Bismarcks appointment of Minister President of Prussia Essay Example for Free

Bismarcks appointment of Minister President of Prussia Essay Bismarcks appointment of Minister President of Prussia (1862) was the most important turning point in the course of German nationalism in the period 1815-1919? By 1919 Germany had been united, and the nature of nationalism had changed from a freedom seeking, democratic force into one which demanded popular subservience to the state. German nationalism had clearly changed radically over the period of more than one hundred years and defining the turning point at which it changed is difficult due to the sheer number of factors that impacted upon it as well as the vast number of events and organisations which interfered with its development. Otto von Bismarck would become viewed in later years as the father of German nationalism. When he came to power 1862 the Kaiser was looking for a man who could oppose the liberals and force through a favourable army bill. However, within just nine years Germany would have become united, not without the help, though not always willing, from Bismarck. Bismarck effected the unification of Germany almost single-handedly. However, many of the opportunities which Bismarck actually attempted to manipulate were neither created by him nor very successful. Bismarck did not always manage nationalism as effectively as it is suggested. The Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71 forced to unite with the southern states in Germany when in reality it would have been unlikely that he desired this. Prussia was still attempting to absorb the north German states and to add the southern states, especially with their un-Prussian culture, risked diluting Prussias culture too far. It is clear that in 1890 Bismarck was managed by nationalism because he was forced to resign due to the outpouring of nationalist feeling that resented him attempting to hold Germany in check. He represented the old Germany, a Prussian dominated one and in an effort to find a German chancellor he was removed from office. Even the Dual Alliance in 1879 demonstrated how German nationalism forced him to take actions against his will. With his Prussian upbringing his loyalties more likely lay with Russian rather than Austria and the decline of Austria was increasingly clear for all too see, to join the young, powerful Germany with this crumbling empire would do nothing to help the country yet nationalistic feeling in Germany forced the Alliance. Bismarcks appointment in 1882 was an important moment in German nationalism but the theory that one man had such an impact upon the fate of a nation does not stand so well in light of deeper scrutiny. The Congress of Vienna held in 1815 helped create an environment which would help the growth of German nationalism. Prussias gains in the west of Germany were actually intended by the Allies to be a burden. They had given the smallest of the Great Powers the most difficult job as acting as a barricade against France. However, this would backfire on the Allies when it would later become Germanys massive industrial growth. It also affected the nature of Prussia, whereas she had previously been a predominantly Eastern European power she now had a pan-German outlook, though it appeared to begin with that she had little in common with her western population. The distance between the two main blocks of land meant that transporting goods between the two would prove difficult and this would spur the creation and development of the Prussian Customs Union in 1818 which would later become the Zollverein in 1834. However, when at the Congress of Vienna the Allies faced the question of what is Germany they fell back on historical precedent, the Holy Roman Empire. This can be seen as a retrospective step because it actually excluded areas of both Austria and Prussia, as well as making many of the smaller states much larger. The Congress of Vienna was not a turning point in German nationalism, but without it the nature of Germany could have been very different from that with which we are familiar if it existed at all. The creation of the Zollverein in 1834 was a critical turning point for German nationalism, formed from the Prussian Customs Union in 1818. Thomas Nipperdy described the creation of the Zollverein as the outstanding event in all-German history. Given the basis as a pan-German union it improved the contacts between all of the German states, encouraging them to work together for mutual benefit and broke down barriers between the regions of Germany both officially and culturally. It is often the case that economic unity leads to political as appears to be the case with the EU, formerly the European Economic Community (EEC) and the push for a European constitution. However, German political unity was far from inevitable, many Germans now saw political unity as obsolete because they achieved all the benefits of such a union without the risk of losing any of their own unique regional culture. The Zollverein was also critical in training a new cadre of diplomats for Prussia and teaching them to administer a German organisation, experience which would be invaluable in the post-unification era. Bismarck once declared in a speech to the North German Reichstag in 1869 that He who has his thumb on the purse has the power and by taking the economic leadership of the German states Prussia rose importantly and a Kleindeutsch solution to the German problem became much more feasible. It also struck a double blow in this respect. It not only made a Prussian-led Germany more likely but it made an Austrian-led Germany less likely. Because of her exclusion from the customs union the Austrian economy suffered and her already fragile market became on step closer to failing and this would be one of the major reasons for her defeat to Prussia. The use of the economy mirrored the nature of German nationalism; initially it was a liberal move, the reduction of trade barriers embodied by the introduction of the Zollverein. However, by the time unification was achieved economic policy turned its back on liberalism and the economic protectionism Bismarck employed against Russia helped show how far nationalism had changed. The Zollverein would form the template upon which the German Empire would eventually be founded, a kleindeutsch dominated by Prussia. Some historians even go so far to view the whole of the unification of Germany as purely an economic transaction, that it was not driven by political ideology but by the cold logic of money and economic expansionism. The Zollverein did represent an important twist in the history of German nationalism but it did not utterly change the face of the ideology but simply made the prospect more likely. In addition to this, the success of the Zollverein would provide the necessary environment for the rapid expansion of industry within German and this would have a critical impact upon nationalism. 1848 can very easily be viewed as the critical turning point in the history of German nationalism. It is often seen as a turning point about which history failed to turn, and it is this very failure which makes it such an important date in the history of German nationalism. 1848 presented revolutionary factions within Germany, and other countries throughout Europe, with a window of opportunity. In Paris the Second Republic is established in a welter of violence; in Sicily the Palermo Uprising takes place; in Hungary revolution boils over; Swedish revolutionaries are gunned down by their government and in Ireland the potato famine sparks the Tipperary Revolt. To the established order it appeared that stability was breaking down and anarchy threatened them. It was in this climate of exceptional change that the German revolutionary effort failed. The dithering incompetence of the middle classes, coupled with their glaring impotence discredited liberal politics and any idea of a revolution from below. This would prove potentially dangerous for the development of German nationalism. Divorced from its liberal and democratic roots it became a force of the right and of the paternalist government. This resulted in the desire for individual freedoms being sacrificed for the will of state. The government was paranoid about the dangers of the socialist movement within Germany, but they actually shared many common ideals, most markedly the concept of the priority of the state over the individual. It became obvious that power and change could not be achieved without the power of an army to back themselves; Bismarck summarised this problem in his most famous speech the great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and majority decisions that was the error of 1848 but by iron and blood. Given our knowledge of how German nationalism developed into a violent, racist, militaristic force it is clear to see that 1848 was a seminal moment in its development, the pre-1848 liberal, French-styled nationalism became a force of the militant right. 1848 also represented a turning point for German nationalism in a European context. It appeared that countries were naturally progressing from being authoritarian monarchies to becoming nationalistic, liberal democracies. Germanys refusal to follow this trend fundamentally altered the nature of German nationalism. This turning point about which history failed to turn left something rotten at the core of German nationalism. The change from idealism to brutal pragmatism, combined with the machinations of Bismarck and the authoritarian government meant that the German peoples cause was subverted and used as a weapon against those European powers who had abused Germany for such a long time. On the 18th of January 1871 the German Empire was proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. This can easily be seen as a turning point in German nationalism, it finally created what the nationalists had been striving for over the past half century. Though it is true that the majority of what then became Germany existed in the North German Confederation created 4 years earlier after Prussias victory over Austria it represented a subtle but important shift in the history of German nationalism and the process of reaching the announcement played a very important role in defining the new Germany. Even the date upon which the Empire was announced held special significance, 270 years earlier the first Elector of Brandenburg was crowned King in Prussia. This clearly symbolically established Prussian hegemony over the newly created German Reich. Even the fact that the proclamation was made at Versailles was more significant than simple a quick expediency. Were the proclamation were to be made in Berlin, the capital of the new Empire, it would have most likely been made in Parliament. For Bismarck this would have been intolerable, in his eyes it was the army and their feudal, warlord leaders who had united the new empire rather than the romantic liberals and their speeches and majority votes. The Reich was declared in the home of imperial power, Versailles was the benchmark against which all other symbols of imperial might were measured and it clearly showed how the ruling elite of the new Germany planned to rule the country. It would be easy to say that it was a simple political humiliation for the French to have their enemies declare their new country in the French capital but to do this would ignore the deeper significance of both the time and place it was made. Nationalism within Germany underwent many changes over the period from 1815 to 1919. It suffered from a gradual change from its ideals over the time and it is difficult to differentiate between the impacts that the different potential turning points had on German nationalism. However, the most seminal moment in the history Germany nationalism was when it shifted indelibly from the idealists views to the pragmatic views of the industrialists within the country. 1866 can be seen as the turning point in the unification of Germany rather than a turning point in the nature of German nationalism. The failure of democracy in 1848 at a time when many other revolutions had succeeded left many Germans with the view that it would only be through violence and warfare blood and iron that their dreams would ever be realised.

Analysis Of Unilateralism Under George W Bush Politics Essay

Analysis Of Unilateralism Under George W Bush Politics Essay Prior to 1945, the dominant trend in the policy of the United States was isolationist, which was isolation from global affairs. America was ambivalent about multilateral engagements and as much as possible remained separated from the European balance of power. In the same vein, the U.S. congress disapproved U.S. participation in the League of Nations reflecting the traditional ambivalence of America towards multilateral engagements. However, after the 2nd World War, there was a significant change in the U.S. foreign policy. The American isolationist approach collapsed completely, and the United States foreign policy was principally committed to multilateralism, as the defining post war strategy adopted by both Democrats and Republicans (Skidmore, 2005). The United States adopted a strategy of global engagement from its hitherto selective engagement. A multilateral approach became the crucial instrument in Americas attempt to conduct the cold war and rebuild international order. The onset of the cold war was the major source of change which by 1947 convinced U.S. policy makers that removal of the soviet threat was the proper strategy and in light of the communist challenge, the containment of the Soviet threat had to be global to have any effect (Jentleson, 2008). The United States became committed to multilateral cooperation and international institutions following World War 2, it promoted the Bretton Woods System multilateralism while supporting institutions such as the UN, IMF, NATO, and the World Bank among others. During this period according to Skidmore (2005), multilateralism attained prominence in the foreign policy of the United States both in practice and in rhetoric, and as the U.S. became internationally powerful, multilateralism was integrated as a norm in international society. However, the American foreign policy has since taken a sharp unilateralist turn especially with the Bush administration; it turned its back on the world and was principally committed to unilateralism and this has been consequential for the U.S. policy and the reputation of the United States internationally. This essay seeks to explore how the United States under the Bush administration rejected multilateralism and adopted a more unilateralist approach to global issues than its predecessors. It is pertinent to note that multilateralism for the United States was not always a principled commitment, but more of a policy preference; American policy makers approached multilateralism pragmatically as it was adopted insofar as it serves U.S. interest and was willingly overlooked when it did not work. It is important to acknowledge that despite the fact that President Bushs administration embraced a more unilateral approach to international issues, not all of presidents Bushs predecessors adopted a multilateral approach to foreign policy as the United States always favoured whatever worked. The Reagan administration in the 1982 Siberian gas pipeline conflict rejected the NATO consensus and enforced unilateral sanctions against European companies for cooperating economically with the Soviet Union (Ikenberry, 2003). The Bush senior administration in the bid to promote free trade approached international economic policy unilaterally; its use of Super 301 trade negotiating authority allowed the U.S. to act as judge, jury and prosecutor simultaneously as it determines what countries should be threatened with punitive sanctions. According to Ikenberry (2003), U.S. officials argue consistently that although multilateralism was preferred, they were always ready to use bilateral talks or even unilateral actions when necessary to achieve what they want. Under the Clinton administration, the NATO allies of the United States tried to convince the Clinton government for several years to intervene in the Bosnian Civil war through a multilateral approach. After the United States finally agreed in 1995, it practically dictated the terms of military intervention supporting the Dayton agreement (Stewart and Shepard, 2002). Also, the Clinton administration intervened under the auspices of military institutions in Somalia in 1992-1993, but withdrew its troops unilaterally after American soldiers became casualties in Somalia. Furthermore, despite international pressure, the United States sat back and practically did little or nothing while atrocities such as the genocide in Rwanda took place. In the same vein, the Clinton administration in Kosovo resisted the UN Security Council by rejecting an intervention and instead worked through NATO, a different multilateral institution. Similarly, the Clinton administration in 1998 refused to be limited on its ability to employ U.S.military power and bypassed the UN Security Council by undertaking Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets. Clintons National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, is of the opinion that only one overriding factor can determine whether the United States should act multilaterally or unilaterally, and that is Americas interests. We should act multilaterally where doing so advances our interests, and we should act unilaterally when that will serve our purpose. The simple question in each case is this: What works best? Anthony Lake (1993: 663) However, the United States under the Bush administration embraced a more unilateralist approach to global issues than its predecessors. Unilateral elements of the Bush Doctrine were apparent in the first months of the Bush administration as America withdrew from international agreements, retreating into a unilateralist stance. President Bushs unilateralism became evident in the first few weeks after he took office. After he preached during his election campaign that the U.S. should learn humility in their conduct with other nations, in March 2001, President Bush rather arrogantly withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Global Warming negotiations, a protocol the Americans had signed but was yet to be ratified. Jacobson, (2002) echoed that The U.S did not want its capability to trade for emission rights with other nations to be limited. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, European critics indicated that the United States in 2002 emitted about one-third of greenhouse gases globally (Dumbrell, 2002). Furthermore, in mid 2001, projections made pointed out that by 2010, U.S. emissions would increase by 23 percent. The U.S. refusal to support emission reduction limits confirmed the unilateralist position of the Bush administration to foreign policy (Dumbrell, 2002). The Bush administration repudiated to support series of international agreements. The convention on the prohibition of the production, stockpiling, the transfer and use of antipersonnel mines was signed on the 18th of September 1997 in Ottawa (Prestowitz, 2003). The treaty was signed by every country in the Western Hemisphere except the United States and Cuba and every other member of NATO are signatories to the treaty except the United States and Turkey. The United States demanded an exemption for the removal of mines along the borders of the demilitarized zones in South Korea and an exemption permitting as part of a mixed system the deployment of U.S. antipersonnel mines including antitank mines (Edwards and King, 2007). Other parties to the negotiation rejected both demands made by U.S. military officials and this prompted the U.S. to decline the final agreement. Although President Clinton during his administration promised that the United States would sign the Ottawa convention b y 2006, the Bush administration since entering into office had rejected the treaty and abandoned Clintons earlier pledge. The United States followed self-proclaimed unilateralist action by refusing to ratify the International Criminal Court. The ICC, establish to try war crimes was voted to be established on July 17, 1997 by 120 nations although 7 nations voted against the court while 21 nations abstained (Nolte, 2003). Although President Clinton ultimately signed the ICC treaty as one of his final actions in office on December 31, 2000 overruling objections from many senate Republics and the pentagon, the Bush administration rejected the ICC and withdrew all U.S. support of the court thereby rendering the earlier signature of Clinton null and void (Brown, 2002).The Bush administration campaigned to make sure that other states would not bring charges to the ICC against U.S. troops, According to Nolte (2003), under U.S. pressure the governments of more than sixty states signed bilateral agreements pledging not to submit charges to the ICC against U S. troops. Under the Bush administration, the unilateralist trend of America refusing to live by the rules and yet expecting the rest of the world to comply was dramatically accelerated. President Bush abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on December 13, 2001 in pursuance of a national missile defense as the Bush administration had blamed the national missile defense lack of advancement on the ABM Treaty (Hirsh, 2002). This step undertaken by the Bush Administration was opposed by China, Russia and most U.S. allies but President Bush was determined to go-it-alone by backing out of a Treaty that had been a vital part of arms control for close to 30 years. During the Clinton and Bush Senior administration, the power of the United States was not flaunted by domineering less powerful states, although the Clinton administration acted unilaterally on some occasions, at least it appeared to consult and take the views of others before taking action. The Bush administration on the other hand does not even pretend to listen to its allies; rather they inform allies of what is expected to be done. Bushs unilateralist approach could be referred to as in your face or without apology as his unilateral practise is not taken only as a necessary last resort. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on Washington D.C. and New York shocked the international community to cooperate unprecedentedly as friends and foes of the U.S declared jointly a global war on terrorism. However, after the Taliban regime in Afghanistan alongside its Al Qaeda terrorist allies had been toppled, the Bush administration returned to assertive unilateralism (Hayden et al, 2003). The Bush administration disregarded the uproar of international opposition, without an explicit authorization of the Security Council to the use of force and proceeded with the Iraq war almost alone. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, the U.S policy under President Bush continued to be characterised by unilateralism. On the 29th January 2002, President Bush in his State of the Union Address characterized Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil, governments threatening world peace, accused of seeking weapons of mass destruction and assisting terrorist (Owens and Dumbrell, 2008). Ignoring criticisms internationally, President Bush went ahead to destroy the Saddam Hussein government, belittling the International Atomic Energy Agency and the united nations as being ineffective. The U.S led coalition to invade Iraq was joined by only Britain. The U.S. led invasion of Iraq under the Bush administration symbolised the implementation of a new national security policy known as the Bush doctrine. This doctrine basically changed the way U.S. acted towards the rest of the world and indicated a radical shift from past national security strategies. This doctrine stressed the concept of preventive or pre-emptive war and a willingness by the United States to act unilaterally if cooperation through a multilateral approach cannot be attained. According to Owens and Dumbrell (2008), President Bush indicated that the new policy was imperative to forestall the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among terrorist groups and rogue states, while maintaining that the policy of deterrence was no longer adequate to prevent the use of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons among terrorist organisations or rogue states. The Bush doctrine prompts the United States to behave arrogantly and act unilaterally since the invasion of Iraq. Also, the doctrine would jeopardize the international cooperation necessary to track down terrorist groups as the U.S tends to alienate world opinion. Furthermore, the concept of pre-emptive war is prone to encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction rather than discourage it and could increase the risk of regional conflicts if embraced by other nations. The use of force unilaterally would not resolve the resolve the problems of the world. President Bush senior told his son that if a war in Iraq was not backed up by international cooperation, hopes of peace in the Middle East would be farfetched. Bushs Unilateralism and pre-emptive action to deal with weapons of mass destruction has incited popular criticism and ambivalence throughout the Middle East, East and Southeast Asia among others (Edwards and king, 2007). His unilateral approach to global affairs has backfired as it created friction between the mainstream international community and the United States. The heart of President Bush was in the right place as he wanted to make the world secure from terrorism and WMD for which he should be applauded, however, his might makes right and America first approaches have intensified animosities, shaken alliances and increased the risk of global terrorism. When it comes to addressing the problems of the world , multilateral international cooperation is more appropriate than President Bushs unilateral actions. The United States has the greatest influence in international affairs as it possesses the largest military and economy in the world. No nation has had as much cultural, economic and military power as the United States since the Roman Empire. However, Nye (2002) is of the opinion that it became evident through the nuclear threat posed by Iraq and the attacks of September 11 that in solving global problems, power is just not enough. Global issues such as environmental degradation, terrorism, financial instability, infectious diseases, drugs and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires involving the cooperation of other nations to be tackled. Unilateralism harms the credibility and international standing of the United States, weakens global environmental initiatives, damaged treaties and cripples the ability of the U.S to negotiate effectively in the future. There are global problems that simply cannot be solved by one country alone irrespective of how powerful, the U.S needs global cooperation to combat international terrorism, sanction effectively law-breaking states, hinder the proliferation of WMD and missile technology, to invest in foreign nations and to curtail illegal immigrants across international borders amongst others (Haass, 2008). Nye (2002), stressed that the United States cannot go it alone as unilateralism is not a viable option; it threatens to undermine its soft power and triggers the forming of coalition against the U.S. which could finally limit its hard power. However, Nye is not saying that the United States should not strike out on its own when deemed necessary or as a last resort because the interest of the U.S. may not always correspond with the ambitions of other nations. Nevertheless, the United States should strive to cooperate with the international community as much as possible because if the U.S. is bound to lead, it is also bound to cooperate (Nye, 2002). In conclusion, the United states under the bush administration adopted a more unilateralist approach to global issues than its predecessors as his administration embraced a go it alone strategy to address international issues in the aftermath of 9/11 and constantly repudiated international norms, treaties and negotiating forums. However, on Saturday 22 May 2010 at the West Point U.S Military Academy, President Obama while addressing graduating cadets declared that the U.S cannot act alone in the world as he outlined a foreign policy agenda that rejected the go-it-alone approach adopted by his predecessor, George W. Bush (BBC News, May 23, 2010). President Obama announced that in contrast to the Bush era, the white house would no longer ignore the international community; explaining that the United States performed best when it operated within alliances for example during the Second World War or during its tensions with the Soviet Union.

Femininity against Masculinity in A White Heron Essay -- Sarah Orne Je

Since its first appearance in the 1886 collection A White Heron and Other Stories, the short story A White Heron has become the most favorite and often anthologized of Sarah Orne Jewett. Like most of this regionalist writer's works, A White Heron was inspired by the people and landscapes in rural New England, where, as a little girl, she often accompanied her doctor father on his visiting patients. The story is about a nine-year-old girl who falls in love with a bird hunter but does not tell him the white heron's place because her love of nature is much greater. In this story, the author presents a conflict between femininity and masculinity by juxtaposing Sylvia, who has a peaceful life in country, to a hunter from town, which implies her discontent with the modernization?s threat to the nature. Different from female and male which can describe animals, femininity and masculinity are personal and human. That is femininity refers to qualities and behaviors associated with women and girls and masculinity is manly character, it specifically describes men. Femininity has traditionally included features such as gentleness, patience and kindness. On the contrary, men?s chief qualities are strength, courage and violence. Clearly images for two definitions above in A White Heron are Sylvia and the hunter. The hunter is friendly and easy-going while Sylvia is ?afraid of folks?. Sylvia is ?a little maid who had tried to grow for eight years in a crowded manufacturing town?, but she is innocent and purity. ?The little woods-girl is horror-stricken to hear a clear whistle not very far away.? ?Sylvia was more alarmed than before? when the hunter appears and talks to her. She easily agrees to help the hunter with providing food and a place... ...usting civilization upon it? (P. Miller, p.207). With all this, the author has achieved the vividness implication that aggressive masculine modernization is a danger to the gentle feminine nature. In the end of the story, Sylvia decides to keep the secret of the heron and accepts to see her beloved hunter go away. This solution reflects Jewett?s hope that the innocent nature could stay unharmed from the urbanization. In conclusion, Sylvia and the hunter are two typical representatives of femininity and masculinity in the story ?The white heron? by Sarah Orne Jewett. In the age of industrialization when rural life gradually was destroyed, the author as a girl who spent almost of her life in countryside could not help writing about it and what she focuses in her story - femininity and masculinity, which themselves contain the symbolic meanings - come as no surprise.

Douglas Monroys Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture

Douglas Monroy's "Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California" When Spaniards colonized California, they invaded the native Indians with foreign worldviews, weapons, and diseases. The distinct regional culture that resulted from this union in turn found itself invaded by Anglo-Americans with their peculiar social, legal, and economic ideals. Claiming that differences among these cultures could not be reconciled, Douglas Monroy traces the historical interaction among them in Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California. Beginning with the missions and ending in the late 1800s, he employs relations of production and labor demands as a framework to explain the domination of some groups and the decay of others and concludes with the notion that ?California would have been, and would be today, a different place indeed if people had done more of their own work.?(276) While this supposition may be true, its economic determinism undermines other important factors on which he eloquently elaborates, such as religion an d law. Ironically, in his description of native Californian culture, Monroy becomes victim of the same creation of the ?other? for which he chastises Spanish and Anglo cultures. His unconvincing arguments about Indian life and his reductive adherence to labor analysis ultimately detract from his work; however, he successfully provokes the reader to explore the complexities and contradictions of a particular historical era. In the first section, Monroy describes the Indian and the Iberian cultures and illustrates the role each played during missionization, as the Indians adapted ?to the demands of Iberian imperialism.?(5) He stresses the differen... ...ough his words refer to historical sources, they also apply to Douglas Monroy himself. Unveiling the intricacies of cultural interactions is a difficult task, and Monroy successfully reveals many of the complexities and contradictions of historical writing. However, he does not escape the tendency to create homogenous ?others.? Portions of his book, such as the treatment of Indians at the mission, are questionable. Although he maintains that his underlying theme is labor relations, the depth with which he writes about law and society seem to dictate a more holistic analysis. Labor relations among conflicting cultures may create history, but believing that history does not create labor relations seems unconvincingly economically determinist. Works Cited: Monroy, Douglas. Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California . 1990. Douglas Monroy's Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture Douglas Monroy's "Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California" When Spaniards colonized California, they invaded the native Indians with foreign worldviews, weapons, and diseases. The distinct regional culture that resulted from this union in turn found itself invaded by Anglo-Americans with their peculiar social, legal, and economic ideals. Claiming that differences among these cultures could not be reconciled, Douglas Monroy traces the historical interaction among them in Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California. Beginning with the missions and ending in the late 1800s, he employs relations of production and labor demands as a framework to explain the domination of some groups and the decay of others and concludes with the notion that ?California would have been, and would be today, a different place indeed if people had done more of their own work.?(276) While this supposition may be true, its economic determinism undermines other important factors on which he eloquently elaborates, such as religion an d law. Ironically, in his description of native Californian culture, Monroy becomes victim of the same creation of the ?other? for which he chastises Spanish and Anglo cultures. His unconvincing arguments about Indian life and his reductive adherence to labor analysis ultimately detract from his work; however, he successfully provokes the reader to explore the complexities and contradictions of a particular historical era. In the first section, Monroy describes the Indian and the Iberian cultures and illustrates the role each played during missionization, as the Indians adapted ?to the demands of Iberian imperialism.?(5) He stresses the differen... ...ough his words refer to historical sources, they also apply to Douglas Monroy himself. Unveiling the intricacies of cultural interactions is a difficult task, and Monroy successfully reveals many of the complexities and contradictions of historical writing. However, he does not escape the tendency to create homogenous ?others.? Portions of his book, such as the treatment of Indians at the mission, are questionable. Although he maintains that his underlying theme is labor relations, the depth with which he writes about law and society seem to dictate a more holistic analysis. Labor relations among conflicting cultures may create history, but believing that history does not create labor relations seems unconvincingly economically determinist. Works Cited: Monroy, Douglas. Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California . 1990.

Historical Account of African-Americans Seeking the American Dream Essa

Historical Account of African-Americans Seeking the American Dream The American Dream began as a vision for the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. These two documents provided the foundation upon which the American Dream was built. The reality of the American Dream translated into a nightmare for the African-Americans who had to overcome slavery in order to achieve the ideal that all men are created equally. Their dream did not become a reality with the signing of the Declaration of Independence; in fact, even after slavery was abolished, there was no concrete date established that mandated that whites and African-Americans were equal. The law said the slaves were free; however, society did not consider them equals. The African-American writers utilize the American Dream in their works, but they seem to use it in an interesting manner: connecting to the past in order to realize their future. The slave narratives outline dreams of freedom and often provide insight into the horrors of s lavery, while more contemporary writers use the dream to connect to their characters’ past and the horrors in their lives in order to realize their future. The founding fathers of the United States of America crystalized this country with a "dream". Their dream was a vision of the things they wanted in life and for their country, which was memorialized in the form of the Declaration of Independence. The architects that built this country dreamed that all men would be considered equals and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Jefferson, 729). The original version of this dream, found in ... ...ument, which made this declaration. The American Dream is a real part of our culture and the dream seems to be a strong theme in the African-American literary canon. Works Cited Bradley, David. The Chaneysville Incident. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. Brent, Linda. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. The Classic Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. New York: Penguin Group, 1987. Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. The Classic Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. New York: Penguin Group, 1987. Equiano, Olaudah. The Life of Olaudah Equiano. The Classic Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. New York: Penguin Group, 1987. King, Jr., Martin Luther. "I Have a Dream." Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. 28 August 1963. Morrison, Toni. Song of Solomon. New York: The Penguin Group, 1977.

Reflective Report on Group Work

Reflection on group work Project Content |Page | |Content |2 | |Introduction |3 | |The Group |3 | |My role in the Group |4 | |Difficult encountered during the group work |5 | |The Presentation |7 | |Conclusion |8 | |References |9 | Introduction When effective group management and high organisation skills are applied, group work can bring students a wide range of skills and abilities related to people and problem solving. Group work demonstrates student’s capacity to communicate effectively, share and consider opinions, establish trust, analyse the group process, resolve conflicts and also develop their creativity. However, the constructive learning and beneficial results does not always come as a result of group work. For instance, if the students can not perceive the objective of the group work in order to achieve a common goal, or to lay back or believe that the work load can be relied on other members of the group making the individual work less and still get an equal grade, the educational benefits can result in frustration and arguments as well as leading the whole group to a state of stress and anxiety. This essay reflects on my own participation towards ‘Lush Project’ as a project director, also how I contributed in interpreting  and  researching  the  Lush  Brief,  as  well  as my participation with the  final  presentation. It also discusses the difficulties that emerged throughout the group work; things that went well regards to the preparation and the areas that could have been improved upon. The Group A group can be defined in various ways, for instance; Charles Handy (1993, p. 150) identified a group as â€Å"any collection of people who perceive themselves to be a group† in order to interact with one another. The group then is likely to go through a number of structures which cover forming the group, the group passing from an undeveloped concept to a mature conception then going through a â€Å"variety of stages from mutual acceptance and membership to control and organisation† (Culliname, J. , 2007, p. 628)). My group went though the ‘Tuckman’ structure which is defined as ‘forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning’. Forming – initially the group was formed of seven students from the same class. There was no deliberation as to who would be in what group. There were only seven in the class and we were given the assignment to research the company ‘Lush’ and from our findings we were to stage and run a successful and unique event on behalf of the company. In this stage, the individuals start to know the other members of the group and the group is uncertain of the prospective tasks and there are no rules for the group work leading to a lack of focus and interest. At the norming stage a clearer guideline was given, individuals had the chance to choose the roles in the group and procedures were taken from there. The group consisted of a Project Director, two Logistics Managers, an Account Director, a Finance director and two Creative Directors where all had to come across to an agreement of a name for the group ‘Essence Events’ and where each individual group member would pitch an idea to the rest of the group. At this stage emotion was shown and excitement expressed towards the work we had to do. A timetable for regular meetings was given to each individual of the group by the project director and at each meeting’s ‘minutes’ were taken by one member of the group in order to keep track of the work that had been done. Then comes the performing where the team knew each other and structure and guideline were clear and cohesive. The team now focused on a common goal of developing the ideas for the ‘Lush’ event. At the beginning of this stage, all members of the group were getting together regularly and were constructing and expanding ideas for the project as well as for the presentation. However, unfortunately the group did not stay this way for very long. Distraction and lack of interest emerged bringing the whole group down to anxiety and disagreement. I as group leader was rather unsuccessful in putting the team together and in demanding more of a serious commitment from them. At this stage, the group should have been able to have delivered a successful project in the form of a presentation. Instead, all the hard work that had been done was diverted into a lack of interest and commitment resulting in a negative consequence. The final stage is the adjourning, where ‘Essence Events’ group disbanded. The idea should be that the group dispersing should get together again and reflect on the group work and see what went well and what did not go well and what should we have done differently. In this case, each member of the group was asked to reflect on the group work on their own which might bring more benefit as an individual. My Role in the Group According to Culliname, J. (2007, p. 566), a leader â€Å"aim to influence and guide others into pursuing particular objectives or visions of the future and to stimulate them into waiting to follow†. A project director has the same principle of leader in the sense of being able to conduct tasks successfully, maintaining teamwork and have a democratic participation leadership on the project. At the outset, as the project director I felt that I would fit into the role easily and would be able to distribute different roles to each member of the group. However, I was on a steep learning curve where I would find out that as group leader not only are you expected to have your own ideas to pitch to the group, but you are expected to salvage the group when an idea goes horribly wrong and the group then turns to you for guidance and a solution of how to rectify such problems. Not only was the actual academic side of the group a shock, but the outside organisation of the group proved to be tough as well. Trying to pin down each member of the group to turn up at a particular time at a particular place was a whole other project in itself as of course each member had other work pieces to deal with at the same time, which needed the same amount of due care and attention as the ‘Lush’ event presentation required. When separating responsibilities and separate individual projects to each member of the group I was well aware that not only did the writing and research need to be done but we needed to go to ‘Lush’ stores themselves in order to gather further research information to then take back to the group and compile our findings together to make a firm research file from which we could then discuss and sort what was considered to be primary information and what was secondary information. What we did was with each visit to the ‘Lush’ stores we would divide up the responsibilities and each person was responsible for gathering the respective information. The branches of research were mainly creativity, marketing, pricing, PH, promotion and target market. For instance, the marketing section one observation that the group made is that the door to the shop was always open. This was so that the smell of the products would reach the public outside and therefore attract their attention and ultimately attract consumers into the store to purchase the ‘Lush’ products. When we pitched our ideas to the group, one of the group members suggested that we should run the ‘Lush’ event based on the four seasons (winter, summer, autumn and spring). Each section included the right smell of the particular season, the right colour, such as darker heavier colours for the winter seasons and brighter colours for spring and summer. We emphasised the fact that ‘Lush’ does not carry out any tests on animals and that all their products are environmentally friendly and are also all natural products. Difficult encountered during the group work As with any group or team project it is inevitable that at some point throughout the time together there will be a minor or a major hurdle. This being that either one of the group members does not agree with a particular pitch or strongly disagrees with another person’s idea(s). They may even simply not get along with another member of the group. In the ‘Lush’ situation all group members seemed to get along at the beginning, however, soon disagreement and arguments started to emerge on the event’s topic and meetings. As a general rule the ideas for the project were usually chosen by the majority vote of the group. The problems that we as a group faced were ones that we would generally expect to encounter. We as a group suffered from people not attending meetings. This could be down to lack of organisation, however, it is unlikely that this was the case as all members of the group were aware of the time, date and location of the meeting. Some members simply did not turn up and failed to let the rest of the group who had turned up know that they would not be coming. This ultimately could be said down to the group leader, however, the leader can only do so much as the leader cannot be expected to force other members to turn up. As leader I could only send messages, emails and give phone calls and state the importance of the meeting but, could not make the individual turn up. Another problem we faced was as mentioned earlier; there was a lack of interest from certain members, and this pushed its way through the group and affected others as they began to become irritated with the members of the group who, when they would turn up, not doing any work. This issue I addressed as I took the respective group members aside and both explained the situation that they were putting the group in and asked what it was in particular they were not interested in. It became apparent that it was not the idea that they were not interested in, more the fact they simply did not want to share the workload, as they would not turn up to the meetings and hence cause the other members who did turn up to take on their work that they had not done as well as their own part of the project. Being anxious of not being able to complete the project in time for the presentation a few of the group members decided to starting putting the project together even though it seemed to be a lot of work to do for just a few members of the team. Just three days before the presentation all group members seemed to be interested about the work again and a vast improvement was made and the members who previously had failed to turn up, turned up to what was supposed to be the last meeting and the work was again shared â€Å"equally† and finished . This although seemingly positive in the short term for the group project, was relatively short lived as it had come too late and there was a lot of ground to cover in order to deliver our presentation. This created the problem that there was not as much time as we had hoped for. The Presentation The last minute work reflected in our final presentation because as a result there was a distinct lack of practice for the final presentation. The problems during the actual presentation were that due to the lack of practice there was no real deliverance of each member’s part as they had not pre-read their material beforehand and in effect, the actual presentation was more of a reading practice than of the finished article. Our first main practice was about a few hours before the final presentation was due and this was where I as group leader had to explain that I had told the members that this was the situation that we would be in if we carried on the way we were going three weeks prior to the presentation date. This led to a select few of us being able to deliver our part in a professional way, however, rendering the remainder of the project unfinished. We started late as one member who was responsible for the budgeting aspect of our project had failed to complete final checks on their display and as a result during the presentation their part failed to initialise causing a major delay whilst they left and went to go and print off their part to present. Upon reflection, the above situations were somewhat out of my control as group leader as I could not force the members of the group to turn up and do their part, also being unable to reach the other members due to them not answering my messages or simply not answering phone calls left the rest of the group in a hard situation as we were unaware as to whether they were doing their part of the project. These issues as aforementioned were out of my control somewhat, however, I feel that my role as project director was not fully satisfied as I did not quite deliberate responsibilities as much as I might possibly have wanted to if given the same opportunity again. There were many ideas from the group at the outset of the project, however, there was no real development of these ideas and this may have been what caused the lack of guidance from the project leader. Also as group leader it is a challenging situation to be in as it is easy to be forceful and blunt at the beginning of the project, however, I chose perhaps too soft an approach for too long a period and this is what perhaps led to some of the group members failing to keep up to date. Upon reflection, we as a group did deliver our presentation; however, it was not as good as what we originally thought when compiling our ideas. There was a lot of potential for the group and the idea of the ‘Four Seasons’ was something that we felt as a group would enable us to succeed in our endeavours as a group. However, if I am to perform my role correctly, must shoulder the responsibility as it was up to me to have directed the ideas much more thoroughly, and if given the opportunity again, I would most definitely do so, as good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment. For the final presentation, I gave the idea and it was accepted by the group that we should use a flip chart as this mirrored the fact that ‘Lush’ also used natural products. We used a lot of visual representation as we felt that this would be a much more observer friendly method of communicating our ideas across. The pictures that we used were all from magazine cut-outs. At the presentation, we did not have just one sole speaker, each member of the group spoke on their respective areas of responsibility. Myself and another member of the group gave the main introduction to the presentation and a small introduction to each speaker. Due to the lack of practice I was very anxious and tense resulting in a bad opening and followed by the other member of the group. The timing was very accurate and the presentation ended with a simple but effective conclusion followed by answering all direct questions made by the panel. In order to have delivered a better presentation the group should have had better commitment to what the original aim of the group was at the outset of the project. Critically, the leader should have relayed a better understanding of what was expected in order to complete our presentation to a high professional standard. Conclusion According to J. F. Benson (1987, p. 1) Group work in practice â€Å" refers to the conscious, disciplined, and systematic use of knowledge about the processes of collective human interaction, in order to intervene in an informed way, or promote some desired objective in a group setting. † In our group’s presentation, the idea of disciplined knowledge was what we as a group failed to achieve as we were unable to have the entire group in one place every time we arranged a time to meet. Although groups generally elect a leader, there are as always exceptions to the general rule. A group is a team, a democracy, not a dictatorship. A group needs to have its own ideas and aims, so that a high level of morale is maintained throughout the group. If there is one person who decides upon everything with no concept of what it is like to function as a team, the team will fail, due to a lack of interest and commitment. A team needs to work together, else it will fall short of what a group is all about, and a team has more than one person within it. References Benson, J. F. (1987), Working more Creatively with Groups, Routledge. Brandler, S. and Roman, P. C. (1999), Group Work: Skills and Strategies for Effective Interventions, 2sd Edition, The Haworth Press Inc. Culliname, J. (2007), Working in Organisations: A Compilation of Resources for the University of Greenwich, 2sd Edition, A Person Custom Publication. Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organisations, Harmondsworth, Penguin Book.

Warrior Dodt Cry

Saladin Bradwell CCP English 98/99-481 Warriors Don’t Cry The 1950’s a time where so-called Negros was not allowed to use the same public facilities as whites. Melba Pattillo Beals was one of nine black teenagers who integrated central high school in Little Rock Arkansas, in 1957. At the age of fifteen her life is about to change forever. The book, â€Å"Warriors Don’t Cry†, drawn from Melba Beal’s personal diaries is a spellbinding true account of her first year at Central High. I believed that Melba was molded into a warrior due to the conditions of integration. Most of all, she was influence by her mother, grandmother, and the student, Link to overcome all obstacles in her path such as discrimination, racism, and taunting on a daily basis. Although, she was young she was able to make it thru all the pressure of integration, and that’s what a warrior will do. However, when Beals arrived at little Rock Central High, the first day she did not know that singing up to integrate an all white school would put herself, friends, and family in so much danger. Melba had to fight one of the most courageous wars in history a war against color. This was one of the most important civil right movements in American history. However, Melba lived with her mother, grandma, and her brother in a strict and religious house hold. According to Melba â€Å"the experience gave her an indestructible faith in GOD [ and] also gave her courage, strength, and hope†(2). Faith in GOD allowed her to endure the abuse that she faces on day to day basis, integration was war, and the nine brave students, refuse to be stop. Grandma said, â€Å"Even when the battle is long and the path is steep, a true warrior does not give up†(3), and Melba never forgets , and these saying get her thru the school year. Lois Maria Pattillo, Melba’s mother is one of many to be an influence in her life, the mother was one of the first few blacks to integrate the University of Arkansas, and this gave Melba her motivation to achieve and pursue the dream of attending Central High. The mother Lois, being an English teacher as also a big help to Melba, she was able to gain insight into matter that at times were difficult to handle, her mothers education gives her the edge and the ability to achieve and succeed. India Anette Peyton, is Melba Grandmother she is a great influence, and of great importance because she gave her the main ingredient to succeed, by incorporating religion in her life. Grandma India is Melba’s back bone during her struggle to integrate Central High school. When ever Melba wants to giv e up the struggle, Grandma India encourages her to keep going . Grandma India , fortifies Melba with faith and stubbornness, and it is grandma who tells Melba that GOD’S† warriors don’t cry†(57). This gives Melba the idea that in order to successfully integrate into the school, she will need to become more than a regular teenager. Melba writes in her dairy â€Å"Okay , God, so Grandma is right it’s my turn to carry the banner, please help me to do thy will†(102). This means that Melba is ready to accept the challenge to integrate. Grandma India is deeply religious, she is able to provide Melba with a sense of purpose. She reminds Melba that she is a child of God and that the opinion of her fellow teenagers doesn’t matter as long as God loves her. Grandma India always assures Melba that God approves of what she is doing. She also shows Melba that there are peaceful, respectful ways of standing up to the white people. Melba is thus able to avoid the provocations of Andy and his friend and avoid the temptation to fight back. Link, who is also a student, the most influential person that becomes Melba’s friend the son of a prominent white family, helps Melba escape from the violent segregationists Andy, who wants to kill her. However, Link’s father is pro-segregation, but shocked by the attacks on black teenagers and children. Link he helps Melba,† his winks or pleasant expression some times came just at the moment she needed to know she was alive and valuable† (254). This helps to motivate Melba. According to Melba, â€Å"having him as a friend got to be fun for both of them† (266). In spite of his racist family Link has a different perspective on black people because of his close relationship with Nana Healey. â€Å"Who’s Nanny Healy? My nanny. She colored-like you† (271). Nana Healey is black, and Link loves her and resents the treatment she receives from his parents. Because he knows that Nana Healey is a good and loving person, he can imagine that other black people might be good and loving as well. Link is the only white student who shows Melba any kindness, and he is the only white person she comes to trust during her time at Central High School. Link undermines the efforts of the violent segregationists,† he said the worst part of it for him was that he felt himself a traitor† (266). Link is never able to openly confront them and say publicly his friendship with Melba. Although, Link is fearful of becoming an outsider. While Melba puts aside those fears in order to do something for the greater good, Link hides behind them. He still helps Melba, but he does it in secret. What is most important to Melba at this time is proving that she cannot be defeated by the anger and hatred of the segregationists. Link, is able to help Melba accomplish her mission to integrate Central High School. ? . Inclosing, Melba and the other eight students should be considered heroes of the war on integration, thru their struggles; perseverance many school across the nation became integrated, for understanding the trauma of her year at Central High School. She has become an adult, toughened by life and her experiences, but also able to forgive the world for its cruelty towards her. She help paved the way for desegregation in public schools across the nation.