AIDS Epidemic in Africa
Dani Jessee May 2, 2010 African Health/Illness Essay 4 HIV/Aids Epidemic in Africa One of the greatest challenges that our generation is facing has spread like wild fire, becoming one of the worst epidemics in only the last couple decades. The devastation of HIV/Aids has lasted far longer than the influenza epidemic, small pox, or the black plague, "All these epidemics clearly differed from HIV/Aids in their greater infectiousness, their short incubation period, the speed with which they killed, and their brief but dramatic impact" (Iliffe, pp. 59). HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a virus that attacks the immune system and breaks it down leaving the body more susceptible to illness. Without treatment, most people infected with HIV become less able to fight off germs that we are exposed to every day. AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is a late stage of HIV infection. An HIV positive person is diagnosed with AIDS when their immune system is so weakened that it is no longer able to fight off illness. People with immune deficiency are much more vulnerable to infections such as pneumonia and various forms of cancer. HIV can be transmitted person to person through unprotected sexual intercourse with infected person, transfusion of infected blood or blood products, infected mother to her baby during pregnancy, birth process and through breastfeeding, use of
Did the state of the English Church by the 1530s mean that it was "ripe for reform"?
Did the state of the English Church by the 1530s mean that it was "ripe for reform"? Before the 16th century, nearly without exception, the whole of English society adhered to Catholicism and as R.N. Swanson states; "the church in medieval England was closely integrated into the life of the nation." The Reformation that occurred in the 16th century drastically changed this situation, eventually producing a system where both Catholicism and Protestantism existed and competed. This change in the religious aspect of society was not as severe, violent or fast-paced as the reformations witnessed on the continent and there has been some debate as to its existence in English history. There is little doubt that it was indeed a process that occurred, in English history Christopher Haigh uses the concept of reformation to represent the collection of social and political changes that eventually contributed to the alteration of the religious system. These changes are essentially indicative of a suppression of Catholicism, the growth in secularism and the general Protestantisation of society. This was achieved through a break from a church controlled by the Pope and a codified prohibition of Catholic practices, fundamentally reformation was a process linked with the development of the state and its relentless incursion on society. If it is reasonably clear how the reformation
'Repressive and emotionally cold'. Is this a true reflection of relations between parents and children in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England?
344885 2486 'Repressive and emotionally cold'. Is this a true reflection of relations between parents and children in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England? In sixteenth and seventeenth century England the parent-child relationship is often considered in emotional terms very different to the relationship we see today. Without doubt there are exceptions, but on the whole we tend to perceive these relationships in terms of altruistic love. Parents selflessly provide love and affection for their children, without exposing them to cruelty or any injustice. In regards to early modern Britain, some historians argue that this has not always been the case and that 'Repressive and emotionally cold' is a statement that can be applied to parenthood in sixteenth and seventeenth century. Scholars from this school of thought understand that parental altruism is somewhat a modern occurrence that began to occur with the rise of the sentimental family amid the industrial revolution. With industrialisation trade and industries began to develop and families tended to work separately. This led to the family no longer having to be relied upon for primarily economic reasoning leaving a whole new space open for love and affection. The supporters of this school of thought advocate the theme of change. 1 Lawrence Stone, for example suggests that children were simply viewed in this period as
Is History a Science
Examination number: HJ427 Is History a science? Recently uses of the term "science" have in the 21st century been applied to fields of which are not canonically sciences. One of which being history. The idea of history being considered a science is one, which has been debated since the concept of science historiography was derived by historians such as Niebuhr, F. A. Wolf and Ranke. In order to evaluate whether history is a science or not, it is important to assess how both of these studies work. The question, what is history? Seems straightforward enough an enquiry, but it is often a concept hard to define. History, in the broadest sense of the word can be easily vaguely defined as simply the study of the past. This study is concluded by dates and facts that are put together to creative a piece of narrative history. For example it is a historical fact that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. This is a fact that we accept without question. E.H Carr defines these dates, facts and figures as the "backbone" of history. History would be nothing without them, they are essential factors in the piecing together of a historical narrative. Whether history can be considered a science or not is debatable. History can however be defined simply as accounts of what happened in the past. This is an absolute truth. It can also be more generally identified as an academic
The Industrial Revolution.
Much negative and positive speculation has been said about the Industrial Revolution since its birth in the late 18th Century in Britain. The revolution was a unique and complex phenomenon, resulting in economical, social and political changes. J. Ellul commented that the optimistic atmosphere was the perfect breeding ground for such a revolution.1 The idea of progress would propel societies forward to a higher and a more stable plateau. Myths of human emancipation, urbanisation of cities and a democratic nation were heard. However, after the onset of the revolutionary change, the rumours of human freedom and happiness were unheard of again. Instead, the working class were forced into other forms of discipline and control. In this essay, we will examine the damaging aspects of the Industrial Revolution and how it impacted on the proletarians. Karl Marx described the core of modernity as involving many different aspects - one being the "emergence of a world market".2 The world market rapidly increases, obliterating all in its path, including that of the local and regional markets. Consequently, our desires and necessities become increasingly cosmopolitan, so much so, that local industries are incapable of producing commodities at such high demand and are forced to stop trading and move to the more populous cities to find alternative work3. Even this early on in the
Did the Suez Crisis hasten the end of the British Empire?
Did the Suez Crisis hasten the end of the British Empire? The Suez crisis did not hasten the end of the British Empire; it was more of an effect rather than cause of decline. Carlton argues that since Britain only had an average sized population and the corresponding economic strength her overseas territories had caused her to overstretch and over-commit herself from the end of the First World War. Hence one can argue that retreat from empire and fall from her position as a global superpower to that of a medium global power by the 1980s was inevitable and unavoidable. 'Suez, on this view, was a rather dramatic hiccup in a generally well managed transition.'1 This is the point of view that I would agree with when considering the affect of the Suez crisis. However, one must also acknowledge that for some Suez did hasten the end of the British Empire and it was a watershed marking a significant change in direction in Britain's imperial foreign policy. This viewpoint must also be discussed and evaluated. Moving away from just focusing on the effects of Suez one must also discuss the other factors and causes of decolonisation, including the established nationalist, international and metropolitan explanations and how they were represented in the Suez crisis. Firstly I will look at the arguments supporting the opinion that Suez did hasten the end of the British Empire to which
What were the main causes of population decline in England from the beginning of the fourteenth century?
What were the main causes of population decline in England from the beginning of the fourteenth century? In the fourteenth century there was a huge demographic crisis and England's population fell dramatically taking centuries to fully recover. The most obvious cause for this was the Black Death that swept through Europe arriving in England in the summer of 1348. However the population of England was already falling by the time the plague arrived. Figure 1 shows that the population reached a high around 1300 but started to decline for the next 50 years until the plague where population drops and by 1525, when these figures end, the population has not even reached half of the 1300 levels. In his early work Postan argues that the decline cannot be purely blamed on the plague but that there must have been other more fundamental reasons such as over population and exhaustion of the land. I will examine other causes of population decline such as famine, war and fertility rates as well as disease to determine the main cause of this decline. However this is complex to examine as this was "a period with no parish registers, no hearth taxes, no large scale censuses excepting Doomsday book and few serviceable taxation returns excepting those of 1377."1 The records left are mainly of the wealthy and the monks who kept detailed records which although useful is frustrating as
Did English workers have a higher standard of living then their French counterparts or vice versa?
Did English workers have a higher standard of living then their French counterparts or vice versa? Did English workers have a higher standard of living then their French counterparts or vice versa? What was the impact of the French revolution and the British industrial revolution on living standards in the two countries? The measurement of standards of living is a contentious subject in the fields of both economic history and economic development. Real wages are the most common measure of standards of living, and the relative ease of their calculation makes their use valuable. However real wages do not tell the full story. Other environmental and social factors heavily influence standards of living. Factors such as access to clean air, clean water and political representation are but a selection of a plethora of other indicators. These variables are often difficult to quantify empirically and much of the evidence for these factors is qualitative in nature. Different people place different values on non-monetary factors. Williamson regards clean air as a luxury item, whereas others would regards it as a necessity or even a right. The subjective nature of such standard of life measures fits uneasily with more precise quantitative real wage measures. I hope to examine both real wage and non monetary evidence whilst answering this question, before examining the effects
To what extent did the idea of a separate sphere(TM) of life for women become eroded in the period 1870-1914?
To what extent did the idea of a 'separate sphere' of life for women become eroded in the period 1870-1914? In her review of six different historical texts on 'separate spheres', Judith Lewis astutely remarked: 'one gets a healthy sense...that historians have been far more bamboozled by Victorian propaganda than the Victorians were.'1 Indeed, 'proponents of...[the]...feminine ideal...for instance, Tennyson's "The Princess"...[and]...Coventry Patmore's 'Angel in the House'2 were certainly part of - and also inspired - the contemporary prescriptive literature. As a result, the stereotype of the domestically imprisoned woman prevails, and 'separate sphere' has become an orthodox term in the study of female history.3 It is important to examine how far these ideals were followed. As K.D. Reynolds pointed out, 'this...version of femininity...ascrib[ed] to the least desirable qualities of the gender - frivolity, lack of application, corruptibility, frailty...and sexual weakness'4 thus making it seemingly impractical, not only for the poorer middle and lower classes whom most likely could not afford such an inefficient member of the family, but in (theoretically) the introduction of women into the public sphere (another concept to be later examined). What must be remembered, however, is that 'separate spheres' is a historical rather than a contemporary term. In other words, it is
Account for the attractiveness of eugenics amongst left-wing social reformers
Account for the attractiveness of eugenics amongst left-wing social reformers Eugenics has often been dismissed as an ideology of the right. It was, at best, nothing more than an extension of social Darwinism which naturalised and sought to maintain the existing social arrangement1 of laissez-faire capitalism, and, at worst, the pseudo-scientific justification for racial prejudices which ultimately sanctioned the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. More recently, however, increasing attention has been paid to the fact that many left-wing thinkers, among them Marxists and Fabians, lent their enthusiastic support to eugenic ideas. It can seem difficult to understand how socialism - supposedly stressing the importance of environment and devoted to the idea of the inherent equality of man - could coincide with eugenics.2 This essay will argue that, while many historians stress the dichotomy between 'negative' or 'mainline', and 'positive' or 'reform' eugenics3, left-wing thinkers came to have faith in the ideology of eugenics in much the same way as right-wing or conservative thinkers; because it was consistent with their view that the needs of society were far more important than individual rights and that men were not, in fact, equal and that their differences were endowed by heredity. One can see how these views could be shared by sections of both the left and the
