Native Americans vs. Whites Essay Example for Free

Native Americans vs. Whites Essay Native Americans had no other option than assimilation. Today, we have the right to choose. Back in the days you had rights only if you were part of the elite society, in this case, a white person. White people were so hungry power that they did whatever they had to as to gain all the land that belonged to the Native Americans. They took advantage of the inocense of the Native Americans and achieved their goals. Whites wanted total control over the Native Americans, they forced them to assimilation, tricked them and took everything away from them. Back in the 1800s white americans came into the Sioux lands where Native Americans settled, they wanted to have their lands, the gold and all those sources which back then meant a lot.. White people always wanted to have total control. They believed everything had to be done as they said because they were superior and for it they ruled and they deserved everything they wanted. They forced the Native Americans to leave their home lands and put them to live on reservations. Some reservations were the Lakota, Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Standing Rock. Whites wanted the Native Americans to become so like them that they banned the Ghost Dance on Lakota reservations in December 1890, then on Pine Ridge and Rosebud as the rites of this religious fervor continued. Native Americans were very naive, but still they struggled againt the whites trying to remain with some dignity and being loyal with in themselves. As the Ghost Dance was banned, Short Bull, Kicking Bear and Sitting Bull tried to resist since they didnt like to be told what to do. By the end, a struggle struck where Sitting Bull died, and none of the Native Americans efforts were worth since the whites always had their way. Assimilation should be an option not an obbligation. Whites wanted the Native Americans to mish into their culture, customs and beliefs as a way to assimilate and become more like them. They wanted Indians to convert into christianity and to speak their languange (English). They even gave them Christian names and banned eveything that was not good for the whites eyes. Native Americans had no saying in this whole situation, they either accepted it or died (second option was the best for the whites since they wanted to exterminate the indian race). Charles Eastman, once called Ohiyesa was a great example of this assimilation. He couldnt resist to the white orders so he became assimilated, he was going to med school and had a romance with Elaine Goodell, a teacher of the reservations. Native Americans passed through a lot, they were tricked and constantly abused. They were forced to leave their lands and put to live on reservations, where life wasnt easy at all. Some refused to leave their lands but as the situation worsen, they had no other option than accepting. Native Americans and whites were not always fighting, they usually traded and negotiated peacefully. Things went peacefully until the whites started tricking the Indians, like signing the treaty of Traverse de Sioux; when Red Cloud signed it they were promised many things which never happened, the whites tricked him and now he had no option than signing or all of the tribe would be killed. Also General Sherman and General Custer, they were always trying disastrous things against the harmless Native Americans, like burning their homes and forcing them to do things they didnt want to. The whites betrayed the Native Americans, but there was nothing the Indians could do, if they tried to rebel against the whites they would end up just like Sitting Bull. It is clear that the only way Native Americans could survive was by assimilating. I think the whites went too far. They were very rude and hard to the Indians. I believe we were all born with differences and were all raised differently, just as the Native Americans and the whites, but to the eyes of God we are all equal, and for that major reason we should all accept who we are. Assimilation was a great option, but it was opt to them if they wanted it or not. Native Americans were very ignorant and whatever they were said they would believe it. I think many of the events that happened could have been prevented if the whites tried to communicate and kept real the promises they made to the Indians. Most of this was for the governments fault, but it is more than obvious that they will never accept it. http://alyidel. blogspot. com/.

Woodstock 1969 Essay -- essays research papers

The Woodstock of 1969 was a revolution in itself and responsible for redefining the point of view, respect, and attitude of the so-called "counter-cultured" youth of the late sixties. The attendants of the festival were youths from around the United States in ages ranging from 17 to 26. The overall mood of the festival was very relaxed and happy. Although there was a minimal amount of violence at Woodstock, there were financial problems, drugs, nudity, and traffic jams that seemed to go for miles down the old country roads surrounding Max Yasgur's dairy farm. Woodstock was a symbol of the rebellious society of the time. The youths that went were looking to vent out frustrations that their parents had forced upon them. For most youths, the "3 Days of Peace, Love, and Music" seemed to be just the place to balance their thoughts, relax with friends, and meet new people that hated their parents as much as they did. Two-hundred thousand people were expected to show for the Woodstock festival, and instead an overwhelming "400,000 youngsters turned up to hear big- name bands play in a field near the village of Bethel, New York state in what has become the largest rock concert of the decade". The attendents and the mood of the Woodstock festival in Bethel, New York was that of the counter-cultered young society of the late sixties. Max Yasgur's farm was transformed from a beautiful lush, green dairy farm field into a 400,000- person mudpit. Throughout the days of the festival, the attendants were "undaunted by rain, mud, wet clothes and chilly mountain breezes, thousands of youths sat on a rural hillside here for a marathon 19-hour session of folk-rock music". Drugs had also become increasingly more popular in the sixties, and Woodstock was no exception to the latest trend. Drugs were readily available and generously passed around through the crowds of youths all over the hillside. But the drugs weren't the reason that people generally attended the Woodstock festival. Most would agree with a man interviewed five miles away from his vehicle walking towards the festival in saying that " But it's more than that. I'm here for the same reason that Indians used to have tribal gatherings. Just being here with people like me makes it all worthwhile... ...ting with a lot of room, grass, trees, lakes. It was going to be a youth cultural exposition and that is where the culture of this generation expresses itself more naturally". Woodstock '69 has remained the icon of the sixties. After a "mind-blowing rendition of the national anthem, the hillside was cleared for the first time in nearly four days of the hordes of youths who came here for three days of music, companionship, and, in many cases, drugs". "Mr. Yasgur is gone, as is the farm. The meadow is green again, and very peaceful. Someone has built a small monument...commemorating the event, listing performers and dates". Today there are still people who believe in the philosophy of peace, love, and hapiness. They still have the hope that one day the government will "take the backseat" to an overcrowded music festival. A policeman after the music festival said what only can be imagined now-a-days, that those kids "have proven something to the world... that half a million kids can get together for fun and music and have nothing but fun and music."

Germany increase in Britain in the 1936-1939 Essay

The policy of appeasement had reached its heights by the period between 1936 and 1939. It was felt by many to be the best policy at the time, as it allowed Britain to buy herself some valuable time in order to delay the inevitable war. Opposition during 1936, when appeasement was first seen as really taking the forefront of foreign policy, was small and weak. However it was by 1939 that the opposition had swelled gradually under opposition leaders such as Churchill to the point where there were only few people who truly believed that a long-lasting period of peace would arise from this idea of appeasing the enemy. Over this period of time, both public opinion and Parliamentary opinion would lean towards the opposing side, based a series of factors that had changed in this 3 year span of time. A poorly-prepped military and defense services, a lack of trustworthy allies, Hitler’s legitimate claims and a change in public opinion all contributed towards a shift in beliefs. Opposition to the policy of appeasing militaristic powers began to grow after Hitler took power in Germany and it became clear to many in Britain that he would carry out his expansionist aims. Some of appeasement’s most vocal opponents came from within government, from people such as Winston Churchill and the Labor party, more significant was the publics strong anti war stance beginning to slowly shift as they learnt more of Hitler and the rise of fascism. However this did not mean that they were strongly in favor of pursuing war with Germany as Chamberlain was greeted like a hero when he returned with â€Å"peace for our time† following the Munich Agreement. Having already known of how crippling the economic costs were following WW1 the idea of pursuing conflict with another foreign power was considered unacceptable. This was compounded by the fact that events occurred so soon after the Wall Street Crash, Britain simply could not afford another major loss of her monetary funds in order to prepare for war. Appeasement was believed to be the answer to Britain’s needs, by deploying a policy of appeasement Britain could use the time it gained to find allies and develop British defenses and technology. By 1936 intelligence reported that German rearmament was already under way and that Britain had to get its armaments up to a sufficient standard. However in order for armament spending to increase the Government would have to raise taxes and focus their spending upon military. A raise in taxes would also inevitably lead to public outcry and loss of government support. Even if sufficient funds were acquired in order to reach the amount of armaments needed there was only one working armaments factory in the whole of Britain that could produce weapons fit for modern warfare. Due to the Ten Year Rule the state of Britain’s armed forces was essentially desolate, this meant that much of Britain’s armed forces required updated weaponry if it ever were to stand a chance against Hitler’s formidable Third Reich. For example Spitfires and radar were rather new to the world of air defense systems, however they were in short supply at the beginning of 1936 despite it being British technology. Spending focus upon defenses was suggested by the Inskip Report as opposed to any other offensive tactics. However, after 1938 the readiness of the British army had certainly improved, and Chamberlain had confidence that if war was to come, Britain would be ready to take Germany on. German power had been exaggerated greatly, especially the power of the Luftwaffe through propaganda and the sheer numbers who attended the infamous Nuremburg Rallies. The time bought with appeasement had consequently allowed Britain to build up a strong naval blockade in order to strengthen its naval security and rearmament spending increased sufficiently. During this period the Territorial Army had also doubled in size. Appeasement provided Britain with extra time to develop her armaments and develop a defense plan in preparation of the oncoming war. There was little opposition to this from the officials in Parliament, however as the military and defense services were brought back to their former strength, the idea of opposition started to re-emerge. One of Britain’s key aims during the period was the perpetual search for a strong ally, by averting the war through appeasement, Britain had given herself time to try and ally her herself with the USA. While the USA may have followed an isolationist policy she was still the largest power in the world and would have been a strong diplomatic and military ally. France was something of a wreck, thanks to Britain’s doing, and had tried her best to prepare herself for German invasion by creating the Maginot Line the previous decade. Britain’s desire for allies had even turned eastwards in the direction of the USSR, who until that point had only been seen as a need to allow Germany to rearm. However, the Communist nation could have helped the Western powers against Germany and Japan in the Far East. At first appeasement was used to try and gain favour with any potential allies. However, as opposition grew the lack of emerging allies forced Britain to try ‘kindling’ a relationship with the USSR. It was believed by many, specifically Chamberlain, that Hitler had legitimate claims for his conquests in Europe. The reoccupation of the Rhineland was enough to be seen as a legitimate grievance even though it was outlawed in 1919 at Versailles. Despite this, Britain did not see her as a sufficient threat just yet and refused to act upon the reoccupation. By 1936 Germany had gained the status of ‘Ultimate potential enemy’ and this led to a concern that Germany would be enticed by Italian and Japanese expansionist aims, and considering they were also ‘UPEs’ this could spell further disaster for Britain. With the Mediterranean under threat and the Suez Canal with it and the Empire in the Far East under constant vigilance, trade and the Empire’s safety were put as higher priorities than Germany. Even the union between Germany and Austria had little effect, the Anschluss was not opposed by Chamberlain, considering that that a staggering amount of those in Austria rejoiced at the idea of being reunited. Rather than try to cause conflict by splitting them up, appeasement allowed them to get back together without much trouble. This act of appeasement found little opposition within Parliament, however as 1938 approached opposition started to gain a foothold, Hitler’s reactions were becoming increasingly aggressive- Kristallknacht had shown a far darker and more menacing side to the dictator and had displayed to many the true extent of the oppressive regime within Germany. This was seen as a repeat of The Night of the Long Knives four years previous. Hitler’s grievance at first seemed to be legitimate and therefore was a driving reason as to why Britain continued to appease Germany. Nevertheless as his tactics became more aggressive and he started to threaten the surrounding countries it became apparent that appeasement no longer satisfied him, this led to critics of Chamberlains policies such as Churchill developing a larger power base against appeasement. British public opinion swayed greatly throughout the period and vastly impacted British foreign policy. Although the fear of rearmament was strong in the public opinion, it was the additional fear of the outbreak of war that started to swing their opinions towards appeasement during 1936-38. The Spanish Civil war had provided a glimpse of what future warfare would be like, and the terrifying realization of the destructive power one country could inflict on another was nothing like what had been previously experienced. In 1937, Guernica had showed the devastation that could be brought about by terror-bombing. This served as another reason why appeasement should be maintained as it was considered a more sound option than sparking a war, this was something that the public supported wholeheartedly. However it was clear that attitudes had started to change as 1938 approached. Opinion polls had gradually started to show support for other methods, as shown in the 1938 poll which asked what Britain should do if Germany acted hostile to Czechoslovakia as a large proportion of polls suggested that Britain should rearm and prepare for conflict. Still highly influenced by public opinion, Government policy seemed to switch to a more anti-German undertone. This switch was seen in the increased rearmament revenue expenditure in 1938. The public now wanted Britain to take on a stronger stance against Germany and this resulted in increased pressure upon Chamberlain to boost the army’s numbers. At first public opinion was strongly in favor of appeasement, this was due to reluctance of diving into another war war. However when war was no longer avoidable, it was within public interest that Britain prepare for war in any way she could. Opposition to appeasement did increase between 1936 and 1939, but at a steady pace. Appeasement was originally pursued in order to protect British interests; the protection of her Empire, finding suitable allies, and preparing for war via defense and military spending, as well as to prepare the public that war was coming. Opposition to Hitler and the appeasement of Germany did increase between 1936 and 1939, but at a steady pace as the true aims of Hitler became evident and it became clear that the British government could not make him back down. In parliament the stance of the labour party had changed drastically from favouring. The public’s willingness to support independent states at this time shows that it was Hitler’s continued actions in 1938 that pushed many people into opposing appeasement or even advocating war. Churchill was used as a figurehead in which opposition to appeasement could rally behind. Appeasement was originally pursued in order to protect British interests; the protection of her Empire, finding suitable allies, and preparing for war via defense and military spending, as well as to prepare the public that war was coming, however towards the end of the period when Hitler started to set his sights on further expansion the mood changed in Britain and appeasement was no longer a feasible option.

Cache Level 3 Unit 2

c- Analyse the issues which are essential to confidentiality and objective observations Partnership With Parents. Parents know their child best therefore it is essential to establish a co-operative partnership with the parents of the children. It is ideal to build a trusting and respectful relationship with parents so that they feel comfortable speaking with the practitioner if they have concerns. Parents are entitled to be kept informed on how their child is progressing and are told what the child will be doing in the setting, for example following The Early Years Curriculum.This can help the child develop and feel comfortable. Parents should also be made aware that their child will be observed and assessed throughout the year in the setting. If a trusting relationship exists between a practitioner and a parent it is more likely information on problems or changes at home will be discussed with the setting. Parents can also help to shed light on observation findings therefore practit ioners can understand the child’s stage of development and personal needs more.However if there is a breach of confidentiality parents will be hasty to share information again and have a negative outlook towards the practitioner, this means it is essential for information handling to be in a secure and safe manner. Safe Storage of Information. Storage of observations must be dealt with care, it must be stored in a secure manner in folders which are locked, password protected and encrypted.Yet they must be accessible to designated practitioners and files also must be backed up. Only trusted members of staff should have access to personal information as part of the Confidentiality Policy under the Data Protection Act 1998 all children’s right to privacy should be respected and upheld. Sharing Information Information on observations can be shared with other professionals involved with the child, for example in a multi-agency team information on observations can be shared. Parents also are allowed and encouraged to view observations that have been made on their child as they can help the practitioner understand the results and even take action towards the child’s personal needs themselves. Objectivity Pre-judgement, personal beliefs and values are not allowed to come into the observation however a skilled observer will acknowledge that everyone has these traits and will try to be objective. To be objective means to be without bias and not allow your personal experiences influence what you observe in the child.However practitioners must be careful they don’t give the child a self-fulfilling prophecy whether negative or positive because every child is different and will develop at their own pace. Children with learning difficulties, different ethnic backgrounds or family background might be seen as developing English skills slower. This may not be the case and a practitioner must give every child the chance to develop and be given the same amount of one-on-one teaching time as well as group class activities. (e7)

Jose Miguel Carrera - Biography of Jose Miguel Carrera

Jose Miguel Carrera - Biography of Jose Miguel Carrera Josà © Miguel Carrera Verdugo (1785-1821) was a Chilean general and dictator who fought for the patriot side in Chiles War for Independence from Spain (1810-1826). Together with his two brothers, Luà ­s and Juan Josà ©, Josà © Miguel fought the Spanish up and down Chile for years and served as head of government when breaks in the chaos and fighting allowed. He was a charismatic leader but a shortsighted administrator and a military leader of average skills. He was often at odds with Chiles liberator, Bernardo OHiggins. He was executed in 1821 for conspiring against OHiggins and Argentine liberator Josà © de San Martà ­n. Early Life Josà © Miguel Carrera was born on October 15, 1785 into one of the wealthiest and most influential families in all of Chile: they could trace their lineage all the way to the conquest. He and his brothers Juan Josà © and Luà ­s (and sister Javiera) had the best education available in Chile. After his schooling, he was sent to Spain, where he soon became swept up in the chaos of Napoleons 1808 invasion. Fighting against the Napoleonic forces, he was promoted to Sergeant Major. When he heard that Chile had proclaimed a provisional independence he returned to his homeland. Josà © Miguel Takes Control In 1811, Josà © Miguel returned to Chile to find it ruled by a junta of leading citizens (including his father Ignacio) who were nominally loyal to the still-imprisoned King Ferdinand VII of Spain. The junta was taking baby steps towards real independence, but not quickly enough for the hot-tempered Josà © Miguel. With the support of the powerful Larrain family, Josà © Miguel and his brothers staged a coup on November 15, 1811. When the Larrains tried to sideline the Carrera brothers afterwards, Josà © Manuel initiated a second coup in December, setting himself up as dictator. A Nation Divided Although the people of Santiago grudgingly accepted the dictatorship of Carrera, the people of the southern city of Concepcià ³n did not, preferring the more benign rule of Juan Martà ­nez de Rozas. Neither city recognized the authority of the other and civil war seemed certain to break out. Carrera, with the unwitting aid of Bernardo OHiggins, was able to stall until his army was too strong to resist: in March of 1812, Carrera attacked and captured the city of Valdivia, which had supported Rozas. After this show of force, the leaders of the Concepcià ³n military overthrew the ruling junta and pledged support to Carrera. The Spanish Counterattack While rebel forces and leaders had been divided among themselves, Spain was preparing a counterattack. The Viceroy of Peru sent Marine Brigadier Antonio Pareja to Chile with only 50 men and 50,000 pesos and told him to do away with the rebels: by March, Parejas army had swollen to some 2,000 men and he was able to capture Concepcià ³n. Rebel leaders formerly at odds with Carrera, such as OHiggins, united to fight off the common threat. The Siege of Chilln Carrera cleverly cut off Pareja from his supply lines and trapped him in the city of Chilln in July of 1813. The city is well-fortified, and Spanish commander Juan Francisco Snchez (who replaced Pareja after his death in May 1813) had some 4,000 troops there. Carrera laid an ill-advised siege during the harsh Chilean winter: desertions and death were high among his troops. OHiggins distinguished himself during the siege, driving back an attempt by the royalists to break through patriot lines. When the patriots managed to capture a part of the city, the soldiers looted and raped, driving more Chileans to support the royalists. Carrera had to break off the siege, his army in tatters and decimated. The Surprise of El Roble On October 17, 1813, Carrera was making plans for a second assault on the city of Chilln when a sneak attack by Spanish troops caught him unawares. As the rebels slept, royalists crept in, knifing the sentries. One dying sentry, Miguel Bravo, fired his rifle, alerting the patriots to the threat. As the two sides joined in battle, Carrera, thinking all was lost, drove his horse into the river to save himself. OHiggins, meanwhile, rallied the men and drove off the Spanish despite a bullet wound in his leg. Not only had a disaster been averted, but OHiggins had turned a probable rout into a well-needed victory. Replaced by OHiggins While Carrera has disgraced himself with the disastrous siege of Chilln and cowardice at El Roble, OHiggins had shone at both engagements. The ruling junta in Santiago replaced Carrera with OHiggins as commander-in-chief of the army. The modest OHiggins scored further points by supporting Carrera, but the junta was adamant. Carrera was named ambassador to Argentina. He may or may not have intended to go there: he and his brother Luà ­s were captured by a Spanish patrol on March 4, 1814. When a temporary truce was signed later that month, the Carrera brothers were freed: the royalists cleverly told them that OHiggins intended to capture and execute them. Carrera did not trust OHiggins and refused to join him in his defense of Santiago from advancing royalist forces. Civil War On June 23, 1814, Carrera led a coup that put him back in command of Chile. Some members of the government fled to the city of Talca, where they begged OHiggins to restore the constitutional government. OHiggins obliged, and met Luà ­s Carrera on the field at the Battle of Tres Acequias on August 24, 1814. OHiggins was defeated and driven off. It appeared that more warring was imminent, but the rebels once again had to face a common enemy: thousands of new royalist troops sent from Peru under the command of Brigadier General Mariano Osorio. Because of his loss at the battle of Tres Acequias, OHiggins agreed to a position subordinate to that of Josà © Miguel Carrera when their armies were united. Exiled After OHiggins failed to stop the Spanish at the city of Rancagua (in large part because Carrera called off reinforcements), the decision was made by patriot leaders to abandon Santiago and head into exile in Argentina. OHiggins and Carrera met again there: prestigious Argentine General Josà © de San Martà ­n supported OHiggins over Carrera. When Luà ­s Carrera killed OHiggins mentor Juan Mackenna in a duel, OHiggins turned forever on the Carrera clan, his patience with them exhausted. Carrera went to the USA to seek ships and mercenaries. Return to Argentina In early 1817, OHiggins was working with San Martà ­n to secure the liberation of Chile. Carrera returned with a warship that he had managed to acquire in the USA, along with some volunteers. When he heard of the plan to liberate Chile, he asked to be included, but OHiggins refused. Javiera Carrera, Josà © Miguels sister, came up with a plot to liberate Chile and get rid of OHiggins: brothers Juan Josà © and Luà ­s would sneak back into Chile in disguise, infiltrate the liberating army, arrest OHiggins and San Martà ­n, and then lead the liberation of Chile themselves. Josà © Manuel did not approve the plan, which ended in disaster when his brothers were arrested and sent to Mendoza, where they were executed on April 8, 1818. Carrera and the Chilean Legion Josà © Miguel went mad with rage at the execution of his brothers. Seeking to raise his own army of liberation, he collected some 600 Chilean refugees and formed the Chilean Legion and headed to Patagonia. There, the legion rampaged through Argentine towns, sacking and plundering them in the name of gathering resources and recruits for a return to Chile. At the time, there was no central authority in Argentina, and the nation was ruled by a number of warlords similar to Carrera. Imprisonment and Death Carrera was eventually defeated and captured by the Argentine Governor of Cuyo. He was sent in chains to Mendoza, the same city where his brothers had been executed. On September 4, 1821, he too was executed there. His final words were I die for the liberty of America. He was so despised by the Argentines that his body was quartered and put on show in iron cages. OHiggins personally sent a letter to the Governor of Cuyo, thanking him for putting down Carrera. Legacy of Josà © Miguel Carrera Josà © Miguel Carrera is considered by Chileans to be one of the founding fathers of their nation, a great revolutionary hero who helped Bernardo OHiggins win independence from Spain. His name is a bit besmirched due to his constant bickering with OHiggins, considered by Chileans to be the greatest leader of the independence era. This somewhat qualified reverence on the part of modern Chileans seems a fair judgment of his legacy. Carrera was a towering figure in Chilean independence military and politics from 1812 to 1814, and he did much to secure Chiles independence. This good must be weighed against his errors and shortcomings, which were considerable. On the positive side, Carrera stepped into an indecisive and fractured independence movement upon his return to Chile in late 1811. He took command, providing leadership when the young republic most needed it. The son of a wealthy family who had served in the Peninsular War, he commanded respect among the military and the wealthy Creole landowner class. The support of both of these elements of society was key to maintaining the revolution. During his limited reign as dictator, Chile adopted its first constitution, established its own media and founded a national university. The first Chilean flag was adopted during this time. Slaves were freed, and the aristocracy was abolished. Carrera made many mistakes as well. He and his brothers could be very treacherous, and they used devious schemes to help them remain in power: at the Battle of Rancagua, Carrera refused to send reinforcements to OHiggins (and his own brother Juan Josà ©, fighting alongside OHiggins) partly in order to make OHiggins lose and look incompetent. OHiggins later got word that the brothers planned to assassinate him if he had won the battle. Carrera was not nearly as skilled a general as he thought he was. His disastrous mismanagement of the Siege of Chilln led to the loss of a great portion of the rebel army when it was most needed, and his decision to recall the troops under the command of his brother Luà ­s from the battle of Rancagua led to a disaster of epic proportions. After the patriots fled to Argentina, his constant bickering with San Martà ­n, OHiggins and others failed to allow the creation of a unified, coherent liberation force: only when he went to the USA in search of aid was such a force allowed to form in his absence. Even today, Chileans cannot quite agree on his legacy. Many Chilean historians believe that Carrera deserves more credit for Chilean liberation than OHiggins and the topic is openly debated in certain circles. The Carrera family has remained prominent in Chile. General Carrera Lake is named after him. Sources: Concha Cruz, Alejandor and Maltà ©s Cortà ©s, Julio. Historia de Chile Santiago: Bibliogrfica Internacional, 2008. Harvey, Robert. Liberators: Latin Americas Struggle for Independence Woodstock: The Overlook Press, 2000. Lynch, John. The Spanish American Revolutions 1808-1826 New York: W. W. Norton Company, 1986. Scheina, Robert L. Latin Americas Wars, Volume 1: The Age of the Caudillo 1791-1899 Washington, D.C.: Brasseys Inc., 2003.

1984 Themes, Symbols, and Literary Devices

'1984' Themes, Symbols, and Literary Devices Written at a time when dictatorships and totalitarian regimes were establishing a hold over much of the world despite the defeat of Hitler’s Nazis in World War II, in 1984 Orwell described what he saw as the inevitable outcome of any political movement that embraced authoritarianism and the cult of personality. Orwell was extremely frightened of political power being concentrated in a small number of individuals, correctly seeing it as a pathway to the loss of personal freedoms, and foresaw the technology that would make the erasure of those freedoms a simple task. Totalitarianism The most obvious and powerful theme of the novel is, of course, totalitarianism itself. A totalitarian state is one where there is only one political force legally permitted- all opposition to the state’s policies and actions is illegal, usually categorized as treason and met with violent retribution. This naturally stifles freedom of expression and makes change within the system impossible. In democratic societies, opposition groups can form political parties, express their ideas freely, and force the state to address concerns or be replaced. In a totalitarian society, this is impossible. Orwell’s Oceania goes further than even most existing totalitarian states. Where real-world authoritarian leaders seek to restrict information and control their populations in terms of their physical movements and spoken or written communication, Orwell’s government of the future seeks to inhibit thought itself and alter information at the source. Newspeak is a language invented by the state specifically to make independent thought literally impossible, and even Winston’s physical surroundings are designed to inhibit his freedoms, like the way his small apartment is dominated by the enormous two-way television screen, crowding him into a corner he incorrectly believes offers him some degree of privacy. That illusion is crucial to Orwell’s theme, as he strives to demonstrate that in a truly totalitarian society all freedom is in fact an illusion. Winston believes he finds ways to resist and meaningfully fight back against repression, all of which turn out to be gambits controlled by the state. Orwell argues that people who imagine they would heroically resist such a repressive regime are kidding themselves. Control of Information A crucial aspect of Oceania’s control over the citizenry is its manipulation of information. Workers at the Ministry of Truth actively adjust newspapers and books on a daily basis to match the ever-changing version of history that suits the purposes of the state. Without any kind of reliable source of facts, Winston and anyone who, like him, is dissatisfied or concerned about the state of the world, has only their vague feelings on which to base their resistance. More than simply a reference to Joseph Stalin’s practice of literally airbrushing people out of historical records, this is a chilling demonstration of how a lack of information and accurate data renders people powerless. Winston daydreams of a past that never actually existed and sees it as the goal of his rebellion, but since he lacks any real information, his rebellion is meaningless. Consider how he is tricked into overtly betraying the state by O’Brien. All the information Winston has about the Brotherhood and Emmanuel Goldstein is fed to him by the state itself. He has no idea if any of it is true- if the Brotherhood even exists, if there is even a man named Emmanuel Goldstein. Destruction of the Self Winston’s torture at the end of the novel is not simply punishment for his Thoughtcrimes and incompetent attempts to rebel; the purpose of the torture is to eradicate his sense of self. This is the ultimate goal of totalitarian regimes according to Orwell: A complete subservience to the goals, needs, and ideas of the state. The torture Winston undergoes is designed to destroy his individuality. In fact, every aspect of life in Oceania is designed to achieve this goal. Newspeak is designed to prevent negative thoughts or any thought that is not approved or generated by the state. The Two-Minutes Hate and the presence of Big Brother posters promote a sense of homogeneous community, and the presence of Thought Police- especially the children, who have been raised in the poisoned environment of the totalitarian state and who function as credulous and uncritical servants of its philosophy- prevents any sort of trust or true kinship. In fact, the Thought Police do not have to actually exist to achieve this goal. Simply the belief that they do is sufficient to inhibit any individual expression, with the ultimate result that the self is subsumed into Groupthink. Symbols Big Brother. The most powerful and recognizable symbol from the book- recognized even by people who have not read it- is the looming image of Big Brother on posters everywhere. The posters obviously symbolize the power and omniscience of the party, but they are only ominous to those who retain any kind of individual thought. For those fully assimilated into the party line, Big Brother is not an ironic term- he is seen as a protector, a kindly older sibling keeping them from harm, whether it be the threat of outside forces, or the threat of unmutual thoughts. Proles. Winston is obsessed with the lives of the proles, and fetishizes the red-armed prole woman as his main hope for the future, because she represents the potentially overwhelming power of numbers as well as a mother who will bear future generations of free children. It is notable that Winston’s best hope for the future takes the responsibility from his hands- he is not the one counted on to deliver this ill-defined future, it is up to the proles to rise up. And if they do not, the implication is that it is because they are dull and lazy. Telescreens. Another obvious symbol are the wall-sized televisions in every private space. This literal intrusion by the state is not a commentary on modern television, which did not exist in any meaningful way in 1948, but rather a symbol of the destructive and repressive power of technology. Orwell distrusted technology, and saw it as a grave danger to freedom. Literary Devices Limited Point of View. Orwell chooses to restrict our access to information by tying the narrative solely to Winston’s point of view. This is done specifically to keep the reader reliant on the information they are given, just as Winston is. This underscores the betrayal and shock that both feel when, for example, the Brotherhood is revealed to be fictional. Plain Language. 1984 is written in a very plain style, with few flourishes or unnecessary words. While many students take this to mean Orwell was a humorless man, or who simply lacked the ability to write in an exciting way, the fact is the opposite: Orwell had such control over his art he was able to match his writing style precisely to the mood and setting. The novel is written in a sparse, grim style that perfectly matches and evokes the grim, unhappy, and hopeless setting. The reader experiences the same dull, plodding sense of mere existence that Winston does.

Illness and disability Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Illness and disability - Essay Example A majority of the health differences are a function of finance. Social support is the most critical of these factors. Among the elderly, dementias, depression and alcoholism have been found to be the most common emotional problems. These give arise to other health problems. In particular, Alzheimer’s disease is one of the most common problems among the elderly, and this requires great care and attention. Unfortunately, some of these elderly persons deny their heath challenges, and this makes the process of treating and caring for them difficult. There is however a disturbing feeling among healthcare providers that the elder should receive less concern. They are offered inferior medical assistance compared to other groups. Some physicians believe that the elderly are a burden to the healthcare system. Luckily, there are those physicians who develop a personal relationship with these patients. According to medical experts, it is important for physicians to feel the emotional side of the patients’ well-being. There is a wide range of programs available for the elderly, and some are in-home programs. However, most of these programs, especially the in-house care, are expensive and thus unavailable. According to the video, board and care homes are a good option in enhancing the quality of care among the elderly. Unfortunately, the United States does not compare well with other developed nations when it comes to caring for the elderly. As the population of the elderly continues to increase, there is need to plan for how the ir health needs will be addressed. The University of Hawaii Center on Aging. " Growing Old in a New Age: Illness and Disability."Annenberg Learner - Teacher Professional Development. Annenberg Media,  1993. Web. 20  Nov.  2014.