A formula for parish practice Essays -- Legal Issues, Wengert

Wengert in his â€Å"A formula for parish practice† book, indicated the dispute over the relation between faith and works can be traced back to an attack on the Lutherans by John Eck prior to the Diet of Augsburg 1530 ( 63). Eck claimed that evangelicals ban good works from their teaching and preaching, later this phenomena grid Melanchthon to come up with the 20th article in the Augsburg confession. The reality that the leipzing Interim failed to use the phrase â€Å"faith lone† upset the Bishop of Naumburg , Von Amsdrof lead up to writing a tract against the Leipzing Interim. Later George major came up with Sermon that implies good works are necessary for salvation. George Major writings in favors of the absolute necessity of good work for salvation lead up to the emergence of Majortistic controversy. As Luther predicted what controversies will inevitably arise after his death; many reformers would compromise and sell out to the papacy. Luther prediction turned true and many controversies had arose from within and without, among these is the Majoristic controversy that named after George major who was the chief proponent of the idea that enunciate good work justifies. The Majoristic controversy was in fact started before the death of martin Luther and later intensified ( ). George major was a Lutheran theologian who lived from 1502-1574. He was one of the several theologians who joined Melanchthon in making concession to Rome. There is no way we can measure faith. However, good work can sometime be measured, in physics we can calculate work by multiplying the force applied to certain object by the distance traveled. Faith is not something we produce, reduce, earn or donate; generally we do not have control over faith. It is... ...ng of the Lord’s Supper should not be general but should be specific and personal; each recipient should understand why and how they should receive the true body and blood of Christ. The Lord’s Supper of the moment to proclaim the Word not time we assert announcement or preach to the public. The precious golden words â€Å"This is my body, given for you† and â€Å"This is my blood shed for you for the forgiveness of sins† are not the words to be sprayed to the public but rather to be injected in the system of each individual receive the true body and blood of Jesus Christ in the form proclamation to their soul. The Word â€Å"you† is by no means plural during administration of the Holy Supper it must refer to each receipt. Such specific proclamation â€Å"given for you† and â€Å"shed for you† destroy our heavy burdens and give rest through forgiveness of sins (Matthew 11:28).

Brave New World †Individual Needs :: Brave New World

Brave New World – Individual Needs Brave New World Sometimes very advanced societies overlook the necessities of the individual. In the book Brave New World, Aldous Huxley creates two distinct societies: the Savages and the Fordians. The Fordians are technologically sophisticated, unlike the Savages. However, it is obvious that, overall, the Savages have more practical abilities, have more, complicated, ideals, and are much more advanced emotionally, which all help the individual to grow. The Savage Reservation provides more opportunities for personal growth than does the Fordian society. Throughout the story, it is shown how the Fordian society is much more advanced technologically than the Savage Reservation. Because the Reservation is not fully equipped with well-developed machinery to do all their work for them, they must learn to do it themselves. Unlike the Fordians, the Savages are taught functional skills, such as stitching up simple tears and weaving. In the story Mitsima, an old man from the reservation, teaches John the Savage how to make a clay pot, using nothing but a lump of clay and his own two hands. This is a very practical and useful tool. The Savages are taught to cook for themselves, and to clean for themselves. These teachings help the individual to grow practically. The Savages also bestow good ideals in their people from which they can learn, understand, and grow. One of the most important things that the Savages are taught is self-control. The Whipping Ceremony is a good example of this. In this ceremony a young man was whipped to death in front of a large audience and throughout it he "made no sound†¦[and] walked on at the same slow, steady pace" (97). The man is taught that to show his strength he must use the uttermost limits of his self-control. They are also taught self-control in how they are prohibited free sex. They must learn restraint through their lust and desires. It is shown how capable the Savages are when controlling themselves in chapter 13. Lenina, whom John loves and desires more than anything in the world, is proclaiming herself to John, and yet he restrains himself because they are not married.     The Savages are also taught

Defining Post-Modernism Essay -- Definition post Modernism

Defining Post-Modernism In trying to define exactly what post-modernism is I shall firstly briefly consider some of the events and thinking that led up to the development of this particular school of social theory. I shall then consider some of the common strands of thinking in postmodernism concentrating mainly on the writings of Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard. I shall then consider the view of David Harvey, a Marxist many consider to be writing in the postmodern tradition, who argues that post-modernism is just another form of capitalism. Having analysed his argument I shall conclude by giving my own personal view of post-modernism and by showing that by its very nature it is virtually impossible to come up with one single all encompassing definition. The term postmodernism was first used in relation to architecture. Modern architecture, namely the high rise tower blocks of the sixties, were becoming more and more unpopular. Charles Jencks (1977) traces the death of modernist architecture to the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis, and other writers (Lemert (1990)) have seen this as a symbol of the end of modernity. Society was reacting against modern architectural ideas having lost faith in the modern ideals. Although modern architecture might have been scientifically advanced using the latest and cheapest materials, people rejected it, preferring to return to a variety of styles from the past. Examples of this can be seen in the rejuvenation of the Albert Dock in Liverpool, and 'mock'; medieval squares. Similarly in Sociology postmodernism rejects the theories of the past, and represents a break from the 'modern'; way of thinking. For example, Marx envisaged society evolving through social change into the 'perfect'; communist society, where there are no issues of class or general inequality. Postmodernists would refer to his theory, and those of other sociologists, as a metanarrative and writers such as Lyotard (1984) have seen the rejection of such theories as central to postmodernism: 'Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodernism as incredulity to metanarratives'; People have lost faith in the metanarratives of the past and Lyotard sees social life being organised around 'language games', which serve to justify people's behaviour in society. In these games a person endeavours to persuade others t... ...is impossible to apply one all encompassing theory. A range of theories must be considered and all viewpoints listened to. Only by adopting such an approach and by welcoming different points of view can we further understand the world in which we live. References Harvey, D. (1990) 'The Condition Of Postmodernity'; Oxford:Blackwell Kellner, D. (1990) 'Postmodernism: Jameson: Critique'; cited in Ritzer, G. (1992) 'Sociological Theory'; (third edition) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Lyotard, J.F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press Ritzer, G. (1992) 'Sociological Theory'; (third edition) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Bibliography Adams, D.J. Toward a Theological Understanding of Postmodernism http://aril.org/adams.htm#TEXT20 Cuff, E.C., Sharrock, W.W., and Francis, D.W. (1998) 'Perspectives in Sociology'; (fourth edition) London: Routledge. Mizrach, S. Talking pomo: An analysis of the postmodern movement http://glidare.isp.his.se/isp/~andreas/pomo.htm Ritzer, G. (1992) 'Sociological Theory'; (third edition) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Ritzer, G. (1996) 'Classical Social Theory'; (second edition) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

To What Extent Was Slavery the Cause of the American Civil War?

In the context of the period 1763-1865, how far was the American Civil War caused by long term divisions over the issue of slavery? In his second inaugural address in March 1865, Abraham Lincoln looked back at the beginning of the Civil War four years earlier â€Å"all knew,† he said, that slavery â€Å"was somehow the cause of the war. † This essay will endeavour to discuss the role of long term divisions caused by the slavery debate in the eventual outbreak of the Civil War.In doing so this analysis will encompass the period between the birth of the nation beginning with the start of the American Revolution in 1763 and the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865. This being a period in which the newly independent nation struggled with its state system, with each of the former colonies possessing the rights to a significant level of self-governance that inevitably led to disagreements and conflicts of interest.One such conflict was the disagreement over slavery which James Ford, like Lincoln, believes was crucial in creating a clear North-South divide that would eventually lead to the Civil War. Whilst recognising slavery’s overwhelming contribution to the outbreak of the American civil war in 1861, one must acknowledge alternative factors beyond slavery, which contributed to the nations descent towards armed conflict. Revisionists such as William Gienapp and William Freehling emphasise the political contribution to the outbreak of the war and the influence of sectional ideology on ante bellum politics.It was this differing ideology that created the tensions between Southern and Northern parties creating political chaos during the 1850s, the North believing they were attempting to save democracy whilst the South campaigned for increased States’ rights, all of which provoked the outbreak of war. As well as the long-term divisions over slavery and the short term political contributions to the outbreak of war, historians such as Charles an d Mary Beard placed emphasis on the fundamental differences between the North and South economic systems, disregarding the moral and political contributions.This analysis will argue that ultimately the issue of slavery was the main reason for the outbreak of war in 1861; however the short term political blunders and failure of the political system created a chaos that made war inevitable. Had the American political system thrived, the divisions over slavery could have been resolved without war being waged. Slavery is the moral dimension that lies at the heart of the historiographical debate. James Ford Rhodes identified slavery as the central and virtually only cause of the war. If the Negro had not been brought to America,† he wrote, â€Å"the Civil War could not have occurred. † Introducing slavery to America created differences of opinion between the North and the South, on the morality of slavery. It was these differences that created tensions between the regions an d ultimately fuelled the outbreak of war in 1861. The Northern climate was not suited to plantation agriculture which resulted in Congress passing an Ordinance in 1787, keeping slavery out of the North West Territory.The Northern belief insisted that the South was ruled by a ruthless ‘Slave Power’ which, conspiratorial in its methods, consisted of slaveholding planters and political leaders who were determined to convert the whole United States in to a nation of masters and slaves. The aggressive attitude of Southerners arising from the decision by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case of 1857 that all blacks, slave as well as free, were not and could not be citizens of the United States increased rather than allayed Northern suspicions.This conspiracy, as the Northerners believed it to be, was fundamentally an aristocracy founded upon these principles; that slavery was not morally wrong, it is a right possessed by the slaveholder, and that it is constitutional. Ad mitting Missouri as a slave state and introducing the Fugitive Slave Act in the Compromise of 1850, only exacerbated Northern suspicions which is illustrated through what John Rankin believed, â€Å"The Slave Power has already seized upon the General Government, and has overthrown the rights of Free States†¦the struggle between the slave and free institutions is for existence.They are antagonistic principles and cannot exist long together – one or the other must fall. † ‘Slave power’ heightened through media influences such as the non-abolitionist Cincinnati Daily Commercial claiming â€Å"There is such a thing as THE SLAVE POWER† encouraged the Northern populace that action needed to be taken against the South in order to preserve the existence of their personal liberty. On the other hand, many Southerners like historian Ulrich Bonner Phillips, viewed slavery as a hierarchic order thus making it wholesome practice.Phillips recalls setting off to school as a young child and burdened by the prospect that his â€Å"sable companion† was able to play all day long. According to Hugh Tulloch, the Southerners had evolved a unique form of social relations based on slavery; whereby the master’s role was essentially paternal, â€Å"without slavery the black would either lapse into African savagery. † It is this view and that of Edward Channing’s, â€Å"the slaves were often happier than their masters† that appears so distorted in comparison to the Northern interpretation on slavery.It was this that became an important factor in consolidating antislavery sentiment in the North, thus widening the sectional rift between the North and South. â€Å"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel. † Lincoln’s view on the peculiar institution further heightened the issue as Southern states regarded his election as a threat to their power, and pr ovoked the secession of South Carolina from the Union, shadowed by a further 10 states.Modern fundamentalists such as James McPherson and Eric Foner similarly describe the two sections as â€Å"different and deeply antagonistic societies† agreeing that slavery was the root of that antagonism. The North's commitment to capitalism and modernisation, these scholars explained, was the context for abolitionism and for the free labour ideology of Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party. The South's commitment to agriculture and slave labor was reflected in the region's distinctive cult of honour, its preoccupation with localism and states' rights, and its defense of social inequality.Had African slave trade been declared illegal long before 1808, the million plus slaves that were in the USA in the early 19th century would not have existed, therefore would have had no effect on population influxes which stimulated an industrial and economic change, nor the geographical expansion which ca used the conflict within the different states. Although Rhodes placed his greatest emphasis on the moral conflict over slavery, he suggested that the struggle also reflected fundamental differences between the Northern and Southern economic systems.In the 1920s, the idea of the war as an irrepressible economic rather than moral conflict received fuller expression from Charles and Mary Beard, insisting there were â€Å"inherent antagonisms† between Northern Industrialists and Southern planters. Undoubtedly, the issue of slavery itself would not have created divisions and differences within the nation had someone, or a group of people spoke up and shared their desire to â€Å"fight the gross evil of slavery† thus the influence and the rise of abolitionists need to be taken in to account when assessing the causation of the war.Abolitionists were committed to the doctrine of ‘moral suasion’; the idea that Southern slaveholders could be persuaded that slavery w as morally wrong. Arguably, it was the abolitionist’s actions that publicised and brought slavery in to the political arena and through their anti-slavery postal campaign in 1835, the Democratic administration could not avoid the issue. By building these campaigns, abolitionists turned themselves into an organised movement, urging the national government to debate slavery and heightening the nation’s opinion on the institution.The Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, became one of the most powerful weapons in the hands of the Abolitionist Movement. The Constitution introduced a clause stating that fugitives from slave labour must be sent back to the South if captured in the North. It forced citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitives and denied fugitives who claimed to be freemen the right to a fair jury trial. This caused outrage among the Northern black community who were no longer able to legally prove that they were free. Foner stated the act gave slavery what is called â€Å"extra-territoriality†, thus making slavery a national institution.Even though the Northern States could abolish slavery, they still could not avoid their Constitutional obligation to enforce the slave laws of the Southern States. The Act drew more attention to the inhumanity of slavery and caused increased tension between the North and the South. Northern whites resented having to be forced into hunting slaves against their will by the officials enforcing the Act. It was also significant because it helped to create legendary abolitionists and anti-slavery orators such as Frederick Douglas and Henry Highland Garnet and generated the release of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ in 1852 by Harriet Beecher.Beecher’s book expanded support and contributed to the outbreak of the war by personalising the political and economic arguments of slavery whilst providing depiction of the horrors of slavery. Installments were published weekly from June 1951 in an abolitio nist newspaper. In November 1862, President Lincoln famously said, â€Å"so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War. † More importantly, the Act allowed Northerners who had always thought slavery was so far away to see it personally for the first time.This display of cruelty convinced more people of the evils of slavery and made them opposed to the Southern institution of slavery and the Act as it had now cemented slavery within the law. This increased support for the abolitionists' cause would infuriate the South and increased sectional tensions. Despite slavery existing in America since the 1600s, economic and social paths taken by the North and the South increasingly began to change towards the 1800s and as a result created significant sectional differences between the states.Southerners did not necessarily go to war to defend slavery, nor did northerners go to war to end it. It is often suggested that we have ignored the well-known facts th at most southerners did not own slaves and that most northerners shared the era’s racist attitudes. After all, only about 25% of southern white families owned slaves and 50% of these owned less than 5 slaves. Consequently, one must consider the basic differences between the economies and the practical issues that divided the sectional leaders.Charles and Mary Beard came to the conclusion that there had existed an â€Å"irrepressible conflict between a static, agrarian South and the expanding, industrialising North. † The Beards insisted that â€Å"inherent antagonisms† between Northern industrialists and Southern planters contributed to the outbreak of war. Massive changes in transport help to explain the agricultural and industrial changes. The development of steamboats revolutionised travel on the great rivers; by 1850 over 700 steamships were operating on the Mississippi and its tributaries and the North were able to boast more than two-thirds of the railroad tracks in the country.Less than one in ten Americans lived in towns in 1820; one in five did so by 1860, but it was this urbanisation that was more prevalent in the North as opposed to the South with the percentage of population living in towns of 2500 or more being 26% in 1859 on Northern states, compared to only 10% in the Southern states. Unlike the South, the North had a growing number of immigrants; between 1830 and 1860 most of the five million immigrants to the USA settled in the North. Slave labour was the foundation of a prosperous economic system in the South.In 1793 the invention of the cotton ‘gin’ revolutionised the region; it is significant to recognise the relationship between the invention of the cotton gin and when cotton became America’s leading crop with the number of slaves in the South. In 1790 America produced 1,500 pounds of cotton. By 1815 production had reached over 100,000 pounds and in 1848, production exceeded an astonishing 1,000,000 pounds. Simultaneously, slavery spread across the Deep South as the cotton engine fuelled slave labour, pushing the North and South’s industrial methods even further apart.By itself, the South's economic investment in slavery could easily explain the willingness of Southerners to risk war when faced with what they viewed as a serious threat to their â€Å"peculiar institution† after the electoral victories of the Republican Party and President Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Economically, the taxes on imported and exported goods contributed greatly to the North- South divide. From the time of the first Congress in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War there was dissension between the Northern and the Southern states over the matter of protective tariffs, or import duties on manufactured goods.Northern industries wanted high tariffs in order to protect their factories and labourers from cheaper European products. Demanding that â€Å"American labourers shall be protected aga inst the pauper labour of Europe,† tariff proponents argued that the taxes gave â€Å"employment to thousands of mechanics, artisans and labourers. † The vast majority of American industry was located in the Northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural Southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods.The South held few manufacturing concerns, and southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidise Northern profits. The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads, harbours and rivers. From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects, â€Å"Sectional legislation, such as subsidies to ship-owners and manufacturers, took money from the pockets of the planters and farmers and transferred it to the pocket of Northern capitalists. This economic policy heightened tensions and exacerbated the sectional disagreements over the best type of government. The stark differences in their economies resulted in supporting either the Democrats or Whigs which brings in to play the revisionist interpretation that political blunders and the breakdown of the system ultimately divided the sections, increasing their hostility to one another. The structure of American politics and the antebellum party realignment provides a way to assess the relationship between the American political system and the origins of the war.Modern revisionists like Stampp attempt to recapture the eventualities of antebellum politics, placing emphasis on the shared values of the North and South and the failure of political leaders to reach compromises which could have averted war. Erin Foner argued the coming of the Civil war constituted the greatest failure of American democracy; â€Å"the intrusion of sectional ideology into the political system brought about the war. The fundamental issues can be traced bac k to the standoff over sovereignty during the American Revolution, and from this founding era the disagreement over how much authority the national government should have on the one hand and how much sovereignty and independence the individual states should retain on the other began. An unworkable arrangement followed, whereby states tried to coordinate a national war effort, a national economy, and a national government without sacrificing their individual sovereignty.However, continental currency became worthless and states became free to do their own thing. Shays' Rebellion in 1786-87, occurred as a protest to rising debt and economic chaos and due to the failure of the national government was unable to gather a combined military force amongst the states to help put down the rebellion. This was a catalyst for the Founding Fathers to scrap the Articles of Confederation and devise a new Constitution. However, the Constitution contained a number of provisions that strengthened the f orces of sectional division within the nation.It was the American political system that was particularly vulnerable to sectional strains and tensions and thus the Civil War was able to occur within a particular political framework. William Gienapp believes it was â€Å"the Constitution’s provision for amendment that significantly contributed to the outbreak of war. † The constitution’s ambiguity on whether Congress could impose conditions on a new state or refuse to admit a new state to the Union became a source of controversy which stimulated the growing conflict between the sections.More important, believed Gienapp, was the ambiguity of whether a state had the right to leave the Union. It was this silence that contributed to the debate over secession as it allowed Southerners to plausibly maintain that secession was a legal right of each state, and thus fuelled Southern extremism. Political blunders from the 1820s widened sectional differences, according to Ga bor Boritt; â€Å"the crystallisation of rival sectional ideologies orientated towards protecting white equality and opportunity. Each section began to see the other as a threat to its vital social, political and economic interests. A view had been produced that one section or the other has to be dominant. The Missouri Compromise, so Rodger Ramson believed, allowed in the long term, â€Å"the right of Congress to pass legislation allowing or prohibiting slavery in the western territories. † However in 1854 the Kansas Nebraska Act nullified the Missouri Compromise and is claimed to be a political miscalculation of massive proportions. Alan Nevins labelled the entire episode as a â€Å"disaster†.The political effects of this Act were enormous, irrevocably splitting the Whig Party. Every northern Whig had opposed the bill; almost every southern Whig voted for it and due to the competition of the Know-Nothing party and their failure to respond to nativist concerns, the pa rty was effectively killed off. With the emotional issue of slavery involved, there was no common ground to be found and Northern Whigs reorganised themselves to become the Republican Party committed to blocking westward expansion of slavery. Animosity between the North and South was again on the rise.The North felt that if the Compromise of 1820 was ignored, the Compromise of 1850 could be ignored as well. The Dred Scott case in 1957 brought the Missouri Compromise in conflict with the Fifth Amendment that upheld that no one be deprived of his or her right to life, liberty, and property. Political historian, Michael Holt notes, â€Å"The issue that drove the deepest wedge between North and South in the two decades before the Civil War was not the institution of slavery itself, but the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand westwards beyond the boundaries of the slave states. Without the discipline of a strong party system, more outspoken views on slavery and seces sion began to be heard. Holt declares that the breakdown of the party system, no longer operating on economic issues, allowed demagogues to arise who accentuated the differences between North and South. Politicians in both sections â€Å"kept the country in constant turmoil and whipped up popular emotions for the selfish purpose of winning elections† thereby bringing about the Civil War. Lincoln declared before his unanimous nomination, â€Å"A house divided against itself cannot stand.I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved- I don’t expect the house to fall- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. † Despite Holt placing emphasis on the breakdown of the second party system, Stampp focuses on Lincoln’s actions as president, ‘inviting’ by his proposition a war of sections; â€Å"Thus Mr Lincoln invites a war between the free States and the slave States, a war between North and the South, for the purpose of either exterminating slavery in every Southern state, or planting it in every Northern State. The existence of national political parties became increasingly focused on the contest for Presidency. The coming of the war In April 1861 was seen as both sides waging war in an attempt to save democracy as they understood it. For southern secessionists, at stake was the right of self-government and the fundamental right of southern whites to control their own destiny. For the North, the war was a struggle to uphold the democratic principles of law and order and majority rule, as well as preserving the Union, which they believed was inseparably linked to democracy.Boritt noted, â€Å"few northerners failed to appreciate the fundamental irony that they were ready to kill their fellow Americans in order to prove democracy was a workable form of government†. Due to this rivalry of sectional ideologies, each came to think that one section or the other had to be dominant. Residents of each section feared the other, and before the physical fighting the sectional conflict represented a struggle for control of the nation’s future. On December 20, 1860, in response to Lincoln's victory, South Carolina seceded from the Union.By the time of his inauguration on March 4, 1861, six more states had also seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. Ramson states, â€Å"the attempt by the southern states to create a Confederacy separate from the American Union failed because the slave society of the South was unable to sustain an effort in the face of a determined foe. The promise of eliminating slavery eventually provided a unifying force behind the North’s efforts to hold the union together. † In conjunction with the fight for democracy, revisionists like Holt, Gienapp and William W.Freehling have focused on those political debates within each section that do not fit into the a direct narrative of the slavery controversy. Political historians have shown Northern voters were preoccupied with and motivated by issues such as nativism; slavery was not their overriding concern and did not explain their voting behaviour. The Southern electorate, too, was deeply divided on the basis of class, economic setting, and sub-region. The differences between the Upper South and the Deep South in particular make it dangerous to generalise broadly about the â€Å"fundamental† nature of Southern Society.When historians assert that slavery caused the Civil War, most are saying that only the presence of the â€Å"peculiar institution† made it impossible to resolve peacefully the constitutional, political, and economic issues that had long animated sectional tensions. Conversely, Historians like Jefferson Davis have been keen to refute the argument that the war was caused by the long term divisions of slavery and support the political argument that it was the Republican Party that e ngineered the war by furthering Northern political and economic aggrandisement against the South.As soon as the question of slavery expansion in to western territories entered the political agenda, voters were unwilling to drop the issue without protest but when waging war, the North and the South were fighting for what they believed to be a democracy and were motivated by nativism to defeat the opposition; which posed threat and disunion to their democracy. To conclude, the divisions over slavery in America ultimately contributed to the outbreak of war in 1861. This long term factor influenced the economic and social paths taken by both Northern and Southern States during the 1800s and as a result widened sectional differences.This greatly impacted the American political system resulting in the breakdown of the two-party system through blunders made by politicians in the 1850s in an attempt to win elections and save their democracy. This breakdown heightened tensions between the tw o sections and was exacerbated by the increasing influence of the abolitionist movement from 1830s onwards. It would be a limited assumption to deem the breakout of the Civil War purely on the divisions of slavery, as many fought in an attempt to save their own democracy.However, had slavery never been introduced in to American civilization the nation would never have been divided over the institution, the economic paths taken by both North and South wouldn’t have been so diverse, thus eliminating political differences and an abolitionist movement would never have been formed. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Hugh Tulloch, ‘The debate on the American Civil War era’, p. 110. [ 2 ]. James Ford Rhodes, ‘History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850’, p. [ 3 ].Kenneth M. Stampp, ‘The Causes of the Civil War’, p. 21. [ 4 ]. Ibid. , p. 23. [ 5 ]. Hugh Tulloch, ‘The debate on the American Civil War Era’, p. 37. [ 6 ]. Ibid. ,p. 35 [ 7 ]. Ibid. , p. 38 [ 8 ]. Ibid. , p. 37 [ 9 ]. Eric Foner, ‘Politics and Ideology in the age of the Civil War’, p. 35. [ 10 ]. Charles and Mary Beard, ‘The rise of American Civilization’, p. [ 11 ]. Hugh Tulloch, ‘The debate on the American Civil War Era’, p. [ 12 ]. Eric Foner, ‘Politics and Ideology in the age of the Civil War’, p. 61. [ 13 ].Kenneth M. Stampp, ‘The causes of the Civil War’ p 93 [ 14 ]. Ibid. , p. 86. [ 15 ]. Eric Foner, ‘ [ 17 ]. Gabor S. Boritt, ‘Why the Civil War Came’, p. [ 18 ]. Roger L. Ransom, ‘Conflict and Compromise: The Political Economy of Slavery, Emancipation, and the American Civil War’, p. [ 19 ]. Michael F. Holt, Political Parties and American Political Development from the Age of Jackson to the Age of Lincoln (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univers ity Press, 1992), p. 4. [ 20 ]. Kenneth Stampp, ‘The causes of the Civil War’ p

Mobile phones: blessing or curse? Essay

Nowadays mobile phones are everywhere: their bleeping ringtones go off behind you in the train; gormless-looking zombies stand around on the street â€Å"texting† illiterate messages to each other, while even children see them as an indispensable accessory. Clearly, mobile phones have come to be a normal and accepted part of most people’s lives, but does this necessarily mean they are a boon? I would say that while mobiles are potentially helpful in some situations, they generally have an adverse effect on one’s quality of life. The strongest argument for owning a mobile phone is that it can prove useful in an emergency or make you feel secure when walking down a dark street, for example. However, you should not forget that mobiles actually cause emergencies when people drive and talk simultaneously, and get into accidents. Furthermore, mobiles are one of the items muggers are most interested in, which means that carrying a mobile actually increases your chances of being attacked. see more:mobile boon or bane essay On the face of things, mobiles make life more convenient. They allow you to be much more flexible or spontaneous when making arrangements with friends, so that you can ring ahead, for example, if your train has come to a standstill. They also mean that you can stay in touch with work colleagues even when you are travelling and do not have access to a landline. There is a flipside to these arguments though. If people can be more spontaneous then they are more likely to wriggle out of arrangements, or let others know at the last minute, which can be far from convenient. Moreover, if you are always contactable, particularly by people from work, then you are enslaved in a sense. Employers are able to encroach on your leisure time and make demands of you, wherever you happen to be. Mobile phones are also anti-social in some ways, and encourage unpleasant behaviour. We have all heard the loud salespeople on trains boasting about their latest deal, or passengers who broadcast the finer details of their tedious social life. Equally rude are friends who start texting someone else while you are in the middle of a conversation with them.

King Kong Remake Analysis Essay

Movies have shown throughout our time that there is a strong underlying theme or message that can be unseen to most. It can be a minuscule significance to some, who focus on the violence and special effects, but once you start looking back at the big picture of certain films, there is so much more. A lot of people tend to focus on what is being filmed instead of how it’s being filmed. The difference is remarkable between the two films King Kong (1933) and the remake of King Kong produced in 2005. The perspective of how the story played out is very different between the two films. On one end, in the original, Kong is portrayed as a violent beast similar to a Godzilla type figure that is a huge threat to civilization. In the remake, it brings a deeper relationship to Kong to humanize his character. The audience can feel his emotions and reactions in a much bigger way to show he might be a powerful beast, but has a big heart too. The difference of how scenes are depicted by each director seems to be complete opposite visions of how the story plays out in each film. It’s interesting to see overtime how the outlook on how man deals with nature has dramatically shifted. Both films underlying messages can be very unnoticed with all the action, adventuring, and amazing special effects going on in the film. This ultimately makes it harder to pick out how power obsessed America was in the original, and how destructive we really are with nature today. It’s very apparent that both movies follow the same story line and plot, but how it is seen through the director’s eyes is very different. In both movies, the humans seem to be very destructive and disrespectful to nature. This is seen a lot more in the remake. Throughout original King Kong you never get that close to Kong to see how he feels and why he feels certain ways. A lot of the scenes with him in it displays very destructive behavior of him killing and tearing things apart. It sets him up as a monstrous figure similar to Godzilla, whereas the other movie personifies Kong as more of a humanized beast that is just looking for love and understanding. The newer film shows this by longer drawn out scenes between Ann and Kong that are almost intimate. Even though Kong cannot talk, the audience can tell how he’s thinking by facial expressions, along with his grunts and roars. It’s understandable the older film wasn’t able to show these certain sides of Kong due to technology and outdated special effects, but they still repeatedly display Kong’s actions and intentions strictly out of violence. In the original Kong, he is captured and put on display in New York City; he breaks out and is immediately enraged by the situation. He begins to run around the city damaging buildings, killing innocent civilians, and causing complete chaos. This again shows how Kong is a problem with society and a huge threat to anyone near him. Putting his image as this out of control beast brings the element that we have to conquer nature to express our true power with weapons and technology. This scene dramatically differs in the new film. Once Kong breaks free of captivity while being put on display on the stage, his focus is not on destroying and causing harm. His motivation is fully on being reunited with his love Ann. When he finally gets back together with her, they show just the two of them playing together in the snow at central park. They are laughing and enjoying themselves in a peaceful setting, showing that Kong means no harm at all. Until all of the sudden police and military forces interrupt the two with bombings, which puts a sense of how we are the evil force in the movie. Putting Kong on display like he was shows how we really do not respect nature. Its seen so much today that we start to treat animals as objects or material things to be used for our pleasure. Whether animals are used for food, or put in an exhibit at a zoo, it’s very apparent the respect for them is fading. A lot can argue that we need these things to survive or for our entertainment but we definitely go overboard. Our country does not think twice to slaughter millions of animals each day just for our benefit. It also wouldn’t be uncommon to see an animal’s head put up on display on a wall similar to a trophy or family picture. This develops a huge consequence because we don’t ever stop to think from the animal’s point of view. It seems to result in a lot of selfish acts by humans who don’t think twice about treating animals this way, which ultimately destroys their true worth of living beings. In the remake of King Kong, Kong is seen as a protector to Ann. He does not let anyone else harm her and never takes his eye off of her. No matter what the situation seems to be, his full focus is on Ann. In the original she doesn’t seem to be his top priority, and seems like he’s more about showing off how strong and powerful he can really be throughout the film. It’s very apparent in the scene where Kong battles two Tyrannosaurus Rex in the jungle on Skull Island. In the original, Ann is sitting off to the side watching from a distance very frightened. Kong continues to battle and barely acknowledges Ann and seems to worry more about his own well-being. There was even a point where she is pinned under a tree during the battle, and Kong doesn’t seem to notice her presence or screams until he’s finished with his fight. It is completely different in the new film. During the whole scene while fighting the Tyrannosaurus Rex, Kong has Ann wrapped up in his hand, and never lets go. He keeps her close to him at all times and makes sure she doesn’t get harmed. It really shows how Kong means well and looks out for her, almost as her guardian as they go around Skull Island. By doing this, the film really shows how Kong ultimately has good intentions with Ann. Seeing how he will defend Ann by any cost, shows that she has a place in Kong’s heart and he really does mean well. Even though Kong shows his loyalty out of violent acts, it’s still very obvious he does this strictly to protect the ones he cares about, bringing the viewers on Kong’s side. It shows how she is a true priority to Kong and his intentions are for the best, making him a more respectable character that doesn’t deserved to be captured. Building Kong’s character up as a protector and intelligent beast really puts the spotlight on us that we are the destructive force. This seems problematic today with all of the poaching and extinctions of our beloved animals, which we are the main contributors to. There are many cases where laws have been established because of people killing animals for clothing or cosmetic purposes. It shows we don’t believe these animals’ lives are worth much. It’s almost every day where you can see a commercial about donating money to help save or adopt some type of animal in need. When in reality, we probably wouldn’t need to do that if we made sacrifices ourselves to help protect our animals and environment. The last scene where Kong is shot down climbing the Empire State building makes arguably the biggest impression on how destructive we really can be to nature. As seen in the original, Kong is a huge problem in society and an untamable beast. This is a big reason why when the military and police forces are called in, they are portrayed as the hero type image saving the day. It shows it in a big way that we won’t be conquered by something like this, and humans can over power nature at the end of the day. However in the remake, it seems to be the complete opposite. Throughout the film the audience grows closer to Kong, and the last thing that is wanted is for him to be harmed. He has shown that he is loyal to Ann and just wants to be loved. That’s why when the airplanes are called in to destroy Kong; it’s almost hard to watch. It’s apparent that Kong did not want to be captured, and we now have to use violent force against him just because us humans can’t respect nature. It really shows how hypocritical we are and selfish the society can be. When captured he was praised and displayed as â€Å"The Eighth Wonder of the World†, but after breaking free, he needs to be killed. Humans never really look back and see how he might be feeling about ripping him out of his home, thinking he is just some type of ignorant animal that is to be put on display for everyone to look at. It definitely symbolizes how power hungry our country is. We are always trying to fix other countries problems and colonize the world when we have enough issues of our own to work out. In the end the military forces and planes bring Kong to his death, which presents another problem of how we use our technology available to take control and overpower situations. A lot of people view Kong as a problem and a threat to society because you see how violent and powerful he can really be. This is true, but that’s the exact reason we do not need to be capturing and taking Kong out of his environment. If we would have just let him be in peace in his own environment where he belonged, there would be no reason for having to kill him, But America’s greed for fame and money overpowers that in this film. It really goes to show how we are the destructive ones that have no respect for nature and it’s ultimately our fault this happened. It’s very vital to the viewers watching to see the significant themes shown throughout the films. It’s surprising how the same story can be displayed but with completely different underlying messages. The newer and drawn out film really enables the audience on how Kong is feeling throughout the film. It makes a huge impact on how you view everything else. Protecting and conserving nature seems to be the least of our priorities and degrades the worth of animal’s lives. Many viewers always look at it as â€Å"Beauty killed the Beast†, when really I believe we killed the beast with our destructive and selfish plans regarding nature’s finest things.

Knowledge Brings Sorrow

Knowledge Brings Sorrow; Fate vs. Free Will The themes of â€Å"fate versus free will† and â€Å"knowledge brings sorrow† are present throughout the play Oedipus Rex, by Sophocles. Fate and free will are antitheses of each other, just as knowledge and sorrow are. Many years before Oedipus began his journey to Thebes, his father, King Laius, heard a prophecy saying that his son would kill him (65). In order to prevent this from happening, Laius had the baby abandoned, and had his feet bound together with a nail for extra precaution. Since prophecies usually turned out to be true, this is an example of how Laius tried to escape his fate. However, he didn’t know that Oedipus survived. On his way to Thebes, Oedipus ran into Laius on the road, not knowing he was his father. He ended up killing him, just as the prophecy said. The prophecy also said that Oedipus would marry his mother. You can infer that fate yet again fulfills its role, and the prophecy becomes true after Oedipus kills his father and continues to Thebes. Just as Oedipus didn’t know that Laius was his father, he didn’t know that Jocasta was his mother. He became the new king of Thebes because he married Jocasta (65). Throughout the play, Oedipus believes that all of his actions are based on free will, not fate. He doesn’t find out that he killed his father and married his mother until awhile after it happened. Everything that happens to Oedipus is really his fate. Once Jocasta and Oedipus Strineka 2 realize they are mother and son, Jocasta kills herself. Here, fate plays another role. Free will really isn’t present in this play. Everything that happens is due to fate. As Amit Sodha said, â€Å"All events are fated in some way. † This is also where â€Å"knowledge brings sorrow† comes into play. Because Jocasta and Oedipus found out that they were mother and son, Jocasta kills herself and Oedipus gouges out his eyes. They do not want to accept the fact that they were mother and son and married. Sodha also said â€Å"The trouble with fate is that it can leave you with a feeling of helplessness. † It’s obvious that Oedipus and Jocasta definitely felt helpless in their situation. Although the prophecy said nothing about Oedipus killing himself, it said hat he would kill his parents. He didn’t kill Jocasta himself, but the reason she killed herself in the first place was because of Oedipus and their marriage. This is a good example of how some things are better off left unknown. In this situation, knowing everything was obviously not such a good idea. People wouldn’t want to know every single detail if things w ere said clearly, and not in such an ambiguous manner. When things are said so that they could possibly have multiple meanings, people become curious to figure out what is actually meant. The outcome of figuring out meanings could be good or bad. Just like the saying â€Å"curiosity killed the cat,† curiosity killed Laius, Jocasta, and Oedipus, and placed a curse on their whole family. In the play, fate triumphs over free will, and knowledge definitely brings sorrow. It’s ironic that fate triumphs over free will and knowledge brings sorrow because most people do things without thinking that it’s part of their fate, and you would think that knowing more would enlighten you rather than bringing you grief and sorrow. In reality, people who are generally â€Å"smarter† and have more knowledge are usually the ones who are most successful in life, and being successful is usually associated with having a good life and being happy. Strineka 3 However, it makes more sense that people who are more aware of life and their surroundings are the ones who feel sorrow and grief. They’re the ones who know what life is really like. They see the flaws of the world and how careless and ignorant people can be. It is possible for knowledge to limit the lives of people, because those who know what is going on often try to change things so the outcome will hopefully be different. For example, if someone had a serious illness but didn’t know about it, they would go on living their life normally without any worry. But if this person knew about the illness, they would probably live their life worrying about what’s going to happen to them. In Oedipus, Laius worries about whether or not the prophecy that his son would kill him will come true. He takes ridiculous actions just to prevent it from happening, but he ends up being killed by his son anyways due to his fate.