on for months. On March 24, before the meeting with President Lincoln, Grant drew up a new plan for a flanking movement against the Confederates right below Petersburg. It would be the first large scale operation to take place this year and would begin five days later. Two days after Grant made preparations to move again, Lee had already assessed the situation and informed President Davis that Richmond and Petersburg were doomed. Lee's only chance would be to move his troops out of Richmond and down a southwestern path toward a meeting with fellow General Johnston's (Johnston had been dispatched to Virginia after being ordered not to resist the advance of Sherman's Army) forces. Lee chose a small town to the west named Amelia Court House as a meeting point. His escape was narrow; they (the soldiers) could see Richmond burn as they made their way across the James River and to the west. Grant had finally broke through and Richmond and Petersburg were finished on the second day of April. LINCOLN VISITS FALLEN RICHMOND On April 4th, after visiting Petersburg briefly, President Lincoln decided to visit the fallen city of Richmond. He arrived by boat with his son, Tad, and was led ashore by no more than 12 armed sailors. The city had not yet been secured by Federal forces. Lincoln had no more than taken his first step when former slaves started forming around him singing praises. Lincoln proceeded to join with General Godfrey Weitzel who had been place in charge of the occupation of Richmond and taken his headquarters in Jefferson Davis' old residence. When he arrived there, he and Tad took an extensive tour of the house after discovering Weitzel was out and some of the soldiers remarked that Lincoln seemed to have a boyish expression as he did so. No one can be sure what Lincoln was thinking as he sat in Davis' office. When Weitzel arrived, he asked the President what to do with the conquered people. Lincoln replied that he no longer gave direction in military manners but went on to say: "If I were in your place, I'd let 'em up easy, let 'em up easy" (Johnson, Robert Underwood, and Clarence Clough Buel, eds., Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol 4. New York: The Century Co., 1887). THE CHASE BEGINS Lee's forces were pushing west toward Amelia and the Federals would be hot on their tails. Before leaving Richmond, Lee had asked the Commissary Department of the Confederacy to store food in Amelia and the troops rushed there in anticipation. What they found when they got there however was very disappointing. While there was an abundance of ammunition and ordinance, there was not a single morsel of food. Lee could not afford to give up his lead over the advancing Federals so he had to move his nearly starving troops out immediately in search of food. They continued westward, still hoping to join with Johnston eventually, and headed for Farmville, where Lee had been informed, there was an abundance of bacon and cornmeal. Several skirmishes took place along the way as some Federal regiments would catch up and attack, but the Confederate force reached Farmville. However, the men had no more that started to eat their bacon and cornmeal when Union General Sheridan arrived and started a fight. Luckily, it was nearly night, and the Confederate force snuck out under cover of the dark. But not before General Lee received General Grants first request for surrender. NOWHERE TO RUN The Confederates, in their rush to leave Farmville in the night of April 7th, did not get the rations they so desperately needed, so they were forced to forage for food. Many chose to desert and leave for home. General Lee saw two men leaving for home and said "Stop young men, and get together you are straggling" and one of the soldiers replied "General, we are just going over here to get some water" and Lee replied "Strike for your home and fireside" (Freeman, Douglas Southall, R.E. Lee: A Biography, Vol 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935): they did. Rebel forces reached their objective, Appomattox Court House, around 3pm on April 8th. Lee received word that to the south, at Appomattox Station, supplies had arrived by train and were waiting there. However, the pursuing Union forces knew this also and took a faster southern route to the station. By 8pm that evening the Federals had taken the supplies and would wait there for the evening, preparing to attack the Confederates at Appomattox Court House in the morning. Meanwhile, Lee scribbled out a brave response to Grant's inquiry simply asking for explanation of the terms to be involved in the surrender. THE FINAL BATTLE At daybreak the Confederate battle line was formed to the west of Appomattox. The Union soldiers were in position in front of the line with cannons. When the Federal cannons started to fire, the Confederate signal for attack was sounded and the troops charged. One soldier later remarked: "It was my fortune to witness several charges during the war, but never one so magnificently executed as this one." (McCarthy, Carlton, Detailed Minutiae of Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia 1861-1865. Richmond: Carlton McCarthy, 1882) This Confederate advance only lasted from about 7am to 9am, at which time the Rebels were forced back. The Confederates could no longer hold their lines and Lee sent word to Grant to meet at 1pm to discuss surrender. The two men met at the now famous McLean House and a surrender was agreed upon. It was 2pm on April 9, 1865. Johnston's army surrendered to General Sherman on April 26 in North Carolina; General Taylor of Mississippi-Alabama and General Smith of the trans Mississippi-Texas surrendered in May ending the war completely. SUMMARY The Civil War was a completely tragic event. Just think, a war in which thousands of Americans died in their home country over nothing more than a difference in opinion. Yes, slavery was the cause of the Civil War: half of the country thought it was wrong and the other half just couldn't let them go. The war was fought overall in probably 10,000 different places and the monetary and property loss cannot be calculated. The Union dead numbered 360,222 and only 110,000 of them died in battle. Confederate dead were estimated at 258,000 including 94,000 who actually died on the field of battle. The Civil War was a great waste in terms of human life and possible accomplishment and should be considered shameful. Before its first centennial, tragedy struck a new country and stained it for eternity. It will never be forgotten but adversity builds strength and the United States of America is now a much stronger nation. BIBLIOGRAPHY "The Civil War", Groliers Encyclopedia, 1995 Catton, Bruce., A Stillness at Appomattox. New York: Doubleday, 1963 Foote, Shelby., The Civil War, Vol. 3. New York: Random, 1974 Garraty, John Arthur, The American Nation: A History of the United states to 1877, Vol. 1, Eighth Edition. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995 Miers, Earl Schenck, The Last Campaign. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1972 Korn, Jerry, Pursuit to Appomattox, The Last Battles. Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1987 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Role of the Japanese Emperor in the Meiji Restoration.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Role of The Emperor in Meiji Japan Japan is a society whose culture is steeped in the traditions and symbols of the past: Mt. Fuji, the tea ceremony, and the sacred objects of nature revered in Shintoism. Two of the most important traditions and symbols in Japan; the Emperor and Confucianism have endured through Shogunates, restorations of imperial rule, and up to present day. The leaders of the Meiji Restoration used these traditions to gain control over Japan and further their goals of modernization. The Meiji leaders used the symbolism of the Emperor to add legitimacy to their government, by claiming that they were ruling under the "Imperial Will." They also used Confucianism to maintain order and force the Japanese people to passively accept their rule. Japanese rulers historically have used the symbolism of the Imperial Institution to justify their rule. The symbolism of the Japanese Emperor is very powerful and is wrapped up in a mix of religion (Shintoism) and myths. According to Shintoism the current Emperor is the direct descendent of the Sun Goddess who formed the islands of Japan out of the Ocean in ancient times.Footnote1 According to these myths the Japanese Emperor unlike a King is a living descendent of the Gods and even today he is thought of as the High Priest of Shinto. Despite the powerful myths surrounding Japan's imperial institution the Emperor has enjoyed only figure head status from 1176 on. At some points during this time the Emperor was reduced to selling calligraphy on the streets of Kyoto to support the imperial household, but usually the Emperor received money based on the kindness of the Shogunate.Footnote2 But despite this obvious power imbalance even the Tokugawa Shogun was at least symbolically below the Emperor in status and he claimed to rule so he could carry out the Imperial rule.Footnote3 Within this historical context the Meiji leaders realized that they needed to harness the concept of the Imperial Will in order to govern effectively. In the years leading up to 1868 members of the Satsuma and Choshu clans were part of the imperialist opposition. This opposition claimed that the only way that Japan could survive the encroachment of the foreigners was to rally around the Emperor.Footnote4 The Imperialists, claimed that the Tokugawa Shogunate had lost its imperial mandate to carry out the Imperial Will because it had capitulated to Western powers by allowing them to open up Japan to trade. During this time the ideas of the imperialists gained increasing support among Japanese citizens and intellectuals who taught at newly established schools and wrote revisionist history books that claimed that historically the Emperor had been the ruler of Japan.Footnote5 The fact that the Tokugawa's policy of opening up Japan to the western world ran counter to the beliefs of the Emperor and was unpopular with the public made the Tokugawa vulnerable to attack from the imperialists. The imperialists pressed their attack both militarily and from within the Court of Kyoto. The great military regime of Edo which until recently had been all powerful was floundering not because of military weakness, or because the machinery of government had broken but instead because the Japanese public and the Shoguns supporters felt they had lost the Imperial Will.Footnote6 The end of the Tokugawa regime shows the power of the symbolism and myths surrounding the imperial institution. The head of the Tokugawa clan died in 1867 and was replaced by the son of a lord who was a champion of Japanese historical studies and who agreed with the imperialists claims about restoring the Emperor.Footnote7 So in 1868 the new shogun handed over all his power to the Emperor in Kyoto. Shortly after handing over power to the Emperor, the Emperor Komeo died and was replaced by his son who became the Meiji Emperor.Footnote8 Because the Meiji Emperor was only 15 all the power of the new restored Emperor fell not in his hands but instead in the hands of his close advisors. These advisers such as Prince Saionji, Prince Konroe, and members of the Satsuma and Choshu clans who had been members of the imperialist movement eventually wound up involving into the Meiji Bureaucracy and Genro of the Meiji Era.Footnote9 Once in control of the government the Meiji Leaders and advisors to the Emperor reversed their policy of hostility to Foreigners.Footnote10 They did this because after Emperor Komeo (who was strongly opposed to contact with the west) died in 1867 the Meiji Emperor's advisors were no longer bound by his Imperial Will. Being anti-western also no longer served the purposes of the Meiji advisors. Originally it was a tool of the imperialist movement that was used to show that the Shogun was not acting out the Imperial Will. Now that the Shogun and Komeo Emperor were dead there was no longer a reason to take on anti-foreign policies. The choice of the imperial thrown by the imperialists as a point for Japan to rally around could not have been more wise. Although the imperial institution had no real power it had universal appeal to the Japanese public. It was both a mythic and religious idea in their minds.Footnote11 It provided the Japanese in this time of chaos after coming in contact with foreigners a belief in stability (according to Japanese myth the imperial line is a unbroken lineage handed down since time immortal), and it provided a belief in the natural superiority of Japanese culture.Footnote12 The symbolism of the Emperor helped ensure the success of the restorationists because it undercut the legitimacy of the Shogunate's rule, and it strengthened the Meiji rulers who claimed to act for the Emperor. What is a great paradox about the Imperialist's claims to restore the power of the Emperor is that the Meiji rulers did not restore the Emperor to power except symbolically because he was both too young and his advisors to power hungry.Footnote13 By 1869 the relationship between the Emperor and his Meiji bureaucracy and the Emperor and the Tokugawa Shogun before the restoration were very similar. Both the Meiji Bureaucrats and the Shogun ruled under the authority of the Emperor but did not let the Emperor make any decisions. In Japan the Emperor reigned but did not rule. This was useful for the new Meiji bureaucrats, it kept the Emperor a mythic and powerful symbol.Footnote14 The traditions and symbols of Confucianism and the Imperial Institution were already deeply ingrained in the psyche of the Japanese but the new Meiji rulers through both an education system, and the structure of the Japanese government were able to effectively inculcate these traditions into a new generation of Japanese. The education system the Meiji Oligarchy founded transformed itself into a system that indoctrinated students in the ideas of Confucianism and reverence for the Emperor.Footnote15 After the death of Okubo in 1878; Ito, Okuma, and Iwakura emerged as the three most powerful figures among the young bureaucrats that were running the government in the name of the Meiji Emperor. Iwakura one of the only figures in the ancient nobility to gain prominence among the Meiji oligarchy allied with Ito who feared Okuma's progressive ideas would destroy Japan's culture.Footnote16 Iwakura it is thought was able manipulate the young Emperor to grow concerned about the need to strengthen traditional morals. Thus in 1882 the Emperor issued the Yogaku Koyo, the forerunner of the Imperial Rescript on Education.Footnote17 This document put the emphasis of the Japanese education system on a moral education from 1882 onward. Previous to 1880 the Japanese education system was modeled on that of the French education system. After 1880 the Japanese briefly modeled their education system on the American system.Footnote18 However, starting with the Yogaku Koyo in 1882 and ending with the 1885 reorganization of the department of Education along Prussian lines the American model was abolished. The new education minister Mori Arinori after returning from Europe in 1885 with Ito was convinced that the Japanese education system had to have a spiritual foundation to it.Footnote19 In Prussia Arinori saw that foundation to be Christianity and he decreed that in Japan the Education system was to be based on reverence for the Imperial Institution. A picture of the Emperor was placed in every classroom, children read about the myths surrounding the Emperor in school, and they learned that the Emperor was the head of the giant family of Japan.Footnote20 By the time the Imperial Rescript on Education was decreed by the Emperor in 1889 the Japanese education system had already begun to transform itself into a system that did not teach how to think but instead what to think. The Imperial Rescript on Education in 1889 was according to Japanese scholars such as Hugh Borton , "the nerve axis of the new order."Footnote21 Burton believes that the Imperial Rescript on Education signaled the rise of nationalistic elements in Japan. The Imperial Rescript on Education was the culmination of this whole movement to the right. The Rescript emphasized loyalty and filial piety, respect for the constitution and readiness to serve the government. It also exalted the Emperor as the coeval between heaven and earth.Footnote22 The Constitution of 1889 like the changes in the education system helped strengthen reverence for the Imperial Institution. The 1889 constitution was really the second document of its kind passed in Japan the first being the Imperial Oath of 1868 in which the Emperor laid out the structure and who was to head the new Meiji government.Footnote23 This Imperial Oath was refereed to as a constitution at the time but it only very vaguely laid out the structure of government. The constitution promulgated by the Emperor in 1889 did much more then lay out the structure of Japanese government it also affirmed that the Emperor was the supreme sovereign over Japan.Footnote24 The signing ceremony itself was an auspicious event on the way to it Mori Arinori one of the moderate leaders of the Meiji government was attacked and killed by a crazed rightist..Footnote25 The ceremony itself evoked both the past and present and was symbolic of the Meiji governments shift toward the right and the governments use of the Emperor as supreme ruler. Before signing the document Emperor Meiji prayed at the palace sanctuary to uphold the name of his imperial ancestors he then signed the constitution which affirmed the sanctity of the Emperor's title (Tenno Taiken), and his right to make or abrogate any law.Footnote26 The constitution also set up a bicameral legislature.Footnote27 The constitution codified the power of the Emperor and helped the Meiji oligarchy justify their rule because they could point to the constitution and say that they were carrying out the will of the Emperor. The Meiji Emperor even after the Constitution of 1889 enjoyed little real power. The Meiji Emperor did not even come to cabinet meetings because his advisors told him if the cabinet made a decision that was different then the one he wanted then that would create dissension and would destroy the idea of the Imperial Institution. So even after the Meiji Constitution the Emperor was still predominantly a symbol.Footnote28 The Constitution ingrained in Japanese society the idea that the government was being run by higher forces who new better then the Japanese people, it also broadened the base of support of the Meiji Rulers who now had a document too prove they were acting on Imperial Will and their decisions were imperial decisions not those of mere mortals.Footnote29 The symbolism of the Emperor and use of Confucianism allowed the Meiji rulers to achieve their goals. One of their goals was the abolishment of the system of fiefs and return of all land to the Emperor. At first the new Meiji Rulers allied themselves with the Daimyo clans in opposition to the Tokugawa Shogun. But once the Meiji leaders had gained a control they saw that they would need to abolish the fief system and concentrate power in the hands of a central government. The Meiji rulers achieved their goals by having the Choshu, Satsuma, Tosa, and Hizen clans give up their lands, granting the Daimyos large pensions if they gave up their clans, and by having the Emperor issue two decrees in July 1869, and August 1871.Footnote30 The role and symbolism of the Emperor although not the sole factor in influencing the Daimyo to give up their fiefs, was vital. The Meiji Oligarchs said that not turning in the fiefs to the Emperor would be disloyal and pointed to the historical record which Meiji scholars claimed showed that historically all fiefs were the property of the Emperor.Footnote31 They showed this by claiming that the Shogun would switch the rulers of fiefs and this proved that the Daimyos did not control the title to their land but merely held it for the Emperor. Imperial decrees and slogans of loyalty to the Emperor also accompanied the abolishment of the Samurai system.Footnote32 In the abolishment of both these feudal systems the symbolism of the Emperor as both the director of the initiative and recipient of the authority afterwards played a vital role in ensuring there success.Footnote33 The abolishment of fiefs and the samurai class were essential for the stability and industrialization of Japan.Footnote34 Without the concentration of land and power in the hands of the Meiji oligarchs and the Emperor the Meiji oligarchs feared they would receive opposition from powerful Daimyos and never gain control and authority over all of Japan. Historical examples bear out the fears of the Meiji Oligarchy; in 1467 the Ashikaga Shogun failed to control many of the fiefs and because of this a civil war raged in Japan.Footnote35 The centralization of power allowed the Meiji government to have taxing authority over all of Japan and pursue national projects.Footnote36 The unity of Japan also allowed the Meiji Oligarchs to focus on national and not local issues. The use of Confucianism and the Emperor also brought a degree of stability to Japan during the tumultuous Meiji years. The Emperor's mere presence on a train or in western clothes were enough to convince the public of the safety or goodness of the Meiji oligarchy's industrial policy. In one famous instance the Japanese Emperor appeared in a train car and after that riding trains became a common place activity in Japan. The behavior of the Imperial family was also critical to adoption of western cultural practices. Before 1873 most Japanese women of a high social position would shave their eyebrows and blacken their teeth to appear beautiful. But on March 3rd 1873 the Empress appeared in public wearing her own eyebrows and with unblackened teeth. Following that day most women in Tokyo and around Japan stopped shaving their eyebrows and blackening their teeth.Footnote37 The Imperial institution provided both a key tool to change Japanese culture and feelings about industrialization and it provided stability to Japan which was critical to allowing industrialists to invest in factories and increase exports and production.Footnote38 The symbols and the traditions the Meiji leaders inculcated Japanese society with helped the Meiji government maintain stability and pursue its economic policies but it also had severe limitations that limited the revolutionary scope of the Japanese government and helped bring about the downfall of the Meiji era. The use of Confucianism and the Emperor to bolster the Imperial restoration laid the foundation for a paradox of state affairs. The system that sought to strengthen Japan through the use of modern technology and modern organization methods was using traditional values to further its goals.Footnote39 This caused some to turn toward the west for the "enlightenment" the Meiji era promised this was the case with Okuma who was eventually forced out of the increasing nationalist Genro.Footnote40 For others it lead them to severe nationalism rejecting all that was western. This was such the case of Saigo who believed till his death on his own sword that the Meiji leaders were hypocritical and were violating the Imperial Will by negotiating and trading with the west.Footnote41 The Meiji government used the same symbols and traditions that the Tokugawa used and like the Tokugawa gave the Emperor no decision making power. The Meiji Emperor although he had supreme power as accorded in the constitution never actually made decisions but was instead a pawn of the Meiji Genro who claimed to carry out his Imperial Will. This Imperial Will they decided for themselves. Like the Shogunate the Meiji governments claim to rule for the Emperor was fraught with problems. The Imperial Will was a fluid idea that could be adopted by different parties under changing circumstances. And just like the Meiji rulers were able to topple the Shogun by claiming successfully that they were the true administrators of the Imperial Will; the militarist elements in the 1930's were able to topple the democratic elements of Japan partially by claiming the mantle of ruling for the Emperor.Footnote42 From this perspective the Meiji Oligarchs building up of the Imperial Myth was a fatal flaw in the government. The constitution which says in article I, "The empire of Japan shall be governed over by a line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal" gave to whoever was acting on the Imperial Will absolute right to govern.Footnote43 The symbols of the Emperor and the tradition of Confucianism did not end with the end of the Meiji era or world war two. Today the idea of filial piety is still strong, multiple generations of a family still usually live together even in cramped Japanese housing. The religion of Shinto that the Meiji leaders rejuvenated during their rule in order to help foster the imperial cult is still thriving as the thousands of Tori gates and Shrines around Japan attest.Footnote44 But the most striking symbol to survive is that of the Emperor stripped after world war two of all power the Emperor of Japan is still revered. During the illness of Emperor Showa in 1989 every national newspaper and television show was full of reports related to the Emperor's health. During the six months the Showa Emperor was sick before he died all parades and public events were canceled in respect for the Emperor. Outside the gates of the Imperial palace in Tokyo long tables were set up where people lined up to sign cards to wish the Emperor a speedy recovery. The news media even kept the type of illness the emperor had a secret in deference to the Emperor. At his death after months of illness it was as if the Imperial Cult of the Meiji era had returned. Everything in Japan closed down , private television stations went as far as to not air any commercials on the day of his death. And now almost six years after his death more then four hundred and fifty thousand people trek annually to the isolated grave site of Emperor Showa.Footnote45 The traditions and symbolism of Confucianism and the Emperor were critical to the Meiji oligarchs gaining control of power and goals of industrialization. The oligarchy inculcated the Japanese public with these traditional values through an education system that stressed moral learning, and through a constitution that established the law of Japan to be that of the Imperial Will. The values of Confucianism and symbol of the Emperor allowed the Meiji government to peaceful gain control of Japan by appealing to history and the restoration of the Emperor. But the Meiji oligarchs never restored the Emperor to a position of real political power. Instead he was used as a tool by the oligarchs to achieve their modernization plans in Japan such as the abolishment of fiefs, the end of the samurai, the propagation of new cultural practices, and pubic acceptance of the Meiji oligarchs industrialization policies. The symbols and traditions of Japan's past are an enduring legacy that have manifested themselves in the Meiji Restoration and today in Japans continued reverence for the Emperor. ---------- Footnote1 Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo: Hakubunkwan, 1921) 47. Footnote2 Takatsu Kuwasaburo, The History of The Empire of Japan (Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho Kabushiki Kwaisha, 1893) 206. Footnote3 Ibid., 17. Footnote4 Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing, 1987) 112. Footnote5 Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 32. Footnote6 Shusuke Sato, Some Historical Phases of Modern Japan (New York: Japan Society, 1916) 4. Footnote7 Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 44. Footnote8 Louis Allen, Japan the Years of Triumph (London: Purnell and Sons, 1971) 8. Footnote9 David Titus, Palace and Politics in Prewar Japan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974) 55 Footnote10 Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 73. Footnote11 Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo: Hakubunkwan, 1921) 142. Footnote12 Ibid., 35. Footnote13 Stephen Large, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota International Centre, 1989) 27. Footnote14 Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 70. Footnote15 Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 116. Footnote16 Ernest Best, Christian Faith and Cultural Crisis the Japanese Case (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966) 108. Footnote17 Ibid., 105. Footnote18 Ibid., 106. Footnote19 Ibid., 106. Footnote20 Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 117. Footnote21 Hugh Borton, Japan's Modern Century (New York: Ronald Press, 1955) 524. Footnote22 Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 118. Footnote23 Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 69. Footnote24 Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo: Hakubunkwan, 1921) 60. Footnote25 Ian Nish, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota International Centre, 1989) 9. Footnote26 Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 193. Footnote27 Ibid., 192. Footnote28 Stephen Large, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota International Centre, 1989) 27. Footnote29 Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo: Hakubunkwan, 1921) 89. Footnote30 Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 77. Footnote31 Ibid., 78. Footnote32 Ibid., 77. Footnote33 Ibid., 83. Footnote34 Ibid., 82. Footnote35 Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing, 1987) 66. Footnote36 Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 117. Footnote37 Louis Allen, Japan the Years of Triumph (London: Purnell and Sons, 1971) 41. Footnote38 Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 84. Footnote39 Ibid., 119. Footnote40 Ibid., 88. Footnote41 Ibid., 94-95. Footnote42 Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing, 1987) 166. Footnote43 Ibid., 167. Footnote44 Ibid., 13. Footnote45 Stephen Large, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota International Centre, 1989) 20. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Roswell UFO Crash.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Doe Teacher English II CP December 26, 1996 The Roswell UFO Crash In 1947 a UFO was seen near the town of Roswell, New Mexico. It was witnessed by many of the residents and was described as something not of this planet. The government denies any evidence of this event occurring and has covered it up for may years. Now that more information has become available to the public, it is clear that something extraordinary happened. The town of Roswell, New Mexico was the location of many UFO sightings in the later 1940's and was supposedly the location of a secret military base. Most of the local people had a story or two to tell about their experiences with these sightings, but are now coming forward with stories about how the government threatened them not to speak of the incidents that occurred. Some felt as though their life was endangered if they dared to speak of what they saw. One incident in particular which has sparked a craze in the study of UFO's is when a flying disk allegedly crashed in the deserts of New Mexico near Roswell on the night of July 8, 1947. According to Roswell expert Henry Ritson, many civilians arrived at the crash scene and witnessed the bodies of alien beings (Roswell Reporter pg. 2). These witnesses report to have seen humanoid beings with large, pear-shaped heads and bulging black eyes being hauled away by government and military agents and to have been debriefed of the entire occurrence by these agents (Roswell Reporter pg. 3). Some witnesses were threatened not to speak of the incident again. The object in question was later classified by the government as a weather balloon and discounted all evidence and eyewitness reports of the UFO scene (pg. 3). The farmer whose field the UFO crashed in was offered a large sum of money by a local radio station to tell his story on the air. He spoke of strange alien materials and a seemingly invincible square of foil which could not be cut or damaged. He also described the alien beings Street 2 and the craft in which they traveled (Roswell: What are We Talking About? pg. 2). He was later arrested by the military and held at the government base. The first officer to the crash site, Lt. Jesse Marcel, was told to make a public restatement about the crash scene and report that he had mistaken a weather balloon for a flying saucer (Roswell Reporter pg. 2). Pictures were taken of Marcel with the weather balloon and the story died down. Written Recordings of the official statement quote Lt. Marcel as saying, "We were so anxious in our investigation that we mistook what is clearly a weather balloon as some sort of alien space travel device." (Roswell Reporter pg. 2) After many years of humiliation, Marcel decided to come forward with his story. He explained that he was forced by the military to change his entire story and that it was no weather balloon at all. This statement made national news and started a chain of UFO sightings from excited UFO enthusiasts (Roswell and Other Government Cover-Ups pg. 4). Most of these sightings were most likely the wild imaginations of these enthusiasts. Lt. Marcel had collected many samples from the crashed object on the day of the crash and shown it to his family. His son was particularly interested in an object which seemingly contained alien writing. The objects were confiscated by the government and the life of Marcel's son was threatened. His mother was told not to speak of these things or suffer the consequences. If there was nothing but a mere weather balloon involved, the government would have no reason to make these threats. After several years of denying the events, the government was demanded by the public to declassify all of the Roswell records. It was to become public soon after when it was reported that the records had been stolen and were illegally destroyed. All requests for information concerning the events which took place near Roswell were returned with a reply stating that no records exist of the alleged incident. Many requests were made for information concerning the events which took place by a group of individuals who went on to write a newsletter called the Roswell Reporter. Project Bluebook, a government project which contained all UFO reports of that period, contained no records of this incident, despite the fact Street 3 that it is the most talked about UFO occurrence in history (Roswell Reporter pg. 2). This project became declassified and all records were released to the public (pg. 3). The Roswell incident was not listed in any of them. There is obviously some reason the government does not want the public to know the details of the crash. (Roswell: What are We Talking About? pg. 1) UFO skeptics have alternate theories as to what the crash actually was. One theory is that these objects we see are actually balls of gas or plasma caused by tectonic movement within the earth. This would still not explain the bodies seen by the eyewitnesses. Another theory is that these aliens do not come from another planet at all. These beings could be from the future or even another dimension. All of these theories may sound far-fetched, but we have no way of disproving them. Even the ancient Indians documented flying objects in scrolls (Ancient Indian Flying Devices pg. 1). They claimed to have built objects for planetary flight and operated them with the ego and soul (pg. 2). These stories were never proven or disproven but the fact remains that the history of flying disks dates back long before the age of modern man (Childress pg. 1). Childress states that not only was there documentation found on these ships, but also stories of interplanetary travel (pg. 3). The government has kept the information about the crash at Roswell, New Mexico a secret. If so many people witnessed this crash from so far away, it would be hard to imagine that the object is a weather balloon. It could have been a secret government experiment gone bad or even a craft from another world. In any case, the public has the right to know the truth. The proof of other intelligent life forms existing in the universe would be a great step in human knowledge. The secrecy surrounding the entire incident makes it seem as if the government has already learned from these beings. Some UFO enthusiasts also believe that the government gets information on new technology from the extraterrestrials. The massive increase in technology in the 1950's and '60's supports this concept. New military aircrafts have shown signs of advanced technology and aerodynamics. The stealth bomber is a good example of this new technology. The controversy about aliens and the incident at Roswell, New Mexico will most likely Street 4 continue until either aliens make contact with humans publically or until the government admits to the cover-ups in Roswell and other UFO sightings. This crash was a very important historical event in the eyes of many, and the government has done a good job of keeping the details of the event a secret. No matter what the object was, it certainly opened the eyes of the public. The people involved in the incident and those who witnessed it are the only ones who know for sure what really happened on that memorable evening. They have been silenced by the government, and may never speak of the events that occurred that night. They are the few who have seen exactly what is out there. The rest may never know. Who can the american people trust? If their own government keeps one of the most important events in human history a secret, there is no telling what else they know. It is right of the public to know what is history and what is a misguided weather balloon. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Sedition Act of 1798.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Sedition Act of 1798 For the first few years of Constitutional government, under the leadership of George Washington, there was a unity, commonly called Federalism that even James Madison (the future architect of the Republican Party) acknowledged in describing the Republican form of government-- " And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists." Although legislators had serious differences of opinions, political unity was considered absolutely essential for the stability of the nation. Political parties or factions were considered evil as "Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority..." Public perception of factions were related to British excesses and thought to be "the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished." James Madison wrote in Federalist Papers #10, "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He went on to explain that faction is part of human nature; "that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS." The significant point Madison was to make in this essay was that the Union was a safeguard against factions in that even if "the influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, [they will be] unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States." What caused men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to defy tradition and public perceptions against factions and build an opposition party? Did they finally agree with Edmund Burkes' famous aphorism: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle?" Did the answer lie in their opposition with the agenda of Alexander Hamilton and the increases of power both to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch of government? Hamilton pushed for The Bank of the United States, a large standing Army raised by the President (Congress was to raise and support armies,) a Department of Navy, funding and excise taxes, and, in foreign policy, a neutrality that was sympathetic to British interest to the detriment of France. Many legislators, especially those in the south, were alarmed to the point that a separation of the Union was suggested as the only way to deal with Hamilton's successes. Many were afraid that the army would be used against them as it had during the Whiskey Rebellion. Southerners saw the taxes to support a new treasury loan favoring "pro-British merchants in the commercial cities," and unfairly paid by landowners in the South. These issues as well as neutrality issues between France, England, and the United States were the catalyst for the forming of the Republican Party. The French and English conflict caused many problems with America's political system. The English "Order of Council" and the French "Milan Decree" wreaked havoc with America's shipping and led to Jay's Treaty of 1794. Jay's Treaty was advantageous to America and helped to head off a war with Britain, but it also alienated the French. The French reacted by seizing American ships causing the threat of war to loom large in American minds. President Adams sent three commissioners to France to work out a solution and to modify the Franco-American alliance of 1778, but the Paris government asked for bribes and a loan from the United States before negotiations could even begin. The American commissioners refused to pay the bribes and they were denied an audience with accredited authorities and even treated with contempt. Two of the commissioners returned to the United States with Elbridge Gerry staying behind to see if he could work something out. This became known as the XYZ affair and was the beginning of an undeclared naval war between France and the United States. The XYZ affair played right into the hands of the Federalist Party. They immediately renounced all treaties of 1788 with France and began their agenda of creating a large standing army and a Navy Department to deal with the threat of an American-French war. Fear and patriotism were fanned and a strong anti-French sentiment swept the land. Then a gem of a caveat was thrown into the Federalist hands when Monsieur Y boasted that "the Diplomatic skill of France and the means she possess in your country, are sufficient to enable her, with the French party in America, to throw the blame which will attend the rupture of the negotiations on the Federalist, as you term yourselves, but on the British party, as France terms you." This boast was to cause suspicion and wide spread denunciation of the Republican Party and its leaders. Senator Sedgwick, majority whip in the Senate, after hearing of the XYZ Affair, said, "It will afford a glorious opportunity to destroy faction. Improve it." Hamilton equated the public's perception of the Republican's opposition to the Federalist's agenda like that of the Tories in the Revolution. All in all, this boast began the process that became the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Republicans debated against the bills for about a month, but the Federalist had the votes. A background of fear helped keep the public silent and perhaps somewhat approving to the loss of some personal freedoms, as nobody wanted to be accused as a Jacobean. In May of 1778, President Adams declared a day of prayer and fasting. Many thought that the Jacobeans were going to use that day to rise up in insurrection and "cut the throats of honest citizens." They even thought they were going to attack President Adams and citizens of Philadelphia came out by the hundreds to protect him. Federalist saw this as a demonstration of support for the government. Those who spoke against the Sedition bill were accused of being in league with the Jacobeans. Edward Livingston, in opposing the bill said, "If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist." The Federalist accused Livingston of sedition because of his implied threat of popular rebellion; a practice seen in future debates when unlawful power was to be enforced. Republican newspapers were railing against the Federalist and especially against the Sedition bill. The Aoura was the leading Republican publication and Benjamin Bache was its editor. Baches ability to get the story out caused much consternation among Federalist. Harrison Gray Otis said that Baches' writing influenced even intelligent people, "What can you expect from the gaping and promiscuous crowd who delight to swallow calumny..?" The Federalist needed the Sedition bill to shut down the Republican presses and Bache played right into their hands with his publication of Tallyrand's conciliatory letter to the American envoys before the President had even seen it. Republicans insisted that this was a journalistic scoop that would lead to peace because France was willing to negotiate with Edmund Gerry. The Federalist wanted Bache to explain how he had received a letter that the President hadn't even seen yet. They began to accuse him of being in league with France, an agent of Tallyrand and an enemy of the people of the United States. The administration was so incensed with Bache that they didn't wait for passage of the Sedition bill, but had him arrested for treason on June 27, 1778. From the very beginning Republican leaders recognized that the Sedition bill was primarily directed toward the destruction of any opposition to the Federalist Party and its agenda. Albert Gallatin said the Sedition Act was a weapon "to perpetuate their authority and preserve their present places." Proof that this bill was politically motivated became obvious when the House voted to extend the act from the original one year proposed to the expiration of John Adams term, March 3, 1801. The States response to the passing of the Sedition Act was mixed. Kentucky and Virginia each responded with acts basically nullifying the Congressional act, but other states accepted the Congress taking authority from what had been a state function. The public response initially appeared mixed. British common law seemed to have preconditioned many to accept a limitation of their personal freedoms. The victory of the Republicans, who ran on a platform of anti-sedition, in the election of 1800 showed that Americans were much more interested in personal freedom than the aristocratic Federalist thought. What would happen if Congress submitted a Sedition Bill today as they did in 1778? With our established two-party system (in marked contrast to their conceptions of factions), the freedom of press as a well developed principle, and freedom of speech the cornerstone in American's sense of liberty; it seems that there would be a major revolt. Are there any instances in 20th century history that compares to the Sedition Act's flagrant disregard of the First Amendment? No government actions seem so blatantly unconstitutional as the Sedition Act of 1798; but, there are many actions since then that have caused much more personal pain than the twenty-seven persons convicted under the Sedition Act. In times of war it is understood that many personal liberties may be curtailed, especially for enemy aliens living in the United States. The War Relocation Authority signed by President Roosevelt caused thousands of enemy aliens as well as Japanese- American citizens to lose everything as they were interned in concentration camps throughout the West. These Americans were told that if they were true patriotic citizens they would go without complaining. If they were to complain then that was prima facie evidence that they were not loyal citizens. In June of 1940, America's fear of German aggression led to the enactment of the Smith Act. Much like the Alien and Sedition Act it required all aliens to be registered and fingerprinted. It also made it a crime to advocate or teach the violent overthrow of the United States, or to even belong to a group that participated in these actions. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in the case of eleven communist (Dennis v United States.) This decision was later modified in 1957 (Yates v United States.) The Court limited conviction to direct action being taken against government, ruling that teaching communism or the violent overthrow of government did not in itself constitute grounds for conviction. Another instance of governmental infringement of the liberties of American citizens is the well known Senate Sub-committee on un-American Activities headed by Joseph McCarthy. Thousands of people lost their livelihood and personal reputations were shattered by innuendo, finger pointing, and outright lies. As in earlier instances of uncontrolled excesses by people in government, guilt was assumed and protestations of innocence were evidence that "something" was being hidden. In 1993, rumblings were heard from the Democratic controlled Congress that there needed to be fairness in broadcasting. If one viewpoint was shared, they felt the opposing viewpoint must be given fair time to respond. This was facetiously called the "Rush Act" in response to the phenomenal success of conservative radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. As in the 1790's when Republicans formed newspapers to counteract the Federalist control of the press; many conservatives felt that the few conservative broadcasters and programs had a long way to go before they balanced the liberal press. Fortunately, as in the 1800 election, Republicans gained control of Congress in 1992 and the "Rush Act" died a natural death. Recently many Americans have become concerned with domestic terrorism. Waco, the Oklahoma Federal Building, and now the Freemen in Montana have caused citizens and legislators alike to want something done. The House of Representatives just approved HR2768. This bill will curtail many liberties for American citizens as well as Aliens. The following are eight points made by the ACLU concerning this bill: 1. Broad terrorism definition risks selective prosecution 2. More illegal wiretaps and less judicial control will threaten privacy 3. Expansion of counterintelligence and terrorism investigations threatens privacy 4. The Executive would decide which foreign organizations Americans could support 5. Secret evidence would be used in deportation proceedings 6. Foreign dissidents would be barred from the United States 7. Federal courts would virtually lose the power to correct unconstitutional Incarceration 8. Aliens are equated with terrorists This bill has many points in common with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Smith Act of 1950, the McCarren Act of 1950, and the Executive Order of Feb.19, 1942 that led to War Relocation Authority. Each one of these actions were taken when fear controlled the public and an agenda controlled the people in authority. Thankfully, the American people have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to bring them back from the edge, and to force those in positions of responsibility to accountability. The responsibility of government lies with the governed. If the American people react to trying situations and events in fear, then a general malaise and sense of helplessness will permeate the collective American consciousness. The abdication of personal responsibility erodes liberty, creating an atmosphere of dependency, that leads to bigger government and its pseudo security. Edward Livingston's statement, "If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist," serves as a timely warning to Americans today. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Showa Restoration In Japan.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Restore the Emperor Expel the Barbarians": The Causes of the Showa Restoration Sonno joi, "Restore the Emperor and expel the Barbarians," was the battle cry that ushered in the Showa Restoration in Japan during the 1930's.Footnote1 The Showa Restoration was a combination of Japanese nationalism, Japanese expansionism, and Japanese militarism all carried out in the name of the Showa Emperor, Hirohito. Unlike the Meiji Restoration, the Showa Restoration was not a resurrection of the Emperor's powerFootnote2, instead it was aimed at restoring Japan's prestige. During the 1920's, Japan appeared to be developing a democratic and peaceful government. It had a quasi-democratic governmental body, the Diet,Footnote3 and voting rights were extended to all male citizens.Footnote4 Yet, underneath this seemingly placid surface, lurked momentous problems that lead to the Showa Restoration. The transition that Japan made from its parliamentary government of the 1920's to the Showa Restoration and military dictatorship of the late 1930s was not a sudden transformation. Liberal forces were not toppled by a coup overnight. Instead, it was gradual, feed by a complex combination of internal and external factors. The history that links the constitutional settlement of 1889 to the Showa Restoration in the 1930s is not an easy story to relate. The transformation in Japan's governmental structure involved; the historical period between 1868 and 1912 that preceded the Showa Restoration. This period of democratic reforms was an underlying cause of the militarist reaction that lead to the Showa Restoration. The transformation was also feed by several immediate causes; such as, the downturn in the global economy in 1929Footnote5 and the invasion of Manchuria in 1931.Footnote6 It was the convergence of these external, internal, underlying and immediate causes that lead to the military dictatorship in the 1930's. The historical period before the Showa Restoration, 1868-1912, shaped the political climate in which Japan could transform itself from a democracy to a militaristic state. This period is known as the Meiji Restoration.Footnote7 The Meiji Restoration of 1868 completely dismantled the Tokugawa political order and replaced it with a centralized system of government headed by the Emperor who served as a figure head.Footnote8 However, the Emperor instead of being a source of power for the Meiji Government, became its undoing. The Emperor was placed in the mystic position of demi-god by the leaders of the Meiji Restoration. Parliamentarians justified the new quasi-democratic government of Japan, as being the "Emperor's Will." The ultra-nationalist and militaristic groups took advantage of the Emperor's status and claimed to speak for the Emperor.Footnote9 These then groups turned the tables on the parliamentarians by claiming that they, not the civil government, represented the "Imperial Will." The parliamentarians, confronted with this perversion of their own policy, failed to unite against the militarists and nationalists. Instead, the parliamentarians compromised with the nationalists and militarists groups and the general populace took the nationalists' claims of devotion to the Emperor at face value, further bolstering the popularity of the nationalists.Footnote10 The theory of "Imperial Will" in Japan's quasi-democratic government became an underlying flaw in the government's democratic composition. It was also during the Meiji Restoration that the Japanese economy began to build up its industrial base. It retooled, basing itself on the western model. The Japanese government sent out investigators to learn the ways of European and American industries.Footnote11 In 1889, the Japanese government adopted a constitution based on the British and German models of parliamentary democracy. During this same period, railroads were constructed, a banking system was started and the samurai system was disbanded.Footnote12 Indeed, it seemed as if Japan had successfully made the transition to a western style industrialized state. Almost every other non-western state failed to make this leap forward from pre-industrial nation to industrialized power. For example, China failed to make this leap. It collapsed during the 1840s and the European powers followed by Japan, sought to control China by expropriating its raw materials and exploiting its markets. By 1889, when the Japanese ConstitutionFootnote13 was adopted, Japan, with a few minor setbacks, had been able to make the transition to a world power through its expansion of colonial holdings.Footnote14 During the first World War, Japan's economy and colonial holdings continued to expand as the western powers were forced to focus on the war raging in Europe. During the period 1912-1926, the government continued on its democratic course. In 1925, Japan extended voting rights to all men and the growth of the merchant class continued.Footnote15 But these democratic trends, hid the fact that it was only the urban elite's who were benefiting from the growing industrialization. The peasants, who outnumbered the urban population were touched little by the momentous changes this lead to discontent in a majority of the populace. During the winter of 1921-1922, the Japanese government participated in a conference in Washington to limit the naval arms race. The Washington Conference successfully produced an agreement, the Five Power Treaty. Part of the Treaty established a ratio of British, American, Japanese, Italian, and French ships to the ratio respectively of 5:5:3:1.75:1.75.Footnote16 Other parts of the Five Power Treaty forced other naval powers to refrain from building fortifications in the Pacific and Asia. In return, Japan agreed to give up its colonial possessions in Siberia and China.Footnote17 In 1924, Japan cut its standing Army and further reduced the size of the Japanese military budget. It appeared to all that Japan was content to rely on expansion through trade instead of military might.Footnote18 However, this agreement applauded by the Western Powers, symbolized to many of the nationalists and militarists that the Japanese Government had capitulated to the West. During the Showa Restoration, ten years later, these agreements were often cited as examples of where the quasi-democratic Japanese government had gone astray.Footnote19 The time preceding the Showa Restoration appeared at first glance to be the image of a nation transforming itself into a full-fledged democracy. But this picture hid huge chasms that were about to open up with the end of the 1920's. Three precipitating circumstances at the beginning of the 1930's shattered Japan's democratic underpinnings, which had been far from firm: the downturn in the world economy, Western shunning of Japan, and the independence of Japan's military. Thus, the shaky democracy gave way to the Showa Restoration. This Restoration sought to not only restore the Showa Emperor, Hirohito to power, but lead Japan into a new period of expansionism and eventually into World War II. The first event that put Japan on the path toward the Showa Restoration was the downturn in the world economy. It wrecked havoc with Japan's economy. World War I had permitted phenomenal industrial growth, but after the war ended, Japan resumed its competition with the other European powers. This renewed competition proved economically painful. During the 1920's, Japan grew more slowly than at any other time since the Meiji Restoration.Footnote20 During this time the whole world was in an economic slump, Japan's economy suffered inordinately. Japan's rural economy was particularly hard-hit by the slump in demand for its two key products, silk and rice. The sudden collapse of the purchasing power of the nations that imported Japanese silk such as America; and the worldwide rise in tariffs, combined to stagnate the Japanese economy.Footnote21 In urban Japan, there were also serious economic problems. A great gap in productivity and profitability had appeared between the new industries that had emerged with the industrialization of Japan and the older traditional industries. The Japanese leadership was not attuned to such obstacles and thus was slow to pass legislation to deal with its problems.Footnote22 The Meiji government had supported its economic planning by claiming it would be beneficial to the economy in the long-run. When Meiji government promises of economic growth evaporated, the Japanese turned toward non-democratic groups who now promised them a better economic future.Footnote23 The nationalist and militaristic groups promised that they would restore Japanese economic wealth by expanding Japanese colonial holdings which the democratic leaders had given up. At the same time that Japan was struggling economically, and capitulating to the West in adopting democratic principals, many in Japan believed that western nations did not fully accept Japan as an equal. It appeared to Japan, that the West had not yet accepted Japan into the exclusive club of the four conquering nations of World War I.Footnote24 Events such as the Washington Conference, at which the Five Power Treaty was signed, seemed to many Japanese hostile to Japan. (This belief was held because the Treaty forced Japan to have a number of ships smaller than Britain and the United States by a factor of 3 to 5.) The Japanese Exclusion Act passed in 1924 by America to exclude Japanese immigrants again ingrained in the Japanese psyche that Japan was viewed as inferior by the West.Footnote25 This view became widely believed after the meetings at Versailles, where it appeared to Japan that Europe was not willing to relinquish its possessions in Asia. Added to this perceived feeling of being shunned was the Japanese military conception that war with the west was inevitable. This looming confrontation was thought to be the war to end all wars saishu senso. Footnote26 The third circumstance was the independent Japanese military that capitalized on the economic downturn and capitulation of the Japanese government to the West.Footnote27 The Japanese military argued that the parliamentarian government had capitulated to the west by making an unfavorable agreement about the size of the Japanese Navy (the Washington Conference and the Five Powers Treaty) and by reducing the size of the military in 1924. With the depression that struck Japan in 1929; the military increased their attack on the government politicians for the failure of the Meiji Restoration. Throughout the 1920's, they demanded change. As the Japanese economy worsened their advocacy for a second revolutionary restoration, a "Showa Restoration" began to be listened to.Footnote28 They argued that the Showa Restoration would restore the grandeur of Japan. Leading right-wing politicians joined the military clamor, calling for a restoration not just of the Emperor but of Japan as a global power.Footnote29 1929 marked the world wide Great Depression. International trade was at a standstill and countries resorted to nationalistic economic policies. 1929 became a Japanese turning point. The Japanese realized that they had governmental control over only a small area compared to the large area they needed to support their industrializing economy.Footnote30 Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands had huge overseas possessions and the Russians and Americans both had vast continental holdings. In comparison, Japan had only a small continental base. To many Japanese, it appeared they had started their territorial acquisitions and colonization too late and had been stopped too soon. The situation was commonly described as a "population problem."Footnote31 The white races had already grabbed the most valuable lands and had left the less desirable for the Japanese. The Japanese nationalists argued that Japan had been discriminated against by the western nations through immigration policies and by being forced to stop their expansion into Asia. The only answer, the nationalists claimed, was military expansion onto the nearby Asian continent. The nationalists and independent military became the foremost advocates of this new drive for land and colonies. Young army officers and nationalist civilians closely identified with the "Imperial Way Faction."Footnote32 The relative independence of the Japanese armed forces from the parliament, transformed this sense of a national crisis into a total shift in foreign policy. These "restorationists" in the military and in the public stepped up the crisis by convincing the nation that there were two enemies, the foreign powers and people within Japan.Footnote33 The militarists identified the Japanese "Bureaucratic Elite" and the expanding merchant class, the "Zaibutsu" as responsible for Japan's loss of grandeur. It was the Bureaucratic Elite who had capitulated to the Western powers in the Washington Conference and in subsequent agreements, that decreased the size of the Japanese military,Footnote34 and made Japan dependent of trade with other nations. The independence of the Japanese military allowed them to feed this nationalist sense of crisis and thus transform Japanese foreign policy. On September 18, 1931 a group of army officers with the approval of their superiors who were angry at the government for its passage of the Five Powers Treaty, bombed a section of the South Manchurian Railway and blamed it on unnamed Chinese terrorists.Footnote35 Citing the explosion as a security concern, the Japanese military invaded Manchuria and within six months had set up the Puppet State of Manchukuo in February, 1932.Footnote36 Following the invasion of Manchuria, Japanese nationalism overwhelmed Japan. The Japanese public and military continued to blame the former quasi-parliamentarians for the economic woes and for capitulating to the Western. The Japanese populace saw the military and its nationalist leaders as strong, willing to stand up to Western power and restore the grandeur of Japan. Unlike the parliamentarian leaders, these new nationalist leaders backed by the military, had a vision and the public flocked to their side.Footnote37 This new mood in Japan brought an end to party cabinets and the authority of the quasi-democratic government. It seemed now that the parliamentary democracy of the TaishoFootnote38 and Meiji eras had been fully usurped by the independent military. Nationalism swept through Japan after the invasion of Manchuria, thus further strengthening the hand of the military. In the invasion of Manchuria and its aftermath, all the discontent with the Meiji system of government come together and combined with the military claim to leadership ordained by the power of the Emperor. With this convergence of events, the shallow roots of democracy and the liberal reformism of the Meiji Restoration were uprooted and replaced with a combination of nationalism and militarism embodied under the idea of the Showa Restoration. When League of Nations condemned Japan for the Manchurian invasion, Japan, now controlled by the military, simply walked out of the conference.Footnote39 The parliamentary cabinet of the 1930's became known as "national unity" cabinets and the parliament took on more and more of a symbolic role as the military gradually gained the upper hand over policies. The Japanese Parliament continued in operation and the major democratic parties continued to win elections in 1932, 1936 and 1937. But parliamentary control was waning as the military virtually controlled foreign policy.Footnote40 Japan's political journey from its nearly democratic government of the 1920's to its radical nationalism of the mid 1930's, the collapse of democratic institutions, and the eventual military state was not an overnight transformation. There was no coup d'etat, no march on Rome, no storming of the Bastille, no parliamentary vote whereby the anti-democratic militaristic elements overthrew the democratic institutions of the Meiji Era. Instead, it was a political journey that allowed a semi-democratic nation to transform itself into a military dictatorship. The forces that aided in this transformation were the failed promises of the Meiji Restoration that were represented in the stagnation of the Japanese economy, the perceived capitulation of the Japanese parliamentary leaders to the western powers, and an independent military. Japanese militarism promised to restore the grandeur of Japan, a Showa Restoration. Footnote1 Ruth Benedict, The Chrysanthemum And The Sword (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989) 76. Footnote2 Marius B. Jansen Sakamoto Ryoma and the Meiji Restoration (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971) 147-164. Marius B. Jansen makes clear in this book that the Meiji Restoration (1868-1912) was a movement centered around returning the Meiji Emperor to power. Only later did the Meiji Restoration come to embody liberal reformism. Footnote3 Frank Gibney Japan the Fragile Superpower (New York: Meridian, 1985) 158-159. Footnote4 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 121. In 1925 universal male suffrage was enacted. Footnote5 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 113. Footnote6 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 170-171. Footnote7 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 375-376. During the Meiji Restoration Japan saw its mission to be to catch up with the already industrialized Western powers. Footnote8 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987)125. Footnote9 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 115. Footnote10 Edwin O. Reischauer The Japanese Today (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) 98. Footnote11 Frank Gibney Japan the Fragile Superpower (New York: Meridian, 1985) 165-166. Footnote12 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 119. During the Meiji Restoration Samurais were stripped of their positions and even prohibited from wearing the Samurai Sword in 1869. Footnote13 Frank K, Upham Law and Social Change in Japan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987) 49. The Japanese constitution was adopted in 1889. It set up a British type parliament. The constitution did not provide the parliamentary government with power over the military branch. Footnote14 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 38. At the turn of the century Japan had started its colonizing effort in China and other parts of Asia. It was these efforts at Colonization that developed into the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). After winning the war Japan continued with even more gusto to snatch up colonies in Asia. Footnote15 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 121. In 1925 universal male suffrage was enacted although in most elections ballots were only made available to the urban elite. Footnote16 Edwin O. Reischauer The Japanese Today (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) 96. Footnote17 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 150. Footnote18 James B. Crawley Japan's Quest For Autonomy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966) 270-280. Footnote19 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 128. Footnote20 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 380-381. In her Book Karel van Wolferen writes, "The Success of the Meiji oligarchy in stimulating economic development was followed by a further great boost for Japanese industry deriving from the First World War. This good fortune came to an end in 1920, and a 'chain of panics' caused successive recessions and business dislocation". Footnote21 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 117. Reischauer makes the point in his book that external factors significantly hurt Japan's economy. Unlike a nation like the United States which had vast reserves of natural resources when projectionist trade laws were implemented around the world Japan suffered significantly because it lacked raw materials and markets. Japan's economy which was guided during the Meiji Era to be primarily an export based economy. Footnote22 Nakamura Takafusa Economic Growth in Prewar Japan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 151-158. Nakamura Takafusa states that Japan was growing at vastly different rates between the urban areas and rural areas. Footnote23 Frank Gibney Japan the Fragile Superpower (New York: Meridian, 1985) 165-166. Footnote24 James B. Crawley Japan's Quest For Autonomy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966) 270-280. Footnote25 David M. Reimers Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America (New York: Columbia Press, 1992) 27. Footnote26 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 128. "The exclusion of Japanese Immigrants by the United States in 1924 and the growth of mechanized Soviet Power on the Asian continent all confirmed in the Japanese public eye the impending confrontation with the west." Testsuo views the rise of Japanese nationalism and militarization resulting in the Showa Restoration to be to a large degree the fault of the west for its maltreatment of Japan diplomatically. Tetsuo also views the Showa Restoration to be largely caused by external factors that in consequence unbalanced the fragile Japanese political system. Footnote27 Robert Story The Double Patriots (London: Chatto and Windus, 1957) 138. Footnote28 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 380-381. Footnote29 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 114. One of the famous political leaders of the time Miyake Setsurei called for a new Japan that had "truth, goodness, and beauty". Footnote30 James Morley Dilemmas of Growth in Prewar Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971) 378-411. Footnote31 Peter Duus The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976). Many of the nationalists of this period claimed the West had tricked Japan into giving up its colonies in Asia so it could take them. The Nationalists also claimed that renewed Japanese expansionism would liberate the Asians of their European Colonizers. Footnote32 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 130. The Imperial Way Faction was a right wing political party that called for the Showa Restoration. It was lead by Kita Ikki, Gondo Seikei, and Inoue Nissho. Footnote33 Karel van Wolferen The Enigma of Japanese Power (New York: Random House, 1990) 381-382. Footnote34 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 128. Footnote35 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 138. Historians such as Testuo Najita cite this incident as the turning point in the military role in Japan. For after this incident the Military realized that the parliamentary government did not have the will or the power to stop the military power. Footnote36 Edwin O. Reischauer The Japanese Today (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) 96. Footnote37 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 171. Edwin O Reischauer writes in his book, "There could be no doubt that the Japanese army in Manchuria had been eminently successful, The people as a whole accepted this act of unauthorized and certainly unjustified warfare with whole hearted admiration". Footnote38 Peter Duus The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976) 156. The period preceding the Showa Restoration and coming after the Meiji Era is known as the Taisho Era. It is named after the Taisho Emperor who was mentally incompetent and thus the parliamentarians during this time had control of the government. His reign lasted only a decade compared to the Meiji Emperor's 44 year reign. Footnote39 Edwin O. Reischauer Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Charles Tuttle Company, 1987) 171. Footnote40 Tetsuo Najita Japan The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980) 138. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Song Dynasty Government.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Song dynasty lasted over 300 years, from 960 to 1279. Their history is divided into two periods of Northern and Southern Song. The Song period was one of China's most peaceful and prosperous era. However the Song government was corrupt and weak. The Song Dynasty, or Sung Dynasty was a period in which the Chinese government was very weak. In the beginning General Chao K'uang-yin, also known as Sung T'ai Tsu, was forced to become emperor in order to unify China. Sung T'ai Tsu created a national army under his direct control. He, and only he had control of the military. Once he had passed away his less competent successors were unable to keep the military under control, the military increasingly lost prestige. The weakening of China's military, coincided with the rise of strong nomadic nations on the boarders. During the same time of the military's loss of prestige, the civil service rose in dignity. This was an examination system that had been restored in Sui and T'ang and was further elaborated and regularized. Selection examinations were help every three years at the district, provincial, and metropolitan levels. Only 200 out of thousands of applicants were granted the jinshi degree. This was the highest degree and appointed on government posts. From this time on, civil servants became China's most envied elite, replacing the hereditary nobles and landlords. The Song dynasty only extended over to the parts of earlier Chinese empires. The Khitans controlled the northeastern territories and the His Hsia controlled the northwestern territories. The Song emperors were unable to recover these lands so they were forced to make peace with the Khitans and the Hsi Hsia. They gave massive amounts of payments to the barbarians, under these peace terms, it depleted the state treasury and cause heavy payments on taxpaying peasants. About 100 years after the Songs first started ruling over China, their government started to go through a major decline. Officials that held important government positions were corrupt. Wealthy merchants that became rich from foreign trade found ways to avoid paying taxes. The peasants began to rebel when the heavy taxes were placed on them. The Song Dynasty had a lot of problems, in 1069 Emperor Shen Tsung appointed Wang An-shi as chief minister. Wang was a scholar who studied earlier Chinese governments. Wang noticed the corrupt government and made huge reform in the government. His reforms were based on the text of 'Rites of Chou'. Wang tried to get honest, intelligent officials by improving the university system. He made civil examinations more practical and reformed the merit system to reduce corruption among government officials. Wang help the governments financial problems by establishing a graduated income tax. This meant the wealthy people were required to pay a greater percentage of their income that poorer people pay. This new tax method reduced the burden on the peasants and increased the governments revenues. The extra money created from the taxing was used to pay government workers, which abolished forced labor. Many of his new laws were revivals of earlier policies, many officials and landlords opposed his reforms. So when the emperor and Wang died, which happen to been within a year of each other the laws were withdrawn. For the next several decades, until the fall of Northern Song in 1126, the reformers and anti-reformers took turns in power, this in turn created havoc and turmoil in the government. The Song tried to regain the territory that they had lost to the Khitans by becoming allies with a new powerful Juchens from Manchuria. Once the Juchens defeated the Khitans, they turned on the Song and occupied the capital of Kaifeng. The Juchens established the Chin dynasty. They took the emperor and his son prisoner, along with 3,000 others, and ordered them to be held in Manchuria. With the emperor and his son prisoners, another son fled south and settles in 1127 at Hangzhou. He resumed the Song rule as the emperor Kao Tsung. The Song retained control south of the Huai River, where they ruled for another one and half centuries. While the Song upper class, which included the nobles and imperial courts indulged themselves in art and luxurious living in the urban center, the latest nomad empire arose in the north. The formidable Mongol armies, conquerors of Eurasia as far west as easter Europe and of Korea in the east, descended on Southern Song. This was the end of the Song dynasty, which ended by the start of the Mongol dynasty. The weakness of the Song dynasty brought its downfall. Its neighboring barbarians were becoming stronger while the Song was becoming weaker. The Song dynasty had a few holes in it that lead to its weakness and corruption. Even though the Song era was one of China's most peaceful and prosperous periods, it could have lasted even longer if it had a stronger government. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Taiwanese Development Model from 1960 on.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Taiwanese Development Model Since 1960 According to Thomas Gold Taiwan offers a text book case of an elite-led revolution leading to social transformation. The stability of hard authoritarianism of the Taiwanese government laid the groundwork for Taiwanese development. The KMT's cohesiveness and political domination plus the economic development aid supplied by the United States also helped to provide good conditions for Taiwanese growth in the beginning. Once the KMT gained control of Taiwan they redistributed the land and launched a program of rehabilitation and industrialization. This period was responsible for the nationalization of many businesses formerly owned by the Japanese and the start of industrial production in Taiwan marked by a shift away from agriculture to industry. During the early period of industrialization Taiwan tried to create domestic markets for its goods. During the period from 1960 to 1973 Taiwan pursued export expansion in the area of industrial goods. During this period U.S. aid directed at Taiwan declined as did the islands geopolitical significance. To make up for this decline Taiwan focused on increasing its exports. The growth of the Taiwanese economy during this period according to Gold laid the ground work for the growth of opposition movements and loosening of the KMT"S grip on power. According to Gold this was because the changes in the Taiwanese economy brought about a middle class, a better educated populace, and a dispersion of industry through out the country. The Period from 1973 to 1984 Gold calls the time of industrial upgrading and the emergence of a political opposition. During this period Taiwan faced the oil shock, and increase in export prices due to a labor shortage that doubled workers salaries, a further loss of geopolitical prestige, and the growth of dissent and political opposition. Taiwan industrially during this time improved the quality and quantity of its exports. The Taiwan industrial model was that of a elite run bureaucracy that tightly controlled its nations citizenry in authoritarian ways. This authoritarian government was able to effectively channel the energies of Taiwan toward modernization. This authoritarian government became a victim of its own success because as living and education standards rose the citizenry demanded a shift away from hard authoritarianism. Taiwan is not a very good industrialization model for other countries to use outside of East Asia. This is because many of the factors that allowed Taiwanese industrialization were unique to Taiwan. First, Taiwan was colonized before 1950 by a developmentalist power, Japan to which is had close ties even after 1950. Second, Taiwan was the recipient of financial aid during its critical early years because of a inter-core competition for hegemony between China and the United States. Third, Taiwan benefited by having a implacable foe with a very different vision of development. Fourth, Taiwan was given breathing space following 1949, this enabled Taiwan to revive production and consolidate power without foreign powers interfering. All these factor make Taiwan unique from other nations that would try to copy it. One of the elements that nations should not copy from the Taiwan Model according to Gold is Taiwan's harsh authoritarian government which was much too strictly authoritarian and had a hard time changing as the attitudes of the Taiwanese people changed. (Gold's book was published years before the 1996 democratic elections in Taiwan) But Gold does say that Taiwan's development model does have some lessons that could be copied in other nations seeking to industrialize. These are a official commitment to development, land redistribution, fostering of agriculture, creation of extra-ministerial ministries to guide development, strategic credit allocation, collection and efficient management of data concerning the economy, investment in infrastructure and human capital, and proper allocation of foreign assistance. Taiwan's development model was a combination of an orwellian state and effective ways of industrializing. Taken as a whole the repressiveness of the Taiwanese model makes it undesirable for government to adopt; but other aspects of Taiwan's industrial policy could prove effective for countries outside of the pacific rim. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\the truth of the JFK assaination.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Truth or Fiction: The J.F.K. Assassination In a world with so many problems--- crime, drugs, murder, poverty--- Americans should be able to trust in the government for help. However, it is not safe to do so. Thus is the outcome of the Kennedy assassination. While the government was so busy trying to convince the public that Lee Harvey Oswald brutally murdered John F. Kennedy, they missed one important thing. The truth. The facts. Insufficient medical and hospital procedures, suspicious incidents during the Dallas motorcade, the impossible Magic Bullet theory, and countless other happenings--- these are not just things the American public dreamed up in their heads. They had to begin finding the real truth on their own, for the government had betrayed the American people. Some of the most significant facts that hint the assassination was a conspiracy by the government come from the hospitals where Kennedy was examined immediately after the assassination. Dr. Charles Crenshaw, MD, who was in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital before and during the Presidents death, claims that the wound in Kennedys neck was much to small to be an exit wound, and was clearly an entry wound. However, pictures taken at Bethsada Hospital reveal a much larger neck wound than had been seen at Parkland. Apparently someone had mangled the wound to make it appear as an exit wound. But who, and why? Was it to support the Lone Gunman theory? If it was, it failed to do so. Another startling piece of information was concerning Kennedys brain. When the President was ordered out of Parkland without an autopsy, he still had a brain. However, when it the body arrived in Bethsada, the brain had suddenly disappeared! As if that was not mysterious enough, Dr. Crenshaw, the last person to see Kennedys body before it was flown to Bethsada, said the body was put in a coffin, but when it arrived at Destination B, it was in a body bag, and a different coffin. This piece of evidence certainly proves that someone who had been on the plane to Bethsada had fooled with Kennedys body. Also, an autopsy would have been performed on Kennedys body by Texas law, but Secret Service agents with guns ordered the body to leave--- without an autopsy. Somebody was trying to get the body out of the hands of the public. And fast. Several events that occurred during and soon after the Dallas motorcade have stirred suspicion among Americans for years. For example, during the parade one bystander had an elliptical seizure, and was rushed off in an ambulance. Later, it was realized that there was no record of the man coming into the hospital. It was also said that twelve people were arrested immediately after shots were fired, but again, there was no record that any arrests had been made. I believe that these incidents were used as distractions to the public. Why else would there be no records? A woman by the name of Jean Hill said she witnessed a gunman fire from behind a picket fence on the grassy knoll. While quickly trying to pursue the gunman, two men with Secret Service identification stopped her. They then took her to other agents in a building overlooking the assassination site. Later, she was severely intimidated by a Warren Commission attorney, and was kept under surveillance by the FBI for years after. These men were trying their hardest to prevent Hill from informing the public of what she had witnessed. Two hours after the assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald refused to tell the Dallas police his real identity. With him, he carried an ID that said he was Alek James Hidell, so the Dallas authorities were still unsure of the name of their recently captured suspect. However, at the same time, Bureau Director J. Edgar Hoover telephoned Attorney General Robert Kennedy with a full rundown on Oswald. Hoover assured Kennedy that the assassin was Oswald. Here, it is obvious that the murder was planned ahead of time--- a conspiracy. There was no other way Hoover could have known this information so quickly. Also, even after three shots were heard coming from the book depository building, it was not sealed off for ten minutes. Accurate security was not being provided, which allowed time for more things to go wrong. The government filled the publics minds with untrue stories about the Magic Bullet and so on. One medical student at Parkland Hospital, Evalea Glanges, was standing near the nurses station when she pointed out to another student a bullet hole in the Presidents limousine. A Secret Service agent overheard this and abruptly jumped into the vehicle and quickly sped away. Carl Renas, head of security for Dearborn Division Ford Motor Company was ordered to drive the Limousine to Cincinnati. During the drive he noticed bullet holes in the windshield and in a chrome molding strip. In Cincinnati, the molding was replaced with a brand new strip, and Renas was ordered by a Secret Service agent, Keep your mouth shut. The Secret Service agents again were afraid that the truth was going to come out. It is very shameful that a man with so much to live for, so much to give to America, was taken away from us. Not by accident, but by a very precisely planned out conspiracy by whom we thought we could trust the most. But it was missing a few links, and now, today, the facts are leaking out--- one by one. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Underpinnings of Britains Industrial Revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Economic Underpinnings of the First Industrial Revolution in England The manufacture of military munitions and the development of a home market were critical underpinnings of the first industrial revolution in Britain. Military manufacturing supported by the British Government contributed directly to technological innovation and spurred industrialization. This is because the companies that choose to fulfill the government contracts to make military munitions found money could be made if new processes and technology was developed to fulfill the huge contracts. Military manufacturing was one of the few industries where innovation was rewarded. In most other industries conservative investors were reluctant to invest in new manufacturing technology. But in military manufacturing the government was the investor and was unconcerned with the manufacturing technology as long as the product was delivered on time. Many technological advances were made through military manufacturing some of these were new ways to manufacture iron, conveyer belts, and the use machine tools . The technology developed for military manufacturing then spilled over into the civilian sector of the economy. And because it was now a tested technology investors who were normally cautious were willing to put their capital into these ventures which instead of pouring iron to make guns now made iron ore into stoves and pots. The second critical underpinning of the first industrial revolution was the development of a home market in Britain. The first British industrialists manufactured textiles; specifically cotton for the home market. The growth of the home market in Britain promoted industrialization in several ways. First, it was a steady market which able to cushion the export market which was very dynamic and had sudden fluctuations. This allowed a steady rate of growth even when exports fell. Second, the home market started the process of urbanization by causing people to leave the agricultural sector of the economy and move to the cities to work in the cotton and textile factories. This urbanization had a snowballing effect throughout the economy because it caused other business and factories to open in the cities to support this new urban class. Third, the home market caused investments to be made in improving infrastructure including roads, bridges and canals. This paved the way for industrialization which needed an efficient system to transport goods from factory to market. The home market also provided the base for other industries such as coal. This was because the home market created greater urbanization and thus the need for coal in urban England grew. The military sector of the economy provided some of the key technological innovations that promoted industrialization. And the home market that was produced by the cotton textile trade promoted improvements in infrastructure and spurred other industries to develop. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\The Watergate Scandal.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Watergate Scandal The Watergate Scandal was a series of crimes committed by the President and his staff, who were found to spied on and harassed political opponents, accepted illegal campaign contributions, and covered up their own misdeeds. On June 17, 1972, The Washington Post published a small story. In this story the reporters stated that five men had been arrested breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. The headquarters was located in a Washington, D.C., building complex called Watergate. These burglars were carrying enough equipment to wiretap telephones and take pictures of papers. The Washington Post had two reporters who researched deep into the story. There names were Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, they discovered that one of the suspects had an address book with the name and phone number of a White House official who could have been involved in the crime. The reporters suspected that the break-in had been ordered by other White House officials. In a press conference on August in 1972, President Nixon said that nobody on the White House Staff was involved in the crime. Most of the public accepted Nixon's word and dropped the questioning. But when the burglars went to trial four months later, the story changed rapidly from a small story to a national scandal. It ended only when Richard Nixon was forced from office. Watergate was connected to Vietnam, it eventually exposed a long series of illegal activities in the Nixon administration. Nixon and his staff were found to have spied on and harassed political opponents, planned contributions to the campaign, and tried to cover-up their illegal acts. These crimes that they did were called the Watergate scandal, named after the building that it happened. For years Nixon was carrying on the crimes and they were not noticed until now. 1969 was the really date in which Watergate was really beginning. It all started when the White House staff made up a list called "enemies list". Nixon had enemies which include 200 liberal politicians, journalists and actors. Most of these people made a public speech against the Vietnam war. Nixon's aides formed a conducts tax audits on these people that he thought were enemies. He also had agents find out secret information that would harm them. Nixon was always worried about govt. Employees revealing secret info. To the news paper or any sort of press. The presidents agents helped him by wiretapping phone lines that belonged to reporters in order to find any revealing some material. Nixon was so worried that during the Cambodia bombing he had to wiretap his own staff members. On June in 1971, The New York Times formed work that was published about the history of the Vietnam War, these were known as the Pentagon Papers. They got the information from secret government papers. The papers blamed the policies that were formed and caused the beginning of the war in Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg, a former employee , gave the documents to the paper. Nixon became very angry by their publishes. Nixon tied to make Ellsberg's actions a form of treason, but he was not content to take him to court. Instead he made a secret group of CIA agents they were called the "plumbers" this is a name made up because they cover up leaks, such as the pentagon papers, that could hurt the White House. While they were searching for info. They found Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. They discovered nothing wrong. The next time the plumbers are involved is the next election. Nixon was always worried about having enough votes for the election in 1972. Nixon was concerned that Edmund Muskie of Maine would win because he was the strongest Democratic candidate. Hoping to wipe out Edmund from the competition, the plumbers began to play a bunch of so called "dirty tricks". They issued make believe statements in Muskie's name and told the press false rumors about him, so that they could publish it to the public. And most of all, they sent a letter to the New Hampshire newspaper starting that Muskie was making mean remarks about French Canadian ancestry. All of these aides forced Nixon to begin getting above Muskie in the elections. Overall, the Democratic nomination went to George McGovern, a liberal senator from South Dakota. His supporters included many people who supported the civil rights, anti-war, and environmental movements of the 1960s. McGovern had fought to make the nomination process more open and democratic. Congress had also passed the 26th amendment to the Constitution allowing eighteen-year-Olds to vote. As a result, the 1972 Democratic Convention was the first to include large numbers of woman, minorities, and young people among the delegates. McGovern's campaign ran into trouble early. The press revealed that his running mate, Thomas Eagleton, had once received psychiatric treatment. First McGovern stood by Eagleton. Then he abandoned him , picking a different running mate. In addition, many Democratic voters were attached to Nixon because of his conservative positions on the Vietnam War and law enforcement. Meanwhile, Nixon's campaign sailed smoothly along, aided by millions of dollars in funds. Nixon campaign officials collected much of the money illegally. Major corporations were told to contribute at least 100,000 dollars each. The collected much it clear that the donations could easily buy the companies influence with the White House. Many large corporations went along. As shipbuilding tycoon George Steinbrenner said "it was a shakedown. A plain old-fashioned shakedown" The final blow to McGovern's chances came just days before the election, when Kissinger announced that peace was at hand in Vietnam. McGovern had made his political reputation as a critic of the war, and the announcement took the wind out of his sails. Nixon scored an enormous victory. He received over 60 percent of the popular vote and won every state except Massachusetts. Congress, however, remained under Democratic control. On January of 1973, two months after Nixon had won the presidential election, the misdeeds of Watergate began to surface. The Watergate burglars went on trial in Washington D.C.., courtroom. James McCord, one of the burglars , gave shocking evidence. A former CIA agent who had led the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, McCord worked for the Nixon re-election campaign. McCord testified that people in higher office had paid people "hush money" to the burglar who were involved in Watergate. With the money they were supposed to conceal White House involvement in the crime. After they investigated for awhile, they quickly found out that the break-in was approved by the attorney General, John Mitchell. Even thought John Mitchell was one of the most trusted advisors, Nixon denied to know anything about the break-in and cover-up of the crime. The public found out not to soon that Nixon was not telling the truth. The public also found out that Nixon had ordered his aides to block any info to the investigators. The White House also tried to stop flow of the investigations, because they were afraid that it would uncover very important secrets. Nixon would not appear at the congressional committee, complaining that if he were to testify it would violate the separation of powers. Even thought that idea doesn't appear in the constitution at all. It was a developing tradition to protect the president. This made people feel that Nixon was abusing executive privileges just to cover-up his crimes. When Nixon had no possible way of protecting the White House staff he fired them. Such as when he fired two of his aides, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichwan, because they were on the line of being charged for the crimes. But they were still convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. On may of 1973, they broadcasted the hearings on television to millions of people, the public felt that it was very gripping and made them distraught A official told the court that Nixon had tape-recorded all the conversations on tape. Nixon had hoped these tapes would one day be used by historians to document the triumph of his term, instead they were used to prove that he was guilty. The president refused to release the tapes, claiming the executive privilege gave him the right to keep his record private. That caused him to go to court, before it was decided, Vice President Agnew was charged with income tax evasion. He was also charged for accepting bribes and exchanging for political favors. Agnew resigned because of the charges on October of 1973. He was only charged of tax evasion and the others were dropped. This scandal was not connected to Watergate, but it put a lot of stress on Nixon. Nixon nominated Gerald Ford in place of Agnew. Ford did very little to salvage Nixon reputation. A couple of days after Agnew resigns, the federal court made Nixon hand over the tapes. Nixon refused, and Cox ordered him to, but Nixon had his attorney fire him. Cox was a idle to Richardson, because he was his professor in law school. Richardson refused Nixon's order and resigned. President Nixon then ordered the deputy Attorney General to fire Cox. This massive event was known as the Saturday Night Massacre. Many people of the nation felt that Nixon's blocking of the judicial process a proof of guiltiness. People mailed Congress many telegrams saying to begin impeaching proceedings against the president. So the House Judiciary Committee did that, and fired him. President Nixon had remained cool and still acted as if he was innocent. At a press conference on November, his famous quote was " I am not a crook". He avoided questions and was agitated. People that day who were watching television knew that Nixon was gonna be in hot water. Internal Revenue Services also discovered something that could harm Nixon. They noticed that in 1970 and 71' he had only paid $800 in taxes when he earned over $500,000. The nation found out that he also used public money to fix-up his house in Florida and California. Nixon keep on refusing to give up Watergate tapes. Then, on April 1974, he gave out the transcripts of the tapes. He edited the transcripts and tried to cover up the crimes, but it did not work and it gave Nixon a bad reputation. The Committee voted to bring impeachment charges in July against Nixon. The first one said that the president knowingly covered-up the crimes of Watergate. The second said that he used Government Agencies to violate the Constitution of the U.S.. The third asserted that he would be impeached because of the withholding of evidence from Congress. Shortly after the house committee voted to impeach the President, the case want to the entire House for a final say. Nixon at this point still counted on the public to back him out , because of some that doubted his involvement. A decision came out a couple of days after the vote for Nixon to release the tapes that involved the Watergate. Nixon at this point had to follow through with it and hand over t he tapes. Nixon for a long time claimed that he had no idea of the Watergate scandal until John Dean told him on March 21, 1973. The tapes showed that Nixon was a true liar, and not only knew about it, but ordered it. Because of this Nixon met with A group of republican leaders and they tried to convince him to resign from office. He did just that on August 9, 1974, Nixon broadcasted that he was resigning to the nation. This meant that President Richard Nixon was the first president of the United States to resign from office. The nation was shocked after this whole scandal by the way Nixon had lied to the public and abused his own powers. This lead most of the public never to trust a president as they did before, because of the massive secrecy in the Government. But the best part is that the country did survive the trauma, which is wonderful. The day of Nixon's resignations Gerald Ford was sworn in to presidency. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Thomas Jefferson.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thomas Jefferson The third president of the United States, a diplomat, statesman, architect, scientist, and philosopher, Thomas Jefferson is one of the most eminent figures in American history. No leader in the period of the American Enlightenment was as articulate, wise, or conscious of the implications and consequences of a free society as Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743, at Shadwell, a tobacco plantation in Virginia. His father, Peter Jefferson, was a self-made success, and although uneducated he was a very intelligent man. His mother, Jane Randolph was a member of one of the most distinguished families in Virginia . Peter Jefferson died when Thomas was 14 and left him valuable lands and property. Denied a formal education himself, he directed that his son be given complete classical training. He studied with Reverend Mr. Maury, a classical scholar, for two years and in 1760 he attended William and Mary College. After graduating from William and Mary in 1762, Jefferson studied law for five years under George Wythe. In January of 1772, he married Martha Wayles Skelton and established a residence at Monticello. When they moved to Monticello, only a small one room building was completed. Jefferson was thirty when he began his political career. He was elected to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1769, where his first action was an unsuccessful bill allowing owners to free their slaves. The impending crisis in British-Colonial relations overshadowed routine affairs of legislature. In 1774, the first of the Intolerable Acts closed the port of Boston until Massachusetts paid for the Boston Tea Party of the preceding year. Jefferson and other younger members of the Virginia Assembly ordained a day of fasting and prayer to demonstrate their sympathy with Massachusetts. Thereupon, Virginia's Royal Governor Dunmore once again dissolved the assembly (Koch and Peden 20). The members met and planned to call together an inter-colonial congress. Jefferson began writing resolutions which were radical and better written than those from other counties and colonies. Although his resolutions were considered too revolutionary and not adopted, they were printed and widely circulated and subsequently all important writing assignments were entrusted to Jefferson. When Jefferson arrived in Philadelphia in June, 1775, as a Virginia delegate to the Second Continental Congress, he already possessed, as John Adams remarked, "a reputation for literature, science, and a happy talent of composition" (Koch and Peden 21). When he returned in 1776, he was appointed to the five-man committee, including Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, which was charged with the most momentous assignment ever given in the history of America: the drafting of a formal declaration of independence from Great Britain (Daugherty 109). Jefferson was responsible for preparing the draft. The document, was finally approved by Congress on July 4, 1776. Cut and occasionally altered by Adams, or Franklin, or the Congress itself, the Declaration is almost completely Jefferson's, and is the triumph and culmination of his early career. At this time, had he wanted to be a political leader, he could have easily attained a position in government. Instead, he chose to return to Monticello and give his public service to Virginia. Returning to the Virginia House of Delegates in October 1776, Jefferson set to work on reforming the laws of Virginia. He also proposed a rational plan of statewide education and attempted to write religious toleration into the laws of Virginia by separating Church and State by writing the "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." In June of 1779, Jefferson was elected Governor of Virginia. He commenced his career as a public executive, confident of his abilities, assured of the respect and almost the affection of his commonwealth. However, he took up his duties at a time when the British were raiding Virginia. General George Washington did not have resources available to send to Virginia. Jefferson, during one of the raids, narrowly escaped capture at the hands of the British troops; and the legislators were forced to flee from their new capital city of Richmond. Jefferson, as head of the state, was singled out for criticism and abuse. At the end of his second term, he announced his retirement. General Washington's approval of Jefferson's actions as Governor is in marked contrast to the heated charges of dereliction of duty made by certain members of the legislature. After Washington's approval the legislature passed a resolution officially clearing Jefferson of all charges (Smith 134,135). Jefferson returned home to Monticello in 1781, and buried himself in writing about Virginia. The pages of text turned into a manuscript later known as the Notes on Virginia. This book, rich in its minute analysis of the details of external nature as in its clarification of moral political, and social issues, was read by scientists of two continents for years to come (Smith 142). His wife, ill since the birth of their last daughter, died in September 1782. In sorrow for his wife, Jefferson declined numerous appointments. In June 1783, he was elected as a delegate to the Confederation Congress where he headed important committees and drafted many reports and official papers. He advocated the necessity of more favorable international commercial relations, and in 1784, compiled instructions for ministers negotiating commercial treaties with European nations. In May 1784, he was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to assist Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, both of whom had preceded him to Europe to arrange commercial agreements (Koch and Peden 24). He traveled throughout Europe and every place he went, he was not only an American diplomat, but a student of the useful sciences. He took notes on making wine and cheese, planting and harvesting crops, and raising livestock. He sent home to America information on the different cultures, the actual seeds of a variety of grasses not native to America, olive plants, and Italian rice. He remained in Paris until 1789 (Smith 170). Upon his return President Washington asked Jefferson to be Secretary of State. Jefferson accepted the post and found himself at odds with the Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson thought that all of Hamilton's acts were dominated by one purpose: to establish government by and for a privileged few. Jefferson repeatedly thought of retiring from the cabinet post in which he was constantly pitted against Hamilton, the most power- hungry man in the capital. After negotiating the country's foreign affairs, Jefferson once again retired to Monticello. During retirement, Jefferson supervised the farming of his estates and designed a plow which revolutionized agriculture; he tended his library like a garden; he changed the architectural plans for Monticello, and supervised the construction. After three rather active years of "retirement", Jefferson accepted the Republican Party's nomination in 1796 for President. He lost by three votes, which under the prevailing system, meant he was elected Vice President and the Federalist, John Adams, was elected president. The Federalist Administration turned upon its political opponents by passing the Alien Act, to deport foreign radicals and liberal, propagandists and agitators, and the Sedition Act, to curb the press. The Sedition Act empowered the Administration to fine, imprison, and prosecute any opposition writer and thus the Republicans were muzzled in the remaining years of Adams' Administration (Randall 523, 528). In 1800, Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran for office. The electoral vote, in marked contrast to the popular vote, resulted in a tie between Jefferson and Burr. The Federalists threatened Jefferson to bargain with them or they would elect Burr. Jefferson, however, stood firm and made no promises, until the Federalists gave up. As President, Jefferson's first project was to remove the bias which had recently infected America. His policy of general reconciliation and reform and his success in freeing the victims of the Alien and Sedition laws were generally supported by a favorable Congress (Randall 549). His popularity during his first term was greater than at any time during his career. In this term he was confronted with the most momentous problem of his career. Spain transferred to France its rights to the port of New Orleans, and the stretch of land constituting the province of Louisiana. Louisiana in the strong hands of the French rather than the weak hands of Spain placed an almost overwhelming obstacle in the path of American growth and prosperity. It was essential that America acquire the Louisiana territory, either through peaceful negotiation or by war. When French dictator Napoleon, suddenly offered to sell for $15,000,000 not only the port of New Orleans but the entire fabulous slice of land from the Mississippi to the Rockies, Jefferson was faced with the problem of taking the offer or wait for a Constitutional amendment authorizing such an act. After tremendous strain, Jefferson authorized the purchase (Smith 266). Thus his first term closed in a blaze of glory when the people, united in their national good fortune, almost unanimously sent Jefferson back for a second term. Busy as he was during these years, Jefferson had found time to follow his favorite intellectual pursuits. He had not only aided in establishing a National Library, but had made many valuable additions to his own private collection. His second term was full of difficulties. To avoid war, Jefferson promoted the Non-Intercourse Act of 1806 and the Embargo of 1807. The Embargo was heavily criticized and had not been effective. To make matters worse, the domestic front was racked with defections and desertions. When his term expired on March 3, 1809, he was thrilled to be leaving politics and returning to Monticello (Mclaughlin 376). Jefferson's daughter Martha said that in retirement her father never abandon a friend or principle. He and John Adams, their earlier political differences reconciled, wrote many letters. Jefferson frequently complained about the time consumed in maintaining his ever increasing correspondence but he could not resist an intellectual challenge or turn down an appeal for his opinion, advice, or help, and continued to discuss with frankness and a brilliant clarity such diverse subjects as anthropology and political theory, religion and zoology (Koch and Peden 40). Jefferson's major concern during his last years was education and educational philosophy. He considered knowledge not only a means to an end, but an end in itself. He felt education was the key to virtue as it was to happiness. He reopened his campaign for a system of general education in Virginia. Through his efforts, the University of Virginia, the first American University to be free of official church connection, was established and was Jefferson's daily concern during his last seven years (Koch and Peden 39). He sent abroad an agent to select the faculty, he chose the books for the library, drew up the curriculum, designed the buildings, and supervised their construction. The University finally opened in 1825, the winter before his death. Despite his preoccupation with the University, he continued to pursue a multitude of other tasks. In his eightieth year, for example, he wrote on politics, sending President Monroe long expositions later known to the world in Monroe's version as the Monroe Doctrine (Daugherty 326). Among all his interests, there was one intrusion on his time and thought which caused Jefferson endless embarrassment. His finances, always shaky, finally collapsed. Jefferson had frequently advanced money to friends who fancied themselves more hard-pressed than he, and occasionally had been forced to make good on their notes when they found it impossible to do so. He had spent money lavishly on his libraries and the arts, on Monticello, and on his children's education. His passion for architecture cost him a small fortune. At the final stage of his financial distress, Jefferson petitioned the Virginia legislature to grant him permission to dispose of Monticello and its farms by lottery. The almost immediate response of private citizens, in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, on hearing this news was to donate a sum of over $16,000 to aid the leader who had devoted his industry and resourcefulness to all America for half a century (Smith 304). On July 4, 1826, Jefferson died at Monticello. He was buried on the hillside beside his wife. He had written the script for his headstone himself: Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Author of the Declaration of American Independence of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom and Father of the University of Virginia. On our family vacation last fall to Virginia, my wife and I toured Jefferson's Monticello home and also viewed his grave site. We both found it very interesting that of all the accomplishments that Jefferson listed on his headstone he apparently did not think it important enough to mention that he had been twice elected and served as president of the United States. BIBLIOGRAPHY Daugherty, Sonia. Thomas Jefferson: Fighter for Freedom and Human Rights. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1961. Koch, Adrienne, and William Peden. The Life and Selected Writings Of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Random House Publishers, 1993. McLaughlin, Jack. Jefferson and Monticello The Biography Of A Builder. 1st ed. New York: Henry Holt and Company Publishers, 1988. Randall, Willard Sterne. Thomas Jefferson A Life. 1st ed. New York: Henry Holt and Company Publishers, 1993. Smith, Page. Jefferson A Revealing Biography. New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, 1976. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\titanic.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Titanic Titanic was the largest ship in the world, built by a workforce of 17,000. The ultimate in turn-of-the-century design and technology. First-class suites ran to more than $ 55,000 in todays dollars, and when she sailed on her maiden voyage from Southampton, England on route to NY , she held among her 2,227 passengers. The cream of industrial society, including colonel John Jacob Astor. Macys founder; U.S. congressman Isidor Straus and Thomas Andrews, the ships builder. The ship was built of easily sealed-off compartments. If, for some unimaginable reason, the hull were punctured, only the compartment actually ruptured would flood. In an worst case example - builders figured that the Titanic would take from one to three days to sink, time for nearby ships to help, because there was only 16 lifeboats. Unfortunately, things didnt work out that way. On April 14th, 1912 at about 7:30, at the first ominous hint of disaster has came. Into the earphones of the wireless operator on duty came a message from the steamer California: Three large bergs five miles southward from us. But the Titanic continued to rush through the deepening darkness. The temperature was one degree above freezing. When lookouts Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee had come on duty at 10 P.M., the sky was cloudless and the air clear. At around 11:30 P.M., just half an hour before they were to be rewired, a slight haze had appeared, directly ahead. And about two points on either side. Suddenly - his training causing his reflexes to function instinctively. Fleet gave the warning bell and immediately reached across the crowns nest to the bridges telephone. In its compartment on the starboard side. He rang ms bell urgently. Fleet replaced the telephone and gripped the crowns nest rail. At 11:40 P.M., April 14 , 1912 ; The lookouts spotted the iceberg a quarter-mile ahead. Had they not alerted the bridge, the ship would not have attempted a turn. At 11:40P.M. ; the ship sideswipes the ice. Because of the steels ductility, it would have absorbed massive amounts of energy. The ice crashed right through the plating as it grinded along the side, Strinking at an angle like s 300-foot zipper. ON midnight, April 14-15; fist six compartments were filling; water was beginning to slosh over. 12:40.; water filled 2,000 bathtubs 1:20 A.M.; The bow dipped; water flooded through anchor - chain holes. At 2:10 A.M.; The Titanic titled to 45 degrees or more and stress reaches nearby 15 tons per square inch. The keel bends; The bottom plating buckles. At 2:15 A.M.; The stern grew heavier and until it reached some 16,000 tons of in - water weight . At 2:20 A.M.; The bow rips went loose. The stern rose sharply , held and almost vertical position and then, as it filled, faded downward again. At least one life boat passenger said, look - its coming back!. At 2:30 A.M.; The bow stroke the bottom , 12,612 feet down, angling downward and flowing into the mud. Shortly after 2:30 A.M. ships time a green florae was sighed suddenly, for ahead. In a few seconds it disappeared. At 3 A.M., Roston ordered rockets fired at fifteen-minute intervals to let survivors know help was approaching. The companys night signals were also displayed. By 3:35 carpathia was almost to the position where Titanic, if afloat, would be seen. But there was only a rast emptiness. Carpathia inched forward. The lifeboat was alongside. Some 2,340 passengers and crew were on board the Titanic when the white star liner left Southampton for its maiden voyage to NY five days ago. And some 1,595 people perished in the accident. Only 745 were saved. Many more could have been rescued but there were enough lifeboats for only half the passengers and crew. Two boats full of people who had escaped from the ship were sucked beneath the ocean. Most of the passengers were apparently not aware of the accident when it happened. At first, passengers were so unconcerned that they remained in their staterooms to dress for dinner. By 1:30 A.M. panic has begun among some of the passengers. In the tomb that was once a ship, all that remain are China teacups and brass latches, porcelain toilets, and perhaps teeth - nearby all else has been devoured: wooden decks, the rich Victorian woodwork, human beings and their clothing - all except for shoes protected from scavengers by their tannin. Some 150 items retrieved by the French sub Nautili went on display at Londons National Maritime Museum in Oct. 1994. protected too is the ships steel. The first memorials to Titanics victims were the church services in commemoration of the dead and Thanksgiving for the living. As the days passed the enormity of the loss of life became evident, and relief programmers were established. The event becomes dim in the minds of new but the monuments stand, and assurance that - as long as tides flow, as long as people sail - the memory of Titanics courageous and gallant men and women will never fade. It is through the appalling tragedy that befell her during her owe voyage that the world best knows of her today. Perhaps Historys most famous ship, she is remembered through memories and motion pictures; through songs and scraps of yellowing newspapers; through reminiscences of her survivors as recurring anniversary observances as, fortunately she of remembered through pictures. For during the brief of her existence, the new hobby and profession of photography ensured a record of her beauty, her people and their loss. In the disasters aftermath, reaction set in, reaction which was to change the way people thought about the sea and the ships that sailed on it. The sinking of the Titanic remains the most famous of all maritime disasters. At least in parts because of the mystery surroundings its cause over an answer - from scientific expeditions in manned submersibles to court cases and investigative reporting. It took many years and a certain serendipity to obtain the pieces of the Titanics hull that underwent metallurgical tests at a candian government laboratory in Nova Scotia late last year. New theories about ships demise continue to spring up. James G/ Vlary, who specializes in maritime subjects, believes he too has uncovered some startling new information about the Titanics last moments. In his book Superstitions of The sea , clary claims there is : substantial and documental proof 1 that the engines on the Titanic were restarted and ran for as long as 30 minutes after it hit the iceberg and stopped. in doing so,[Clary concludes] , she undoubtedly hastened hull to greatly reduce the precious time she had left before foundering 2. She was not the worlds fastest ship. Nor was she the first of a new class. She was not the largest liner ever built3., nor the most costly. The documentation of her conception, design and construction has not withstood the passage of time well. Two world wars. indifference, corporate rivalries, accident. Reglect and even late 20th century political activity have conspired to deprive historians of much that might be known about her. The story of Titanic began in 1867. The final chapter is yet to be written. As we see boilers, positions and cylinder beds strewn across the ocean floor of the great engines. Perhaps we might sense the vibrations that drove the vessel onward. Then, in a sudden burst of reality we might hear distantly. once again, there rings of the bell :iceberg right ahead.... In the photographs to come you shall surely see the actual places where the bravest of the brave newed our their mighty deeds of heroism and self-sacrifice which shall never fade. Then we shall truly be able to evasion the pride and splendor, the glorious drama, the terrible tragedy, the legend which has become - and ever shall be - Titanic. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Treaty of Versailles.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Treaty of Versailles The Treaty of Versailles was intended to be a peace agreement between the Allies and the Germans. Versailles created political discontent and economic chaos 1in Germany. The Peace Treaty of Versailles represented the results of hostility and revenge and opened the door for a dictator and World War II. November 11, 1918 marked the end of the first World War. Germany had surrendered and signed an armistice agreement. The task of forming a peace agreement was now in the hands of the Allies. In December of 1918, the Allies met in Versailles to start on the peace settlement.2 The main countries and their respective representatives were: The United States, Woodrow Wilson; Great Britain, David Lloyd George; and France, George Clemenceau. "At first, it had seemed the task of making peace would be easy".3 However, once the process started, the Allies found they had conflicting ideas and motives surrounding the reparations and wording of the Treaty of Versailles. It seemed the Allies had now found themselves engaged in another battle. Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924), the twenty-eighth President of the United States (1913 --1921).4 In August of 1914, when World War I began, there was no question that the United States would remain neutral. "Wilson didn't want to enter the European War or any other war for that matter".5 However, as the war continued, it became increasingly obvious that the United States could no longer 'sit on the sidelines'. German submarines had sunk American tankers and the British liner, 'Lusitania', in May 1915, killing almost twelve hundred people, including 128 Americans.6 This convinced Wilson to enter World War I, on the allied side. As the war continued, Wilson outlined his peace program, which was centered around fourteen main points. "They (fourteen points) were direct and simple: a demand that future agreements be open covenants of peace, openly arrived at; an insistence upon absolute freedom of the seas; and, as the fourteenth point, the formation of a general association of nations."7 The fourteen points gave people a hope of peace and lay the groundwork for the armistice that Germany ultimately signed in November 1918. Although the United States was instrumental in ending the war, Wilson was still more interested in a "peace without victors"8 than annexing German colonies or reparations (payment for war damages). However, as the Allies began discussions of the peace treaty, the European allies rejected Wilson's idealism and reasoning. It soon became increasingly obvious that the allies were seeking revenge and Germany was destined to be crippled economically and socially by its enemies. David Lloyd George (1863 - 1945), who was the Prime Minister of Great Britain (1916 - 1922), governed through the latter part of the war and the early post war years.9 Britain and Germany were, historically, always rivals. Before the war, for instance, Germany challenged Britain's famous powerful and unstoppable navy by dramatically increasing the amount of money spent on their navy. In terms of losses, Britain absorbed thirty-six percent of the debt incurred by the allies and seventeen percent of the war's total casualties.10 After the war, Britain faced tough economic problems. Their exports were at an all time low due to outdated factories, high tariffs, and competition from other countries. As a direct result, Britain suffered from high unemployment, which of course, affected the well being of the country. Britain had its pride and nationalism stripped. The Treaty of Versailles would provide an opportunity to seek revenge for their losses. They were also seeking annexation of German colonies in Africa. Georges Clemenceau (1841 - 1929) was the Premier of France (1906-1909) and (1917-1920).11 As Britain, France had a rivalry with Germany but the French's ill feelings were even more intensive. "Nationalism created tensions between France and Germany. The French bitterly resented their defeat in the Franco - Prussian War and were eager to seek revenge. Moreover, they were determined to regain Alsace - Lorraine."12 This gave the French the motivation of increasing their military strength and ultimately, destroying their life-long enemies. During the war, France's portion of the war debt amounted to twenty percent. Their loss, in terms of war casualties, was thirty-three percent.13 Most of the battles were fought on French soil. This resulted in the destruction of "ten million farm acres, twenty thousand factories and six thousand public buildings".14 After the war, France suffered terribly, economically. Inflation and a deflated French Franc spurned the French to take advantage of the armistice. "Clemenceau wanted revenge as well as security against any future German attack."15 He also wanted a huge amount of reparations, to annex the coal rich Saar Basin, the return of Alsace - Lorraine and an independent Rhineland for a buffer zone between Germany and France. All the leaders had different opinions and motives regarding the Treaty of Versailles. Coming to a consensus was difficult. The Treaty had to be revised several times before the final copy was signed on January 18, 1919. "There was scarcely a section of the treaty which was not attacked, just as there was scarcely a section of the treaty which was not attacked."16 The German's were reluctant to agree to such harsh terms. "Even the most humble German was appalled by the severity of the treaty."17 France and Britain were both eager to have revenge on Germany but selfishly wanted each other's benefits. "Clemenceau pointed out that the British were making no effort to placate the Germans at the expense of British interests. They offered no proposals to reduce the number of German ships to be handed over, or to return Germany's colonies, or to restore the German Navy, or to remove the restrictions on Germany's overseas trade. Instead, it was always at the expense of French interest that concessions were to be made."18 Wilson thought both France and Britain were being too vindictive and unreasonable. The allies used Wilson's Fourteen Points program to convince Germany to sign an armistice. However, once Germany complied, these points were ignored. "The French, for example, had no intention of abandoning what Wilson castigated as the "old diplomacy," with its secret understandings and interlocking alliances."19 Therefore, in the end, the European Allies, including France and Britain, received what they wanted from the treaty. "The actual costs, for Germany, included: the guilt of the entire war and, paying 132 billion gold marks in reparations. Germany also lost one eighth of its land, all of its colonies, all of its overseas financial assets and limiting their once powerful military."20 Britain and France would receive large sums of the reparations and German colonies in Africa as mandates.21 France also received its wishes with Alsace-Lorraine. "France would recover Alsace-Lorraine outright."22 However, the main delight for France and Britain was seeing Germany suffer. The biggest problem Germany had with Versailles was the war guilt, which was stated in article 231 of the Versailles Treaty. The Allies were astonished to find this particular paragraph was the most violently disputed point in the entire treaty. Article 231 stated: "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."23 It seems weird that they would treat Germany that way after they too had been in the war. Fighting and killing were done by both sides but only the Germans were punished. "If our army and our workmen had known that peace would look like this, the army would not have laid down its arms and all would have held out to the end."24 All Germany became very upset about the whole treaty. "This aroused intense nationalist bitterness in Germany."25 The future looked grim and had no cause for optimism in the near future. After Versailles was 'in stone', Germany became a very weak country, seeking to avenge the vindictiveness and total lack of empathy shown by the allies. "The German people could not resist, but, in unanimity, they could still hate."26 Germany suffered from great economic problems after the war. They had already lost many lives and things during the war, but now they were responsible for paying the reparations. The Germans tried paying their debts by borrowing and printing more money. They were shocked to find that incredible inflation was the result. "The hardships caused by the inflation of the 1920's contributed to the political unrest of Germany after WWI."27 After the war, Germany became a republic (called the Weimar Republic). The Weimar Republic had many problems from the very beginning. "Many Germans despised it (the Republic) because its representatives had signed the hated Versailles Treaty."28 There were revolts by both a communism party and a fascism party. In the end, the fascists party was favoured because "they were extreme nationalists, who denounced the Versailles Treaty and opposed the democratic goals of the Weimar Republic."29 With the rise of fascism came the rise of Hitler and his Nazi Party. Adolph Hitler, of the Nazi Party, preached a racist brand of fascism. His party "kept expanding, benefiting from growing unemployment, fear of communism, Hitler's self-certainty, and the difference of his political rivals."30 When Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, he began rebuilding a promising future for Germany.31 He promised jobs and benefits to all classes of people. Almost all Germans felt compelled to listen and obey Hitler's extreme ideas of fascism because for some, he was their last hope. Hitler knew how to win people's obedience, through their fears and insecurities. "Hitler successfully appealed to a Germany that was humiliated by defeat in World War I and the Treaty of Versailles of 1919."32 Hitler succeeded and began to regain Germany's strength. "Germany was too powerful to be suppressed for long."33 Hitler broke many rules contained in the Treaty of Versailles. For example, Hitler sent troops into the demilitarized Rhineland and the French did not respond. This and scenarios gave Hitler the incentive to invade other countries and ultimately, invade Poland and started World War II. With WWII came the dreadful horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler had ordered the deaths of at least five million Jews.34 Not only did he orchestrate these mass murders, but he also influenced countless individuals to think and act in the same disgraceful manner. Hitler may have had sick and shameful ideas but he certainly knew how to be a manipulative leader. He played on the fears and insecurities of the people and used their weaknesses to win their loyalty. In conclusion, The Treaty of Versailles was supposed to represent the peaceful ending to World War I, however, it became the prelude to another war. It was originally an effort to restore order and provide a peaceful conclusion to World War I. The ill feelings and economic upheaval that resulted provided the perfect climate for Hitler's dominance, in post-war Germany. The contributors/participants of Versailles had other motives behind the 'peace agreement' other than a peace settlement. Their selfish actions resulted in, not only the economic hardship of Germany, but inflation and unemployment in all of Europe. The severity of the reparations contained in this document set the stage for history to repeat itself. "Therefore, the very way in which the Treaty of Versailles was forced on the German people stored up the material for the next round."35 Word Count: 1896 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Truman Doctrine.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Truman Doctrine The Truman Doctrine was the impetus for the change in United States foreign policy, from isolationist to internationalists; thus we were drawn into two wars of containment and into world affairs. The Truman Doctrine led to a major change in U.S. foreign policy from its inception - aid to Turkey and Greece - to its indirect influence in Korea and Vietnam. The aftermath of World War II inspired the U.S. to issue a proclamation that would stem Communist influence throughout the world. However, our zeal in that achievement sent our soldiers to die in Vietnam and Korea for a seemingly futile cause. It must be the policy of the U.S. to support free peoples. This is no more than a frank recognitions that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples . . . undermine the foundations of . . . peace and security of the United States. The Truman Doctrine would change the foreign policy of the United States and the world. This policy would first go in aid to support the democratic regimes in Turkey and Greece. These nations were being threatened by Soviet-supported rebels seeking to topple the government and install a Communist regime. The Soviets were also making extreme territorial demands especially concerning the Dardanelles. A direct influence of this Doctrine was, of course, the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was designed to give aid to any European country damaged during World War II. It tremendously helped ravaged European nations such as Italy and France. By helping them economically, the Marshall Plan indirectly helped to stem growing Communist sentiment in these countries. The process whereby the Truman Doctrine came to fruition was a long and arduous one. After World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States stood at the pinnacle of world power. By the late '40's, the U.S.S.R. had caught up to the United States' nuclear weapons programs. In addition, they were very land-hungry. Throughout Russia's history, they have been in search of a port - a quest advanced further by Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The Soviets in that respect were direct threats to their non-Communist neighbors: Greece, Turkey, and Iran. In Iran, the U.S.S.R. was not evacuating Iran's northern provinces despite entreaties from the United States. In Turkey, the Soviet Union coveted several naval bases along the Straits of Dardanelles. Further, they pressured Turkey for border cessions that Turkey had taken from Russia after World War I. In Greece, the Soviets encouraged the insurgent leader Markos Vafiades with arms and economic support. The British troops helping the Grecian government were strangled of supplies due to poor economic times in Britain. Also, further territorial requisitions to Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria were being made. Seeing the deteriorating U.S. - Soviet relations, Truman issued two statements about "agreements, violations, reparations, and Soviet actions threatening U.S. security." "1. The Middle East is of strategic importance to the U.S.S.R.(from which they are in range of an air attack.) 2. The U.S. must be prepared to wage atomic and biological warfare." (Ferrel 247) Soon after, he sent bombers to the Middle East. He desired the return of all arms given to U.S.S.R. under the Lend-Lease Act. There isn't a doubt in my mind that Russia intends an invasion of Turkey and seizure of the Black Sea straits to the Mediterranean. Unless Russia is faced with an iron fist and strong language another war is in the making, How many divisions have you? Truman had his eye on the Soviets and on war. However, The U.S.S.R. never made such invasions and thus quelled Truman's paranoia. The Truman Doctrine was starting to develop during 1947 when Truman issued several statements. 1. The present Russian ambassador . . . persona non grata . . . does not belong in Washington. 2. Urge Stalin to pay us a visit. 3. Settle the Korean question . . . give the Koreans a government of their own. 4. Settle the Manchurian question . . . support Chang Kai-Shek for a strong China. 5. Agree to discussion of Russia's lend-lease debt to the U.S. 6. Agree to commercial air treaty. 7. Make it plain that we have no territorial ambitions. That we only want peace, but we'll fight for it! Truman also set several goals for questioned territories: The U.S. would go to war if provoked. The Danube, Trieste, Dardanelles, Kiel Canal, and Rhine-Danube waterway should by free to all nations. Manchuria should be Chinese, Dairen should be a free port. Russia should have Kuriles and Sakhalin . . . Germany should be occupied 'according to Yalta.' Austria should not be treated as an enemy country. After these announcements the British disclosed that they could no longer give aid to Turkey and Greece and that the U.S. must pick up the slack. This left Greece in extreme danger of toppling into Communist control. "If Greece fell . . . Turkey isolated in the Eastern Mediterranean, would eventually succumb . . ." Truman's plan for peacetime aid -- The Truman Doctrine -- was unprecedented in history (a sum of more than $400 million) and he faced a hostile Republican Congress through which to pass it. However, Truman informed the Congress of the troubles facing Italy, Germany and France. They and small, fragile Middle-eastern states faced direct threats from Communism. In retort, the Congress had problems with Truman's plan that included: The Greek government was corrupt and undemocratic; Turkey, too, was not a Democracy. Turkey had been neutral during the war. Further, the President's plan for aid gave no attention to Communism outside Europe. Nonetheless, two months later the bill passed on May 15, 1947. Truman added while signing the legislation into law: We are guardians of a great faith. We believe that freedom offers the best chance of peace and prosperity for all, and our desire for peace cannot be separated from our belief in liberty. We hope that in years ahead more and more nations will come to know the advantages of freedom and liberty. It is to this end that we have enacted the law I have now signed. It was brought to Truman's attention that Europe was by no means content in their economic recovery. Britain was near bankruptcy, Italy, France, and Germany were plagued by a terrible winter. More aid was needed to keep their democratic governments afloat. Thus, a direct result from the Truman Doctrine was the Marshall Plan. This came about when Truman appointed General Marshall as Secretary of State. In that position, he observed "Europe's economic plight." Marshall proposed a plan that would offer aid to all nations "West of the Urals." (Truman, 355) This included the U.S.S.R. and her Eastern European satellite states. They, however, refused the aid. By March 1948, Congress had appropriated the first installment. Truman signed it into law on April 3, 1948. By its consummation in 1952 it would provide more than $13 billion in aid to war-ravaged Europe. This was a grand change in U.S. Foreign policy. We had gone from isolationists to internationalists. This Doctrine is in direct contrast to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine served as the U.S. Foreign policy for well over 150 years. It essentially stated that the U.S. would not intervene in the World's affairs as long as no one interfered with hers. With the Truman Doctrine, we completely reversed that role that had been only briefly breached during the World Wars. Our new policy was one of Containment: To contain the spread of Communism to the states in which it presently inhabits. Our relationship with the U.S.S.R. after Truman's declaration was in continuing deterioration. A major threat to our relationship was the Berlin Blockade of 1948. On June 24, 1948, the Soviets enacted a total blockade on Berlin. The U.S. response was to airlift supplies into the cutoff West Berliners. By its end 277,804 sorties delivered 2,325,809 tons of goods to Berlin -- more than a ton a piece to every Berliner. That threat brought Truman to prepare for war. He asked Congress for two measures in addition to the Marshall Plan to fortify America: The first was to temporarily enact the Draft. The Second was a long range plan called Universal Military Training. This was designed to train all males graduating from high school for combat. This idea never had a chance in Congress. Truman also made a pact with Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Brussels pact nations. This was all a prelude to the upcoming conflict in the Korean War. We had not been able to assess the relative strength of the U.S.S.R. However, what we did know was that we had a far bigger atomic buildup than the Soviets -- nearly 300 bombs! However, conventionally, we were far poorer. On June 24, 1950 Truman was told that North Korea had invaded South Korea or in Containment terms: Communism was spreading! The UN Security took a unanimous vote to declare war on North Korea. Truman hastily sent 10,000 troops from Japan to combine with the weak South Korean Army. Even together, they were hardly a match for the 90,000 battle- hardened and strong North Koreans. General MacArthur was put in charge and ceded much space in order to buy time for reinforcements. Meanwhile, the American public was not seeing the value of killing their boys in Korea. "We demand that you stop murdering American boys and Korean People . . ." Truman increased military spending to finance the war reinforcements. With newly received reinforcements, MacArthur brilliantly turned the tide of war. MacArthur moved speedily up the Korean Peninsula until Chinese intervention. They briefly provided a problem but they had no air force with which to support their own troops. Truman fired MacArthur on insubordination charges. The U.N. forces continued the war until a cease-fire was made in 1953. This reestablished the border at the 38th parallel. During this war, the U.S. lost about 60,000 troops. What results did we get? No border changes, a minor containment of Communism that probably would not have made much difference to the U.S. anyway. Only the death of Americans was gained. The next result of the Truman Doctrine was the Vietnam War. This was another anti- Communist containment war. Ho Chi Minh had invaded South Vietnam. It began with the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which Vietnam Torpedo boats attacked U.S. destroyers. From there, more and more troops were poured into Vietnam. U.S. began bombing raids in 1965. By the end of that year more than 200,000 troops were in Vietnam. In 1968, 525,000 troops were there. Several peace initiatives were given by the U.S. but were refused, however by the Vietnamese. The Tet offensive renewed lagging conflict and eventually led to the end of all-out U.S. involvement in 1973. In 1970, the U.S. entered Cambodia due to a coup. However, in three months the U.S. troops were withdrawn. At the end of our withdrawal nearly 60,000 troops were killed and this time we had not even saved the country we were defending. The veterans received nearly no welcome as the public was not interested in fighting a war too far away to matter. One great event that has caused the U.S. to escalate world aid and involvement was the collapse of the Soviet Union. No longer are we fighting to contain Communism, but instead to maintain Democracy any and everywhere. Still, today the Truman Doctrine prevails in determining our foreign policy. Most recently, we fought the stunning Gulf War. This was not a war of containment but it served a similar purpose. It sought to prevent an aggressor from overtaking a weaker neighbor. Luckily, we had minimal casualties. This war was one different from Korea and Vietnam. It had a significant impact on the United States. We fought for our oil supply. Thus, this war did have a significant purpose. The U.S. has also fought minor skirmishes in hot spots around the world. In the Mideast we fought in Lebanon and Libya, not to mention our massive aid to Israel. In Central America, we have given aid to Nicaragua, fought in Panama, Grenada, and Haiti. All of these illustrate the impact of the Truman Doctrine on our foreign policy. In Europe, we have not fought any wars but have given massive aid. From the Marshall Plan to a World Monetary Fund $10 billion grant to Russia, we have aided Europe throughout half a century. We formed many alliances such as NATO to combat Communism and preserve Independence there. And the most recent conflict of all is the Balkan conflict. We are again in danger of being drawn into a war with no clear purpose or advantage to the U.S. But in the continuance of the Truman Doctrine, we have stationed troops there. Hopefully, no casualties will come about but no one can prognosticate the future of such a hot spot for combat. The Truman Doctrine has impacted everyone in the U.S. and nearly every country in the world since its declaration in 1947. Some critics castigate the Doctrine: "Critics blamed involvement in Korea and Vietnam on the Truman Doctrine. Without the Doctrine . . . the U.S. might have minded its own business." (McCullough, 571) While other critics argue: " Truman was trying to restore the European Balance of Power and had neither the intention nor the capability of policing the world." (McCullough, 571) He may have not had that intention, but that is exactly the Doctrine's ramification. All over the world U.S. troops sit waiting to protect Democracy. The Truman Doctrine ensures that even without a valid threat to U.S. security we must waste American lives to "protect the free peoples of the World." (McCullough, 571) Would the world have been a worse place if we had not acted to protect South Korea and South Vietnam? Would the U.S.S.R. have fallen due to its own economic instability and only fleeting control over its massive population? These questions can be cogitated but never answered. One thing is certain, people should not die for a cause that is nonexistent, or one that could have destroyed itself. Bibliography Ferrel, Robert. Harry S.Truman, A Life. London: University of Missouri Press, 1994. pp. 246- 268, 353-357. McCullough, David. Truman. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992. pp. 550-575 Truman, Margaret. Harry S.Truman. New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1973. pp. 344- 372. "The Truman Doctrine." Grolier Encyclopedia. 1993 ed. "Vietnam War." Microsoft Encarta. 1994 ed. Primary Sources: Draper, Theodore. "American Hubris: From Truman to the Persian Gulf." New York Review of Books, 16 Jul. 1987, pp.40-48. "Truman Doctrine Speech." gopher://wiretap.spies.com:70/00/Gov/US-Speech/Truman.47 "The Truman Doctrine: The Unstoppable Boulder." Economist, 14 Mar. 1989, pp.19-22. Serfaty, Simon. "Lost Illusions." Foreign Policy, Spring 1988, pp. 3-19. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Truman.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Truman Harry S. Truman. "Early Life Harry S. Truman, the oldest of three children born to Martha Ellen Young Truman and John Anderson Truman, was born in his family's small frame house in Lamar, Missouri, in 1884. Truman had no middle name; his parents apparently gave him the middle initial S. because two family relatives names started with that letter. When Truman was six years old, his family moved to Independence, Missouri, where he attended the Presbyterian Church Sunday school. There he met five-year-old Elizabeth Virginia ("Bess") Wallace, with whom he was later to fall in love. Truman did not begin regular school until he was eight, and by then he was wearing thick glasses to correct extreme nearsightedness. His poor eyesight did not interfere with his two interests, music and reading. He got up each day at 5 AM to practice the piano, and until he was 15, he went to the local music teacher twice a week. He read four or five histories or biographies a week and acquired an exhaustive knowledge of great military battles and of the lives of the world's greatest leaders. Early Career In 1901, when Truman graduated from high school, his future was uncertain. College had been ruled out by his family's financial situation, and appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point was eliminated by his poor eyesight. He began work as a timekeeper for the Santa Fe Railroad at $35 per month, and in his spare time he read histories and encyclopedias. He later moved to Kansas City, where he worked as a mail clerk for the Kansas City Star, then as a clerk for the National Bank of Commerce, and finally as a bookkeeper for the Union National Bank. In 1906 he was called home to help his parents run the large farm of Mrs. Truman's widowed mother in Grandview, Missouri. For the next ten years, Truman was a successful farmer. He joined Mike Pendergast's Kansas City Tenth Ward Democratic Club, the local Democratic Party organization, and on his father's death in 1914 he succeeded him as road overseer. An argument soon ended the job, but Truman became the Grandview postmaster. In 1915 he invested in lead mines in Missouri, lost his money, and then turned to the oil fields of Oklahoma. Two years later, just before the United States entered World War I, he sold his share in the oil business and enlisted in the U.S. Army. He trained at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, but returned to Missouri to help recruit others. He was elected first lieutenant by the men of Missouri's Second Field Artillery. World War I World War I began in 1914 as a local European war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Though U.S. President Woodrow Wilson tried to remain neutral, the United States was drawn into the war in April 1917. Truman sailed for France on March 30, 1918, and as a recently promoted captain was given command of Battery D, a rowdy and unmanageable group known as the Dizzy D. Truman succeeded in taming his unit, and the Dizzy D distinguished itself in the battles of Saint-Mihiel and Argonne. In April 1919 Truman, then a major, returned home, and on June 28 he married Bess Wallace. The following November, Truman and Eddie Jacobson opened a men's clothing store in Kansas City. With the Dizzy D veterans as customers the store did a booming business, but in 1920, farm prices fell sharply and the business failed. In the winter of 1922 the store finally closed, but Truman refused to declare bankruptcy and eventually repaid his debts. Entrance Into Politics Truman turned to the Pendergasts for help. Jim Pendergast, Mike's son, persuaded his father to give Truman permission to enter a four-way Democratic primary for an eastern Jackson County judgeship, which was actually a job to supervise county roads and buildings. Mike refused to support Truman. In addition, one of the other candidates was supported by the Ku Klux Klan. Truman was advised to join the Klan, but he objected to its discriminatory policies against blacks, Jews, and Roman Catholics. Nonetheless, by campaigning on his war record and Missouri background, Truman won the primary and in the general election. In January 1923 he was sworn into his first public office. A year later the Trumans' only child, Mary Margaret, was born. United States Senator After a long, hard battle, Truman soundly defeated his Republican opponent. On January 3, 1935, Truman was sworn in as the junior senator from Missouri. Truman's common sense and knowledge of government and history impressed two of the Senate's most influential men. One was vice president John Nance Garner, and the other was Arthur H. Vandenberg, Republican senator from Michigan. With their aid, Truman was named to two important committees, the Appropriations Committee and the Interstate Commerce Committee. Truman also joined the subcommittee on railroads, becoming vice-chairman and, later, acting chairman. Despite pressures from powerful railroad companies, including the Missouri Pacific Railroad, he recommended major regulatory changes that were embodied in the Transportation Act of 1940. 1940 Election To no one's surprise, two Missouri Democrats challenged Truman for his Senate seat in the primary. One was Governor Lloyd Stark, whom Roosevelt supported, and the other was Maurice Milligan, whose nomination for a second term as U.S. district attorney Truman had opposed in the Senate. Truman began his primary fight with no political backing, no money, and two popular reformers as opponents. He traveled the state, making speeches about his record in short, simple language. He won the primary, and despite his Pendergast association, mentioned frequently by his Republican opponent, he won in November. His reelection was so unexpected that when he returned to the Senate, his colleagues gave him a standing ovation. Second Term In 1941 the United States government was preparing for World War II, a conflict that had begun in Europe in 1939. The government was building army camps and issuing defense contracts. Even before his second term began, Truman's constituents had written him about waste and confusion in the defense program. Truman toured the camps and defense plants and discovered appalling conditions. Back in the new Senate he denounced the defense program, demanded an investigation, and was named the head of the investigating committee. The Truman Committee During the next two years the Truman committee produced detailed reports on the defense programs. Committee members frequently visited defense installations to substantiate the testimony of contractors, engineers, and army and government personnel. Truman's success in uncovering fraud and waste led the Senate in 1942 to give the committee $100,000, an increase of $85,000 over the first year. It was estimated that the Truman committee saved the country $15 billion and spent only $400,000. The committee also put Truman on the national stage. With increasing frequency, leading Democrats mentioned Harry S. Truman as a potential 1944 vice-presidential candidate. Vice President of the United States Before the Democratic National Convention opened in July 1944, it was assumed that Roosevelt would run for a fourth term, but his health became a matter of great concern to party leaders, whose most difficult task was to name his running mate. The current vice president was Henry A. Wallace, a strong proponent of using the federal government to regulate big businesses, protect the civil rights of minorities, and encourage labor unions. Wallace's liberal views offended many of the more conservative leaders of the Democratic Party, and they encouraged Roosevelt to find someone more appealing to mainstream voters. Among the leading contenders were Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, and Senators Alben W. Barkley, James F. Byrnes, and Truman. Truman was nominated on the second ballot. After a whirlwind campaign and overwhelming victory, Truman took the oath of office as vice president on January 20, 1945. Truman then engineered the Senate confirmation of Roosevelt's appointment of Henry Wallace as secretary of commerce and Federal loan administrator, attended the funeral of Tom Pendergast despite wide criticism, and cast the tie-breaking Senate vote that ensured that the United States would continue delivering supplies to U.S. allies after the war was over. However, he saw very little of the president. Soon after the inauguration, Roosevelt left Washington for the month-long Yalta Conference, where the Allies discussed military strategy and political problems, including plans for governing Germany after the war. When Roosevelt returned in March, he met with Truman in two short meetings. When Roosevelt left for Warm Springs, Georgia, on March 30, Roosevelt had still not informed his vice president about the conduct of the war or the plans for peace. Thirteen days later, Truman was summoned to the White House, where Eleanor Roosevelt told him, "Harry, the president is dead." President of the United States Wartime President Truman's first month in office was largely devoted to briefings by Roosevelt's aides. He asked the founding conference of the United Nations to meet in San Francisco on April 25, as had been planned before Roosevelt's death. When victory in Europe seemed certain, he insisted on unconditional German surrender, and on May 8, 1945, his 61st birthday, he proclaimed Victory-In-Europe Day (V-E Day). Truman convinced the San Francisco conference delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that the general assembly of the new world peace organization should have free discussions and should make recommendations to the security council. On June 26 he addressed the final conference session, and six days later he presented the United Nations Charter to the Senate for ratification. From July 17 to August 2, 1945, Truman attended the Potsdam Conference in Germany, meeting with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Clement Attlee, Churchill's successor as British prime minister. The conference discussed how to implement the decisions reached at the Yalta Conference. As presiding officer, Truman proposed the establishment of the council of foreign ministers to aid in peace negotiations, settlement of reparations claims, and conduct of war crimes trials. He also gained Stalin's promise to enter the war against Japan. In this first meeting with the other Allied leaders, Truman confirmed his earlier favorable impression of Churchill, while he called the Soviets, in one of his typically blunt statements, "pigheaded people." On July 26, Truman issued the Potsdam Declaration, which called for Japan's unconditional surrender and listed peace terms. He had already been informed of the successful detonation of the first atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, ten days earlier. Military advisers had told Truman that a potential loss of about 500,000 American soldiers could be avoided if the bomb were used against Japan. When Japan rejected the ultimatum, Truman authorized use of the bomb. On August 6, 1945, at 9:15 AM Tokyo time, the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, virtually destroying the city. The Supreme Allied Headquarters reported that 129,558 people were killed, injured, or missing and 176,987 made homeless. Stalin sent troops into Manchuria and Korea on August 8, and the following day a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. About one-third of the city was destroyed, and about 66,000 people were killed or injured. Japan sued for peace on August 14. The official Japanese surrender took place on September 2, 1945, aboard the U.S.S. Missouri anchored in Tokyo Bay. Domestic Affairs Reconversion With the war ended, Truman turned to the problem of reconverting the country to peacetime production without causing the inflation and unemployment that followed World War I. His message to the Congress of the United States on September 6, 1945, requested a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission to aid blacks; wage, price, and rent controls to slow inflation; extended old-age benefits; public housing; a national health insurance program; and a higher minimum wage. His program was met with bitter opposition by congressional leaders who felt he wanted to move too far and too fast. Congress's price control bill was so weak that on June 19, 1946, Truman vetoed it, saying it gave a choice "between inflation with a statute and inflation without one." When he finally signed a bill the following month, prices had already risen 25 percent, and basic commodities had risen 35 percent. Mounting Opposition Demobilization had proceeded smoothly, but increased prices led to strikes for higher wages, particularly in basic industries. Truman had always been on the side of labor, but he would not allow strikes to paralyze the nation. He used executive orders and court injunctions to end the strikes, offending labor unions in the process. Truman was the central figure in three controversial issues concerning the military. First, he insisted on transferring control and development of nuclear energy from the military to the civilian Atomic Energy Commission and on placing authority to use the bomb solely with the president. Second, he persuaded Congress to unify the armed forces under a civilian secretary of defense. Third, Truman ordered the armed forces of the United States desegregated after Congress refused to do so. This decision, plus the military requirements of the Korean War, ended most discrimination in the U.S. Army and gave black men an opportunity for economic advancement denied them in many other areas. Truman had at first retained Roosevelt's Cabinet, but he soon felt uncomfortable with it. By September 1946 only Secretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal remained. New Deal supporters particularly objected to the removal of Secretary of Commerce Henry A. Wallace, although he had publicly criticized Truman's foreign policy, including its increasingly hostile attitude toward the USSR. Congressional Election of 1946 As the congressional campaigns began, even Democrats were divorcing themselves from Truman's programs. By using the Democratic discontent and the issues of rising inflation, scarcity of meat, and labor unrest, the Republicans scored a resounding victory, capturing both houses of Congress. In his 1947 State of the Union message, Truman requested a law to strengthen the Department of Labor, establish a labor-management relations commission, and end jurisdictional and secondary strikes. Instead, Congress presented him with its Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act that greatly weakened the position of labor unions. The act outlawed union-only workplaces; prohibited certain union tactics like secondary boycotts; forbade unions to contribute to political campaigns; established loyalty oaths for union leaders; and allowed court orders to halt strikes that could affect national health or safety. Truman vetoed the bill, but on June 23, 1947, the bill was passed over his veto. Instead of writing anti-inflation legislation, Congress voted a tax-cut bill giving 40 percent of the relief to those with incomes in excess of $5000. The bill became law over Truman's veto. The president once again failed to gather support for his employment, national health, or social security measures. Foreign Policy Truman Doctrine Although the United States and the USSR had been allies against Germany during the war, this alliance began to dissolve after the end of the war, when Stalin, seeking Soviet security, began using the Soviet Army to control much of Eastern Europe. Truman opposed Stalin's moves. Mistrust grew as both sides broke wartime agreements. Stalin failed to honor pledges to hold free elections in Eastern Europe. Truman refused to honor promises to send reparations from the defeated Germany to help rebuild the war-devastated USSR. This hostility became known as the Cold War. In 1947 British Prime Minister Attlee told Truman that a British financial crisis was forcing Great Britain to end its aid to Greece. At the time the USSR was demanding naval stations on the Bosporus from Turkey, and Greece was engaged in a civil war with Communist-dominated rebels. The president proposed what was called the Truman Doctrine, which had two objectives: to send U.S. aid to anti-Communist forces in Greece and Turkey, and to create a public consensus so Americans would be willing to fight the Cold War. Truman told Congress that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Congress fulfilled his request for $250 million for Greece and $150 million for Turkey. Marshall Plan Truman's trip to Potsdam and reports from former President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), who headed a postwar food commission, gave him an intimate knowledge of the problems of war-torn Europe. With General George C. Marshall, who was now secretary of state, Truman drew up the European Recovery Plan for the economic rehabilitation of free Europe. This act, also known as the Marshall Plan, was designed to rebuild the European market, which would benefit U.S. trade, and to strengthen democratic governments in Western Europe. The United States wanted to counter the influence of the USSR, which it was beginning to see as its main rival. The U.S. government also believed that West Germany, the zone occupied by U.S., British, and French forces, would have to be rebuilt and integrated into a larger Europe. After careful planning, Marshall announced in June 1947 that if Europe devised a cooperative, long-term rebuilding program, the United States would provide funds. When the USSR learned that the United States insisted on Soviet cooperation with the capitalist societies of Western Europe and an open accounting of how funds were used, the USSR established its own plan to integrate Communist states in Eastern Europe. Under the Marshall Plan, the United States spent more than $12.5 billion over a four-year period. Berlin Airlift The Marshall Plan and the amazing postwar recovery of West Germany highlighted the Soviet Union's failure to stabilize the economy of the zone it occupied, East Germany. To embarrass the Allies the Soviets closed off all Allied access to the city of Berlin, which was surrounded by Soviet-controlled East Germany but the western part of which was under Allied control. Truman recognized that an accessible Berlin was vital for European confidence in the United States. On June 26, 1948, he ordered a full-scale airlift of essential products into the city that continued until May 12, 1949, when the blockade was lifted. Israel Since his early days in the White House, Truman supported the British Balfour Declaration of 1917, which had promised the Jews support for a national homeland in Palestine. He sympathized with the Jewish survivors of Nazi Germany, and in November 1947 he supported the UN plan to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. In the face of sustained pressure from pro-Arab delegations and from those who feared the loss of Arabian oil, Truman recognized the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. Presidential Election of 1948 When Truman decided to run for a full term, he was faced with a major split in the Democratic Party. In 1948 Truman had asked for an end to Jim Crow laws, which maintained segregation in the South. He also proposed laws to punish those responsible for the hanging of blacks without trials, called lynching; laws to protect the voting rights of blacks; and a fair employment practices commission to end job discrimination. All of these angered Southern Democrats. When Northern Democrats inserted these positions into the 1948 Democratic Party platform, a group of Southerners led by Governor J. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina left the party and formed the States' Rights Democrats, or Dixiecrats. Henry Wallace and his supporters had also left to form the Progressive Party, and in addition, some influential Democrats thought victory would be possible only if the popular General Dwight D. Eisenhower could be drafted. The prospects were dim as Truman and his running mate, Senator Alben W. Barkley, set out on their campaign. Truman received the Democratic Party nomination, and in his acceptance speech, he told the convention he would reconvene Congress on July 26 to give the Republicans a chance to carry out their party's platform pledges. When the special session ended without passing any important legislation, Truman had his campaign weapon. He embarked on a cross-country whistle-stop tour, defending his record and blasting the "do-nothing Republican 80th Congress." No one knows who first shouted, "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" but the phrase became the campaign slogan of 1948. While thousands publicly and privately conceded the election to the Republican candidate, New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, Truman continued to campaign, making as many as 16 speeches in one day. A few hours after the polls closed on November 2, the Chicago Tribune issued an early edition with the headline DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN, but when the ballots were counted, Truman beat Dewey by more than 2 million votes. Second Term as President Foreign Affairs Truman's inaugural address proposed four points of action. The first was support of the United Nations, the second was a continuation of the Marshall Plan, the third was collective defense against Communist aggression, and the fourth was aid to underdeveloped countries. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Truman's third point was developed into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a regional defense alliance, created by the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949. NATO's purpose was to enhance the stability, well-being, and freedom of its members by means of a system of collective security. The defense plan was greeted warmly by Western Europe, which saw Stalin tighten the USSR's grip on the countries of Eastern Europe and threaten the rest of Europe. The Senate ratified the treaty, but only after debating it at length. Truman then placed Eisenhower in command of the defense organization. Korea At the end of World War II Korea was divided, and a Communist regime was established in North Korea and an anti-Communist one in the South. Considerable civil strife in the South and growing opposition to South Korea's president, Syngman Rhee, persuaded the North Korean leader, Kim Il Sung, that he would be welcomed by many South Koreans as a liberator intent on reuniting the two Koreas. At the same time, Kim would also undermine ongoing opposition to his own regime in North Korea. A war began on June 25, 1950, when the North Korean army, equipped mainly by the USSR, crossed the border and invaded South Korea. The United States immediately sent supplies to Korea and quickly broadened its commitment in the conflict. On June 27 the UN Security Council, with the Soviet Union voluntarily absent, passed a resolution sponsored by the United States calling for military sanctions against North Korea. Three days later, President Truman ordered U.S. troops stationed in Japan to Korea. American forces, those of South Korea, and, ultimately, combat contingents from 15 other nations were placed under United Nations command. The action was unique because neither the UN, nor its predecessor, the League of Nations, had ever used military measures to repel an aggressor. The UN forces were commanded by the U.S. commander in chief in East Asia, General Douglas MacArthur. Although the official policy of the United States and the United Nations was to limit the war to Korea to prevent the entrance of the USSR, early sucA war began on June 25, 1950, when the North Korean army, equipped mainly by the USSR, crossed the border and invaded South Korea. The United States immediately sent supplies to cesses persuaded Truman to move troops into North Korea. As UN soldiers approached the Chinese border, however, China, after several warnings to the United States, crossed into North Korea and began driving UN forces back toward the South. In response, MacArthur publicly requested an extension of the war into Communist China itself, but now Truman abandoned the idea of reunifying Korea by force and returned to the original goal of stopping the invasion of South Korea. When MacArthur then publicly attacked this policy, Truman relieved MacArthur of his command in April 1951 and replaced him with Lieutenant General Matthew Ridgway. Until July 1953 UN forces mostly engaged in a series of probing actions known as the active defense. Point Four Truman's Point Four-aid to underdeveloped countries-stemmed from his belief "that we should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life." Congress debated Point Four for nearly 18 months before approving it on June 5, 1950. By offering technical and scientific aid to those who requested it, Point Four helped reduce famine, disease, and the economic hardships of 35 African and Asian nations by 1953. Domestic Affairs Fair Deal Although he had a Democratic Congress, Truman's Fair Deal domestic program again met stiff opposition. Congress approved his public housing bill, expanded social security coverage, increased minimum wages and passed stronger farm price support bills, as well as flood-control, rural electrification, and public power measures. However, the legislators rejected his request to have the Taft-Hartley Act repealed, his plans for agricultural stabilization, for construction of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, and for the creation of public hydroelectric companies in the Missouri Valley and Columbia Valley. They also rejected his civil rights proposals. However, he strengthened the civil rights section of the Justice Department by executive orders, and he appointed blacks to a few high offices. Cold War at Home There was also a Cold War at home. Some of Truman's opponents considered MacArthur's removal to be evidence that the administration was lenient on Communism. This was despite the fact that Truman had begun investigating applicants for government jobs in 1946; that he had led the fight to aid Greece and Turkey when the British could no longer do so; and that Truman had used that issue to create new security and intelligence agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council. Some Republicans nevertheless believed that Truman had not done enough. In 1948 American writer and editor Whittaker Chambers testified before Representative Richard Nixon and the House Committee on Un-American Activities that he had been a Communist in the 1920s and 1930s and a courier in transmitting secret information to Soviet agents. He charged that State Department member Alger Hiss was also a Communist, and that he had turned classified documents over to Chambers to be sent to the Soviet Union. Hiss denied the charges but Chambers produced microfilm copies of documents that were later identified as classified papers belonging to the Departments of State, Navy, and War, some apparently annotated by Hiss in his own handwriting. The Department of Justice conducted its own investigation, and Hiss was indicted for perjury, or lying under oath. The jury failed to reach a verdict, but Hiss was convicted after a second trial in January 1950 (see Hiss Case). In China the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek, which had been supported by the United States, was unable to withstand the advance of Communist forces under Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung). By the end of 1949 government troops had been overwhelmingly defeated, and Chiang led his forces into exile on Taiwan. The triumphant Mao formed the People's Republic of China. Truman critics charged that the administration had failed to support Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists. Many people were also alarmed in September 1949, when Truman announced that the USSR had developed an atomic bomb. In February 1950 Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy charged in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, that the State Department knowingly employed 205 Communists. He later reduced the number to 57, and after an investigation all of the charges were found to be false. McCarthy continued to accuse other officials of Communist sympathies. Without any evidence, he was eventually discredited, and the word McCarthyism came to refer to accusations of subversive activities without any evidence. These incidents and others convinced Congress to pass the Internal Security Act of 1950, called the McCarran Act, over Truman's veto. The act forced the registration of all Communist organizations, allowed the government to intern Communists during any national emergencies, and prohibited Communists from doing any defense work. The act also prohibited the entrance into the United States of anyone who was a member of a "totalitarian" organization. Seizure of the Steel Mills Despite the administration's efforts to prevent a strike that would close the country's steel mills, a strike date was set for early April 9, 1952. Just hours before the scheduled strike, before a nationwide radio audience, Truman directed Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize the mills to ensure their production to support the war efforts. However, on June 2, 1952, the Supreme Court of the United States in a 6 to 3 decision on Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer declared the seizure unconstitutional. The Court held that Truman Word Count: 4718 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\U S entering WWII.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Why did the U.S. get involved in the war? 1. At the beginning, the United States expressed the determination to remain a neutral nation. When W.W.II began, opinions among the Americans were divided. Some felt that the Nazi Germany was not only a threat to Europe and democracy, but to civilization itself. Other believed that Europe's wars were no affairs of the U.S. As the war progressed, the U.S. found itself getting involved. They felt sympathy for the British after what happened at Dunkirk. They started helping G.B. with weapons and food. 50 old American naval destroyers were sent to Britain. Now it was clear the U.S. were on the Allies side but they still weren't physically involved in the big war. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a surprise attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Their aim was to strike such a severe blow that the U.S. would not rival the Japanese in the Pacific(boy were they wrong or what). American ships were sunk or badly damaged. American dead totaled over 2,300. The United States weren't going to take that from the Japanese and on December 8, 1941, congress declared war on Japan and so did the British Parliament. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S., and the congress replied with its own declaration of war. At this time, the United States of America were full-fledged belligerent in World War II. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\US history term paper.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cultural Life in the 60's Sara Phares US History Mr. Dinneen May 2, 2003 The 1960's decade was an era of impacting change. Throughout the sixties new ideas and beneficial events took place. White Americans began to expand their limitations and live new outgoing lives. While white families were prospering, African Americans were fighting for civil rights, seeking to be treated equally. The sixties was an experimental era of change influenced by fighting for civil rights and entertainment becoming a huge roll in the typical American's lifestyle. During the 1960's Whites and African American did not receive the same rights. African Americans were treated poorly and unfairly. No laws or acts had yet been passed to grant whites and blacks equal rights. In 1954 The Brown vs. Board of Education ruling was created. The ruling meant African Americans had, for the first time, a legal civil right to attend any public school. The Brown vs. Board of education decision gave legal support to these first black and white students who had the courage to integrate public schools. On Dec. 1, 1960, white students began a boycott when the first black students enrolled. Many parents kept their children at home rather than sending them to a class with black children. Individual acts of defiance that gained attention in the fifties gathered tremendous support in the sixties when integrating not only schools but any public facility. By September 1961, thousands of African American and white protestors joined a sit-in movement fighting for civil rights. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader of the 1960's who lead by a highly effective method: Passive Resistance, or nonviolent civil disobedience. King studied many of the famous methods of Mahatma Gandhi of India. Passive Resistance requires great self-discipline and became a powerful tool for change. King raised the civil rights movement to high moral ground and kept it there. He forced people to focus on the issues of fairness and justice, jobs and freedom, rather than on fighting or fighting back. King's work gained national attention beginning with a Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, sparked by a black lady named Rosa Parks. Dr. King became the boycott's most visible spokesperson and helped achieve national attention and support for this cause. The black community of Montgomery walked to work for almost a year of its boycott, refusing to ride the buses. Ultimately a law suit was filed forcing Montgomery to integrate its buses. Many Americans already believed in the constitution where all men are treated equal . However, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech televised across the nation inspired many blacks and whites to seek equality for all. In order to succeed, the civil rights movement had to win the heart of the country. It required the goodwill of American voters and the support of the federal government. In the summer of 1961, young black volunteers called Freedom Riders began to use nonviolent demonstrations to prick the conscience and raise the consciousness of many Americans. These volunteers tested bus segregation in the south with a Freedom Ride Campaign. They harassed the South in racially integrated busses and challenged illegal "white only" buss stations. The Freedom Riders were attacked and harassed throughout their journey. They endured this suffrage to prove their cause. Since the Civil War, southerners had made literacy tests an especially effective tool to keep African Americans from voting and sharing political power. Many civil rights leaders thought voting was the key that would unlock the handcuffs of racial segregation. They reasoned that if African Americans were able to vote, they could receive political power in their own communities, state, and nation. Robert Moses joined forces with Allard Lowenstein, where the two men from Harvard and Stanford, decided to run a mock election called the Freedom Vote of 1963. `Around ninety-thousand blacks "voted" in the pretend "freedom" election in Mississippi, run along side the real vote. This illustrated that blacks would vote, if allowed. The Freedom Vote also hinted that the real election was not legitimate. The next summer, Moses and Lowenstein worked to register blacks for legal voting. Freedom summer was not only designed to register more black voters, but, to show the country that African Americans in the South wanted to vote but faced great danger when they tried to do so. The decade of the 1960's began with African Americans working to put their court-won equal rights into practice across the country. It ended with increased political strength for black Americans, and a deeper exploration and affirmation of African American heritage and culture. Throughout the sixties, music and entertainment began to change drastically. New bands began to form while new types of entertainment began to form. Watching television had become popular by the 60's. CBS dominated television during the decade, airing 13 of the most popular fifteen shows. NBC enjoyed good rating with western Bonanza and Laugh-In, while ABC had a strong response to Bewitched. All of the following shows amused, entertained, and continued to reflect a certain innocence. Most shows were family oriented entertainment with formula plots punctuated by commercials. Watching TV programs, was difficult to imagine that any Americans were discontent with their way of life. Each television show began to portray a certain satire. Laugh-In, staring Dan Rowan and Dick Martin had a five-year run starting in 1967. It also used political humor to amuse audiences and highlighted social issues of the time. Although many of the shows were controversial, they were still primarily aimed towards a white middle class audience. African Americans rarely saw themselves reflected in these shows and there were virtually no colored people portrayed in family life. Music, in contrast to television, demonstrated the tremendous variety of cultural influences and styles that were actually available in the US. As the culture became dominated by the country's biggest demographic group, the baby boomer's favorite music exploded in variety. Rock 'n' Roll became the most popular genre, but country, rock-a-billy, folk, blues, rhythm and blues, jazz, gospel, Motown, and California surfer music, all found air time and an audience, challenging conventions and often making older generations complain about the "noise." Rock 'n' Roll melded other genres into a sound that was vibrant and alive. New dances such as the Watusi, the Chicken, the Jerk, and the Pony...all got kids out on the dance floor. All of these dances didn't hold their popularity to the degree that the Twist did. Before the Twist could become a national dance craze, it had to win mainstream approval to be acceptable to the middle class. Dick Clark of American Bandstand allowed this to all occur. His show featured famous artists such as Chubby Checker, Angelo Saxton, Hank Ballard, and Elvis Presley. Checker had taken Hank Ballard's, The Twist and turned it into a number one song in the nation. An international fad, one of the first connections of the international youth culture, the Twist could be done alongside a partner, in a group, or on one's own. Music, more than any other medium, was tying the youth of the world together. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and other British rock groups listened to the black roots of American music and then brought it back to the US with a British twist. After Dick Clark-style Rock 'n' Roll was becoming bland, the British invaded with their own high energy version. American teens were electrified. The Beatles combined distinct sounds of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis Presley, and others and shaped a sound that dominated the sixties with its creativity and style. They exploded into the international music world in 1961, causing a sensation called Beatlemania wherever they went. The group released eighteen record albums from 1963 to 1970. They also stared in four action movies; A Hard Days Night, Help, Magical Mystery Tour, and Let it Be. The albums revealed their evolution through their exposure to drugs and the rewards of fame and fortune. The music of Rock groups reflected their greatest fans, the baby boomers. The message of their music shifted as the counterculture became more revolutionary. The Beatles sang of the desire to change the world they shared with their generation but declared the y wanted no part in violently tearing down the system. The music finale of the sixties was a rock festival held during the summer of 1969 outside a town near the Catskill Mountains, New York. A large crowd was expected to join on August 15th for several days of music. Close to half a million people showed up, "Woodstock Nation became the largest be-in of the decade."(O' Connor-109) Woodstock was a party of coming together for the baby boomers. Crowds of counterculture youth flooded into the area, although most were relaxed and peaceful. Traffic jams and rain became a burden, and instead of becoming angry and competitive, people shared with one another and enjoyed the music. Jimi Hendrix turned ordinary melodies into strange and powerful improvisations with unusual sound, trailblazing a new genre called Acid Rock. In spite of the overwhelming crowd, there were no riots, and only one accidental death. Helicopters were brought for ill people, and trucks of water came to care of the peoples needs. These services aided for the several drug overdoses during the festival. Woodstock Nation seemed a fitting climax to a decade that found its young people exploring alternative lifestyles. Many had tried to band together to end racial injustice and war, live in peace, and celebrate life. At Woodstock, they could demonstrate their communal values, reveal in their music, and give life to the Beatle's refrain, "all we are saying is give peace a chance." The decade of the sixties changed through movements for civil rights and new forms of entertainment. The decade began with African Americans working to put their court-won equal rights into practice across the country. It ended with increased political strength for black Americans, a deeper exploration and affirmation of African American heritage and culture. The sixties saw a change in attitudes about racial segregation. Television and music in the sixties also brought a new way of expressing feelings. Artists and actors were able to expand beyond the boundaries and create new standards for the entertainment business. Ultimately, the sixties was tremendously impacted by new "revolutionary" music and television, and the great civil rights leaders, groups, and movements. Bibliography Books * O'Connor, Dorris C. LIFE- The 1960's Canada: The Time INC. Magazine Co., 1989 * Holland, Gini. A Cultural History of the US-1960's San Diego, Ca: Lucent Books INC., 1999 * Finklestein, Norman H. The Way Things Never Were-the truth about the "good old days, " New York, New York: Atheneum books, 1999 Web * Becky Bradley and Susan Goodwin, "American Culture the 50's and 60's" American Cultural History, http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade60.html, 4-26-03 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\US vs Japan in WWII.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ U.S. vs. Japan in WWII On August 6, 1945 the atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The Enola Gay, piloted by Colonel Tibbetts, was chosen to make the mission. The mission was recorded as successful by Capt. William S. Parson at 9:20 A.M. This was an extremely controversial military strategy in the United States. Was the United States justified in the dropping of the atomic bomb? Yes, they were justified formany reasons. The primary reason was, that it would stop the war. Why is it that this war needed to be stopped so badly? Even though in some ways it was helping our economy, it was very costly in both money and lives. Also, the United States soldiers were undergoing harsh treatment by the unmerciful Japanese. Another reason the war needed to be stopped was to defend ourselves from another attack on U.S. soil, which in turn would kill many of our U.S. citizens. This is why the war needed to be stopped; thus, justifying the use of the atomic bomb. World War II was the costliest war in history, in terms of lives lost. No exact figures exist, but approximately between 15 and 20 million military personnel were killed. Of these, 292,000 were Americans and 6,000 innocent United States citizens were murdered by our enemies. It has been estimated that if the United States had not dropped the bomb and had invaded Japan instead, the United States would have lost about a million soldiers. The Japanese suicidal fighting strategies greatly effected this number. The Japanese would rather die than surrender. This is demonstrated by the battle of Saipan. At this battle over half of the population of Saipan walked off a cliff instead of surrendering to the United States. This was often very effective. Many times when a Japanese soldier decided to blow himself up instead of surrendering he would kill many Americans with the same blast. Also the kamikaze techniques of the Japanese fighters killed many soldiers. If this war would have continued we could have lost thousands more. Also up to this point we spent 300 billion dollars on war efforts. Many materials and other objects were damaged. Any estimate on how much money was lost in damages would be futile. This number would have continued to rise if it had not been for the use of the atomic bomb. The horrendous atrocities that occurred during World War II were unmerciful as well as unnecessary. During one invasion of China, the rape of Nanking, the Japanese killed 100,000 Chinese civilians. They were burned, butchered, and raped. Sometimes the Japanese would tie a big group of them together and use them for bayonet and sword practice. After the fall of Bataan the soldiers were forced to go on a death march. During this march many unheard of things happened to the soldiers. A soldier was often killed for trying to get a drink of water. If a soldier fell down the Japanese would either bayonet them or knock them unconscious. Once they were knocked unconscious, the Japanese then forced another American soldier to bury the unconscious soldier alive. One soldier once commented, "The worst time was once when a burial victim with about six inches of earth over him suddenly regained consciousness and clawed his way out until he was almost sitting upright. Then I learned to what length a man will go to hang onto his life. The bayonets began to prod me in the side and I was forced to bash the soldier over the head with the shovel and then finish burying him."(Kappler, Pg. 168) This harsh treatment to innocent civilians and our soldiers needed to stop. The atomic bomb was a way to stop it. On December 7, 1941," A day that will live in infamy," Pearl Harbor was deliberately attacked by the Japanese. Reports indicate that 2400 people were killed and 1300 were wounded. The reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was because that was where all of our Navy ships were positioned. They were hoping to take out the Navy and were almost successful. The aircraft carriers were expected to be in the harbor, but luckily were not. Although the attack may have been a military success in the minds of the Japanese it became a huge mistake in the final analysis. One reason it was a mistake was it caused the U.S. to enter the war. We were the ultimate cause to Japan losing the war. Secondly it made the Americans angry and determined to destroy the Japanese. Many congressmen volunteered for active duty, asking for a one day respite to cast their vote for war. Also recruiting offices were flooded with young patriots who wanted to help there country out. This attack was just an example of what could have happened if the war had continued. If the war had continued another attack on U.S. soil could have taken place. This could have turned the 6,000 dead American civilians into 9,000 dead civilians. That number could have kept rising until the war was over. That is another reason the bomb needed to be dropped to stop the war. The war was a horrible thing. It killed millions and destroyed the lives of millions more. It lasted six years and could have lasted longer; with death and destruction increasing every year. Ending such a horrible thing should be reason enough to drop the atomic bomb. The cruelty of the Japanese at such places as Bataan and Nanking was horrible and needed to be stopped. Although the atomic bomb caused much death devastation it indirectly saved lives. America made their power known by frightening other European powers. This bombing has serviced to prohibit future attacks on American soil. The atomic bomb was the best solution. The atomic bomb may have killed thousands, but it saved millions. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Vietnam the unending War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Vietnam the unending War The Vietnam war is the most terrible and senseless war America has ever fought. Never since their own civil war was the world most powerful country divided in such terrible anger. The leading historian on the war in Vietnam George C. Herring poses two very important questions in his essay American and Vietnam the Unending War. These two questions have been boggling the Americans minds since the beginning of the war in Indochina up to today when the US faces similar crises but is afraid to due to something called the Vietnam syndrom something that has plagued the American minds since the cease fire in Vietnam 1975. Why did the united States invest so much blood and treasure in an area so remote and of so little apparent significance, and secondly, why despite its vast power did the United States fail to achieve its objects? Herring approaches these questions from a variety of different sides which somewhat explain the struggle and the pain the misunderstood country had to go through. After WWII most of the countries such as Britain and the Netherlands gave up their colonies in Indochina. France on the other hand decided to regain power and put down the revolutionary nationalistic movement, by force that was plaguing Vietnam. The communist Ho Chi Minh had developed a communist, nationalistic movement against the french in order to be free of colonialism and establish a Marxist state in Vietnam. France at the time and still today is one of Americas strongest allies. Therefore and for many other political reasons, such as the prevention of the spread of communism, made the US aid France and support them with their mission. This was so to say the beginning of a variety of incidents that finally brought the US to war with Vietnam. Of all the nationalistic movements and revolutions in Indochina, the Vietnamese was the only one supported by communism. This was of great concern to the U.S. who feared that the soviet union had their hands in this as a plan of slowly gaining power over the entire east, and eventually the entire world. Herring writes "From the outset Americans viewed Ho and the Vietminh as instruments of the Soviet drive for world domination,....." After the fall of china to communism in 1949, the US feared that if then also Vietnam would fall to communism finally the rest of Indochina, which found itself in similar unstable conditions as Vietnam, will fall to communism to. "Soviet expansion had reached a point beyond which it must be permitted to go." A so-called domino theory was adopted, where when one falls all will eventually fall. Herring explains: "Because of its location on china's southern border and because it appeared in the most imminent danger, Vietnam was considered crucial. If it fell, all of Southeast Asia might be lost, denying the United States access to important raw materials and strategic waterways." After the defeat of France in 1954, the US aided to create a non-Communist, democratic, south Vietnamese state in hope that their financial aid and political assistance would strengthen the population and prevent any further spreading of Communism. The Cold War started taking desperate measures and the U.S. particularly in the Kennedy-Johnson era was very concerned with the security of western Europe. It was the US concern that if they would back out in the worsening Vietnam situation, it would portray a certain weakness to its enemy Russia and could provoke conflicts in western Europe, particularly over Berlin, that could end in a nuclear war. "...if they showed firmness in one area, it would deter the adversary in a another; if they showed weakness the adversary would be tempted to take steps that might leave no option but nuclear war." A further reason Herring portrays is the effect on the political situation at home which could have been quit crucial if Vietnam would have pulled out. Another loss to communism would have devastating outcomes on presidential elections. To prevent loss of votes marked another great aspect of why the Presidential administrations couldn't simply leave Indochina to its destiny. Harring writes "...the assumption shared by administrations from Harry S. Truman to Lyndon B. Johnson that the fall of Vietnam to communism would have disastrous political consequences at home." These main reasons, the prevention of the spread of Communism, the prevention of Nuclear war in Europe, together with political issues and troubles developing and finally to show its determination to defend its vital world interests, the United States put them selves in a position that was brave yet damaging its image all over the world. The point of prevention of nuclear war is particularly back up by Professor Francis X. Winters in his book The Year of the Hare. In his close study on the years of the Kennedy administration and the undergone coup on the South vietnamese leader and long term Allie Ngo Dinh Diem, he makes clear that it was Kennedy's idea to keep on focusing on Vietnam in order to distract a War that could have otherwise happened in Europe and could have meant the end of humanity or at least the destruction of the entire northern hemisphere. Winters writes "For I was to discover during interviews in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that President Kennedy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk had raised the American ante in Vietnam precisely in order to lower the risk of a nuclear confrontation in a European war." In order to get Khrushchev attention off a nuclear war in Europe Kennedy believed that the conflict in Vietnam would create distraction and would demonstrate determination. Winters writes "He [Kennedy] had tried to convince Khrushchev of US determination but had failed. It was now essential to demonstrate our firmness and determination." The ethical backgrounds to these decisions are debatable but we know one thing today fore shore and tat is that their was no nuclear war. Winters puts great emphasis on one point in the Kennedy administration and that is that Kennedy simply wanted to stay in Vietnam until his reelection. "We have no future in Vietnam. They're going to kick our assess out of there. I can't give up on Vietnam before 1964. I couldn't go out there and ask for reelection after giving up two pieces of territory [Laos and Vietnam] to Communism." There is proven eviden that he wanted to leave Vietnam after his was reelected. Unfortunately Kennedy failed to discuss this with his vice president, who in desperation of trying to act on the accounts of his predecessor after his assassination, could have probably acted differently if he had known. When President Lyndon B. Johnson went into office, he received a lot of trouble, so he simply tried to finish what Kennedy had started. Winters writes: " 'I cannot now repudiate my predecessors commitments.' Johnson, of course had not been among the handful of friends and advisors who knew of Kennedy's intention to quit Vietnam before he was overtaken by fate." Herring portray's in his book LBJ and Vietnam that there was nothing President Johnson wanted more than get away from this harrowing war. Unfortunately there where only very few options for him to undertake that where outlined by his advisors after Americans had been deliberately attacked several times in South Vietnam. To take the loss and get everybody out and eventually look weak, some middle thing or to send troops. What other option should LBJ have undergone in spite of the few he had. On the other hand, who could have predicted that the resistence by North Vietnam would have such a outcome. This brings us to the other question herring tries tp answer in his essay. The question why America, the number one super power of the world, failed to achieve its objects. Herring explains in his essay that the U.S. troops where simply not trained to fight a war in a place such as Vietnam. "It was fought in a climate an a terrain that were singularly inhospitable: thick jungles, foreboding swamps and paddies, rugged mountains, insufferable heat and humidity." Furthermore the large cultural gap and the lack of regular war objectives made it hard for the American forces to fight a serious war. Lack of understanding the language or the culture of the Vietnamese made it hard for Americans to understand who was enemy and who friend. "Their mission was at best morally ambiguous and, however benevolent their intentions, Americans often found themselve on the wrong side of Vietnamese nationalism." America was trained in conventional warfare such as in the World Wars and Korea, this unconventional warfare the U.S. faced in Vietnam made it hard to even estimate how one was doing. "And there was always the gnawing- but fundamental - question, first raised by John F. Kennedy: how can we tell if we are winning?" Their was no real battle line, no real objectives no real sense of victory, the only way to estimate one's progress was by the notorious body count. Furthermore Herring complains that their was no foundation on which to build nationhood. After their last war, the economy had suffered incredibly and their was no real government nor elite to run the country or to work with the U.S., because the french had destroyed the political order. Finally, Herring describes that the United States simply underestimated its enemy and its determination and staying power. " They skillfully employed the strategy of protracted war, already tested against France, perceiving that the Americans, like the french, would become impatient and, if they bled long enough, might weary of the war." Winters answers this question on one similar account as Herring, and that is that their was no government to fight with. But instead of blaming it on the french as Herring does he blames the American government and particularly the Kennedy administration who decided to assassinate their South vietnamese Allie and by doing so completely wipe out the South Vietnamese government. "For he agreed with the analysis of the CIA and of the former ambassador Nolting that such a coup would be an invitation to governmental chaos throughout South Vietnam and would ruin the war effort." Robert Kennedy recognized this and blurted out at some meeting before the coup " This makes no sense on the face of it.... to support a coup would be putting the future of Vietnam and in fact all of Southeast Asia in the hands of one man not now known to the U.S...." Unfortunately the U.S. government was not able to recognize this until it was to late. America lost the war because it blew away South Vietnam's government, you can't win a war without a stable government. By looking at the principal personalities involved in this conflict it shows that a certain arrogance and self interest was the drive to a number of decisions which eventually turned a local conflict into a major international clash. Such personalities involve Dean Rusk, President Kennedy, the President of South Vietnam Diem, President Johnson, and more. Most of the characters such as JFK and Johnson did what they did in Indochina in order to ashore reelection. Characters such as Secretary of State Dean Rusk acted on the accounts of American patriotism and the ideology that every country should be molded after the perfect democratic country the United States. "The Vietnamese government was dismissed by Rusk and others because it contradicted irreconcilably their own ascendant Enlightenment formula of democracy." It is understood that President Kennedy's personal interest for reelection was his primary implication to stay in Vietnam. After his reelection in 1964, he was planing on leaving Indochina and leaving it to its own faith. Furthermore President Johnson just wanted to finish what his predecessor had started, a mission that cost him great remorse. South Vietnamese President Diem was fighting for a free South Vietnam. All he wanted is to be independent without having any strings attached. His problem was that he was planning a different democratic reform as the Americans had in mind, which succeeded in his assassination. "Diem, for example was planing democratic reform on a different scale and calender than his American (and Vietnamese) critics." It is clear that Vietnam was Americas only foothold in Southeast Asia and that it was therefore necessary to the U.S. that its government would execute its exact orders or face damnation. Regarding the ethical issues of the war it is clear that for one the US once more had to impose its chauvinistic ideals on another nation, and try to mold them in its own image. Furthermore it demonstrates that in some countries non democratic but rather autocratic governments make more sense due to their tradition and culture. It is debatable if the outcome would have differed if America would have let Diem act on his own terms. It would have been very unlike of the US government to do so regarding its history. Herring sketches several positive aspects out of the war. The fact that no nuclear conflict happened probably because of Vietnam and that by showing its determination and endurance America probably intimidated the soviet union. Finally he accounts that the lost war might have been a part of winning the cold war. "...a lost battle in a Cold War eventually won." This though is not the answer to justify the Misery the US brought to Vietnam. Much rather it is a perfect example for American Imperialism and the suppression of communistic ideals in total self interest and not to help any one. Word Count: 2257 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Vietnam War Memorial.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Vietnam War Memorial - Powerful Granite At the age of twenty one, a female undergraduate at Yale University named Maya Lin submitted her design for the Vietnam Memorial. Her idea for the memorial was extremely unique and controversial. After long discussions by a panel, it was chosen for construction. The design that she submitted was one that was very different in comparison to other memorials, and it was one that has a tendency to leave a lot of questions on the minds of the visitors. On the face of the memorial there is a list of all those who died or are missing in the order by which they were lost. It could seem to some one who did not understand the incident that the monument honors only those lost, but that is incorrect. Maya Lin¹s design formed into the most unique memorial structure of its kind, which honors all who served in the Vietnam War (Colliers 23: 137). The official name given to the monument was the Vietnam Veterans memorial. In this name alone it is clear that it was not erected for the sole purpose of honoring only those who were lost in the conflict. The term KIA was the abbreviation used for those people who were killed in action, and these people represent 47,000 of the 58,000 names on the wall. The other 11,000 were soldiers who died from crashes, snake bites, illnesses, and other non-combat related deaths (Olson 227). There is no distinction made between the two groups on the monument. The structure is a v-shaped polished granite slab that unlike other monuments has no message of honor or patriotism. All of those subjects are left to the thoughts of the beholder. People often find therapy in locating the name of a companion or a loved one. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is by far the most emotional moving war monument in Washington, and that alone makes it very unique(Collier¹s 138). In comparison with other monuments, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is vastly different. A point of comparison could be the Marine Corps War Memorial, otherwise known as the Iwo Jima monument. This monument is a sculpture of three soldiers risking their lives to keep the American flag flying. The structure has a deep sense of understood patriotism and there is a great deal of honor that is also associated with it. Unlike the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Iwo Jima monument is a tribute only to the Marines who served in World War Two. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial has no such message of honor and courage, but rather an atmosphere that causes visitors to reflect on the conflict (Colliers 138-139). The only monument that is similar the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is the memorial to Ulysses S. Grant. It is located at the foot of the capital and has no clear cut meaning. There is no political message that can be taken away from Grant¹s memorial. It neither glorifies war nor possesses an antiwar message, and there is no moral lesson that can be taken away from this monument (Colliers 138). One of the great things about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is that it allows the public to form its own opinion of the conflict with out forcing a political message. It is because of this ambiguity that the monument is so unique. Unlike other monuments, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial can not be seen from a distance. One must commit to see it, and then walk down to it. This is just the opposite of other monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial which were created to show the men on a higher God-like platform. Also, it is not at all uncommon to find men and women alike weeping at the base of the monument (Colliers 138-139) Cynics could argue and say they morn only for their loved ones, and were not moved by the power of the monument, but this is not always the case. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is an experience that affects thousands of people daily, and changes the lives of almost as many. This is a characteristic that no other war monument in the country seems to posses. The first inscription on the wall reads ³IN HONOR OF THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES WHO SERVED IN THE VIETNAM WAR. THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES AND OF THOSE WHO REMAIN MISSING ARE INSCRIBED IN THE ORDER THEY WERE TAKEN FROM US². The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is also unique in the sense that is honors all who fought, as most monuments honor only those who died. From this one could imply that the veterans were not sufficiently honored by the people of America. (Colliers 139- 140) It is clear that the erection of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was a wonderful addition to the Washington Mall of monuments. There is some disagreement as to the exact meaning of the monument, but that is because in was designed for that very purpose. Maya Lin was quoted to say that she wanted a ³quiet place, meant for personal reflection and private reckoning² (Colliers 139) That was exactly what she gave to the country in her unique interpretation of what the monument should be. Word Count: 884 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Vietnam War.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The War in Vietnam direct U.S. military participation in The Vietnam War, the nation's longest, cost fifty-eight thousand American lives. Only the Civil War and the two world wars were deadlier for Americans. During the decade of Vietnam beginning in 1964, the U.S Treasury spent over $140 billion on the war, enough money to fund urban renewal projects in every major American city. Despite these enormous costs and their accompanying public and private trauma for the American people, the United States failed, for the first time in its history, to achieve its stated war aims. The goal was to preserve a separate, independent, noncommunist government in South Vietnam, but after April 1975, the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) ruled the entire nation. The initial reasons for U.S. involvement in Vietnam seemed logical and compelling to American leaders. Following its success in World War II, the United States faced the future with a sense of moral rectitude and material confidence. From Washington's perspective, the principal threat to U.S. security and world peace was monolithic, dictatorial communism emanating from he Soviet Union. Any communist anywhere, at home or abroad, was, by definition, and enemy of the United States. Drawing an analogy with the unsuccessful appeasement of fascist dictators before World War II, the Truman administration believed that any sign of communist aggression must be met quickly and forcefully by the United States and its allies. This reactive policy was known as containment. In Vietnam the target of containment was Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh front he had created in 1941. Ho and his chief lieutenants were communists with long-standing connections to the Soviet Union. They were also ardent Vietnamese nationalists who fought first to rid their country of the Japanese and then, after 1945, to prevent France from reestablishing its former colonial mastery over Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. Harry S. Truman and other American leaders, having no sympathy for French colonialism, favored Vietnamese independence. But expanding communist control of Eastern Europe and the triumph of the communists in China's civil was made France's war against Ho seem an anticommunist rather than a colonialist effort. When France agreed to a quansi-independent Vietnam under Emperor Bao Dai as an alternative to Ho's DRV, the United States decided to support the French position. The American conception of Vietnam as a cold war battleground largely ignored the struggle for social justice and national sovereignty occurring within the country. American attention focused primarily on Europe and on Asia beyond Vietnam. Aid to France in Indochina was a quid pro quo for French cooperation with America's plans for the defense of Europe through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. After China became a communist state in 1949, the stability of Japan became of paramount importance to Washington, and Japanese development required access to the markets and raw materials of Southeast Asia. The outbreak of war in Korea in 1950 served primarily to confirm Washington's belief that communist aggression posed a great danger to Asia . Subsequent charges that Truman had "lost" China and had settled for a stalemate in Korea caused succeeding presidents to fear the domestic political consequences if they "lost" Vietnam. This apprehension, an overestimation of American power, and an underestimation of Vietnamese communist strength locked all administrations from 1950 through the 1960s into a firm anticommunist stand in Vietnam. Because American policy makers failed to appreciate the amount of effort that would be required to exert influence on Vietnam's political and social structure, the course of American policy led to a steady escalation of U.S. involvement. President Dwight D. Eisenhower increased the level of aide to the French but continued to avoid military intervention, even when the French experienced a devastating defeat at Dien Bien Phu in the spring of 1954. Following that battle, an international conference at Geneva, Switzerland, arranged a cease-fire and provided for a North-South partition of Vietnam until elections could be held. The United States was not a party to the Geneva Agreements and began to foster the creation of a Vietnamese regime in South Vietnam's autocratic president Ngo Dinh Diem, who deposed Bao Dai in October 1955, resisted holding an election on the reunification of Vietnam. Despite over $1 billion of U.S. aid between 1955 and 1961, the South Vietnamese economy languished and internal security deteriorated. Nation building was failing the South, and, in 1960, communist cadres created the National Liberation Front (NLG) or Vietcong as its enemies called it, to challenge the Diem regime. President John F. Kennedy concurred with his predecessor's domino theory and also believed that the credibility of U.S. anticommunist commitments around the world was imperiled in 1961. Consequently, by 1963 he had tripled American aid to South Vietnam and expanded the number of military advisers there from less than seven hundred to more than sixteen thousand. But the Diem government still failed to show economic or political progress. Buddhist priests, spiritual leaders of the majority of Vietnamese, staged dramatic protests, including self-immolation, against the dictatorship of the Catholic Diem. Ngo Dinh Nhu, Diem's brother, led a brutal suppression of the Buddhist resistance. Finally, after receiving assurances of noninterference from U.S. officials South Vietnamese military officers conducted a coup that ended with the murders of Diem and Nhu. Whether these gruesome developments would have led Kennedy to redirect or decrease U.S. involvement in Vietnam is unknown, since Kennedy himself was assassinated three weeks later. Diem's death left a leadership vacuum in South Vietnam, and the survival of the Saigon regime was in jeopardy. With a presidential election approaching, Lyndon B. Johnson did not want to be saddled with the charge of having lost Vietnam. On the other hand, an expansion of U.S. responsibility for the war against the Vietcong and North Vietnam would divert resources from Johnson's ambitious and expensive domestic program, the Great Society. A larger in Vietnam also raised the risk of a military clash with China. Using as a provocation alleged North Vietnamese attacks on U.S. Navy vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964, Johnson authorized limited bombing raids on North Vietnam and secured a resolution from Congress allowing him to use military forces in Vietnam. These actions helped Johnson win the November election, but they did not dissuade the Vietcong from its relentless pressure against the Saigon government. By July 1965, Johnson faced the choice of being the first president to lose a great war or of converting the Vietnamese War into a massive, U.S. directed military effort. He chose a middle course that vastly escalated U.S. involvement but that stopped short of an all-out application of American power. Troop levels immediately jumped beyond 300,000 and by 1968 the number exceeded 500,000. Supporting these ground troops was a tremendous air bombardment of North Vietnam that by 1967 surpassed the total tonnage dropped on Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II. Gen. William Westmoreland, the U.S. commander in Vietnam, pursued an attrition strategy designed to inflict such heavy losses on the enemy that its will to continue will be broken. By late 1967, his headquarters was claiming that the crossover point had been reached and that enemy strength was being destroyed faster than it could be replenished. But the communists' Tet offensive launched in January 1968 quickly extinguished the "light at the end of the tunnel". The Vietcong struck throughout South Vietnam, including a penetration of the U.S. embassy compound in Saigon. American and South Vietnamese forces eventually repulsed the offensive and inflicted heavy losses on the Vietcong, but the fighting had exposed the reality that a quick end of the war was not in sight. Following the Tet offensive, the American leaders began a slow and agonizing reduction of U.S. involvement. Johnson limited the bombing, began peace talks with Hanoi and the NLF, and withdrew as a candidate for reelection. His successor, Richard M. Nixon, announced a program of Vietnamization, which basically represented a return to the Eisenhower and Kennedy policies of helping Vietnamese forces fight the war, Nixon gradually reduced U.S. ground troops in Vietnam, but he increased the bombing; the tonnage dropped after 1969 exceeded the already prodigious levels reached by Johnson. Nixon expanded air and ground operations into Cambodia and Laos in attempts to block enemy supply routes along Vietnam's borders. He traveled to Moscow and Beijing for talks and sent his aide Henry A. Kissinger to Paris for secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese. In January 1973, the United States and North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Agreement, which provided for the withdrawal of all remaining U.S. forces from Vietnam, the return of U.S. prisoners of war, and a cease-fire. The American troops and POWs came home, but the war continued. Nixon termed it "peace with honor," since a separate government remained in Saigon, but Kissinger acknowledged that the arrangement provided primarily for a "decent interval" between U.S. withdrawal and the collapse of the South. In April 1975, North Vietnamese troops and tanks converged on Saigon, and the war was over. Why did the United States lose the war? Some postmortems singled out media criticism of the war and antiwar activism in America as undermining the will of the U.S. government to continue fighting. Others cited the restrictions placed by civilian politicians on the military's operations or, conversely, blamed U.S. military chiefs for not providing civilian leaders with a sound strategy for victory. These so-called win arguments assume that victory was possible, but they overlook the flawed reasons for U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Washington had sought to contain international communism, but this global strategic concern masked the reality that the appeal of the communists in Vietnam derived from local economic, social, and historical conditions. The U.S. response to the Vietnamese communism was essentially to apply a military solution to an internal political problem. America's infliction of enormous destruction on Vietnam served only to discredit politically the Vietnamese that the United States sought to assist. Furthermore, U.S. leaders underestimated the tenacity of the enemy. For the Vietnamese communists, the struggle was a total war for their own and their cause's survival. For the United States, it was a limited wa f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Warof1812.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The War of 1812 The United States of America began to see the effects of Anglo-French War by the early 1800's. This European quarrel began affecting the United States shipping industry. Britain and France were violating neutral shipping rights of American merchants. They thought of America as weak due to inadequate time the nation had to develop. These violations were the first and primary provoking factors that led to war with Britain. There was reason that Britain became the target of US military rather that France. Britain has influenced Indians around Lake Michigan to resist white settlement. This was one of the primary reasons the English were chosen as our foe. Britain had the Indians do this as an attempt to keep the U.S. border as low as possible - not exceeding the Canadian border. France had made no such attempts to interfere with America; they in fact only had the simple desire to obtain our goods. They did with hopes of gaining this territory for their new colony later. Consequently, Britain became the target, and it led to a continuation of the American Revolution. The primary cause of the war with Britain was the fact the neutral shipping rights were violated by Britain, and though France had also violated these rights, there were other issues that the British were responsible for. Britain blockaded the United States in such a manner it was no longer possible to export goods by ship. The British were not doing this to harm America's economy, however it was extremely harmful to the economy of this young country. Britain was doing this so that France could not import as many goods that would behoove them in the war. France desperately needed various goods that could be imported from the United States and they were willing to pay where America's economy could have benefited tremendously. Though the fact of the matter is Britain's enormous, notorious navy would not allow the exporting of America's goods. The desire for Canadian colonies to join the United States, and the accusations of the British supplying Indians with weapons to be used against the U.S. are also causes of the War of 1812. The battles of this war were primarily fought on US soil. The British military was surprised by the United States military. They had underestimated of the young country that was blossoming and flourishing on freedom. The battle of Stoney Creek is an example of battle in which the British were surprised by not surprising the US. Lietinant- Colonol John Harvey chose 700 soldiers 8th and 49th regiments. These men arrived at the American camp at 2:00 am June 6, 1813, incidentally King George III's birthday. The English forces set there bayonets forward and ran upon the camp while whooping like Indians. Much to their surprise there were mysteriously only some smoldering camp fires and some cooks around them. The British realized what had happened: the order had been made for the American troops to sleep at higher ground for the night with their arms by their sides. American troops spotted the British while running down upon the camp and had very little time to attempt to scramble into place. Their time wasn't a lot, but it was much more than the British had. The surprise element was not only lost, but had backfired on the British. The 49th regiment split left under the command of Major James Ogilivie; the 8th regiment had split right. Neither regiment had adequate time to form a line there before the barrage of fire descending upon them. At this crucial moment, Major Plenderleath, with about 20 men of the 49th, darted up the hill towards four of the American guns that were mounted on Smith's knoll (where the lion monument stands now). They had managed to shoot two rounds of this artillery before being seized by the British, but the artillery was to play a vital part in the victory of the battle. Consequently, American troops suffered much more of a loss than they would have if they had prevented the capture of these pieces. The British causalities was still greater. Britain had lost 214 of their man against the 168 American losses, however Britain's attack would have been much more unsuccessful had the Americans been able to keep there brigadiers. Far from all battles were American victories. The battle of Washington D.C. for instance: this was a tragedy. There were many factors that behooved Britain. One of the most outstanding disappointments is the deprival of the 5,000 militia men that Pennsylvania was to have rounded up, but didn't due to the law concerning the matter of militia in the state. Records show that no one "got around to it." What a shame for the historical items lost due to the plundering of the capitol. Winder, the nephew of Maryland's governor, was in charge of defending the capitol from the red coats. Winder's military history was not one of glory nor glamour: he had been captured wandering in the dark in the Battle of Stoney Creek. He slept very little the last five days before the battle. He had been busy raising militia to defend Washington D.C. It was impossible for him to know the objective of the nearing red coats: he knew not which entrance upon the capitol they would enter from. That is if they were to attack the capitol. Annopolis and Fort Warburton were other possible locations that could be attacked. It was ordered that he was to have 15,000 men, yet when the red coats were only eight miles away he was armed with 3,000. These men were not even trained because they were not drafted to fight until it was "imminent." The sharpshooter armed with mostly muskets rather than rifles, the cowardly militia, and the cannons were not adequate defense for the capitol. The red coats entered over the bridge, the Baltimore 5th was in place firing upon the British that were heading for the river's edge. Nearly all British officers were hit, but the battle was far from over for Britain: they pursued the battle. The four men that were to man the two cannon at the white house abandoned their post as did most of the militia. Dolly Madison had her wagon of belongings ready on a minutes notice, but when the notice was given she did not leave without Gilbert Stuart's full length portrait of George Washington. The British broke rockets open and used the powder to set building ablaze. The President's Mansion, Capitol, Treasury, public buildings, and private houses were all doused in flames. Nothing was sacred to the angry British; it was somewhat revenge for the burning of Newark and York. Once over and analyzed it is quite apparent how little was gained by either of the opposing forces of the war. The British suffer tremendous casualties. The U.S. gained nothing in terms of land. This war was indeed pointless: it is amazing how one leader's feelings can kill thousands. President Madison got involved in this war because he felt that the country's pride had been stepped on. The opportunity to challenge Britain came up, and Madison jumped into it readily. The War of 1812 was definitely a war this nation could have gone without taking part in. It was ridiculous to lose so many valuable American lives for such worthless reasons - pride. Pride should be swallowed in certain occasions: this was definitely a time in which our leaders of America could easily have swallowed their pride at much less of a cost. American merchants and greed can be held at fault for this costly American war. Had merchants not pushed so hard this war may had been avoided, but they fact is it did. The War of 1812 did, however, strengthen America's ability to be self-reliant. This is valuable, but not worth the thousands of lives that were spent obtaining this minor war- time convenience. Word Count: 1320 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Watergate.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Watergate Watergate: by Randall D. Hutton English 112 English Composition II Dr. John Keeney February 26,1997 end coverpage Outline Thesis statement: Watergate could possibly be the worst scandal in the history of the United States. 1. Richard Nixon. A. Family. B. Political. II. Latest scandals. A. Iran Contra affair. B. Whitewater affair. Ill. Watergate. A. Burglary. B. Plumbers. C. John F.Kennedy IV. Investigation. A. Reporters. B. Special prosecutors. C. Senate hearings. D. Fight for tapes. V. National Archives and Records Administration. A. Material available for research. B. Special Files Unit. end page outline1 Outline VI. Outcome. A. Sentences. B. Constitutional. VII. Conclusion. end outline page 2 Watergate Political scandals are not strangers to the United States. They date back as far as 1830, with the presidential sex scandal and Thomas Jefferson, and in 1875 with the Whiskey Ring and President Ulysses S. Grant (Time and Again 1). Today we have the Iran-Contra affair with Ronald Reagan and Whitewater with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Even with these, it can be argued that Watergate could possibly be the worst scandal in the history of the United States. Richard Milihous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States, and the only President to ever resign his office. He was born the second of five sons, in Yorba Linda, California. His parents were Francis Anthony and Hannah Milhous Nixon. His career started in 1945 when he accepted the candidacy for a seat in the 12th congressional district which he won. He was elected to United States Congress in 1946, he then entered into the Senate as the youngest member ever in 1951. Only a short two years later he became the second youngest vice-president in history at the age of thirty nine. He served two terms as vice President under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1969 he won his bid for the Presidency(Kinsella 3). The Iran-contra affair was more of a U.S. foreign policy affair. This scandal came about in November of 1986 when President Ronald Reagan admitted to the selling of arms to Iran. The overall goal was to improve relations with Iran, but it soon came to light that it was more of a trade of arms for hostages deal. Later it was found that some of the profits from the sale of the arms to Iran went to the Nicaraguan "contra" rebels. On Dec.24, 1992, President George Bush pardoned all the people involved with the scandal and no charges were filed against Ronald Reagan (Iran-contra 1). The latest of all scandals is the Whitewater affair. The Whitewater affair is an ongoing investigation into a bad Arkansas real-estate adventure in the late 1970, and its connection with the now defunct Arkansas savings and loan company, and with President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary. The Whitewater development company started in 1979 and had the investors Bill Clinton, the Governor of Arkansas, his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton, a attorney for the Rose law firm, James B. McDougal the owner of the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. The group purchased some land which later turned out to be a bad venture. Sometime later the savings and loan went bankrupt at a cost of sixty million dollars to the taxpayers. There was allegations of the diversion of funds from Whitewater through the Madison Saving and Loan to cover some of the campaign debts of the Clinton's. There were also allegations of whether the Clinton's gained income-tax benefits from the failure of Whitewater that they were not entitled to. To date no charges have been filed against President Clinton or his wife Hillary (Whitewater 1). The whole Watergate scandal, brought about charges of political bribery, burglary, extortion, wiretapping, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, tax fraud, and illegal use of the CIA and the FBI, campaign contributions and taxpayers money for private matters. In all, more than 30 administration officials and other people in the Nixon administration pleaded guilty or were found guilty of illegal acts (Time and Again 2). The term "Watergate" came from the Watergate Hotel in Washington D. C. In addition to a hotel, the Watergate complex houses many business offices, one which was the headquarters for the Democratic National Committee. It was here that the great scandal got its very start (Farnsworth 1). In the early morning hours of June 17, 1972 a security guard at the Watergate Hotel called police about a robbery. Later, five men were arrested with evidence that linked them to the committee to re-elect the President (NARA,1). After the Watergate scandal had been uncovered, another group of illegal activities came to light. It was found that in 1971 a group of White House officials commonly called the "Plumbers" had been doing whatever they deemed necessary to stop any leaks that were originating from the White House. A grand jury later indicted John Ehrlichman and Special Counsel, Charles Colson and others for the burglary and the break-in at the office of a psychiatrist to get damaging material on Daniel Ellsberg, the person that had published classified documents called the Pentagon Papers. It was also later discovered that the Nixon administration had received large sums of illegal campaign funds and used them to pay for political espionage and pay more than five hundred thousand dollars to the five men that burglarized the Watergate Hotel (Infopedia,1). In 1972 , White House officials also testified that the Nixon administration had falsified documents to make it look as though John F Kennedy had been involved in the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, and that they had also written some documents accusing Senator Hubert H. Humphery of moral improprieties(Infopedia 2). After the Watergate burglars were linked to the committee to re-elect the President, official investigations were put into action. As more and more evidence pointed toward presidential involvement, the media became more confident and aggressive. Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein two reporters from the Washington Post, were very instrumental in the development of teams of investigative reporters around the world. The term "Deep Throat" became a very common phrase for the anonymous official who leaked valuable information to the reporters Woodard and Berstein(Farnsworth 6). Other leaders in the investigation were Judge Sirica, The Sam Ervin committee and special prosecuter Archibald Cox. Archibald Cox was sworn in as the special prosecutor in May 1973. As Cox and the Ervin Committee pushed the President for tapes that had been made in the White House, Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elloit L. Richardson to dismiss Cox as special prosecutor. On Oct 20, 1973 Elloit L. Richardson turned in his resignation, refusing to fire Cox. William Ruckeishaus, the deputy Attorney General also refused to dismiss Cox and was fired by Nixon. This turn of events came to be known as the "Saturday Night Massacre" and heightened the idea that the president was more involved than previously thought (Grolier 1). Eventually Archibald Cox was dismissed as special prosecutor by the Solicitor-General Robert Bork(Farnsworth 4). Between May and October of 1973, during special Senate hearings, Alexander Butterfield disclosed to the senate committee that some White House tapes existed. Archibald Cox and the Senate Watergate Committee began their push to listen to the tapes. Nixon claimed "Executive Privilege" and refused to turn the tapes over for review (Farnsworth 4). The President, on April 30, did release some edited transcripts of Oval Office conversations. All the tapes had suspicious gaps. Not very satisfied with what they had received, Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes. When Nixon refused to release the additional tapes the case went before the Supreme Court. The court decision was that Nixon could withhold any tapes that was of concern to National Security, but insisted that Watergate was a criminal matter. This ruling later led to the case of UNITED STATES V. RICHARD NIXON (Grolier 1). On August 5,1974, Nixon than released three more tapes to the public. One of the tapes clearly revealed that he had taken many steps to stop the FBI's investigation in the Watergate burglary. The tape also made it clear that the president had been actively involved in the cover-up from the very beginning(Grolier 1). The fight for the tapes started in the period between May and October of 1973 when Alexander Butterfield disclosed to senate hearings that the tapes existed. The tapes led to the firing and resignation of many people, and allegations against Rose Mary Woods, Nixon's secretary, that she had deliberately erased select portions of the tapes as they were being released ( Farnsworth 4). Although Nixon did release the tapes a few at a time, and what were released may have been edited, not all of the tapes have been released to this day. This is why the tapes were given the name "The smoking gun"(Groiler 2). Although not all the tapes and files were released, the Nixon Presidential Materials Staff ,a part of the National Archives and Records Administrations, Office of the Presidential Nixon administration, is custodian for all the historical materials of the Nixon administration. Their holdings include, some forty million pages of textual material, the audiovisual records, approximately five hundred thousand photographs, four thousand videotapes, four thousand, four hundred audiotapes, nine hundred and fifty white House tapes and one million feet of motion picture film, and more than thirty thousand gift items (NARA I). The Nixon Presidential Materials Staff have some of the records available for research. The material open to the public is approximately two thousand two hundred and ten cubic feet of textual materials. They also created a special flies unit. The special files unit was created in September of 1972 and was to provide a storage location away from the White House Complex to store the selected sensitive files. These complete files are of a highly sensitive nature and consist of papers of the Office of the President, the staff secretary, the offices of H.R. Haldernan, John Dean, Charles Closon. The following are the other groups that make up the special files and are only portions of the files(NARA1). Desmond Barker Jr. Special Assistant to the President (1 cubic foot) John R. Brown Ill Staff assistant to H.R. Haldeman (I cubic foot) Patrick J. Buchanan Special Assistant to the President (9 cubic feet) Stephen B. Bull Special Assistant to the President (2 cubic feet) Alexander P. Butterfield Deputy Assistant to the President (3 cubic feet) J.Fred Buzhardt replaced John Dean as Counsel to the President (2 cubic feet) Dwight Chapin President's Appointments Secretary (14 cubic feet) Charles W. Colson Special Counsel to the President (45 cubic feet) John W. Dean Counsel to the President (37 cubic feet) Harry Dent Deputy counsel and Special Counsel to the President (4 cubic feet) John D. Ehrlichman Counsel to the President (23 cubic feet) Alexander M. Haig Senior Military Assistant to the President (16 cubic feet) H.R. Haldeman President's Chief of Staff (140 cubic feet) President's Office Files (38 cubic feet) President's Personal Files (65 cubic feet) This is only a partial list of the files that are at the Nation Archives and Records Administration and the Nixon Presidential Materials Staff(NARA 2). Richard Nixon, facing White House impeachment and probable Senate Conviction, became the first U.S. chief executive to resign on August 9, 1974 (Grolier 1). It was later reported that, Richard Nixon had arranged a deal with Vice-President Ford. The arrangement was, if Ford would full fill two requests, that Nixon would step down and make Gerald Ford the President. Those conditions were, Richard Nixon was to receive a full pardon and that Ford would make sure that any information about Nixon's involvement with the anti-Castro operations would be totally concealed (Secret 1972 2). With Gerald Ford stepping in to fill in the remainder of the term, Ford gave Nixon a full and absolute pardon in September 1974(Grolier 1). Harry Robbins Haldeman was Nixon's White House Chief of Staff. Haldeman was found guilty of conspiracy , obstruction of justice and perjury in the Watergate cover-up. Haldeman was given a four year sentence and was paroled on Dec.20, 1978 after serving eighteen months. He later published a book about the scandal entitled The Ends of Power in 1978 (Grolier 1). Everette Howard Hunt was a CIA agent and an presidential aide. Hunt was the director of the Watergate burglary at the Democratic National Headquarters. For his part in the burglary Hunt was given a eight year sentence. He was paroled on February 23, 1977 after serving thirty two months. Hunt went on to publish dozens of spy thrillers into the 1990s(Grolier 1). John Newton Mitchell served as the Attorney General of the United States. He became chairman of the Committee to Re-Elect the President in March of 1972. He was sentenced to four years for his conviction on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury. He went on to live quietly in Washington DC after his release from prison in January 1979 (Grolier 1). John Wesley Dean was the counsel to the President. Dean testified that the President was involved in the cover-up and also admitted his own involvement. He served a term of September 1974 to January 1975 (Grolier 1). G. Gorden Liddy was recruited for the White House staff by Attorney General John Mitchell. For Liddy's involvement in the Watergate burglary at the Democratic Headquarters and the break-in at Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, he received a twenty years prison sentence. On April 12, 1977, President Carter changed Liddy's sentence from twenty to eight years (Taylor 6). These are just a few examples of the more than 30 Nixon officials that admitted their quilt or were found guilty of illegal acts. Watergate gives us good material to look at for analyzing the different arms of the government. Congressional committees ,senate and judiciary, have complete independence and great power. The Senate Watergate committees were crucial in getting the resignation of Nixon, while the recommendation by the Judiciary committee to try to impeach the president was carried in votes by both the Republican and Democratic members (Farnsworth 6). The power of the Supreme Court over the Executive branch was shown with the ruling that Nixon must turn over the tapes of the Oval Office (Farnsworth 7). The separation of powers means that no member of any of the three different parts of the government may belong or be a member of another (Farnsworth 7). As a good example of the checks and balances, while the president is the head of the government he cannot control the legislature. While the president has to appoint the Judicial arm of the government, they have to be approved by the Senate. The president serves a four year term and can only be removed from office by mpeachment. The Senate is the only part of the government that can impeach the president, but the impeachment process must start in the Mouse of Representatives (Farnsworth 7). Different branches of goverment have separate responsibilities. The president is on a fixed term and he is accountable to the House of Representatives, the part of the government that most reflects the current opinion of the nation. The Senate where each state has two senators regardless of population, is the only part that can remove the president (Farnsworth 8). Although the tapes played a major part in obtaining President Nixon's resignation, legal actions taken by the President managed to keep all but the forty hours of tapes from being released before his death twenty years later (Secret 1974 1). It is now some twenty five years after the beginning of Watergate, and the Nixon tapes are still making the news. In a recent court battle, the Nixon family lost their fight to keep the remaining tapes sealed. The National Archives have just released some two hundred hours of tapes, one which has President Nixon telling his chief of staff H.R. Haldeman to break into the Brookings Institution to remove documents concerning the Vietnam War. The publisher of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg and former Pentagon analyst, had several colleagues that worked at the Brooking Institution. Although there was never any record of a break-in at the Brookings institution, all of this is just one more piece of evidence of the many illegal acts that accompanied the Watergate scandal, and was thought of or performed by the Nixon Administration(Mercury I). end of paper Works Cited Farnsworth , Malcolm. Watergate. Online. www.gzone.com. 1997. "Iran-contra affair." Infopedia. 1994, CD-ROM. Funk and Wagnalis. Kinsella, Michael. Rembering Richard Nixon and Watergate.Online, www. members.gnn. NARA. Nixon Presidential Materials Available for Research.Online. gopher.nara.gov. National Archives and Records Admin. Nixon and Watergate. Online. www.nara.gov. "Nixon ordered think-tank break-in." Mercury Center. Online. http://cgi.jsmercury.com/news/national/docs/002421.htm. "The Secret History of the United States 1972.Online. http://w3.one.net/'conspira/1972.html. "The Secret History of the United States 1974. Online. http://w3.one.net/`conspira/1974.html. Taylor, Larry. G. Gordon Liddy. Agent from Creep. Online.www.gobaldialog.com. "Time and Again-Presidential Scandals." Online. www.msn.com. "Watergate." Encarta. Online. Microsofi, Encarta 96. Encyclopedia. "Watergate." Grolier. 1995, CD-ROM. Grolier Inc. Version 8.0. "Whitewater affair." Grolier. 1995, CD-ROM. Grolier Inc. Version 8.0. Word Count: 2828 f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Whiskey Rebellion.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mike Klenosky 11/24/96 AP History per. 4 Ms. Valentino On August 1, 1794, President George Washington was once again leading troops. Only this time Washington was not striking out against the British but rather against fellow Americans. The occasion for this was the Whiskey Rebellion. Various efforts had been made to diminish the heated opposition towards the tax on distilled liquors. However, there was only one man who has derived the best course of action. That man, President George Washington, deserves all the credit and recognition for his actions concerning the Whiskey Rebellion. In September 1791 the western counties of Pennsylvania broke out in rebellion against a federal "excise" tax on the distillation of liquor. After local and federal officials were attacked, President Washington and his advisors decided to send troops to assuage the region. On August 14, 1792, under the militia law, Henry Knox (secretary of war) had called for 12,950 troops. After this, many problems arose, both political and logistical. These dilemmas had to be overcome, and by October, 1794 the men were on the march towards Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. There, they contained the mob hysteria and anger. This event represented the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 enabling the militia to "execute the laws of the union, and suppress insurrection" (The Whiskey Rebellion of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1). It is clear that George Washington was the source of success in the Whiskey Rebellion. When the militia, with Washington and Hamilton at its lead, reached western Pennsylvania, it became clear that there would be no armed resistance. Evidence of Washington's leadership in this rebellion took place when the "Representatives of the insurgents asked for clemency, and Washington granted it with stipulation that they comply with federal laws thereafter" (The Precipice of Power). This agreement forced the public to abide by the rules of the government and their taxes without any destructive rebellions. It was evident that Alexander Hamilton was not the backbone of this success. "His actions provided undeniable proof to Republicans that Hamilton was a monster who would stop at nothing to defend his corrupt policies, a budding Caesar bent on establishing monarchy" (A Biography of Alexander Hamilton). Hamilton did not care as much about the success of his government but of himself and his beliefs on the nation. Furthermore, Hamilton was planning on resigning, hence making it crucial to him to entrench the policies he had put into place. "For the remainder of his life Hamilton worried that his work would be destroyed, his system dismantled, under the opposition" (The Precipice of Power). President George Washington played a key role in the opposition between the mob and the militia. He deserves the credit for creating and maintaining peace among the people, and carrying out the mission without one shot fired. Hamilton, on the other hand, put his interests ahead of the problem at task, hence, forcing Washington to come up with a logical solution. Had it not been for Washington's courage and kindness, the militia might well have followed the lead of the French Rebels, and destroyed the country. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\winston churchhill.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2) Write about an historical person. Winston Churchill Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace on Nov. 30, 1874. His father was Lord Randolph Churchill, who descended directly from the 1st duke of Marlborough, of whom Winston was to write a biography. His mother was Jennie Jerosme, an American. Churchill's childhood was unhappy. He spent most of his time at school, something he didn't really love. His teachers caracterized him as bright, but stubborn and obstinate. He loved to read history and poetry, however, and was fascinated by soldiers and battles. From childhood he had an extraordinary memory. Winston Churchhill didn't want to go to university. Instead, he enrolled in the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. He graduated in 1894. After service in Cuba and India, he worked as a war-correspondent in Northern India, Sudan and in South Africa, where he was captured by the Boers. His daring escape made him an overnight celebrity. Churchill always wanted to become a politician. His wish came true in 1900, when he was elected to the Parliment as a Conservative, and he quickly made his mark. His political sympathies began to change, however, and he "changed sides" in 1904, when he abandoned the Conservative party for the Liberals. When the Liberals came to power in 1905, Churchill entered the government as secretary of state for the colonies. In 1908, the year of his marriage to Clementine Hosier, he became a member of the cabinet as president of the Board of Trade. Winston's political missions became more and more important, in 1910 he became a member of the Admirality. In 1913-1914 Churchill completed British naval preparations for war. During World War Churchhill made some fatal mistakes in war strategy. This was one of the main reasons that he was removed from the Admirality when the Conservatives (many of whom now detested him) joined the government in 1915. After a period of active military service in France, he was re-elected in the Parliment. He became minister of munitions under the prime minister David Lloyd George. He subsequently served as secretary of state for war and air and for the colonies and helped negotiate the treaty that created the Irish Free State. But he lost both his office and his seat in Parliament when Lloyd George's coalition government fell in 1922. Over the next year or two, Churchill gradually moved back into alliance with the Conservatives. He used to remark with a mischievous twinkle, "Any fool can rat, but I flatter myself that it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat." Returning to Parliament in 1924, he was offered the post of chancellor of the exchequer in Stanley Baldwin's Conservative government (1924-1929). It was in this position Churchill maybe made his biggest mistake as a politician: He revalued the pound, giving the currency a fixed value against other currencies, to better the rather poor economic situation. Churchill took this step with many misgivings, and it proved a mistake, worsening the poor economic situation. Afterward he made efforts to heal the grand failure with labor, but he was never entirely successful. Between 1929 and 1939 Churchill did not hold office. He disapproved violently of Baldwin's Indian policy, which pointed toward eventual self-government. At the same time he warned against the ambitions of Nazi Germany and urged that Britain should match Germany in air power. As World War II drew nearer, his warnings were seen to be justified. When general war broke out in September 1939, Churchill was offered his old post of first lord of the Admiralty by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Following the unsuccessfull allied attempt to "remove" the Germans from Norway (for which Churchill had large responsibility) Chamberlain determined to resign. Churchill replaced him as prime minister as Germany invaded the Low Countries on May 10, 1940. The prime minister Winston Churchill was largely responsible for many aspects of war policy. He established personal relations of the highest value with U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt who began to supply arms and weapons to Britain immediately after the British army lost most of its equipment at Dunkerque (June 1940). In the late summer of 1940, as the Battle of Britain raged and no one knew whether Britain would be invaded, Churchill daringly diverted an armored division, one of only two in Britain, to the Middle East. Although no one had been a more convinced opponent of the USSR than Churchhill, he decided immediately to give help to the Soviet Union when it was invaded by Germany in the summer of 1941. The entry of the United States into the war at the end of the same year gave the Allies the advantage in greater resources. But the new shape of the alliance also meant that Britain's influence was bound to decrease as the USSR and the United States joined in with full power. Churchill was determined that the slaughter that he had seen in World War I should not be repeated. That is why he refused to attempt an invasion of mainland Europe until North Africa and the Mediterranean had been cleared of the enemy. The Allied invasion of Sicily and Italy, "the soft underbelly of the Axis," finally began in the summer of 1943, to be followed a year later by the Normandy invasion, the "Operation Overlord". By this time, however, Churchill carried less weight at conferences and in the general formation of war strategy. For example, Churchill did not then foresee the full Soviet threat. At the time of the Yalta Conference (February 1945), Churchill had high confidence about Soviet intentions. He soon came to a different opinion, and in 1946 he spoke of the "iron curtain" that had descended across Europe. Although Churchill wished to keep the wartime coalition government in power, a general election was called in Britain in July 1945. Then, after the unconditional surrender of Germany and just before the final collapse of Japan, the Conservatives lost the election. When the first results were received, showing a substantial swing to the Labour party, Churchill was taking a bath. He remarked: "There may well be a landslide and they have a perfect right to kick us out. That is democracy. That is what we have been fighting for. Hand me my towel." The Labour party took office with a large majority after World War II. Churchill was somewhat hurt by this, he felt that the electors had rejected him as their leader, and he determined to reverse it. By the end of 1951 he was back in power, with a small majority. Although he never quite matched in this last phase as prime minister the performance of his wartime days, his energy in the first year or two remained astonishing. Churchill gave authority to the administration, only his presence as prime minister helped to stop criticism. People had great respect for Winston. In July 1953, soon after his knighthood, when he could add "Sir" to his name, he suffered a stroke. Sir Anthony Eden, whom Churchill had long wanted as his follower as prime minister, was himself ill at the time, and part of Churchill's motive in remaining in office was doubtless to ensure that Eden was not cheated of his succession. Churchill finally left office in April 1955, and Churchhill's favourite follower Eden became prime minister of Great Britain. Sir Winston's last ten years, marked by a worse and worse health, were occupied by occasional travel, a little painting, and the publication of his "History of the English Speaking People" (1956-58). This was the last of his many notable writings, which included "Lord Randolph Churchill" (1906), "The World Crisis" (1923-29), "My Early Life" (1930), "Marlborough" (1933-38), and "The Second World War" (1948-54), which was maybe his greatest work ever. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1953. Churchill occupied to the end the affections of the British people, symbolizing the magnificent national performance in heroic days. Sir Winston Churchill was maybe England's greatest leader (and biggest sigar-smoker) ever, and as Britain's leader through most of World War II, he personified resistance to tyranny. Sir Winston Churchill died on Jan. 24, 1965, 70 years to the day after his father, at the age of 90 Sources: The new Grolier Multimedia Enclycopedia Aschehoug og Gyldendals mini-ettbinds leksikon Skrevet av Tobias Toresen Næss i slutten av niende klasse. Jeg fikk S på denne stilen da den ble innlevert våren 1996. Jeg fikk stilen evaluert på nytt da jeg begynte i 1. gym. Min norsklærer ville gitt den 6- ved innlevering i 1. gym. Den passer best for niende klasse / første gym - elever. Hvis du bruker stilen, vær så snill å maile meg hva du synes og hvilken tilbakemelding du fikk, okei? E-mail adr: ttnaess@online.no f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Winston Churchill.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2) Write about an historical person. Winston Churchill Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace on Nov. 30, 1874. His father was Lord Randolph Churchill, who descended directly from the 1st duke of Marlborough, of whom Winston was to write a biography. His mother was Jennie Jerosme, an American. Churchill's childhood was unhappy. He spent most of his time at school, something he didn't really love. His teachers caracterized him as bright, but stubborn and obstinate. He loved to read history and poetry, however, and was fascinated by soldiers and battles. From childhood he had an extraordinary memory. Winston Churchhill didn't want to go to university. Instead, he enrolled in the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. He graduated in 1894. After service in Cuba and India, he worked as a war-correspondent in Northern India, Sudan and in South Africa, where he was captured by the Boers. His daring escape made him an overnight celebrity. Churchill always wanted to become a politician. His wish came true in 1900, when he was elected to the Parliment as a Conservative, and he quickly made his mark. His political sympathies began to change, however, and he "changed sides" in 1904, when he abandoned the Conservative party for the Liberals. When the Liberals came to power in 1905, Churchill entered the government as secretary of state for the colonies. In 1908, the year of his marriage to Clementine Hosier, he became a member of the cabinet as president of the Board of Trade. Winston's political missions became more and more important, in 1910 he became a member of the Admirality. In 1913-1914 Churchill completed British naval preparations for war. During World War Churchhill made some fatal mistakes in war strategy. This was one of the main reasons that he was removed from the Admirality when the Conservatives (many of whom now detested him) joined the government in 1915. After a period of active military service in France, he was re-elected in the Parliment. He became minister of munitions under the prime minister David Lloyd George. He subsequently served as secretary of state for war and air and for the colonies and helped negotiate the treaty that created the Irish Free State. But he lost both his office and his seat in Parliament when Lloyd George's coalition government fell in 1922. Over the next year or two, Churchill gradually moved back into alliance with the Conservatives. He used to remark with a mischievous twinkle, "Any fool can rat, but I flatter myself that it takes a certain ingenuity to re rat." Returning to Parliament in 1924, he was offered the post of chancellor of the exchequer in Stanley Baldwin's Conservative government (1924-1929). It was in this position Churchill maybe made his biggest mistake as a politician: He revalued the pound, giving the currency a fixed value against other currencies, to better the rather poor economic situation. Churchill took this step with many misgivings, and it proved a mistake, worsening the poor economic situation. Afterward he made efforts to heal the grand failure with labor, but he was never entirely successful. Between 1929 and 1939 Churchill did not hold office. He disapproved violently of Baldwin's Indian policy, which pointed toward eventual self government. At the same time he warned against the ambitions of Nazi Germany and urged that Britain should match Germany in air power. As World War II drew nearer, his warnings were seen to be justified. When general war broke out in September 1939, Churchill was offered his old post of first lord of the Admiralty by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Following the unsuccessfull allied attempt to "remove" the Germans from Norway (for which Churchill had large responsibility) Chamberlain determined to resign. Churchill replaced him as prime minister as Germany invaded the Low Countries on May 10, 1940. The prime minister Winston Churchill was largely responsible for many aspects of war policy. He established personal relations of the highest value with U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt who began to supply arms and weapons to Britain immediately after the British army lost most of its equipment at Dunkerque (June 1940). In the late summer of 1940, as the Battle of Britain raged and no one knew whether Britain would be invaded, Churchill daringly diverted an armored division, one of only two in Britain, to the Middle East. Although no one had been a more convinced opponent of the USSR than Churchhill, he decided immediately to give help to the Soviet Union when it was invaded by Germany in the summer of 1941. The entry of the United States into the war at the end of the same year gave the Allies the advantage in greater resources. But the new shape of the alliance also meant that Britain's influence was bound to decrease as the USSR and the United States joined in with full power. Churchill was determined that the slaughter that he had seen in World War I should not be repeated. That is why he refused to attempt an invasion of mainland Europe until North Africa and the Mediterranean had been cleared of the enemy. The Allied invasion of Sicily and Italy, "the soft underbelly of the Axis," finally began in the summer of 1943, to be followed a year later by the Normandy invasion, the "Operation Overlord". By this time, however, Churchill carried less weight at conferences and in the general formation of war strategy. For example, Churchill did not then foresee the full Soviet threat. At the time of the Yalta Conference (February 1945), Churchill had high confidence about Soviet intentions. He soon came to a different opinion, and in 1946 he spoke of the "iron curtain" that had descended across Europe. Although Churchill wished to keep the wartime coalition government in power, a general election was called in Britain in July 1945. Then, after the unconditional surrender of Germany and just before the final collapse of Japan, the Conservatives lost the election. When the first results were received, showing a substantial swing to the Labour party, Churchill was taking a bath. He remarked: "There may well be a landslide and they have a perfect right to kick us out. That is democracy. That is what we have been fighting for. Hand me my towel." The Labour party took office with a large majority after World War II. Churchill was somewhat hurt by this, he felt that the electors had rejected him as their leader, and he determined to reverse it. By the end of 1951 he was back in power, with a small majority. Although he never quite matched in this last phase as prime minister the performance of his wartime days, his energy in the first year or two remained astonishing. Churchill gave authority to the administration, only his presence as prime minister helped to stop criticism. People had great respect for Winston. In July 1953, soon after his knighthood, when he could add "Sir" to his name, he suffered a stroke. Sir Anthony Eden, whom Churchill had long wanted as his follower as prime minister, was himself ill at the time, and part of Churchill's motive in remaining in office was doubtless to ensure that Eden was not cheated of his succession. Churchill finally left office in April 1955, and Churchhill's favourite follower Eden became prime minister of Great Britain. Sir Winston's last ten years, marked by a worse and worse health, were occupied by occasional travel, a little painting, and the publication of his "History of the English Speaking People" (1956 58). This was the last of his many notable writings, which included "Lord Randolph Churchill" (1906), "The World Crisis" (1923 29), "My Early Life" (1930), "Marlborough" (1933 38), and "The Second World War" (1948 54), which was maybe his greatest work ever. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1953. Churchill occupied to the end the affections of the British people, symbolizing the magnificent national performance in heroic days. Sir Winston Churchill was maybe England's greatest leader (and biggest sigar-smoker) ever, and as Britain's leader through most of World War II, he personified resistance to tyranny. Sir Winston Churchill died on Jan. 24, 1965, 70 years to the day after his father, at the age of 90 Sources: The new Grolier Multimedia Enclycopedia f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Women in the Japanese Employment System.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Particular Features Of The Employment System In Japan One of the unique and well known features of the Japanese employment system is permanent employment for workers. Japanese corporations responses to recessionary periods provide an opportunity to sort out the myths from the realities of the Japanese permanent employment system. During recessions Japanese companies forced to reduce their costs achieve reductions in several ways. First, they reduce the number of women and temporary workers they employ. During the recession that followed the 1973 oil shocks female employment dropped by eleven percent; more then five times the drop in male employment. It was easy to reduce female employment because women even if they hold permanent positions are thought of as transitory workers who will leave the workforce when they get married. Female and temporary workers are a safety valve for Japanese companies that allow them to reduce costs in the short-term without firing permanent male workers. The second way Japanese companies reduce costs is by giving early retirement to senior workers at the company. Many of these workers forced into early retirement then take up farming as is the custom in Japan for retires. Getting rid of senior workers is one the most effective tools companies have of reducing costs because these workers have more seniority and thus make more money then the average worker. Japanese companies also are able to cut costs during recessions by reducing or eliminating bonuses paid to workers, cutting down on hiring of new workers, eliminating the farming out of work to subcontractors, transferring workers internally with in the company to subsidiaries, and reducing profit margins to levels that many American companies would find intolerable. Japanese companies response to recessions shows the benefits and disadvantages of their employment system. Some of the benefits are that loyalty and labor relations are very good. This is due to the fact that for non-temporary male workers not yet near retirement age companies make a great effort to continue the permanent employment system even during recessions. Most young male workers once entering a company stay with it for their entire life and for them Japans permanent employment system serves them well. These workers come to view their company as almost a benevolent parent; the company leads them through fitness drills, training camps, and retreats. A workers identity is shaped not by their individual title but by the company they belong to. But, female, temporary, and senior workers wind up paying the price of this permanent employment system. Women who want to work in a long-term position for a company lose their jobs when recession hits. And because many women who lose their jobs become housewives and don't apply for unemployment insurance they become the invisible unemployed, uncounted by labor department statistics. The "permanent" employment system in Japan is only a permanent employment for non-temporary male workers not near retirement age, during recessions when companies are forced to cut costs mostly female, temporary, and elderly workers wind up loosing their jobs. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\Women in the Revolution.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I. Women's Roles in the Revolution A. Family Enterprises 1. Women took over 2. Succeeded Despite a. inflation b. British Occupancy c. absence of important supplies 3. gave women self-confidence 4. proved that women could make a living by themselves B. Army Camps 1. Women came to be with soldiers a. were fed by military b. were cared for by military 2. The women: a. cooked b. cleaned c. sewed d. served as nurses e. were not treated specially 1. marched with men 2. slept in the snow C. Women Soldiers, "Molly Pitchers" 1. reloaded muskets 2. carried pitchers of water a. when men fell in battle, women took over the guns b. played an important role 3. Marly Ludwig Hays McCauley a. original "Molly Pitcher" b. fought in the Battle of Manmouth, 1778 c. recieved D. Women Spies 1. Women act as spies a. Culper Ring 1. organized spy ring 2. Long Island 3. consequences if captured a. imprisoned b. hanged b. many organized spy rings 2. Secret messengers a. relied on helpless stereotypes b. young girls 1. could slip through lines easily 2. Enemy never suspected them 3. carried orders and information c. women 1. listened to what British said a. while serving food/drink b. officers spoke freely 1. thought women were not interested 2. they were wrong 2. Lydia Darragh a. of Philidelphia b. carried important information 1. to General Washington 2. at Valley Forge E. After the war 1. Women continue to be interested in politics 2. Spoke of themselves as Republican Mothers 3. strengthening of a nation a. Marcy Otis Warren b. Abigail Adams c. John Adams and Benjamin Rush d. position of women II. Abigail Adams A. Childhood B. Marriage III. The Declaration of Sentiments A. Elizabeth Cady Stanton B. Lucretia Mott C. Seneca Falls Convention D. 1920: women recieve full citizenship Women's Roles in the Revolution When people think of the Revolutionary War, mosth think of George Washington leading his men into battle, Minutemen fighting, or John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock signing the Declaration of Independence. Event hough all of these things did happen, and were very important to the war and to our nation, they were not all that happened. But, the people that are thought of all seem to be men. Often, the woment of the Revolution are forgotten, even though they played an important part in the forming of the United States.1 Women like Abigail Adams, Mary Hays and Lydia Darragh all helped the rebellion against Britain. From seamstresses to spies, women helped as much as the men. those women should never, through all history and future, be forgotten. Women play important Roles Women, as said before, took on many roles, from seamstress to spy, and everthing imbetween. When husbands, fathers, and brothers went off to fight, family enterprises, such as farms, shops and companies, were left without the owners and executives that were regualarly needed. This left the women of the family in charge. Almost all businesses were left to the women, for ver few men who were qualified or old enough to run them were not fighting. The women, much to other's suprise, and probably their own, succeeded. The businesses thrived, despite of terrible inflation, dense British occupancy, and the absence of important supplies that were badly needed. Though all of thsi, the women's self confidence increased drastically. With this new confidence, the women proved that they could make a living by themselves, without the aid of men. Poorer women who didn't have a source of income without thier husbands, padked up their belongings and followed their husbands to the military camps. When they got there, the government would 2 feed them, along with their children and other relatives. When sickness or disease hit on th of women, they would be cared for jsuta s the soldiers would have been. Even when they were healthy, they were taken care of. As more and more women cam to the camps, the camps grew into large, bustling towns.2 The women, however, were not given these luxuries for free. In return for the food, care, and medical service, they cooked meals for themselves and soldiers, cleaned the camp, sewed uniforms for thir husbands and other men, washed these uniforms and other clothing, and served as nurses for hte wounded. Even though in other places and towns mowmen were treated differently than me, in the camps the two were equal, both to each other and to the soldiers. For instance, they marched with the men whern moving to a different site, and even slept int eh same snowy conditions as the men at Valley Forge. Many women cam to teh camps to join male relatives, but some actually joined them on the front lines of war. these women were called "Molly Pitchers." They woiuld stand by teh fighting soldiers and reload musket to save desperately needed time. ro, they would carry pitchers of water to the men so that they could refresh themselves. Molly Pitchers also helped the soldiers in another way. When they were carrying their pitchers and they saw a man fall with injury, they would set down teh pitcher and run to him. They would take over the gun that he was using, and take his place in battle. This helped the American immensely, and made the women ever more important to the rebellion. When the women wer called Molly Pitchers, there was mroe meaning than jsut the "pitcher." Mary Ludwig Hay McCauley was the person from whom teh name was adapted from. She was a twenty-five year old, tobacco chewing, hardworking woman3 who was one of the first pitcher-carrying women. The men would yell, "Here comes Molly and her Pitcher!" Therefore, she became known as Molly Pitcher. Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley's moment of glory took place on June twenty-eighth, seventeen seventy-eight, in Manmouth (Now Freehold) New Jersey.4 The British General Sir Harry Clinton, who was movng his troops from Philadelphia to New york, had run into an American Force lead by General Charles 3 Lee. Among them was John Casper Hays, Mary's husband. Mary worked at her pitcher throught the entire battle, bringing cool water to the thirsty troops. It is the battle that she is most noted for, and for which she received a military medals of honor, and a military pension. All women trengthened the nation, but a few stood out from the others. Mary Otis Warren was one of them. She was a very educated woman, especially for the time, and had a vivid interest in the war. She became he most noted historian of the revolution, and her records wtill are a good historical source on this subject. Abigail Adams was another important woman of the revolution. She addressed the women's role in strengthineing our nation directly when she said: "We can improve and pull our nation together by teaching our children the priciples of democracy and the history of this nation. Don't ever think for a moment that our quest for independence will end when the war does."5 John Adams, the husband of Abigail and the second President, and Benjamin Rush spoke out for the rights of women. they urged women to receive better educations and use what they learned. The women listend , and new academies and schools were formed to educate them. Because of all of these women and men, women's position in society changed. Mor respect for them was paid, and, as was said before, women were no being educated as men were. But, women still did not gain full citizenship. That was still to come. Abigail Adams Abigail Smith Adams was born in Weynouth Mass. Like most of the girls of her time, she did not go to school. Even so, she taught herself to read and used her father's small library to it's fulle extent. There, her quick mind absorbed all of his books, as well as works in French that were borrowed form her bother-in-law, who had taught her to read them. When Abigail was nineteen, she married John Adams, who was twenty-nine. Her mother thought that she was taking a step down in the world because in the small villages south of Boston, where the couple had grown up, the Smiths were much better known than the Adamses. John was a rising lawyere, but he and Abigail were able to marry only after he had inherited a small house and a few acres of land across teh road from his farmer brother. With the help of a black slave woman who was borrowed from John's mother, Abigail set up house. From the beginning, Abigail and John got on well. Their views on rights and tyranny were never far apart. Abigail had a shrewd awaremess of the political and social ideas of her time. many letters written to her husband while they were separated showed her interest in public affairs. In seventeen seventy-six, while John was attending the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Abigail tried to persuade his to extend the rights of women. She wrote: "In the code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire that you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors were. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands, remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the laides, we are determined to forment a rebellion, and iwll not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or repesentation."6 Seneca Falls Convention, 1848 The Declaration of Sentiments is read. James Mott lead the meeting on women's rights that took place in Seneca Falls, New York. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was present, as were many other women troubled with the Declaration of Independence. Elizabeth Stanton spoke about how she, as others before her, including Abigail Adams, had been troubled that the opening of the Declaration of Independence has to do with the rights of men only. In her speech, "The Declaration of Sentiments," she began with, "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men and women are greated equal..."7 Stanton ended the "Declaration of Sentiments" with several proposals on women's rights. These resolutions included: the right of married women to own and sell property, and the right of mothers to the custody of their children. The Seneca Falls Convention voted to support these proposals. The Seneca Falls Convention was a partial conclusion to women's rights. But, one resolution that Elizabeth Stanton proposed was strongly objected to by both men and women attending teh convention. The right for women to vote was put down by almost everyone. However, in 1920, a full conclusion was reachedin women's suffrage: Women were granted full citizenship. Bibliography Jordon, Withrop. The Americans. Evenston: McDougal Co., 1991. Brown, Richard. One Flag, One Land. Needham: Silver Burdett and Ginn, 1990. Russel, Francis. Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill, New York: American Hereitage Publishing Co., 1963. Jacobs, William Jay. America's Story. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1990. Ketchum, Richard M. The Revolution. New York: American Heritage Publishing , 1958. Graff, Henry F. This Great Nation. Chicago: Riverside Publishing Co., 1983. Pivin, Robert. America the People and the Dream. Glenview: Scott Foresman and Co., 1991. Patrick, John. History of the American Nation. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984. Versteege, Dr. Lawrence L. American Spirit, Chicago: Follet Publishing Co., 1982. "Abigail Adams." Encylopedia Americana, 1980 ed. "Abigail Adams." The World Book Encyclopedia, 1978 ed. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\World War 2.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ here's one on the deficit for those economics classes Subject: the deficit good or bad Deficit Spending "Spending financed not by current tax receipts, but by borrowing or drawing upon past tax reserves." , Is it a good idea? Why does the U.S. run a deficit? Since 1980 the deficit has grown enormously. Some say its a bad thing, and predict impending doom, others say it is a safe and stable necessity to maintain a healthy economy. When the U.S. government came into existence and for about a 150 years thereafter the government managed to keep a balanced budget. The only times a budget deficit existed during these first 150 years were in times of war or other catastrophic events. The Government, for instance, generated deficits during the War of 1812, the recession of 1837, the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, and World War I. However, as soon as the war ended the deficit would be eliminated and the economy which was much larger than the amounted debt would quickly absorb it. The last time the budget ran a surplus was in 1969 during Nixon's presidency. Budget deficits have grown larger and more frequent in the last half-century. In the 1980s they soared to record levels. The Government cut income tax rates, greatly increased defense spending, and didn't cut domestic spending enough to make up the difference. Also, the deep recession of the early 1980s reduced revenues, raising the deficit and forcing the Government to spend much more on paying interest for the national debt at a time when interest rates were high. As a result, the national debt grew in size after 1980. It grew from $709 billion to $3.6 trillion in 1990, only one decade later. Increase of National Debt Since 1980 Month Amount -------------------------------------------- 12/31/1980 $930,210,000,000.00 * 12/31/1981 $1,028,729,000,000.00 * 12/31/1982 $1,197,073,000,000.00 * 12/31/1983 $1,410,702,000,000.00 * 12/31/1984 $1,662,966,000,000.00 * 12/31/1985 $1,945,941,616,459.88 12/31/1986 $2,214,834,532,586.43 12/31/1987 $2,431,715,264,976.86 12/30/1988 $2,684,391,916,571.41 12/29/1989 $2,952,994,244,624.71 12/31/1990 $3,364,820,230,276.86 12/31/1991 $3,801,698,272,862.02 12/31/1992 $4,177,009,244,468.77 12/31/1993 $4,535,687,054,406.14 12/30/1994 $4,800,149,946,143.75 10/31/1995 $4,985,262,110,021.06 11/30/1995 $4,989,329,926,644.31 12/29/1995 $4,988,664,979,014.54 01/31/1996 $4,987,436,358,165.20 02/29/1996 $5,017,040,703,255.02 03/29/1996 $5,117,786,366,014.56 04/30/1996 $5,102,048,827,234.22 05/31/1996 $5,128,508,504,892.80 06/28/1996 $5,161,075,688,140.93 07/31/1996 $5,188,888,625,925.87 08/30/1996 $5,208,303,439,417.93 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73 10/01/1996 $5,234,730,786,626.50 10/02/1996 $5,235,509,457,452.56 10/03/1996 $5,222,192,137,251.62 10/04/1996 $5,222,049,625,819.53 * Rounded to Millions Federal spending has grown over the years, especially starting in the 1930s in actual dollars and in proportion to the economy (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP). Beginning with the "New Deal" in the 1930s, the Federal Government came to play a much larger role in American life. President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to use the full powers of his office to end the Great Depression. He and Congress greatly expanded Federal programs. Federal spending, which totaled less than $4 billion in 1931, went up to nearly $7 billion in 1934 and to over $8 billion in 1936. Then, U.S. entry into World War II sent annual Federal spending soaring to over $91 billion by 1944. Thus began the ever increasing debt of the United States. What if the debt is not increasing as fast as we think it is? The dollar amount of the debt may increase but often times so does the amount of money or GDP to pay for the debt. This brings up the idea that the deficit could be run without cost. How could a deficit increase productivity without any cost? The idea of having a balanced budget is challenged by the ideas of Keynesian Economics. Keynesian economics is an economic model that predicts in times of low demand and high unemployment a deficit will not cost anything. Instead a deficit would allow more people to work, increasing productivity. A deficit does this because it is invested into the economy by government. For example if the government spends deficit money on new highways, trucking will benefit and more jobs will be produced. When an economic system is in recession all of its resources are not being used. For example if the government did not build highways we could not ship goods and there would be less demand for them. The supply remains low even though we have the ability to produce more because we cannot ship them. This non-productivity comes at a cost to the whole economic system. If deficit spending eliminates non-productivity then its direct monetary cost will be offset if not surpassed by increased productivity. For example in the 1980's when the huge deficits were adding up the actual additions to the public capital or increased productivity were often as big, or bigger than the deficit. This means as long as the government spends the money it gains from a deficit on assets that increase its wealth and productivity, the debt actually benefits the economy. But, what if the government spends money on programs that do not increase its assets or productivity. For instance consider small businesses. If the company invests money to higher a new salesman then he will probably increase sales and the company will regain what it spent hiring him. If the company spends money on a paper clips when they have staplers they will just lose the money spent on the paper clips. This frivolous spending is what makes a deficit dangerous. Then the governments net worth decreases putting it into serious debt. Debt should not be a problem because we can just borrow more, right? This statement would be correct if our ability to borrow was unlimited, but it is not. At first the government borrowed internally from private sectors. The government did this by selling bonds to the private sectors essentially reallocating its own countries funds to spend on its country. This works fine in a recession, but when the country is at or near its full capability for production it cannot increase supply through investment of deficit dollars. Deficit dollars then translate into demand for goods that aren't being produced. Referring back to the small business example, if a company is selling all the products it can produce they can still higher another salesman. But since there are no more goods to be sold the salesman only increases the number of consumers demanding the product. Without actually increasing sales. The problems of deficit spending out of a recession even out through two negative possibilities, inflation and crowding out. Inflation means there is more demand or money than there are goods this causes an increase in prices and drives down the worth of the dollar. This depreciation of the dollar counters the cost of the deficit but destroys the purchasing power of the dollar. A five dollar debt is still a five dollar debt even if the five dollars are only worth what used to be a five cent piece of bubblegum. Despite its dangers inflation is used to some extent to curb the debt. Crowding out is when the government is looking for the same capital that the business sector wants to invest. This causes fierce competition for funds to invest. The fierce competition causes an increase in interest rates and often business will decide against further investment and growth. The government may have the money to build new highways but the truckers cannot afford trucks to use on them. The governments needs will "crowd out" business needs. This turns potential assets into waste. However, there is a third option which would allow the government to run a deficit and avoid the negative aspects of inflation and crowding out. Borrowing from foreign sources is a tangible and recently very common practice. Attracted by high interest rates and stability, foreigners now buy huge amounts of U.S. national debt. Of course this cannot be the perfect solution otherwise no one would be concerned about the debt. The problem with borrowing from external sources is the lack of control the government has over foreign currency and debts. Internal debts can be paid with increased taxes, inflation, and other monetary controls the government has but external debts can extremely damaging to a country if it cannot buy enough of the foreign currency to pay the interest. Running a deficit is apparently good for an economy that is operating inside its production possibilities curve but it can be damaging to an economy operating on the curve. A deficit managed properly has the effect of increasing demands. An economy inside its curve can increase supplies in reaction. An economy on the curve can increase demand but its supplies cannot increase causing prices to rise, or inflation. If there is no deficit and the curve shifts to the right then supplies will not increase and the country will no longer be operating on the curve. A deficit must be maintained to insure that the economy grows with its resources. Is the U.S.'s current debt bad or good? The trick is finding out how large the deficit should be in order to allow for growth without waste. The U.S.'s deficit is bad at this point because the U.S. is close to its maximum production capabilities, and deficit money is being wasted. For example two of the largest portions of the budget: defense and social security. Defense spending produces little or nothing except in times of war. Judging by the current status of the United States as the only existing "Nuclear Super Power" war is not a tangible event in the near or distant future. The way social security is managed creates a huge waste. As managed, social security is money spent to immobilize a large and fairly capable part of the work force. It encourages elderly people not to work by spending deficit money on them. Reducing productivity and increasing the debt at the same time. In its current state the U.S. should attempt to reduce its deficit but eliminating it is not necessary and could do more damage than good. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\World War I Assignment Empathy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Mum, I am still in the St. Mary's Nursing Home in Broadstairs. They say that I have almost completely recovered from the trauma, and I should be able to leave this place within the next two months. I think that I should be impatient to leave, but being here gives me a lot of time to think - do I really have that much to leave for? I know that I will always have you and Dad, but have I really returned to "A Land Fit for Heroes", as had been promised by the politicians? The country to which we have returned seems to be an entirely different one to the one that we left - when we left, the country was full of enthusiasm, we were encouraged to enlist - indeed, anyone who did not enlist for service was made into a pariah. The country to which I have returned is recession-hit, and scarred by battle. No-one here can even start to understand the loss experienced by all of the Tommies who fought. That is not their fault, it is impossible to understand how it feels to watch your best friends dying one by one, and being totally unable to prevent it, or the fear that the next attack of the Boche might be the one where a bullet hits you in the head, that that you might not make it back from the next offensive, or that maybe you won't be killed but just be left stranded in no-man's land, with one of your legs blown off, that the next shell might explode on you. That this moment might be your last. Very few realise that the scars carried by Tommies are not just those from amputations, but also from the things that we saw, and heard. The continuous drumming of the deluge of shells that continued for four years has sent large numbers of Tommies mad. The evil shells that spewed mustard gas into our trenches will be remembered for ever by those who saw them and their effects. Men who are in this nursing home still complain that the pernicious gas has caused them permanent damage, they say that their hearing has been impaired, or their eyesight, or their breathing. What am I supposed to do upon being discharged? I have been trained only in how to kill, but I couldn't stand up to a life in the army. I have killed enough people for one lifetime. What kind of job can I get? I couldn't go and study books now, not after what I have seen and done. For four years, I have lived close to all of the friends I had in the world; the friends changed, but the camaraderie was always the same - now I have no-one in the world apart from you. The loss is not just my own. The country has been robbed of an entire generation of young men, and what have we accomplished, in return for this great loss? We are called the winners, but what does that mean? Have we actually won anything? It feels as though we have been betrayed, not just by the politicians, but by everyone. Yours, f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\World War II.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Essay on World War 2 War is one of the most tragic things in our world today. It is even sadder that usually it comes around at least once in our lifetime. In the 20th century alone we have already had two huge wars. These wars were call the World Wars simply because they involved most of the big countries of the world. Many people have died in these wars.. especially the second World War. That is my focus for this essay. The leader of Germany at the time of WW2 and the person who most think started WW2 was a man named Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was born in Austria. By the time that World War 1 started in 1914, he was living in Germany. He served well in the German Army and for that he earned a medal for bravery. At the end of the war Hitler decided to take up politics. By 1921 he was already the founding leader of the Nazi party. Hitler was an incredibly racist man and he had a great hate for Jews. By 1933, Hitler gained political power by winning the election. Soon after he made himself absolute dictator, calling himself the Fuhrer which means "Leader". By the end of the 30's he was already sending Jews off too concentration camps to meet a horrible death. I believe that Hitler was one of the greatest causes of World War 2. Although there are many other reasons, he was definitely one of them. Another reason was the Treaty of Versailles. This was the treaty that was signed at the end of World War 1. This treaty outlined the rules that Germany must follow because of their defeat by Britain and France. Many Germans were angered by the treaty, for most of the rules in the treaty were unfair and Germany lost a great amount of wealth. One of the cruelest reasons for the war was Hitler's racist hate for Jews. He would send them off in cattle cars to places called concentration camps were they would be slaughtered by the thousands. World War 2 was huge and involved a lot of countries. There were thousands of battlefronts and warsites. The two main battlefronts were the battle front between Britain and Germany and the battlefront between the Japanese and the Americans. These battlefronts were split up into smaller battlefronts even still. Many lives were lost in the air, on land and in the sea. Some of the most notable battles were: The Battle of Britain, The Battle of Midway and The Battle of the Atlantic. Since the US and Canada were at war with the Japanese, Japanese Canadians were treated very poorly. The government had decided that all or most Japanese Canadians, even if they were born in Canada had either go home or go and live in one of the camps. These camps were made to keep all the Japanese Canadians together in one location. But the fact was that these camps were very dirty and not fair treatment. Also, the government took away all Japanese possessions and without the Japanese knowing, they were auctioned off at a fraction of their original value! This treatment went on for all of World War 2 and Japanese Canadians were not treaty fairly for many years after. Just recently the government of Canada has decided to pay compensation for their losses but most agree that it doesn't even come close to what they lost. One of the greatest outcomes of the war was the great world power shift. For more than a century Great Britain had been the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. But they used up too many resources in the wars and their status greatly decreased. One person even wrote that it is not Great Britain any more... it is just Britain. People all over the world suffered through this war. Hundreds of thousands of people died. All for the sake of their countries. And you know what? No one actually gained anything from it. The fact is that all of the countries (excluding the US) lost much, much more than what they gained. Britain lost their power, France lost lives and land, Germany lost everything and Japan lost thousands of civilians in their suicidal attacks called Kamikazes. In my opinion the war was a total waste. Although some people will tell you that we fought and gained the peace that we have today and have had for almost fifty years. People fought for 5 years and lost more than 50 billion dollars. Do think it was worth it? Now, maybe if governments use the past as a guide to the future we won't have to fight such a bloody battle ever again. Especially with nuclear weapons so easily obtainable. f:\12000 essays\history & events (325)\World War One Assignment Empathy.TXT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Mum, How are you getting on? I hope that Dad's cold is better. Send my best wishes to everyone! I am writing to you from the barracks of our regiment. My training is going well; I have many good friends here, and although the training I have been getting is necessary, I cannot wait to finish it, and get out to the Front, because the chances are that the war will be over within a few months, and I want to get a good chance to have my go at the Boche. All kinds of rumours are spreading through the regiment about the things that the Boche are doing. They are supposed to have committed all sorts of atrocities in Belgium, such as butchering defenceless, innocent women and children, and also raping and pillaging. I cannot understand why anyone would not want to take their place in Kitchener's New Army; it makes me angry that cowards should be able to duck out of their responsibility to their country. The whole idea of conscientious objection seems absurd to me; it is just a front used to cover cowardice. Conchies don't object to war, they are just scared that they might get hurt. They should see this war for what it is: a chance to help and serve their country, and earn some glory, both for themselves, and for Britain. The Boche needs to be taught a lesson; they cannot expect to just march around the globe, invading countries for no reason, other than selfishness. If we do not step in and act decisively soon, who knows where they will stop? How can the army act decisively if many of the men who should be soldiers decide to stay at home because they are scared? Those who claim that their religion stops them from fighting are in the wrong as well; I am a religious man, and God has said to me (and I believe him) that He agrees with our fighting the war; God is on our side! Lots of Love ------- END FIRST LETTER Dear Mum, I am writing this letter to you from one of the support trenches, about half a mile back from the front line. I am sorry that I have not been able to write properly to you for the past few weeks, but you can probably guess how it is out here. Everywhere you look, dead bodies are piling up, as we (our battalion) sit here, there is an almost constant flow of dead and injured soldiers from the front. When you hear about the glorious victories achieved by our boys, don't forget that we are losing men too; it is so depressing to hear the numbers at roll calls gradually going down. Whether you, or the man who is next to you dies, and also when it happens is completely random, there is no justice to it; great men, generous, cheerful men, who are lights to us all, they just disappear without warning, just like everyone else. It is impossible to get any real sleep here; yes you can shut your eyes, and call that being asleep, but you never really relax; there is always the fear lingering over you that the Boche might overrun the trenches at any time, or that the perpetual thunder of the shells crashing down on the trenches might start to move in this direction, and the whistling projectiles might start slamming into the ground around you, throwing mountains of earth into the sky, or releasing their deadly cargoes of choking, blinding, gas into your lungs. Sometimes you do not take your boots off for days and days on end, and when you do, you suffer from Trench Foot, a rotting disease. The conditions here are worse than you could imagine; when it snows, it is so bitterly cold that quite a few of us get gangrene. But the worst thing is that generally the drainage in the trenches is awful - when the snow melts, it has nowhere to go to, the ground is already sodden, and so huge puddles build up. But they are not normal puddles; they have a consistency like treacle, and in places they are so deep that it is not unusual for injured Tommies who fall into them to drown, especially if they are trying to make their own way to a first aid post. I expect that we will be sent back up to the front-line trenches in three or four days. The atmosphere in the trenches just before the order is received to go over the top is about the most depressing imaginable - you look around at the men who you are serving with , and you realise that this may well be the last time you see some, or all of them. The number of casualties we sustain in this action is the highest of any of the action we perform. The ground in no-man's land is more like glue than treacle, because it is churned up so often by the shells that rain down on it. You are supposed to advance calmly as a line, but the line breaks up quickly, as men fall from machine gun fire, or drop behind because they cannot move through the thick mud. Then we reach the razor wire, which is supposed to have been cut by shellfire, but hardly ever has, so you have to stop, and pick your way through it. While you are doing this, you are a sitting duck for Fritz's machine guns. If you do take the Boche's trench' then they will probably counter-attack within the hour. The whole cycle repeats endlessly. Some of the Tommies, upon realising the sorry state of affairs that exists here, resort to getting a self inflicted "Blighty" - a wound that is serious enough to merit their return to Blighty (hence the name), but not serious enough to cause any permanent damage. You may think that such behaviour is understandable, given the circumstances, but I urge you to withhold any compassion you may feel for them, because they, like Conchies, are just cowards. Their course of action could be seen as even more cowardly than that of Conchies - They are abandoning their share of the fighting, and increasing the burden upon others, who are supposed to be their friends. Conchies, though, are the worst without exception; they openly disapprove of the war, they claim that their consciences forbade their taking part in the war, and also from helping in the factories, because that would be encouraging the war effort. Yet they are more than happy to eat the food that has been brought to England for the nation by sailors who risked life and limb to bring the food to them from abroad past the Boche and their mines, and ships. How are you and Dad getting on at home? I hear that the Zepp. raids are getting quite bad around you. All that you need to do is to pray to God; by a miracle, He has kept me safe and alive here, and if He will do that, then He will surely guard you if you ask him to. We were all so misguided and naive to believe that the war would be over as quickly as by Christmas, but I think that this war cannot go on for much longer; we are gradually pushing Fritz back, and we have been told that they have been taking far worse casualties than we have. I think that the Boche will get fed up of this war before we do. Pray to God that He should keep me safe here until the Boche admit defeat, and I will pray that you and Dad are kept safe from the Zepp. raids. Lots of love, ------- END SECOND LETTER Dear Mum, I am still in the St. Mary's Nursing Home in Broadstairs. They say that I have almost completely recovered from the trauma, and I should be able to leave this place within the next two months. I think that I should be impatient to leave, but being here gives me a lot of time to think - do I really have that much to leave for? I know that I will always have you and Dad, but have I really returned to "A Land Fit for Heroes", as had been promised by the politicians? The country to which we have returned seems to be an entirely different one to the one that we left - when we left, the country was full of enthusiasm, we were encouraged to enlist - indeed, anyone who did not enlist for service was made into a pariah. The country to which I have returned is recession-hit, and scarred by battle. No-one here can even start to understand the loss experienced by all of the Tommies who fought. That is not their fault, it is impossible to understand how it feels to watch your best friends dying one by one, and being totally unable to prevent it, or the fear that the next attack of the Boche might be the one where a bullet hits you in the head, that that you might not make it back from the next offensive, or that maybe you won't be killed but just be left stranded in no-man's land, with one of your legs blown off, that the next shell might explode on you. That this moment might be your last. Very few realise that the scars carried by Tommies are not just those from amputations, but also from the things that we saw, and heard. The continuous drumming of the deluge of shells that continued for four years has sent large numbers of Tommies mad. The evil shells that spewed mustard gas into our trenches will be remembered for ever by those who saw them and their effects. Men who are in this nursing home still complain that the pernicious gas has caused them permanent damage, they say that their hearing has been impaired, or their eyesight, or their breathing. What am I supposed to do upon being discharged? I have been trained only in how to kill, but I couldn't stand up to a life in the army. I have killed enough people for one lifetime. What kind of job can I get? I couldn't go and study books now, not after what I have seen and done. For four years, I have lived close to all of the friends I had in the world; the friends changed, but the camaraderie was always the same - now I have no-one in the world apart from you. The loss is not just my own. The country has been robbed of an entire generation of young men, and what have we accomplished, in return for this great loss? We are called the winners, but what does that mean? Have we actually won anything? It feels as though we have been betrayed, not just by the politicians, but by everyone. Yours,