Death of a Nation Essay Example for Free

Death of a Nation Essay Clifford Dowdey’s Death of a Nation: The Story of Lee and His Men at Gettysburg is a military history examining the Confederate loss at this epic battle, particularly the decision-making process and the Southern commanders’ failure to perform up to their potential. Partly a fawning defense of Robert E. Lee and partly an insightful study of why the South even dared invade the North, it demonstrates the author’s Southern bias without trying to justify slavery, as well as Dowdey’s fusion of history and storytelling. The book looks almost exclusively at the Civil War’s largest battle, in which Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia invaded the North in hopes of scaring Lincoln into halting the war and recognizing the Confederacy. Instead, as Dowdey’s title implies, it proved the Confederacy’s apex as a military power, beginning its two-year decline and ultimate collapse. Dowdey, a native of Richmond, Virginia, who produced numerous histories and novels about the Civil War, takes a decided pro-Southern stance and offers a rather generous view both of the Confederacy, never approaching its defense of slavery, and of Lee, the inventive, chance-taking commander who proved the South’s greatest leader. The first chapter, â€Å"Rendezvous with Disaster,† conveys in its title how Dowdey sees the battle, yet he is loath to blame Lee for the loss. He opens with an account of Confederate troops invading Pennsylvania, depicting them not as a menacing enemy but as a somewhat merry band: â€Å"[The] Confederate soldiers had not committed acts of vandalism or abused the inhabitants. On the contrary, the troops had been highly good-humored in the face of taunts and insults† (3). The author then introduces the general as a striking, almost godlike figure, quoting an officer who deemed him â€Å"a kingly man whom all men who came into his presence expected to obey† (5); this description recurs throughout the book. Subsequent chapters describe the buildup and the battle itself. In chapter two, â€Å"The Opening Phase,† Dowdey portrays the decision-making process that led to Lee’s invasion of Pennsylvania as a Jefferson Davis-engineered travesty, â€Å"a necessary expedient in the policy of static, scattered defensiveness† (27). The author considers Lee almost a victim of Davis’ vanity, rigidity, and inability to admit his own lack of military expertise, and he absolves the man he believes â€Å"embodied the image of the patriarchal planter who, as military leader, assumed benevolent responsibility for his domain† (33). Throughout the battle, which dominates much of the book, Dowdey introduces Lee’s subordinates as characters in a novel or drama, describing their personalities in lively, even somewhat chatty detail. Jeb Stuart, whose cavalry failed in its reconnaissance duties before the fighting began, appears as a capable soldier who refused to believe he erred; Richard Ewell is a crusty but soft-hearted eccentric whose marriage softened his fighting skills; and John B. Hood is â€Å"a fighter, not a thinker† (174). He reserves his harshest criticisms for James Longstreet, deeming the lone general to openly question Lee’s decision to wage the unwise assault best known as Pickett’s Charge, a lying defeatist. Dowdey claims that â€Å"objective historians and Longstreet partisans have tried to re-evaluate him outside the text of controversy. This is almost impossible. . . . Many other men performed below their potential at Gettysburg, but only James Longstreet absolved himself by blaming Lee† (340). By the end of the book, one realizes that Dowdey will not concede that the figure he admires may have simply made fatal errors at Gettysburg. Dowdey’s descriptions of the battle cover the three days in a generally accurate but not original manner. He alternates between broad, sweeping pictures of dramatic combat and close-up accounts of individual Confederate units and soldiers. (He gives little mention to Union action throughout the book, making clear that his sole interest is depicting Lee’s army and not providing a holistic history of the battle. ) Though his approach provides reliable but not groundbreaking information, Dowdey makes clear that he considers Lee’s defeat not the venerable commander’s fault (despite his own tendency to take long chances against the larger and better-armed Union Army), but rather his subordinates’ inability to perform as competently as they had in previous battles. In this account, Stuart’s ego kept him from realizing he failed in his scouting duties, A. P. Hill lost his usually strong will, Richard Anderson staged a poor excuse for an assault on Cemetery Ridge with undisciplined, poorly-led Carolinian troops (rather than the Virginians that Dowdey, the Virginian, favors), and Ewell did not adequately prepare his troops for their attack. While Dowdey concedes that Lee, â€Å"alone in the center of the vacuum, could not have been less aware of the total collapse of co-ordination† (240). However, he implies, Lee’s unawareness was not his fault, but that of usually-reliable subordinates who curiously failed all at once. The work ends somewhat abruptly, with Lee’s broken army withdrawing from Pennsylvania after Pickett’s failed charge (in which the general whose name it bears appears as a minor figure) and returning to Virginia; the author offers no broad conclusion or explanation of the battle’s meaning within a larger context. Dowdey, primarily a fiction writer and college instructor who also produced numerous histories of the Army of Northern Virginia, approaches the work with a storyteller’s vigor and flair, writing this history with a novelist’s attention to visual details and his characters’ personalities and quirks. Frequently, he aims to stir the reader’s attention by adding what his characters may have said or thought in rich, occasionally overstated terms. For example, he deems Ewell â€Å"this quaint and lovable character† (121); Jubal Early becomes â€Å"the bitter man [who] became as passionate in his hate for the Union as he had formerly been in its defense† (123); and Union general Daniel Sickles (one of the few figures for whom he shows genuine scorn) is â€Å"an unsavory, showy, and pugnacious character from New York who went further on brassy self-confidence and politicking . . . than many a better man went on ability† (203). In trying give his characters personality, Dowdey writes often picturesque and lively prose but also offers a somewhat distorted picture that more detached academic historians may find objectionable. For example, while Lee can do no wrong, Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy’s much-reviled president, appears as nearly as much a villain as Longstreet. Of Davis, Dowdey writes: â€Å"The crisis [in the South’s military fortunes] was caused largely by the defense policies of the president. . . . Among the limitations of this self-aware gentleman was an inability to acknowledge himself in the wrong† (14). As a Lee apologist, Dowdey implicitly blames David for the South’s collapse, though he wavers on this by adding: â€Å"Lincoln had at his disposal unlimited wealth, the organized machinery of government, a navy, the war potential of heavy industry, and a four-to-one manpower superiority. Davis led a disorganized movement in self-determinism composed of proud and fiercely individualistic provincials (15-16). Dowdey comments little about the South in general and does not directly glorify the Southern cause, though he also refrains from any mention of slavery or racism. He seems to simply accept the South as it was, writing his works to illustrate a particularly regionalist sense of pride, if not in its plantation past, then certainly in Lee, its most shining example of military leadership and manhood. He reveals, perhaps unintentionally, his own sense of romance about the South when he writes: â€Å"In a land where the age of chivalry was perpetuated, the military leader embodied the gallantry, the glamour, and the privilege of the aristocrat in a feudal society† (15). Characters like Lee, he implies, gave the South respectability and nobility, while lesser individuals, like the supposedly duplicitous, disloyal Longstreet and the rigid, arrogant Davis, somehow stained it and failed to match its ideals. Despite Dowdey’s biases, he cannot be faulted for failing to do research. He includes a short bibliographic essay at the end, explaining his sources’ strengths and limitations. In addition to using many secondary sources, he relies heavily on participants’ personal documents, such as letters and memoirs, though he concedes that â€Å"the eyewitness accounts are subject to the fallibility of memory, and many of the articles suffer the distortion of advocacy or indictment† (353). This last comment is telling, because Dowdey himself neither advocates nor indicts the Old South, but rather aims to depict the military aspects. The result is a work that shows clear fondness for the South’s self-image as an embattled land of chivalry, but to his credit, Dowdey does not excoriate the North or its leaders. Lincoln scarcely appears in this volume, but the author pays some compliments to Union generals whom historians have seen less favorably, such as Joseph Hooker (whom Lee soundly defeated at Chancellorsville) or George Meade (who won at Gettysburg but failed to pursue and destroy the remains of Lee’s army as it withdrew). Death of a Nation is not a comprehensive history of the battle of Gettysburg, but neither does it claim to be. Instead, it is an often-entertaining, well-researched account of the Southern side’s participation, including its ill-starred behind-the-scenes planning and the personal dynamics among the commanders who underperformed at this key point in the war. Though Dowdey’s conclusion is so brief as to be unsatisfactory, one can draw one’s own conclusion from this volume’s title and the battle it describes: that defeat at Gettysburg meant the Confederacy’s failure to win its nationhood. Dowdey does not openly lament this fact, but instead shows the process that made this failure a reality. Dowdey, C. (1958). Death of a Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Definition Of Treating Everyone Fairly

Definition Of Treating Everyone Fairly The application of common standards or same treatment does not necessarily mean respect for a persons personality or individualism. Individuals cannot create their own opportunities as they are state provided. People should be free to choose which job they want to do. Many people refuse that equality of opportunity exists in democratic societies. There are some arguments that equality is of no importance to most people due to the fact that they do not have an equal economic or social status. It can be also argued, that rich people have greater opportunities in education and employment as they are in an beneficial situation because of their wealth. likewise, another thing to mention is that there is a prejudice from the past years until today against some racial groups and women, which situates them in a disadvantageous position as they have no right to equal opportunities. Opportunities in any social system are determined not only by ability, commitment, interest, corruption and luck but also by the unpredictable physical and human environment. Opportunities can be completely equalized only by controlling the physical environment and human behavior into predictable patterns. During the years the realization dawned that it was impossible not only to place everyone on the same starting line but to expect them to finish together  [1]  . For a democratic society to exist there must be political opportunities, economic opportunities as to have wealth and prosperity. All discriminatory laws should be removed. Official discriminatory practices should be terminated and assistance should be extended to the less advantaged without penalizing others  [2]  . Despite the colour of our skin, the place where we were born, our religion we all have the right to be treated fairly. But what does fairly mean? Does it mean equality, common standards, that we are all the same or that we have to be treated according our differences? The term social inequality is a wide term which represents all the societies in our days. Facing the problem of social inequality we can recognize two different aspects. The first is the distributive one which is related on how the variety of factors, such as education, wealth, occupation and so on, are distributed in the society. The second one is based on how the individuals are related to each other in a system of groups. When talking about equality we are basically mean the equal opportunities, it also protects people from being discriminated on the grounds of religion, disability, age, belief or sexual orientation. Aristotle stated that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Justice is thought to be equality; and so it is, but for equals, not for everybody. Inequality is also thought to be just; and so it is, but for unequals, not for everybody  [3]  . Also, in his paper Justice as Fairness, John Rawls set out two principles. Firstly, that each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. And secondly, that inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out for everyones advantage, and provided the positions and offices to which they attach, or from which they may be gained, are open to all  [4]  . In 1950s British government, while facing a problem with labour shortage, turned its face to the British colonies and ex-colonies and as a result, immigrants were employed in low-status jobs. Since the immigrant labour was very cheap, the money that the British government saved should have been used for improving the conditions under which the immigrants were living. Therefore, this never happened since the number of immigrants increased. However, immigrants were accepted as workers by the British people but they were socially unwelcomed, and this raised new racial stereotypes in the United Kingdom. There is a claim that when people are in a comparable situation, they should be treated in an equal manner. As Castberg stated, Everywhere , a law which for instance imposed special taxes on person with long arms or short legs, red hair or big ears would be regarded as unjust and unwarrantable, irrespective of whether the law was correctly applied in accordance with its content  [5]  . However, equality does not mean that people should be treated in the same manner even if they are considered to fall in the same class because this disregards peoples differences. Discrimination has a big effect in public relating to any analysis of human rights and can be a problem which occurs in relation to equality before the law. No human being is equal in every respect and can be distinguished not only by mental and physical attributes but also by their particular circumstances. It is these various differences that lead to acts and for which appear to be discrimination. There are numerous situations whereby each human being must not be treated equally otherwise where is the freedom from discrimination? By equality before the law we mean that when a law is made, each person must be treated in the same way. Equal protection of the law is when applying or enforcing a law which has already been implemented, there should be no differentiation except on a rational and justifiable basis, something which does not create inequality, and as already mentioned, no human being can be treated equally. As an example of the above, traditionally, people and particularly men, are biased against women claiming that women should be focused on their family having a nurturing role. This is like trapping women and removing their freedom of choice as to what they want to do with their lives. Is like denying women their right to choose by restricting their choice between mother-hood and career. Durkheim, deals with the sexual separation in the labour and he states that in the past the gap between men and women was smaller, women retired from public affairs and warfare and focused her attention only to her family. In nowadays, womans situation is differentiated from that of man, who has now realized that women are able to participate in the same activities as them. An illustration of the fact that people are treated differently is that homosexuals in the past could not serve in the army. But, in 1973 the military allowed homosexuals to get into the army. Some may claim that the fact that different Acts and rules apply for homosexuals it is itself discriminatory since it distinguishes them from the other people. However, the law itself previously was discriminatory and the new law is nothing more than positive discrimination and an improvement towards equality. In addition, in 2001 Netherlands was the first country which allowed the marriage between people with the same sex. United Kingdom government introduced the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Moreover, most of the other countries have the civil partnership and as a result of that there is a different status between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This equals to inferiority and inequality. Accordingly, another thing to consider is whether all societies can follow a particular ideology or whether it is necessary to have many different ideologies which are based on different types of societies. By homogeneous society we mean a society where the citizens have the same values, ethnicity, language and religion. In our days it is difficult to find such homogeneous societies since we all have different language, religion, culture and so on. Especially, the United Kingdom is a multiculturalism society, so it is not possible for the people to live in one homogeneous society. Therefore, in nowadays, there are some examples of such societies, such as Japanese society, Chinese and some African tribes. Hence, if societies have different natures and essences, they naturally call for different programmes, plans, ideals. In this case, one single ideology cannot be applied to all of them  [6]  . People in a way tend to other each other and tend to think of themselves different, not necessarily better, but at least different. People all over the world are biased, feeling that they do not belong anywhere, that they are strangers, or that they are sub-humans. The only word that comes in my mind when thinking of that is racism. Every group in this world tends to put some standards for itself and criticizes people consequently, so anyone who meets with these standards belongs to the group and anyone who does not meet with them is the other. Other, can be called a person with a different nationality, social class, religion, political ideology and many other types. Emmanuel Levinas stated, act in such a way that you always respect the absolute singularity of the other, and/or the irreducibility of otherness. If we look around us, around the whole world, we will realize that racism is an everyday phenomenon, but through the history we have learned that two group of people have treated really bad and discriminated, the women and the black people. People have abandoned an idea that black people are people with no education, uncivilized and that white people are at the top of the hierarchy, and that is just because they have a different colour. They accept the fact that they do not belong in the community and that they do not have the same rights as the white people. But they do have rights and they should stand for them. Today, the blacks can be considered equal to the whites. They are no longer prevented from going to certain schools, restaurants, or libraries. They can even participate in politics and this can be seen clearly in the United States since its President nowadays is Barak Obama, who is a black person  [7]  . The French Declaration was the declaration of men, citizen and others. Does this mean that women are not included? In fact, women did not have a right to vote until 1944 and also, until the 20th century they did not have a right to education and employment. Still, in nowadays women have not reached the top of the status of humanity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all men are born equal in rights and in dignity. This is evidently a great fallacy. People are not born equal but totally unequal. Indeed, infancy and childhood are the best examples of human inequality and dependency upon others, upon parents, family members and community networks, within which human life starts, develops and ends  [8]  . After the French Revolution, slavery was abolished but this was not permanent. The human prototype enjoying the rights of the declarations was not only male but also white. The French declaration, as well as the following declarations was not concerned with gender or race. Edmund Burke regarding the rights in the declarations said that they are not universal or absolute; they do not belong to abstract men but to particular people in concrete societies with their infinitive modification of circumstances, tradition and legal entitlement  [9]  . Marx criticized that Human Rights that turns real people into abstract ciphers. Also, the man of human rights is abstract and empty. They promote the interest of a very concrete person, the selfish and possessive individual of capitalism. The subject of human rights loses her concrete identity, with its class, gender and ethnic characteristics; all real human determinations are sacrificed on the altar of the abstract man lacking history and context  [10]  . Karl Marx. in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, stated that Right by its very nature can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side onlyOne worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another and so on and so forth.. To avoid all these defects, right instead of being equal would have to be unequal  [11]  . All human beings are equally entitled to some rights, Human Rights, despite their sex nationality, religion, colour or any other status. We are all different but all equal. So how can we use our Human Rights, do they really make a difference? The fact that they exist does not make it impossible for people to violate them as it is an everyday phenomenon in every part of the world. People, even governments may say that they act in a way that protects human rights, but as a result their actions are found to be in violation of basic rights. Hence, they may use those rights in order to defence their action which are prima facie immoral. Human Rights try to form humanity. As we have seen from the genocides some are considered humans, others not. Some have more humanity than others. This is because even though we are considered the same, not all people are originally the same and in order to become the same they first need to be considered inferior. Humanity has many different types. A type of humanity can be considered the fact that thousands of babies in Iraq die every month because of the Western embargo and many babies in Africa die seventeen times more than Europeans babies. Those people found to be in a very low situation of humanity. In addition, poor people in sub-Saharan Africa who are expected to live thirty years less than the average can also be characterized as fewer humans than the other people. Another group of people, who are ill-treated, are the people who have sexual orientations or race and can be considered as imperfect humans. Humanity is therefore a graded and ranked status with many shades and tires between the superhuman Western, white heterosexual male at the one end and the non human, the concentration camp inmates or the fleeing refugee, at the other  [12]  . However, is not everything that vain. Human Rights exist and we can benefit from them. So, how can the Human Rights be prepared to accept the conflict of the variety of cultures which characterize our days? Some can argue that human rights are culturally relative rather than universal. The Vienna Declaration states that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. This puts an intentional duty towards the States to guard and promote human rights no matter of their cultural systems. While its significance is acknowledged, cultural consideration in no way reduces States human rights duties. Human Rights are a contemporary attainment for all cultures. They reflect the dynamic, coordinated efforts of the international community to achieve and advance a common standard and international system of law to protect human dignity  [13]  . Human Rights are characterized from a cultural multiplicity and include in a broad sense a number of protections such as, freedom of expression, thought, religion, right to education, and protection of persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, protection of the principle of non-discrimination and so on. There is greater consideration of the ways in which cultures protect the welfare of their people and illustration of the common foundation of human pride on which human rights protection stands. This phenomenon would enable human rights promotion to emphasize the cultural relevance of universal human rights in various cultural contexts. Acknowledgment of particular cultural contexts would serve to smooth the progress of human rights execution and respect. Working in this way with particular cultures inherently recognizes cultural integrity and diversity, without compromising or diluting the unquestionably universal standard of human rights. Such an approach is e ssential to ensure that the future will be guided above all by human rights, non-discrimination, tolerance and cultural pluralism.  [14]   To conclude, it is a fact that in theory everything is much easier than in practice, because it is in the practice where the people lose control and act in a way that does not respect others. If we do not accept that each of us is different, then nothing in this world will change, nothing will improve. Discrimination against other people is something that does not bring people together, instead it pushes them apart. We are all part of the same world but what can we do to change this world for the best? Women, minority ethnic group members, and those of a different sexual orientation continue to be equal but still separate, supported by the law but unable to obtain true and complete participation. It is impossible for all of us to be the same but it is upon us to respect our human fellows without criticizing them, in order to be able to live in a harmonious society.

Magical Realism in Gabriel Garcia Marqezs A Very Old Man with Enormous

Characteristics of Magical Realism in Gabriel Garcia Marqez's A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings The controversy surrounding Magical Realism makes the classification of what is and what is not Magical Realism very difficult. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, a famous Latin American author, has written many pieces of what is generally conceived to be Magical Realism. Marqez's "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" fulfills every characteristic of Magical Realism.. "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" includes many aspects, which may be described as magical. In the story, an old man with a very poor set of wings is found and kept as a pet for several years. These wings were described by the doctor in the story as "...so natural on that completely human organism that he couldn't understand why other men didn't have them, too" (528). The fact that the old man had wings in the first place seems very acceptable to the characters, and this nonchalance is conveyed to the reader. Marquez also adds to the story the tale of the lady spider. The lady spider has the body of a tarantula and the head of a young girl. She was transformed to this state after sneaking out of her parents home to attend a dance. Witches, wizards, and spells are not used to transform her, simply lightning. The lady spider takes away the old man's mobs of spectators leaving him more ordinary in that he is still around even after his fifteen minutes of fame are over. Another example of magic is the overabundance of crabs. An infestation one can accept easily enough. However, an infestation of crabs so severe the stench alone makes the infant very ill is much more nonrealistic. The use of numbers also seems magical in a sense. The story takes place on the third day of r... ...sailor who remembers his past as a human and is adjusting to his fate as a angel. The angel makes many mistakes with his miracles. However, the family that houses him, though they treat him as inferior, does have a turn of fate because of his existence. The angel brings them wealth when they charge admission to view him. For this family of three, life takes a better turn after giving the old man a chicken coop in which to sleep. Marquez's "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" fulfills every characteristic of Magical Realism. His short story contains magic that exists in a realistic background. One can easily see why Marquez is such a forerunner in the field of Magical Realism. Works Cited Garcia Marqez, Gabriel: "A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings." The Norton Introduction of Literature. Ed. Jerome Beaty. N.Y.: W.W.Norton and Company, 1996. 525-529.

Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are, In the Night Kitchen, and O

Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are, In the Night Kitchen, and Outside Over There The three titles of Maurice Sendak’s famous picture book trilogy, Where the Wild Things Are, In the Night Kitchen, and Outside Over There, name what Judith Butler calls â€Å"zones of uninhabitability,† places of abjection that form the borders of the self as both its constitutive outside and its intimate interior. These are dangerous places in the geography of childhood, places where the child’s very life and sense of self is threatened. More frightening still, they are present places, places that exist in the same time that the child inhabits, rather than the once upon a mythical time of fairy tales and legends. Hence they are places that beckon the child to trespass the boundaries of their current lived social and material landscapes and explore. What does happen where the wild things are? What goes on in the night kitchen? What fascinations lurk outside over there? Indeed because they are the mysterious places belonging specifically to childhood, Max, Mickey, and Ida negotiate these places such that they are more comfortable and empowered within these borderlands than they are on the outside. Max becomes King of the Wild Things, Mickey is the hero of the night kitchen, and Ida rescues her sister from the goblins that inhabit â€Å"outside over there.† Even though the protagonist of each book is different, there is nonetheless the sense that this trilogy tells a developmental story, a story of the ways in which a clean and proper social body emerges or is constituted through certain exclusions, and how that which has been abjected returns in both threatening and joyful guises. Thus a reading of these stories as a developmental narrative where... ... embodiment that must be worked through in childhood—fantasies of cannibalistic consumption, of the morph-ability of bodies, of infantile sexuality—in order to construct the lived body of adulthood. But as Sendak understands, these fantasies never completely go away, but always return to haunt or thrill the adult subject as terror and jouissance. Works Cited: Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of â€Å"Sex.† New York: Routledge, 1993. Kristeva, Julia. â€Å"Place Names.† Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Ed. by Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1980. Powers of Horror. Trans. by Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1982. Sendak, Maurice. In the Night Kitchen. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Outside Over There. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. Where the Wild Things Are. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.

Totalitarianism in Italy Essay -- essays research papers fc

A totalitarian state is defined as â€Å"a few control everything,† and â€Å"the government controls every aspect of the citizens life.† This cannot be better exemplified than by Italy under the rule of the ruthless and violent dictator, Benito Mussolini. What a totalitarian state is, the characteristics it has, and how Italy turned into one are three points that will be studied in this essay. A brief look into Mussolini’s life and his rise to power will also be examined, as well as how his reign resulted for Italy and in turn, how it affected the whole world. An assessment of Italy as a totalitarian state will bring this essay to a close. A totalitarian state is a highly centralized government controlled by one political group, and usually one leader. The duties of the citizen to the state are all-important. Political, economic and social life are all directed by the official party. Totalitarianism has one official plan that covers all vital aspects of human existence. The government monopolizes police, weapons, all means of mass communication (press, radio and films, art, music and literature), and has tight control of the country’s economy. It is used to train people to think and behave in a specific way. In Italy, the development of a totalitarian state was made possible because fascism appealed to Italians. There was much unrest in Italy, and it seemed to be the only option. In the summer of 1920, dissatisfied workers caused the unrest, and growing populations of socialist parties worried middle-class Italians. Mussolini used turmoil to gain power. Benito Mussolini was born on July 29, 1883 in Varnano dei Costa. He was named for the Mexican patriot Benito Juavez. He was the top of his class growing up, but he wasn’t quite a model student - he hated rich children and was almost expelled for stabbing one with a knife. This seems to be the first hint of a very violent future for Mussolini. As a young man, Mussolini worked as a union organizer and was expelled from Switzerland and Austria for Socialist agitation. He was a very talented writer; he wrote poems and a novel, The Cardinal’s Mistress, and edited a newspaper, Avanti. After WWI, in 1922, Mussolini organized a March on Rome with 26,000 followers. This massive display of political support convinced the King to make him Prime Minister. He was the youngest Prime Minister Italy had ever seen.   Ã‚  &nb... ... way of what he believed to be a perfect society. Evidently, things didn’t turn out as planned for Mussolini, but during his time as the leader of Italy, he definitely controlled the lives of many Italians and had things done his way. It was said of him â€Å"He is not, like Hitler, condemned out of his own mouth, nor by the notoriety and magnitude of his evil deeds. It may be that he began well and meant well, like so many of the Caesars before him, but that he ended ill as they did owing to the corruption of power.†4 1 Josh Brooman, Italy and Mussolini, p.17 2 Josh Brooman, Italy and Mussolini, p.19 3 Josh Brooman, Italy and Mussolini, p.23 4 Derek Heater, Case Studies in Twentieth-Century World History, p.79 Bibliography Skipper, G.C. Mussolini: A Dictator Dies. Children’s Press: Chicago,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  1989. Brooman, Josh. Italy and Mussolini. Longman Group Limited:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  New York, 1985. Heater, Derek. Case Studies in Twentieth-Century World History.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Longman Group Limited: New York, 1988. Benito Mussolini. http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.falange.org%2Fbenito.htm.

Just Below the Surface

Just below the surface The story is written by Kate Nivison and takes place in a London suburb in an upper class environment (p. 41, l. 14) in modern time (p. 42, l. 23). It is a first person narrator so we sympathize with Indrani. Indrani: * Is an Indian woman (p. 42, l. 37) * Is education, but not highly educated * She is very bigoted (p. 42, p. 29-30) * She thinks the British people are xenophobic (the woman in the shop and the men from the council, p. 43, l. 5) * She is very concerned about what other people think about her (p. 42, l. 19) * She feels suppressed (p. 43, l. 16) * She wants to be a good wife and desperately wants to keep up her appearances (p. 42, l. 1) She wants to keep her pride that is typical for the Indian culture. * The British people are biased against her (p. 43, l. 13) * She is trying to assimilate to the society, but the society hasn’t assimilated to the foreigners because the foreigners want to keep their values (p. 48, l. ) * She develops through the story; in the beginning she doesn’t mind the racism against her. She doesn’t notice it. But in the end she gets an eye-opener. * She is dependent on her husband (p. 44, l. 6) * She tries to avoid conflicts Barry: * He is a hidden racist (p. 48, l. 14) * Is very ironic (p. 4, l. 31) * He uses metaphors (p. 47, l. 15) * He is insolent * He is very biased There are a lot of dialogs and direct speech in the story. Also colloquial language because of the direct speech.There can be drawn parallels to the story My Son the Fanatic because in both stories there is a person who tries to integrate to the British society. There can also be drawn parallels to Mrs. Frost and Barry because they are both very bigoted. There can also be drawn parallels to Robin Cook’s speech. He says the immigrants are good for the country while Barry wants to get rid of them. The rats symbolize the immigrants according to the Barry. The kitchen symbolizes her facade.

Realistic Characteristics of Life in the Iron Mills Essay

Davis narrates the story with as much irony as she situates her story close to a nineteenth century factory where her characters were once employed, more importantly, where her male character, Hugh Wolfe who used to live in her home, a lowly Welsh immigrant who finds comfort working for an Iron Mill along with him Deborah—a pathetic, grotesque woman deprived of everything that the word beautiful stands for. Their tale is set in the city of Wheeling, Virginia where it is portrayed in a gloomy state, perhaps the idea of uneducated men and women that paced back and forth set up a negative feeling, the text â€Å"You may pick the Welsh emigrants, Cornish miners, out of the throng passing the windows, any day. They are a trifle more filthy; their muscles are not so brawny, they stoop more. When they are drunk, they neither yell, nor shout, nor stagger, but skulk along like beaten hounds. (Davis, Rebecca Harding. Copyright 1861. â€Å"Life in the Iron Mills†) describes the immigrants as poorly as they are deprived of any sort of luxury for the reason that in this time period the type of class you are in defines how other people should look at you, how they treat you, or even how you should live you life, your limitations. Only three people seem to symbolize the head, the heart, and the pocket of the middle-class: Kirby, Mitchell, and Doctor May. Kirby—being one of the mill owners is the source of abusiveness to the poor workers, Mitchell—being the constant joker, a sarcastic bastard who toyed with Wolfe’s feelings, and Doctor May whom Wolfe trusts despite her lack of will to heal Wolfe’s misery. Denied of free will, focal characters Deborah and Hugh could never really make a choice especially when it came for Hugh to decide if he should return the stolen money or continue to live in guilt. Back then, hardly does anyone reflect about the wellbeing of other people, alas, when the authorities finally jailed Hugh for his sin it was too late for him to repent for his immorality. Power is symbolized through money and how it separates the upper class from the lower class. It gives the wealthy a place of authority and destroys the unfortunate. Before Hugh committed suicide, he and Deborah spoke one last of their unidealized accent, â€Å"It is best, Deb. I cannot bear to be hurted any more. †Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬Å"Hur knows,† she said, humbly. Tell my father good-by; and–and kiss little Janey. † (Davis, Rebecca Harding. Copyright 1861. â€Å"Life in the Iron Mills†) which, despite its unconventional tongue, seems to say more than how it is read as, simply by saying farewell to Wolfe’s family. Sentimental Characteristics of Life in the Iron Mills In this context, in the midst of all the autocracy and injustice the workers only hope for survival is food. Yet the ‘hunger’ that is often mentioned in the story is not drawn to food alone but to the worker’s hunger for better lives. His words passed far over the furnace tender’s grasp, toned to suit another class of culture; they sounded in his ears a very pleasant song in an unknown tongue† (85). Davis suggests, in this text, that faith and hope are essential for these people to find happiness. Hugh Wolfe yearns to have a better life so he goes to church and pray for divine providence, yet when he hears the sermon it seemed to him that God only cared for the privileged. Yet, however contemptuous their lives may be and even though Wolfe decided to end his life in the end, certain occurrences have proved worthy of optimism. After Wolfe was buried, it seems that there is still hope for Deborah, as the text goes, â€Å"As the evening wore on, she leaned against the iron bars, looking at the hills that rose far off, through the thick sodden clouds, like a bright, unattainable calm. As she looked, a shadow of their solemn repose fell on her face: its fierce discontent faded into a pitiful, humble quiet. Slow, solemn tears gathered in her eyes: the poor weak eyes turned so hopelessly to the place where Hugh was to rest, the grave heights looking higher and brighter and more solemn than ever before. The Quaker watched her keenly. She came to her at last, and touched her arm. —â€Å"When thee comes back,† she said, in a low, sorrowful tone, like one who speaks from a strong heart deeply moved with remorse or pity, â€Å"thee shall begin thy life again,–there on the hills. I came too late; but not for thee,–by God’s help, it may be. † (Davis, Rebecca Harding. Copyright 1861. â€Å"Life in the Iron Mills†) this gives their ending a clearer view of Deborah may have wanted to live her life next after the treacherous event. With hope and the will to step forward and rise.