"I was within the circle: so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear." (Frederick Douglass) What was the significance of the slave narratives and their authorship? Anti-slavery writings and slave narratives were undeniably significant and helpful in the abolitionists' fight against slavery. Many called them "the abolitionist movement's voice of reality." As they were first hand accounts of slavery from the African American slaves themselves. They depicted life as a slave and life after, and disproved the opinion that life as a slave was a happy one. They showed the "reality" of what was happening to slaves, and the mistreatment they were suffering at the hands of their masters. William Lloyd Garrison, David Walker, Harriet Jacobs and Frederick Douglass were some of the most important abolitionist writers. Each of these writers had different experiences with slavery, but they all had one thing in common: they tell of the abominable institution of slavery and how greatly it affected their lives. Frederick Douglass wrote his own slave narrative - Narrative in the life of Frederick Douglass, (which went on to become the biggest and best selling slave narrative still today) to give north Americans a closer account of slavery, it told about sexual, physical and mental abuse, the horrors of family separation and the inhuman workload at the hands of his
Edna St. Vincent Millay's "I will put Chaos into 14 lines" sonnet is very vague on the surface. If you dig deeper, there could be a variety of interpretations. One interpretation is that this sonnet could be about a man. 'Him' is referred to constantly throughout the sonnet. If you go with that theory, then the sonnet would be about a relationship with the man who seems chaotic to the narrator. The 'I' is trying desperately to make some sense of 'him'. Her goal is to 'make him good' (14). That is only one possible argument, which could be argued, based on textual clues. The more likely interpretation is that this sonnet is about writing a sonnet. What helps lead the reader to that conclusion is evidence from the first line: "I will put Chaos into fourteen lines" (1). 'Fourteen lines' is typically the length of a sonnet, and this particular sonnet is 14 lines. Now that we know what this particular sonnet is about, what does Millay have to say about writing sonnets and how does she say it? These questions will be explored in this paper. The first step is to look at the sonnet structure itself. This is a Petrarchan sonnet and follows the typical structure for this form. There is an octave, sestet and there is a rhyming scheme. The octave follows the typical rhyming scheme of ABBAABBA. The rhyme scheme in the sestet is CDCDCD and is a variation to the typical rhyme scheme. "What
"If Science never proves anything right, why do we trust it so much?" To the majority of the Western World, Science can be called upon when something cannot be explained in straight forward means. Science over the past has had the ability to explain creation, disease and death, just to name a handful. Unfortunately, humans do not have the ability to answer things beyond doubt totally, and there is always some ambiguity in all of the arguments put forward, this stands in science just as much as any other area. In this case, the word proves refers to an inductive proof which is predominantly found in the areas of science. Inductive proof is when the proof is based on experience and is not simply an idea. Inductive proof is only probable which is its weakness, opposed to deductive proof which is certain as it is a tautological argument. 'Right' in this case is what could be seen as truth. Truth is a misused word but it can be meant to mean, three types of truth, correspondent, coherent or pragmatic. In this case the truth is of the correspondent type because it is widely accepted and as is not necessarily truthful to an extent to be considered totally true. 'Trust' in this case is that of faith and reason. There is a difference because faith can be considered believing in something that is not necessarily right. Faith is usually referred to as something which people just
"If the Constitution is the source of governmental power, and the judiciary interprets the Constitution, then the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government" Discuss.
"If the Constitution is the source of governmental power, and the judiciary interprets the Constitution, then the judiciary is the most powerful branch of government" Discuss In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position. The reason for much of this power is the principle of judicial review of the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government at both state and federal level against a written constitution and the power therefore to 'interpret' the constitution. The power of judicial review over the states is laid down in the supremacy clause of article III and the power of judicial review over the other two branches of the federal government is implied in the constitution and by several but by no means all of the founding fathers: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its
"If you want to make enemies, try to change something" I have not ridden a bicycle in many years. I rode eight miles on a bike this weekend. My left ankle is very sore, my back is sore and I have black along with blue marks on both of my very tender arches. Consequently, of my changing an exercising habit, I am experiencing pain. Change often causes pain, not only physically, but also emotionally. The same is true for you and the same is true for organizations. Thus, we should not be surprised when change causes pain, nor when people choose to be enemies rather than face the pain of change. At the same time, in today's rapid-paced environment, it is important for us to understand that the future is not based upon the past but rather upon our ability to adapt to the continuously changing present. We must therefore continuously improve or we will fail. Thus, a quote that emphasises the notion in relation to ' change' is; "If you want to make enemies, try to change something" This quote emphasises how any hostile group of people; have different perspective in relation to my occupation, "he viewed lawyers as the real enemy." "This storm is certainly a change for the worse," I said, standing outside the Supreme Court of NSW. I felt incredible in deep down inside. As I was walking towards the gigantic door of the Court, an unexpected intense voice called my name " hey Uzzi
i "Immigrant" becomes dirtiest word as Americans are told to speak English" A recent article from the Independent Newspaper's correspondent in New York brings to our attention "the current mood of xenophobia" in the USA. After approximately two centuries of welcoming immigrants from around the world, it would seem that the Americans have begun to mistrust and to some extent, even fear the very people that have historically given them such a dynamic and diverse country, namely, foreign immigrants. There are several reasons for this recent shift in perspective, two of which are, recent terrorist attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia and an explosion on an American airline flight, that foreign terrorists caused some people suspect. Historian, Arthur Schlesinger has spoken on "the tribalization of American life" and appears to be suggesting that the different ethnic groups in America are arranging themselves into their own groups and not crossing ethnic boundaries. One symptom of this seems to be the gang culture that exists, where each gang is alleged to be made up from members of the same ethnic group. A key factor in this is language, generally people who only speak one language find it difficult to mix with other ethnic groups or cultures, or indeed find it difficult to understand other cultures viewpoint. As a result of all of these difficulties, the
"Imperial in foreign affairs, imperilled in others". How accurate is this view of Presidential power?
"Imperial in foreign affairs, imperilled in others". How accurate is this view of Presidential power? I would agree with the view that the President of the United States is imperial in foreign affairs, yet imperilled in others, especially those domestic. The imperilled presidency is a concept put forward by Gerald Ford, who suggested that far from being too powerful, the President is in a constant power struggle. This is because the power of the president is severely constricted by, among other things, a lack of public trust and a dependence on Congress and the Supreme Court in order to pass legislation, especially following the shift in power between the executive and the legislature following the events of Watergate and Vietnam in the 1970s. I think that the Presidency is imperilled in domestic affairs because he must rely on Congress to pass any bills proposed by him. This is because the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution prevents the executive from being part of the legislature, unlike in the UK. This means that the President, I think, has very little power other than, as Richard Neustadt claims, the power to persuade. I think this is typified by the discrepancy between the power of JFK and Lyndon Johnson. This was characterised by Kennedy failing to pass a great deal of his proposed civil rights legislation due to opposition from Southern Democrat
"Imperial reform in the 19th century was primarily motivated by economic factors." How accurate a description is this, with reference to the changes made in the administration of the British Empire, 1815 to 1870? The period 1815 to 1870 was characterized by radical change in the character of the British Empire, to the extent that, by the end of the period, the empire consisted of two distinct parts: one made up of 'dependent' colonies, experiencing direct formal rule; and the other made up of self-governing 'settlement' colonies. This development occurred as a result of a series of social, political and economic reforms. In order to judge whether economic factors dominated imperial reform during this period, an assessment of the causes and nature of reforms is necessary. However, while imperial reform was multicausal, great weight can be given to the argument that underlying economic factors which stimulated initial social reform and change, which in turn propagated political reform. One of the earliest reforms was the dismantling of the slave system, initiated by Britain in 1807 through the end to British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, and again in 1834 through the abolition of colonial slavery. The abolition can be seen as a result of a combination of economic, social and political factors. The economic decline of the British Caribbean and other regions,
"In 'Antony and Cleopatra', Shakespeare is particularly interested in the psychological burdens that those in positions of power must endure". Examine the different representations of leadership in the play.
"In 'Antony and Cleopatra', Shakespeare is particularly interested in the psychological burdens that those in positions of power must endure". Examine the different representations of leadership in the play. As is often true of the study of history in general, the people who dominate Shakespeare's historical plays are those in positions of power and authority. This is simply because such people will be the ones to effect history in the most significant way. In 'Antony and Cleopatra' we see several different leadership figures, who show all of the range of burdens, strains and qualities that those in positions of power can have (such as Antony himself, Cleopatra, Caesar, Lepidus and Pompey). In terms of leadership, Classical Renaissance ideas can be very helpful when trying to approach Antony and Cleopatra for the first time. The traditional idea of heroism and leadership was summed up in the quality known as 'virtus', which describes the characteristics of a virile nature, military strength, and old ideas of chivalry and honour. Renaissance artists such as Machiavelli in 'The Prince', modified this to emphasise calm ruthlessness and intellectual power. As we shall see, these two opposing views of what a leader should be (the traditional and renaissance ideals) are reflected in the struggle between Antony and Caesar. Antony, representing the old 'virus' values, is defeated and
"In 'Psycho' how has Alfred Hitchcock created tension throughout the film and what effect does it have on us as viewers
"In 'Psycho' how has Alfred Hitchcock created tension throughout the film and what effect does it have on us as viewers?" In 1960, Alfred Hitchcock created a powerful, complex psychological thriller. Psycho is now regarded as the 'mother' of all modern horror, suspense films. The film had a huge impact on the British public; this was mainly due to the fact that it was one of the first films to depict violence in a graphic manner. It was a low budget movie based on the book by Robert Bloch. However it has now become a world-wide phenomenon, owing largely to the inspirational directing by Hitchcock. Throughout the film Hitchcock uses a variety of techniques to keep the audience engrossed but the method I will be focusing on is tension. Tension can be used to great effect, primarily to emphasis the horror of certain scenes. Also it allows the audience to anticipate what is going to happen, forcing us to empathise with the characters. Some of the most famous suspense scenes include, the stealing of the money, the shower scene, the killing of Arbogast, and the ending in which Laila discovers Mrs. Bates. The first scene in which the tension is built up is the stealing of the money. The first time we are shown the $40,000 is whilst the business man is brandishing it in front of Marion. This emphasizes the importance that the money is going to have on this scene.