Macbeth Diary Entries Essay Example for Free

Macbeth Diary Entries Essay I am weary and suspective of Macbeth as he questions much of my movement with Fleance that afternoon. I really feel something amiss. Maybe it is just Macbeths insecurity for all i know. It is late and Fleance is waiting for me in the woods. I must go now. Macbeth and I just had just came back from a battle. A great one indeed. We had came ashore and were proceeding back to Forres when we came upon this desserted and gloomy heath where we were most shcoked to be greeted by three witches that had long beards strecthing from their ragged cloaks. I was uncertain what gender they were, but i knew something was wrong. At first sight, the three creatures greeted Macbeth Thane of Glamis. They then started chanting prophesis that concerned Macbeth and me. The first witch chanted,All hail,Macbeth! Hail to thee,Thane of Glamis followed by the next All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee,Thane of Cawdor and the last of which chanted All hail, Macbeth ,that shalt be king hereafter! Hail they chanted three times together and continued prophesising. Lesser then Macbeth, and greater. the first witch chanted. Continued the second Not so happy, yet much happier. Thou shalt get kings ,though thou be none So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo. Chanted the last of witch. I was overwhelmed by suspision when i heard those prophesies whilst Macbeth was, I should say rather engrosed and interested in their prophesies. Macbeth wanted them to stay but in a blink of an eye, they suddenly disappeared into thin air. Macbeth was furious. Stay you imperfect speaker s, tell me moreMacbeth Was truely interested in these creatures prophesy, but i just got a bad feeling about this. Dear Diary, The news my cousin brought filled me with an unimaginable grief. My family, brought to the graves by such feeble means, so defenceless and alone while I was off in England arguing with Malcolm about my loyalty, which how dare he question it! Only a monster would kill innocent children and women, there was no reason for it! How can they live with themselves? As I write I am miles away from Fife for how could I stay when that atrocity happened in the place where I would have rested? I can never forgive myself for what happened that day, that fateful day which has brought me nothing but pain. I lay in my bed last night feeling alone and confused. My thoughts were in flux; I had ranged between crushing, overwhelming depression, during which I had shed countless tears onto my blankets, and anger so volatile I got up to put on my armour and immediately head to Fife (thrice), in hopes of catching the perpetrator only to remember my family, take off my armour, and lay back down. My wife would not have liked me to be dwelling on avenging their deaths but it is the only thing my mind has been set on. I have thought of killing myself, taking away the pain but I cannot do that! What would people think? I have no heir to my title or wealth, they would think I killed my family myself! Then I think of that assassin and him off gallivanting killing more innocent people and breaking other peoples hearts and I know hes got to be finished. If I ever find out who has killed my loved ones, I will be the death of them or they be the death of me. Macduff I am writing this entry, sitting at a desk in Scone. I have recently witnessed my dear friend Macbeth crowned King of Scotland. I am still in shock after the strange happenings of the past few days, so I am not yet overcome with neither joy nor grief. I should be happy for Macbeth, yet I feel that something inside me will not allow me to be so. These events, I fear, have not happened by chance, but that something evil, something supernatural is at work. Macbeth and I felt immense pride, on that fateful day as we rode, victorious, over the moor. We had just defeated the ghastly Norwegians, though by uncivilized means. Macbeth rightly said So foul; and fair a day I have not seen. Not far into our journey, we came upon three weird sisters. They all hailed Macbeth Thane of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and king hereafter. True, he was Thane of Glamis, but we were puzzled, to say the least, about the other two statements. As I was intrigued, I questioned them about my future. In reply, they told me that my sons would me kings, and that I would be Lesser than Macbeth, and greater. This confuses me greatly, for had they not just said that Macbeth would be king? Of course, I chose not to believe these instruments of darkness. Amazingly, minutes after the sisters had vanished, Macbeth was announced Thane of Cawdor. We were both quite taken aback, for the beings had foretold that very thing. I think our minds both raced towards the third prediction, All hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter! I believe that Macbeth began to think about how to make the third prophecy a reality. We spoke no more about it. Surprisingly, Malcolm was named Duncans successor, though Macbeth was firm favourite in my mind, at least.

A Discussion on Realism and Impressionism Essay Example for Free

A Discussion on Realism and Impressionism Essay The world was changing dramatically in the late 18th century. In North America, the British colonies had successfully revolted against the English empire and formed the United States of America. Fueled by this success, Europeans began to feel a strong desire for change, most notably in France, where the search for liberty led to the bloody French Revolution, which lasted from 1788 until 1799. At the same time, populations were starting to rapidly expand, and science and technology were producing the engines and tools to make the Industrial Revolution possible. It was in this atmosphere of change that a new artistic movement was born; a movement that wanted to view the world around it in a different way. Prior to this era, works of art commonly exemplified idealized scenes from historic events, or placed the subject in larger-than-life, heroic circumstances. Artists of the new movement wanted to show life as it really existed; its triumphs as well as failures; its beauty as well as its baser attributes. These artists were a part of the new movement: Realism. See more: Analysis of Starbucks coffee company employees essay As the name of the movement implies, Realism was an artistic movement toward attempting to capture the subject of the artwork in a true-to-life manner. Stated simply, realist artists sought to produce accurate and objective portrayals of the ordinary, observable world, with a focus on the lower classes and with a critique of the established social and political order (MindEdge, 2012). Considered by many to be the father of Realism is the French painter Gustave Courbet (1819 – 1877). In his life-sized depiction of two workmen he met along the roadside called The Stonebreakers (1849-50), we see the hallmarks of the Realist movement. (Courbet, 1850) Not only does Courbet pay careful attention to the detail in order to â€Å"paint as he sees it†, but he treats the subject matter with almost reverent respect. The laborers are not being extolled as heroic figures in an epic struggle, as would be expected in a more Romantic-style work of art. Instead, the two workmen are seen busy at a most ordinary task, that of breaking and moving heavy stones by the roadside. The simple act of everyday, hard labor is glorified and given a dignity that transcends heroism. This new-found, at least for the time period, respect for the common person and his or her struggles and successes in everyday life, as well as the desire to depict those struggles and successes with accuracy, are the true hallmarks of Realism. The paint had hardly dried on the early works of the Realist movement when another group of artists began to focus on a different aspect of artistic expression. This new technique was begun by the French artist Edouard Manet (1832 – 1883). Manet was a Realist painter who also wanted to bring truth to the color and light involved in his paintings. Manet and others of this new style had found that, rather than mixing colors on the palette and applying this mixture to the canvas, by juxtaposing different colors close together on the canvas, a more intense hue could be produced. This caused the painting have an almost unfinished look to them, especially when viewed from close range. This effect, along with the treatment of light on the subjects to capture time, motion and emotion in daily life and nature, is a key element of Impressionism. One of the most well-known of the Impressionist painters was Claude Monet (1840 – 1926). His work, Impression, Sunrise (1872), is quite characteristic of the Impressionist movement. (Monet, 1872) This depiction of a harbor scene in France is done in very loose brushstrokes, suggesting the subject matter rather than clearly defining it. The painting creates a â€Å"feeling† of water and boats in the early morning. This treatment of the subject and the light illuminating it gave art critic Louis Leroy the idea, in 1872, to ridicule the painting using its own name against it; implying that the impression he perceived was that the work was incomplete. While his critique has not proven to stand the test of time, his description of the work did help to label the artistic movement Impressionism. How do Realism and Impressionism compare? The choice of subject matter is often similar. Artists of both schools often chose scenes from everyday life and attempted to portray them on the canvas. While Courbet’s, The Stonebreakers, does show us clearly delineated characters in a realistically depicted scene, and Monet’s, Impression, Sunrise, imparts the â€Å"feeling† of the scene and allows the viewer to build context around that feeling, both paintings pay homage to a common, uncomplicated activity with a certain dignity and respect. In this sense, Impressionism can be seen as a natural extension of the Realist movement. Impressionism took Realism in another direction, however, with its unique treatment of light on the subject matter and in its coloring technique. This allowed Impressionist painters to capture feelings of motion, time and emotion in their art while continuing the Realist’s quest to examine the beauty in everyday life. As can be seen with an examination of the various movements in art history, Realism artists reacted to the fanciful, larger-than-life depictions of subjects in the Romantic period by turning toward detailed, â€Å"as you see it† renderings of the life and times of the common man and his surroundings. Impressionism, resonating with the tenets of Realism, took the movement even further, seeking to portray, not only life as we know it, but also life as we experience it. This opening up of the artistic mind to the possibilities of greater experimentation and more liberal viewpoints can be seen as the first salvo in an assault on the sterile, regimented ideology of the more traditional schools of artistic thought. The cracks created in the armor of traditional art styles allowed for future generations of artists to explore even further into their imaginations in order to redefine art in the modern era.

Louis XVI Failure to Prevent the French Revolution

Louis XVI Failure to Prevent the French Revolution Through a close analysis, to a certain extent Louis XVI plays a major role in the advance of the French revolution. He was responsible for aspects of the revolution, but it was an event which was ready for creation, and nothing was going to terminate its destiny. The times prior were becoming extremely difficult, and France was becoming a worn-out, desperate country suffocating from finances and other communal issues. There were numerous causes for why the revolution took place such as the great division in society and specific events, and Louis XVI plays a minor role as the authority figure through the hardship and change. Thus, Louis XVI becomes a vulnerable king who receives a substantial amount of blame for the revolution. Louis-Auguste ascended the throne at the age of 20 after the death of his father and was married to Marie-Antoinette, a queen which was disliked by the public of France. Their characters were seen as contrasting, yet both were disfavoured by the people. Louis was the King in name and in power, but did not support this authority with his character. He was mildly interested in reform, more interested in his kingship, but most interested in hunting. Queen Marie-Antoinette was at fault for the revolution to a small extent also, and was extremely unpopular among the common folk of France as the representative of the hated Austrian alliance. The king was over-powered by the fatal influence of Marie-Antoinette, and was too weak-minded to be stable, and the Queen was too strong-minded to be sensible. The image that was portrayed of the King and Queen to the public eye was not of positive attitude, which causes the people of France to accuse the monarchy The first signs which revealed a crisis to be uprising were the financial situations France was confronted with during the 1780s. There were three main reasons for bankruptcy to take place in France, one which directly involved Louis XVI and caused repugnance to be felt by the public. The constant wars and ruinous loss of most of the French Empire made continuous borrowing a necessity, and along with it came an enormous amount of debt. France was known to have an inefficient taxation system, by which the third estate paid all the taxes and the nobles and clergy escaped on light terms. The main situation which directs at Louis XVIs flaws was that the French court alone was accounting for one twelfth of the whole revenue of the government, which allowed them to live in luxury while the government continued to slip into financial debts, and all the common folk of France. Louis XVI is a major part to why the government was continuing to subside into bankruptcy, and he is seen as a poor r ole model of high status. Specific events from 1788-1799 caused a pressure on France, and created a numerous amount of problems to occur. Louis XVI was not of fault for the reasons, which shows that he was not the only source of the revolution. Frances population growth had risen from knowledge of medical technology upgrading, causing strains on the economy and the agricultural resources of the country. With an increase in population came a decrease in job vacancies, causing a rapid increase of unemployment of the Parisiannes. Another specific problem to occur during the time period of a year was a harsh winter, which forced people into Paris in search of food and shelter. Food started to become increasingly short and prices began to fluctuate. The typical worker was now spending three quarters of their wages on food. The tension that grew from these important events during the year of 1788 and 1799 caused a sudden outbreak of a Paris Mob to form. They were a desperate mob of exceptional size that were idle a nd ready to cheer on the most extreme measures to create a change of misfortune. Therefore, this is evidence of one cause of the revolution, which Louis XVI was not of fault. Additional evidence supporting the fact that Louis XVI was not the main factor for the revolution to take place was the growth of ideas, which had been brought to the attention of the French people. Ideas were brought to the public by members of society who began to question the hierarchal society and its oppressive structure. Philosophers and thinkers were the main bodies of the ideas and believed in rights of the individual in society and the division of power and the basic freedoms of man. Many famous writers such as Voltaire, Jean Jaques Rousseau and many other familiar names endorsed the general feeling of uprising. It was an age of enlightenment and it was designed to liberate men and set them free from fear. They were against the beliefs churches were imposing on educating and religion. They wanted to create a change, and not allow the church to be in such dominant power anymore. Thus, this proves to the point that Louis was not the main vehicle behind the revolution that othe r dominant forces such as the church were oppressing towards the French society creating this distinct tension to the up rise. The last influence to the revolution was how the society of France was divided distinctively into three sections, and this was a subject that was in the power of the king, Louis XVI to govern. An extreme amount of tension and hatred had grown from the three separate classes; they were known as the first estate consisting of the clergy, the second estate which were the nobles, and the third estate holding a large percentage of 90 percent of the population, were the middle class, otherwise known as the bourgeoisie and peasants. The major resentment was held by the middle class who did not want to be categorized in the same title as the underprivileged. The nobles were exempt from almost all taxes, leaving the peasants and middle class to pay for them, which they could not afford to do. The Sans-culottes which was the term given to the radicals of Paris who wore long trousers instead of the aristocratic knee-breeches were from the class of artisans and small shopkeepers. There were no m ajor industrial enterprises, since they tended to be state monopolized or strictly regulated by the state. There were not many job opportunities for the peasantry and middle-class. The third estate was never given a fair chance of speech and was cast aside and ignored in any of its ideas or needs. No matter if they were of the middle class with academic background or just the common peasant they were treated as the outcasts of society. Louis XVI had the power to change the classes, since he was in absolute monarchy, but he was content with the way France was divided and felt there was no need to make the third estate pleased. Instead he decided to ignore their requests for change and left the tension of the estates to escalate. This is an indication that Louis XVI can not be completely excluded from the bringing about of the French Revolution. Thus, through the identification of the reasons of the initial events occurring to the uprising of the revolution, and through the cross analysis of Louis XVI being entwined to the causes, it can be seen that he was only a small component of the reasons. Louis XVI was in absolute monarchy and had power over many subjects, although there were reasons that no amount of power could have discontinued. As many historians have concluded about the French Revolution, France had become a very desperate country with a weak king and had a strong body of reformists, and needed only the smallest of events to occur to set it into fire. Louis XVI (23 August 1754-21 January 1793) was King of France and Navarre from 1774 until 1791, and then King of the French from 1791 to 1792. Suspended and arrested during the Insurrection of the 10th of August 1792, he was tried by the National Convention, found guilty of treason, and executed on 21 January 1793. His execution signaled the end of the absolutist monarchy in France and would eventually bring about the rise of Napoleon. There are conflicting views about his conviction. Not only is it believed that he was guilty and deserved to be guillotined in front of a cheering crowd on 21 January 1793, but a divergent view is held, outlining how his intentions were good but the circumstances were. But to what extent was Louis XVI really to blame? Though it is certain that Louis XVI failed to maintain the centralization of power; people were under the false impression that he was a vain, obtuse, and inadequate monarch, so clueless that on the day the Bastille was seized by revolutionaries, he wrote in his diary, Rien, Nothing happened.. This led to all the large forces in France conspiring to fragment power away from the monarchy. This meant that Louis could have been a scape goat and someone easy to blame for the revolution. He inherited the debt problem left by his grandfather, Louis XV, and contributed to the predicament himself through heavy spending during Frances involvement in the American  Revolution  (1775-1783). Because this massive debt overwhelmed all of his financial consultants, Louis XVI was forced to give in to the demands of the Parlement of Paris and convene the Estates, General. Also Marie Antoinette, who was brought up in indulgence as an Austrian princess, after their marriage became, in the French commoners eyes, the primary symbol of the French royaltys extravagance and excess. She was hindering their payment of loans both Louis XVI and his predecessors had. Thought she didnt have power of anything more than any other French queen until the reforms were rejected, she still had power over his purse, and carried on her indulgent life even when the country was declaring bankruptcy.    This was another target that France used in their feud against their youthful king. He had an Austrian queen, in an attempt to reconcile differences between the two countries, but with many French people against his wife, Louis was led to ignore those citizens opinions and carry on, not worrying about how he could be wrong in having a queen like Mary Antoinette. This in turn may explain why the French started to despise Louis xvi, and in the end turn to executing him.    Complaints about the king, taxing, and voting in the Estates General were on the increase. The bourgeoisie were well informed of their legal weakness and conscious of the rights that other people in other nations, such as the new United States of America, were receiving as a right of a drastic change in judgment. The most important causes of the French Revolution, therefore, were these: the constant unprofessional conduct of the French government and the subsequent unfairness in the distribution of wealth, the incredible hardship that the populations of the Third Estate were subject to, and, finally, the Enlightenment principles finally reaching the thinkers of the day. The ruling parties in France had long since overstepped their boundaries in terms of levying taxes. The Old Regime had become antiquated and impractical, unfit for the growing size of the country and for the well-being of the people. Feudalism had existed for centuries, but it was time for a change. King Louis XVI and his teams of advisors were forced to develop elaborate taxation schemes to pay the inflation on the national debt, which was partly the fault of his predecessors, who had spent colossal amounts of money on Versailles, amongst other things. More than fifty percent of the total budget was directed toward this renumeration. Tax collection, however, was a debacle. Taxes mixed from region to region, and most of the taxes were collected by private businessmen. They would lend the taxes to the government and then accumulate the taxes directly; they then paid themselves both the principal and the interest on the loan and sent the rest to the government. They were liberated to hold back as much as they wanted, so the Third Estate was paying far more in taxes than truly went to the government. Whats worse is that the assets of the country were not centralized; there were hundreds of offices paying out money. By the 1780s, no one had any idea as to what the total asset and liability profile of the nation looked like. The financial crisis precipitated a steep inflationary rise in prices. This inflation was good news for French manufacturing and mercantilism because it resulted in a significant shot of capital into emerging industrial and mercantile businesses. It played hell, however, with the peasantry. Not only did the peasants have to pay higher prices for the basics of life, but landlords began raising fees on the peasantry when they saw their purchasing power decrease. By 1789, over 80 percent of an average peasants household income went to purchasing bread alone, just bread. In that same year, unemployment in many parts of France was over 50%.This, of course, meant practically bleeding the poorest, most disadvantaged people in the country dry of what little capital they had. As time went on, the Churches and the nobles, making up only three percent of the territory, gathered to them upwards of half of the land in the country; they then turned their sights on the largest portion of the French people, and began to take whatever they could from them. Louis was blamed for this as he was that kept the taxes and even added some on to pay off his debts. On top of the taille, the corvà ©e, the tithe and capitation, the vingtieme was called on even when France wasnt at war. In 1787, Louiss financial ministers, Charles de Calonne and Lomà ©nie de Brienne, tried to initiate a series of reforms to stop the complete financial ruin of the French government. They wanted new taxes. The Parlements, which had the authority to raise taxes, want something in return: more regional independence. The aristocracy wouldnt budge on the matter; when Louis calls a select group of nobles together to sell him on the reforms, they flat out declined to consider the matter. They insist, rather, that the only governmental body that can support the new taxes is the Estates General, which hadnt been called since 1614. So Louis XVI decided in 1789 to convene the Estates, General, and an ancient assembly consisting of three different estates that each represented a portion of the French population. If the Estates, General could agree on a tax solution, it would be implemented. However, since two of the three estates; the clergy and the nobility, were tax, exempt, the achievement o f any such result was unlikely.    Furthermore, the out of date rules of order for the Estates, General gave each estate a single vote, despite the fact that the Third Estate, consisting of the general French public, was many times larger than either of the first two. Feuds quickly broke out over this discrepancy and would prove to be contradictory. Realizing that its numbers gave it an automatic advantage, the Third Estate declared itself the sovereign National Assembly. Within days of the announcement, many members of the other two estates had switched allegiances over to this revolutionary new assembly.    On May 5, 1789, Louis XVI convened the Estates General. Almost immediately, it became apparent that the 1614 arrangement would not sit well with its present members. Although Louis XVI granted the Third Estate greater numerical representation, the Parlement of Paris stepped in and invoked an old rule mandating that each estate receive one vote, regardless of size. As a result, though the Third Estate was vastly larger than the clergy and nobility, each estate had the same representation, one vote. Inevitably, the Third Estates vote was doubled to accommodate the difference in population. Louis XVI could be commentated on his good intentions in light of this event. Knowing very well that a revolution was imminent, he let there be an equal ration of representatives, thus editing a tradition to mace it democratic.    The fact that the Estates General hadnt been summoned in nearly 200 years probably says a thing or two about the extent of the situation. The First and Second Estates, clergy and nobility, respectively, were too closely related in many matters. Both were linked to the royalty and shared many similar privileges. As a result, their votes often went the same way, automatically neutralizing any effort by the Third Estate. Additionally, in a country as secularized as France at the time, giving the church a full third of the vote was ill-advised: although Frances citizens would ultimately have their revenge, at the time the churchs voting power just fostered more animosity. There were numerous philosophers in France speaking out against religion and the mindless following that it supposedly demanded, and many resented being forced to follow the decisions of the church on a national scale.    In a way if it werent for Louis making his decision to give more votes to the 3rd estate, there would be no upheaval from the 1st and 2nd estates. On the other hand the revolt of the 3rd estate would affect him. He was stuck in the middle with no was of compromise. Things got worse when the third estate segregated. The Third Estate itself varied greatly in socioeconomic status: some members were peasants and labourers, whereas others had the occupations, wealth, and lifestyles of nobility. These disparities between members of the Third Estate made it difficult for the wealthy members to relate to the peasants with whom they were grouped. Because of these rifts, the Estates, General, though organized to reach a peaceful solution, remained in a long-lasting inside feud. It was only through the efforts of men such as Sieyà ¨s that the members of the Third Estate finally realized that fighting among them was fruitless and that if they took advantage of the estates massive size, they wou ld be a force that could not be ignored. In conclusion, I believe the French Revolution was an astonishingly convoluted affair; it was principally lit by the antagonisms between the first two and the Third Estate, antagonisms rooted in decades of abuse and frustration and not a despot who was trying to fix his families mistakes along with his own. Louis xvi may have made some decisions that would make any other monarch twitch with distaste but his intentions were good , and considering his age and his power , he was an adequate king for a place that certainly had a revolution in its midst.

Stereotype of Politicians Breaking Promises Essay -- Politics Politica

The Promise Trap 28 September 1999 A common complaint about politicians--so common it's a stereotype--is that they break their promises. Audiences hear one thing, the politician seems to do another, and then the complaining begins. This scenario could be the result of miscommunication on the part of the politician or misinterpretation on the part of the audience. But the reality is more complex. Politicians do make promises, although they rarely use the word as the verb and themselves as the subject of the sentence. And audiences do hear promises being made and have a right to expect action if the concept of a promise still creates a bond, or a contract, between the one who promises and the one promised. Listen carefully, and you will hear the politicians running for the various presidential nominations making promises. Often, they will sound/read something like this promise from a recent speech by Steve Forbes: "Under my plan, that money is your money. If you die prematurely, you can leave it to your spouse, to your children, to your grandchildren - tax-free and untouched by the politicians. That's the moral thing to do, and that's the promise of a Forbes Administration." Here Forbes is talking about a plan to create more wealth for retirement. As the quote clearly states, this money would pass from generation to generation tax free. The pronoun "that" at the beginning of the first independent clause of the third sentence refers to the situation of the money passing on tax free--so this passing is the "moral" thing to do. The second "that" in the second independent clause is a tricky because it could refer to the same situation as the first clause, or it could refer a general moral situation that Forbes hopes t... ...ow going in that, in most cases, they cannot deliver specific promises. Yet they promise anyway in roundabout ways meant to create the contract in the minds of the audience while leaving an out when the "unhappy" outcome happens. Austin is clear about what he thinks of situations such as these. As he says: "'I promise' entails 'I ought'...to say 'I promise' but not to perform the act is parallel to saying both 'it is' and 'it is not.' Just as the purpose of assertion is defeated by an internal contradiction, the purpose of a contract is defeated if we say 'I promise and I ought not'" (51). Black is white. Night is day. Welcome to doublespeak. Works Cited Austin, J. L. How to Do Things With Words. Urmson, J. O. and Marina Sbisa, eds. Harvard UP, Cambridge, MA: 1975. DiClerico, Robert E. The American President. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1995.

Cloning And Embryo Research :: essays research papers fc

Cloning and Embryo Research: The Science Fiction Reality   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The idea of cloning a life form seemed like something read from a science fiction novel just ten years ago. Now, the theories, ideas and facts of cloning embryos have made cloning one of the most talked about social issues of our time. The researchers of this scientific breakthrough have made a lot of progress in recent years. Many have heard of Dolly, the cloned sheep, and that’s just the tip of the ice burg. This is undoubtedly the biggest and most recent breakthrough science has seen in some time. Cloning research started in Scotland. According to an article in Science News Online, â€Å"Scottish investigators grew embryo cells of Welsh mountain sheep in the laboratory. During a relatively stable stage of the cell cycle, they transferred 244 of the nuclei to the stripped-down eggs of Scottish blackface ewes† (Adler Par. 8). These nuclei had a full set of chromosomes, so fertilizing the eggs was not necessary. They then gave the eggs an electric shock to â€Å"initiate development† (Adler Par. 9). This was done after years of endless research. There was extensive research done in the area of embryo stem cells. Scientists have used such mouse stem cells for nearly a decade to create genetically altered mice (Travis Par. 8). Kaye Tucker of World Socialist Web Site writes, â€Å"These basic cells are present in the earliest stages of developing embryos and are able to develop into virtually any type of cell and tissue in the body† (Par. 3). This is where genes can be altered and clones can be made. It has been a hard task locating and being able to work with these stem cells because they are only around for a short time (Tucker Par. 6). The possibilities for new research are endless. Other than a social issue, the idea of cloning has become a moral issue. Many have asked the question, ‘Should we clone humans?’, and more have answered it. There are many who have strong opinions on the subject. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is quoted as saying, â€Å"The prospect of government-sponsored experiments to manipulate and destroy human embryos should make us all lie awake at night† (â€Å"Embryo† Par. 5). Researchers have been and wish to continue using surplus embryos for experimentation. Most of the breakthroughs made have been done using donated embryos (Tucker Par. 9). This moral issue has also come up in many theological discussions.

rave culture Essay -- essays research papers

Rave Culture What is a rave? Raving is a highly subjective experience. One person's best rave is another person's worst. Any attempt to analyze rave culture must recognize the highly personal factor of the experience. Author Daniel Martin defines a rave as â€Å"a long period of constant energetic and stylistic dancing exhibited by a large group of people in a hot, crowded facility providing continuous loud House music and an accompanying strobe lit psychedelic light show† . Since the beginning of this culture there has been much controversy on the legality of what goes on in the scene. Through the history, music, people, spirituality we are introduced to one of the newest things affecting pop culture today. Rave culture can be traced back to Native American religious ceremonies. It can be traced back to anarchist revolutions in Italy and France. It pulls energy from many different directions. It had its origins in Chicago and Detroit disco clubs and gay dance clubs. England and America traded musical influences back and forth during the late seventies-early eighties until techno finally started to be formed. The actual rave movement, however, combining this new music with dancing, occurred in England. At almost the exact same time, raves started popping up in Manchester and Ibiza, a noted English vacation spot, in late 1987 and early 1988. At this same time, the rave phenomenon was taking hold in Germany, most notably in Berlin. The popularity of raves grew in both countries, and soon the intimate all-night dance parties were drawing thousands of kids. The first U.S. raves were held in San Francisco, long noted for its liberal and psychedelic culture. From here, they moved to Los Angele s and the rave scene was born in California. The rave scene that was born in America was one of complete illegality. It began when Frankie Bones, a New York native and one of the U.S. DJ’s that was spinning in England, saw that the scene was moving into America, and wanted to bring it to his hometown of Brooklyn. He started a series of parties called Stormrave in early 1992. The parties started out small, 50-100 kids, and Frankie resorted to projecting videos of the massive raves in England to show kids what it was all about. It was during this period of Stormraves that many DJ’s made their debuts. The music at a rave is techno, primarily electronically created music that gener... ...rable and strangers become people to be loved. It was a perfect fit with the happy family that the rave scene was trying to create. There is a tangible energy that goes along with dancing to extremely loud beats with hundreds of other people. Raves are a shared experience. A sense of unity often develops among ravers, in which, personal creeds, race, gender, age, sexual preference and everything else that our society places so much emphasis on simply fades into the background. At a rave when everyone is dancing you experience a feeling of collective organism and I think people that have had this experience view the world differently afterwards. Another phrase commonly thrown around in circles of ravers is that of PLUR, which stands for Peace, Love, Unity and Respect. In many senses, PLUR is the dogma that ravers believe in. References: Jordan, Joel. Searching for the Perfect Beat. New York: Watson-Giptil Publications, 2000. Martin, Daniel. â€Å"Power Play and Party Politics: The Significance of Raving.† Journal of Pesch, Martin. â€Å"Techno Style.† Zurich: Edition Olms, 1998. Redhead, Steve, ed. Rave Off: Politics and Deviance in Contemporary Youth Culture. Aldershot: Avebury, 1993.

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