Friday, September 6, 2019
Roman Civilization Essay Example for Free
Roman Civilization Essay Abstract The Roman civilization was one of the greatest civilizations in world history. It spanned almost a thousand years and stretched from Europe to Africa. Although the Roman civilization is already long extinct, its legacy is still an important part of todays social institutions such as government and religion. The Roman Civilization            The Roman civilization is one of the most powerful and influential civilizations in history. It was well-known for its political, economic, cultural and technological advancements that allowed it to expand from Europe to Africa (MSN Encarta, 2007). So consequential is the Roman civilization that most of its practices are still in use today. Ancient Rome            The Roman civilization was believed to have started almost 3,000 years ago on the hills beside the Tiber River in central Italy (MSN Encarta, 2007). What began as an encampment of shepherds huts later evolved into the city of Rome (MSN Encarta, 2007). It is sometimes claimed that the land and environment of Italy proved to be condusive for the growth of Roman civilization (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Being a peninsula, Italy is separated from the rest of Europe by sea on the east, west and south and the Alps mountain range on the north (MSN Encarta, 2007). The country in general enjoys a temperate climate, with hot summers in the south (MSN Encarta, 2007). Italys western coast and offshore islands have several volcanoes such as Mount Etna and Mount Vesuvius, resulting in fertile land in some parts of Latium, Campania and Sicily (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Italys timber-rich mountains had vast meadows where sheep and goats grazed during the summer (MSN Encarta, 2007). The Tiber River was abundant in salt and Etruria had large iron deposits (MSN Encarta, 2007). North-south land routes boosted the Roman economy by improving commerce, agriculture, pasturage and metalwork (MSN Encarta, 2007). Romulus and Remus – The Founders of Rome            According to Roman myth, twin brothers Romulus and Remus founded Rome in 753 BC (MSN Encarta, 2007). They were the grandsons of King Numitor, the ruler of the ancient city of Alba Longa in Latium (MSN Encarta, 2007). But Numitors brother seized the throne and also tried to kill the twins by having them thrown into the Tiber (MSN Encarta, 2007). The twins miraculously survived – they were washed ashore and were nursed by a she-wolf (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Upon reaching adulthood, Romulus and Remus brought Numitor back to his throne and formed a new city located on top of Palatine Hill (MSN Encarta, 2007). Romulus had this new city surrounded with a wall, which Remus scornfully jumped over in an attempt to assert his leadership (MSN Encarta, 2007). Romulus killed him as a result, later becoming the citys first king and naming it after him (MSN Encarta, 2007). Life in Ancient Rome            Ancient Roman society was religious and family-oriented (MSN Encarta, 2007). Family and religion not only influenced personal and social relations, but also public and political activities (MSN Encarta, 2007). These two social institutions were said to be the â€Å"twin pillars of Roman society for the five centuries of the Roman Republic†(MSN Encarta, 2007).            The Ancient Roman Family.            Family relationships in ancient Rome reflected the patriarchal nature of the Roman state (MSN Encarta, 2007). The father (paterfamilias) wielded absolute and lifelong power (patria potestas) over his wife, children and slaves (MSN Encarta, 2007). He was also the â€Å"the priest of the cult of his ancestors and of the hearth gods of the family†(the ancient Romans practiced ancestral worship) (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Roman marriage existed primarily to continue bloodlines (MSN Encarta, 2007). The fathers family had sole custody of all legitimate children (MSN Encarta, 2007). Should a divorce occur, the mother was required to leave the children with her husband (MSN Encarta, 2007). In addition, Roman law allowed a father to abandon an infant at birth – unwanted children during this period were either deformed boys or daughters of families who cannot afford a dowry (MSN Encarta, 2007). It was also considered legal under Roman law for a father to kill an adult son as â€Å"punishment†for â€Å"treasonous†behavior (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Despite the all-encompassing authority of the father, the ancient Roman family remained tightly-knit (MSN Encarta, 2007). It was the parents themselves who educated their children (MSN Encarta, 2007). To prepare their sons for citizenship, fathers would bring them along to forums, where they can observe public meetings (MSN Encarta, 2007). During funerals, ancient Roman sons were also obliged to deliver speeches that praised the deceased and their forefathers in order to sustain family pride and myths (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Ancient Roman women usually married between 14 and 17 years old, with their husbands often at their mid-20s (MSN Encarta, 2007). Although children during this era were not forced into wedlock, only few were able to refuse arranged marriages (MSN Encarta, 2007). A divorce can only take place if it was the husband who wanted it (MSN Encarta, 2007).            However, women still enjoyed relative freedom in ancient Rome (MSN Encarta, 2007). They could attend public and private banquets, where they freely interacted with men (MSN Encarta, 2007). When a father died without a will, his estate was divided equally between his sons and daughters (MSN Encarta, 2007). But daughters were commonly included in the bequests of their fathers (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Religion.            Ancient Rome was a predominantly agricultural civilization (MSN Encarta, 2007). Hence, Romans believed that deities governed every aspect of the natural world (MSN Encarta, 2007). They even tried to â€Å"construe†the â€Å"will†of the gods by analyzing animal activities and body parts (MSN Encarta, 2007).            The Romans, however, adopted from the Etruscans a religion that was based from the Greek pantheon or family of gods (MSN Encarta, 2007). As a result, most Greek gods have Roman counterparts (MSN Encarta, 2007). Zeus (Greek god of the skies) was Jupiter for the Romans (MSN Encarta, 2007). Hera (Zeus wife), Aphrodite (Greek goddess of love) and Ares (Greek god of war) became Juno, Venus and Mars, respectively (MSN Encarta, 2007).            The Romans also believed that devotion through prayers, festivals and sacrifices were necessary for the community to have a harmonious relationship with the gods (MSN Encarta, 2007). Kings and civil magistrates first officiated the aforementioned activities, but priests and priestesses later facilitated the worship of particular gods and goddesses (MSN Encarta, 2007). An example of the latter would be the vestal virgins who served hearth goddess Vesta (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Some of the months in the Roman calendar, as well as the days of the week, were also named after the gods (MSN Encarta, 2007). January was named after Janus, the god of beginnings (MSN Encarta, 2007). March was taken from Mars (MSN Encarta, 2007). September was derived from the Latin term septem (â€Å"seven†) – March originally was the first month of the Roman calender (MSN Encarta, 2007). October, November and December were based on the Latin words for eight, ninth and tenth, respectively (MSN Encarta, 2007).            However, the English names of the days of the week was patterned after Germanic gods and goddesses (MSN Encarta, 2007). Friday, for instance, was a day that was dedicated to Venus (MSN Encarta, 2007). It was taken from Freia, the German goddess of love (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Politics.            The leaders of Ancient Rome were kings who â€Å"had wide military and judicial powers and represented the people to their gods†(MSN Encarta, 2007). The kings who succeeded Romulus were appointed and advised by the Senate, a governmental institution whose members were from noble clans (MSN Encarta, 2007). These tasks of the Senate enabled the Roman elites to dominate Romes religious, political and economic life (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Meanwhile, the Assembly of the People was a Roman political body that was composed of all male Roman citizens (MSN Encarta, 2007). Divided into 30 curiae or clans, members of the assembly initially met to â€Å"witness the announcement of a new king or a declaration of war†(MSN Encarta, 2007). Later, each of the clans gathered to cast their votes regarding the approval of a certain will or adoption (MSN Encarta, 2007). The Roman Republic            During the Roman Republic (510 BC-27 BC), Rome â€Å"grew from a small city of 10,000 into a great cosmopolitan metropolis of 1 million whose empire of 15 million subjects encompassed the entire Mediterranean basin†(MSN Encarta, 2007). Therefore, the Roman Republic was sometimes known as the period of expansion of Roman civilization (Hooker, 1996). However, they encountered social and economic problems that resulted from imposing conventional laws and institutions on subjects whose cultures were very much different from theirs (MSN Encarta, 2007). Governance            The Roman monarchy was abolished after Junius Brutus toppled the Tarquin dynasty in 509 BC (Hooker, 1996). The Romans then assumed a republican form of government but retained their constitution, a series of unwritten laws and traditions that were still based from the monarchy (Hooker, 1996). As a result, the republics new leaders, the consuls, were no different from the kings (Hooker, 1996). Although the consuls were elected and held one-year terms, they were also the heads of the Roman military and judiciary, as well as the nations chief priests (Hooker, 1996).            However, the consuls had severely limited powers (Hooker, 1996). After finishing their one-year term, they had to be reelected for another term if they wish to become a consul again (Hooker, 1996). In addition, the republic was supposed to be ruled by two consuls (Hooker, 1996). No consul can act or decide without the other consuls approval (Hooker, 1996). Lastly, consuls were mandated to serve on the Senate as soon as their term expires (Hooker, 1996). The Law of the Twelve Tables            It would be fair to say that the Roman Republic promoted the rights of the ordinary citizen (Hooker, 1996). In 450 BC, Romes constitution and laws were standardized and put into order through the Law of the Twelve Tables (Hooker, 1996). As a result, the Roman masses became aware of the rights that the law has granted upon them (Hooker, 1996). Intermarriage between plebians and patricians were allowed in 445 BC and the position of consul was opened to plebians in 367 BC (Hooker, 1996). By 287 BC, the vote of the plebian  assembly â€Å"were not only binding on the plebeians, but on the entire Roman citizenry†(Hooker, 1996). Crisis            In order to widen itslef, the Roman Republic waged many wars, including the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) (Hooker, 1996). But these hostilities had serious social and economic consequences for Rome (Hooker, 1996). The Second Punic war, for instance, further widened the gap between the rich and the poor in Rome (Hooker, 2006).            Prior to the Second Punic War, ordinary Roman citizens worked as farmers, craftsmen or laborers (Hooker, 1996). They were able to live well because they tilled their own land or received decent wages (Hooker, 1996). But while Hannibal destroyed the Roman countryside, the elites remained quietly within the walls of Rome (Hooker, 1996).            Their farmlands gone, the Romans living in the countryside had no choice but to migrate to the cities (Hooker, 1996). The rich Romans, meanwhile, bought the ravaged lands and developed them into large plantations (Hooker, 1996). These establishments dominated Roman agriculture by the middle of the second century (Hooker, 1996).            Furthermore, wars led to the proliferation of slaves in Rome and Roman territories (Hooker, 1996). As slaves provided labor at wages that were almost below subsistence level, the Roman economy shifted from a laborer economy to a slave economy (Hooker, 2006). Poor Romans who were not slaves suddenly found themselves unemployed or taking jobs that paid very little (Hooker, 1996). This resulted in the beginning of the Roman Republics unpopularity with the people (Hooker, 1996). The Roman Empire            The social instability during the later part of the Roman Republic produced dictators such as the Gracchi brothers (UNRV, 2008). Increasing public frustration over the republic made the people turn to citizen assemblies for the discussion of popular agendas instead of to the Senate (UNRV, 2008). However, overeliance on citizen assemblies bred unscrupulous and opportunistic leaders such as Maruis and Sulla (UNRV, 2008). Roman politics was divided between the conservative Optimate Senators who tried to preserve the political dominance of the elite and the Populares who was supported by the lower classes (UNRV, 2008). As a result, the last 100 years of the Roman Republic was characterized with political instability and violence (UNRV, 2008). Caesar Augustus            After many years of civil war, the Senate proclaimed Gaius Octavius emperor in 27 BC, giving him the name Augustus (â€Å"exalted†or â€Å"holy one†) (MSN Encarta, 2007). Historians often said that the proclamation of Gaius Octavius as emperor marked the beginning of the Roman Empire (27 BC-476 AD) (MSN Encarta, 2007). The Roman Republic was never revived since (MSN Encarta, 2007).            The Regime of Augustus.            Augustus rule (27 BC-14 AD) was marked with absolute power (MSN Encarta, 2007). However, it transformed Rome into â€Å"the greatest and most influential political institution in European history†(MSN Encarta, 2007). Thus, Augustus was said to have started the Pax Romana (â€Å"Roman Peace†), a period of peace and prosperity in Rome that lasted for about 200 years (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Under Augustus, the empire acquired new territories, such as ancient Britain, Arabia and Dacia (now Romania) (MSN Encarta, 2007). Rome became the center of politics, trade and culture in the Mediterranean region (MSN Encarta, 2007). Rome was seen as a place of opportunity – people from the Roman provinces who went there usually became soldiers, bureaucrats and senators (MSN Encarta, 2007).            The Roman Empire also tolerated cultural differences among its subjects (MSN Encarta, 2007). The empire promoted Greek art, literature and philosophy, the Jewish religious and ethical system, the then-new religion of Christianity, the astronomy and astrology of the Babylonians and Persian and Egyptian culture (MSN Encarta, 2007). With the exceptions of leaders like Caligula and Nero, most Roman emperors were competent and just (MSN Encarta, 2007). Fall of the Roman Empire            The murder of Emperor Commodus in 192 was the precedent for the collapse of the Roman Empire (MSN Encarta, 2007). After his demise, rivalry over the imperial throne resulted in a civil war that proved to be detrimental to the whole empire (MSN Encarta, 2007). Political institutions collapsed, the army was weakened and the economy crashed (MSN Encarta, 2007). The civil war lasted for about a century until the Roman Empire quietly ended in 476 (MSN Encarta, 2007). Reasons for the Fall            The selection process for a Roman emperor was facilitated by the incumbent emperor, the Senate, the army and the Praetorian Guard (the emperors personal security forces) (Harker, n.d.). But the Praetorian Guard later had the sole authority in choosing the emperor (Harker, n.d.). In exchange for the Praetorian Guards support, the emperor rewarded them with political and military favors (Harker, n.d.). By 186 AD, the practice of selling the throne to the highest bidder was already a â€Å"tradition†in Roman politics (Harker, n.d.).            In addition, the Roman Empire spent too much on its military (Harker, n.d.). Since the empire was very vast, protecting it from invaders was very expensive (Harker, n.d.). A huge portion of taxes were spent on soldiers and weapons, instead of on housing, roads and aqueducts (Harker, n.d.). When the empire did not have enough money, it raised taxes, leading to strong public discontent among ordinary Roman citizens (Harker, n.d.). Conclusion            Even if the Roman civilization no longer exists, its legacy is still an important part of modern society. Roman laws and Latin remain to be integral in the legal profession, governance and religion (MSN Encarta, 2007). Christianity is still one of the worlds major religions (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Latin gradually evolved into languages and dialects such as Provenà §al, French, Spanish and Catalan (MSN Encarta, 2007). The Roman civilization also served as an important influence in Renaissance art, literature and politics (MSN Encarta, 2007). Renaissance sculptors revived the Greco-Roman trend of realism (after centuries of theocentrism), while Renaissance architects used Greek and Roman designs for their creations (MSN Encarta, 2007). William Shakespeares works were based on Roman comedies (MSN Encarta, 2007).            Philosophers and political theorists in the succeeding centuries used Roman laws and Roman concepts of freedom and tyranny as a reference for their own writings and discourses (MSN Encarta, 2007). These ideas also inspired revolutionaries in America and France to liberate their respective countries (MSN Encarta, 2007). References Harker, K. Killeen Harker Heights Connections. (n.d.). Reasons for the Fall of the Roman            Empire. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://killeenroos.com/1/Romefall.htm Hooker, R. World Civilizations. (1996). Rome: The Roman Republic. Retrieved May 7, 2008,            from http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/REPUBLIC.HTM MSN Encarta. (2007). Ancient Rome. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from            http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552589/Ancient_Rome.html MSN Encarta. (2007). Roman Empire. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from            http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502785/Roman_Empire.html UNRV. (2008). Fall of the Roman Republic. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from            http://www.unrv.com/roman-republic/fall-of-roman-republic.php
Thursday, September 5, 2019
The Hollywood Studio System Film Studies Essay
The Hollywood Studio System Film Studies Essay In the 1930s Hollywood was dominated by The Big Five which included Warner Bros. Pictures, Paramount, RKO,MGM and Fox . There were also a number of smaller studios such as Universal Pictures, United Artists and Columbia Pictures , but in the early 1930s they never got to the same level of power as the others. The idea of a Studio system was set up between 1910 and 1920 and it stems from the fact that the studios had control of every aspect of the film industry. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s when the film industry was just starting out, production, distribution and exhibition were actually controlled by different companies. But by the 1930s the Studios actively controlled all aspects of the film industry from production to exhibition. They did this through a large number of trade agreements and through working together to help their joint issues. While according to records during 1900-1925 there were 64 film studios by the 1930s 95% of all revenue from Film was controlled by e ight studios, The Big Five and the Little Three. The start of the studio system was in 1910 and was started by Adolph Zukor. Zukor used his Famous Players company to make films and then distributed them around the world using his Paramount cinemas. It was Zukor that started the studio system and saw how best to sell film. Zukors aim was to make a stable system for selling and distributing films. Zukor first act was to take a look at the star system that been growing in American theatres, mainly in the Vaudeville theatres which held shows that were made up of a number of different acts. To help sell these shows, they would advertise which stars would be at the show . Zukor was also very interested in the French company Pathe. Pathe was the largest of the French film companies and was the first to have a global film empire and by 1906 they had offices in New York, London, Berlin, Vienna, they also had offices in south-east Asia,South America and Africa. The Pathe company was also the first to set up a system of mass producing films . Being able to create so many films so quickly meant they were able to flood the market with their products. Zukor also created a factory-like setting for the creation of his films, where each bit was handled by a different part of the company such as a set and costume. This allowed him to streamline the movie making process by having a number of movies being worked on at one time. By 1915 Zukor distributed all his movies using his Paramount cinemas. Now Zukor owned every aspect of his films production, distribution and exhibition and the studio system was born but, he still did not have a proper distribution network set up. When World War 1 broke out Pathe and a large number of other European film companies lost a large amount of their power and distribution networks. The war did not stop US companies who did not suffer at the disruption in Europe but actually grew from it. It was during this period that Zukor developed a system for distribution. He created a system based on runs, cinemas would be give a run such as first-run, second-run etc. The larger cinemas in large cities were given first-run status which meant that the film would be shown there first, it would then be shown in the second-run cinemas and overseas. The film would then not be shown for a period of time, which gave the film a chance to build up hype and demand. Without the intervention of Te levision the cinemas were the only place a person could see a film, if you missed the first run you would just have to wait and once there was demand the film would run for a second time. Zukor did this for as many runs as there was demand for. This in essence meant he would be able to get as much profit from the movie as possible. Due to the war many of the European companies could not catch up to the American companies and many such as Pathe sold their US and international businesses and actually left film making. By 1920 Zukor had set up a set of principles in which to govern the film industry. Hollywood was made up of a number of corporations that were able not only to produce films but also to distribute them and present them in a way that would make the maximum amount of profit for their corporation. Their aim was through the studio system to maintain all power in all aspects of the film business through careful strategies. Along with changes to the distribution and the exhibition this new studio system also changed the way these companies made their films. The first change was the sheer number of films being made. Through the new changes to distribution the companies had to make more money due to larger overheads. Before the Famous Players Company had made six to eight films a year but this only gave the exhibition side of the company less than a new film a month. It soon rose to 30 films a year giving the exhibition side two and a half new films a month. There was also a change in the actually size of the films themselves. When Zukor started in film he was fascinated by the larger films coming out of Europe. His goal was to change the image of film and make it more for the middle class. Before the studio system most films where one or two reels long. When Zukor tried to get The Passion Play (1910) shown he was told people who not sit through films that were more that two reels long. By 1914 many film such as Wraith of Gods (1914) were reaching around six reels. Maybe the largest change to film production was the film stars themselves. Zukor himself had actually foreseen the star system when he had hired James Hackett, a famous theatre star at the time. Zukor created the base for the star system when he signed Mary Pickford to work for his Famous Players company. He saw the need to contract stars , meaning if people wanted to see those stars they had to watch his films. By the 1930s the idea of movie stars had taken off. Films could be sold to theatres just by telling them who was staring in it. RKO was in fact saved by the selling power of two of its stars, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Due to the selling power of stars the companies made sure they put there top stars in as many films as possible, Shirely Temple was in around four films a year. With the cost of stars and the increase in the reel length of the average films and the invention of sound the cost of actually making a movie vastly increased. With this came a greater need to make profit on each film. The studios soon found out that the narrative films made the most money, the only time this was not true was in the case of Max Schmeling versus Joe Louis where the short of the boxing match was a bigger draw than the feature films that where shown after it. The key for the Hollywood studios was to create a system to make as many profitable narrative film as possible , they needed to make a narrative style which was formulaic and therefore easy to reproduce. If they where able to standardize they would have greater control over the qualities of the film and the standard of the product. They had already created a factory-like setting in the early 1900s and were able to create large numbers of one-reel films. While the streamlined manufacture did allow them to standardi ze things such as the quality of stars, sets, locations and create films quicker its main draw was it was able to keep the costs of films down. Due to its formulaic nature it was much easier to predict how much a future film would make. One of the key aspects of Classic Hollywood narration was the invention of the moving camera and while this greatly helped the filmmakers, it was actually created due to economics. With the invention of sound, cameras had grown larger and heavier, It was therefore a lot harder to move them around the set. So the studios created cranes and dollies to carry the camera, this made them a lot easier to move around the set. This actually saved money for the companies, as the cameras were more mobile it meant less time was taken moving them around meaning more of the days time could be done filming. The production side of the industry was always the most public and what many people think of when they think of the studio system. But the studio system was born of the need to control the market. It was primarily led by the exhibition and distribution side of the business. When Zukor started to develop the studio system he was mainly interested in finding a way to distribute films with out having to get approval of the Trust, who were the primary distributors of the period . The studio system created by Zukor was created to make sure that the studios got the most about of profit as they could from their films. The runs and clearance were set up with this in mind. They made sure a film would only stop being shown once the maximum amount of profit had been gained from it. The star system was also just created for economical gains, with stars being contracted to studios the only way to see that star was in that studios films at there cinema. The production side of film was also changed to help maximise profit. The factory like system of creating films in the 1920s was set up to not only keep production values constant but to keep cost down. Many of the changes to the production side such as the change to cameras or the classic Hollywood narrative where created to help keep costs down or to help create more movies in a shorter time. In 1910 Zukor had wanted to show longer films of 3-5 reel but could not, he saw that to show the films he wanted he would have to control the distribution and exhibition side of the film as well as the production.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Why were Alehouses and Gin-shops Threatening to Authorities?
Why were Alehouses and Gin-shops Threatening to Authorities? Why were alehouses and gin-shops threatening to the authorities? This essay will argue that alehouses and gin-shops were threatening to the authorities because they were deemed to disrupt the established social, political and economic order. Commentators of the time, labelled alehouses as nests of Satan[1] and gin-shops as the source of Theft, Murder and Perjury.[2] These hostelries were perceived a widespread menace linking them to crime, poverty, sedition, drunkenness and idleness. At the time, drinking took place in three main types of institutions: the coaching inn that supplied lodgings, victuals and replacement horses, taverns mainly in towns supplying beer and wine, and lastly alehouses, small, often one room, offering only beer. Whilst evidence suggests that government, Parliament, county magistrates and parish constables did not always worry about the same threats, it is likely that much protest and condemnation emanated from the inhabitants of the towns and cities. This viewpoint is supported by extensive research carried out on petition s, legislations, pamphlets, ballads and woodcut prints. There appears a difference in the charges levelled by the authorities between alehouses and gin-shops. With the alehouses, they were concerned in policing to prevent licentiousness and drunkenness, and the latter by moral reformers, targeting the spirits trade and the social problems caused by the labouring classes addiction to gin. This essay will look in detail at the threats posed by the alehouses and the response from government and Parliament. The protests rose from the judgments of the emerging middle-classes, moral reformers identified as Puritans, and local inhabitants. From the mid-seventeenth century, the authorities identified the potential seditious nature of some of the activities within the alehouses. The second part will identify the dangers that the gin craze posed to society at large, the size of the growing problem and the speed of the response of the authorities in tackling this issue. The social function of the alehouses, providing drinking, eating, gambling, dancing and even flirting cannot be underestimated, as these no longer occurred in churchyards following the English Reformation of the 1530s.[3] Recent studies estimate that by 1570 there were 24,000 alehouses, a ratio of 1 every 142 inhabitants, this rose to 50,000 by the 1630s and hit a peak of 60,000 in 1700, a ratio of 1 to every 87 residents.[4] Clearly, as evidence suggests, alehouses were becoming more and more popular, and more and more common within society. The corollary of this expansion infers the central nature and focus of social activities inside the alehouses. It was widely accepted that the alehouses were an essential institution run by the poor for the poor[5], and provided vital income for the innkeeper. In many ways, the alehouses could be said to offer the poor and the unemployed an alternative home.[6] Throughout this period the number of wage-earners within society grew and it is very likely that the authorities feared that people worked just long enough to earn their beer-money rather than spending it on their families, as a petition in Pewsey in Whiltshire demonstrates[7]. It could then be further claimed that this led to a greater strain upon poor relief provided by the parishes because of feckless parents. Samuel Pepys, the diarist, reflects this viewpoint in one of the ballads in his collection: in The Bad-Husbands Folly or Poverty made known a drunken husband who used to spend all his money in strong beer, neglecting his family obligations, repents and vows not to return to the alehouse because Bad company did me undo.[8] The Licencing Act of 1552, set in motion some legal controls over the proliferation of the alehouses, the law stated that to open an alehouse a licence issued by two local Justices of the Peace and evidence of a good character were required.[9] It should also be noted that the late 1500s were a period of bad harvests, hence Parliament and magistrates were probably concerned in storing the grain rather than allowing it to be used for brewing. However, this legislation failed to curb the growth in numbers of the alehouses due to the people not complying with the law and most of them remained unlicensed. This section will address the concerns of the moral reformers, known as Puritans, and of the self-declared better-sort or chief inhabitants of the towns towards the alehouses. Puritanical thought emerged from Protestantism and comprised a moral view of family life in line with scripture. They exercised authority via positions of prominence within society and were ministers of religion, Justices of the Peace, the middle-classes and the gentry. Puritan ministers were not opposed to drinking alcohol in moderation, however the excesses of the alehouses, with all that that entails and the resultant effects on family life were to be condemned. Ministers often took the lead in organising petitions against disorderly alehouses that attracted thieves, prostitutes, gamblers and female drunkards. This hotter sort of Protestants wrote pamphlets attacking the tipplers of the drunkards academye[10] as immoral, depraved and dissolute. Moreover, alehouses attracted people of ill-repute who preferred to drink rather than attend church services on the Sabbath. In addition, a recent study has proved that Puritans disliked the ritual of health-drinking or toasting, full of ceremony, that reminded them of Papist traditions of drinking from the same cup.[11] Besides, healths were often described as lascivious acts that deliberately scorned puritan values and, by declaring allegiance to the king, they were straightforward in resisting Cromwells puritanical regime.[12] Whilst during the Interregnum of 1649-1660 no new legislation was enacted against the alehouses, greater enforcement was undertaken to vet and bar royalist sympathisers from obtaining a licence.[13] Another offensive came from the local yeomanry, gentry and middle-class, who unlike the Puritans, did not seek to suppress all the alehouses, but to censure the ones who were deemed to be in excess, those without a licence, off the beaten path, unruly and disruptive. It was clear that the sheltering of vagrants and prostitutes, the trade of illicit goods and excessive alcohol consumption beyond the point of drunkenness, led to a lack of sleep at night, fights and unchaste behaviour. This habit is cited in the case of Michael Fayered of Inworth in Essex who was accused of having evill rule in his house all night long.[14] Even women alehouse-keepers were deemed to be a menace with the assumption they were setting up brothels and running these establishments with immoral sexual conduct. The number of court cases and protests brought to the attention of government, who sought to limit the effects of drunkenness, led to the Acts of 1604, 1606 and 1618. For the first time, being drunk in public was a finable offence and the annual renewal of licences was established.[15] These acts were more successful than the 1552 Licensing Act and provided some control in confining disorderly behaviour. However, gaming, swearing, tippling, theft, assault and illicit sex were common cases in the law courts. James Scott in his book claims that alehouses hosted a radically subversive culture, one that was well hidden from the view of the elites, hence he coined the term hidden transcript.[16] In support of his thesis, he cites a court case of 1691 where an ale seller in Whiltshire denied hearing any seditious discourses in his house, and that he usually advised his customers not to talk about governments affairs.[17] This statement may infer that political discourse was commonly taking place. In addition, it is possible that it was within the inns and taverns, institutions frequented by the better-sort, that plots against the Crown were hatched. At the same time authorities were concerned about what was really taking place in the alehouses. In the light of these inappropriate political discourses, the targeting of the alehouses might have become a priority for the authorities who sought to crack-down on these behaviours by instituting spies. Records from seventeenth-century Southampton sh ow that a tight surveillance, by both publican and landlords, was in place[18] to make sure that their principal use, victualling and lodging, remained the primary purpose and disorderly behaviour actively discouraged. Thus, the emphasis of the authorities shifted to all forms of recreational drinking which were assumed to be a threat to law and order. Recent historical investigations support the viewpoint that the role of the alehouses for social purposes was more important than the subversive nature previously thought. The observed correlation between alehouses and drunkenness has, in recent years, moved into investigating the alehouse sociability in a more lenient and a less radical approach. The scholar Mark Hailwood demonstrates that it was not always the case that alehouses were the source of lewd behaviour and political radicalism, and that the relationship between getting drunk and being sociable was not antagonistic but interdependent.[19] Sociability might have provided so cial cohesion among people who worked and lived in the same neighbourhood, a jovial environment rather than chaos and disorder. From the proliferation to the peak of the alehouses it took roughly one hundred and fifty years, and several Acts of Parliament before the authorities brought the alehouses under control. By the end of the seventeenth century a new threat appeared on the horizon, namely the Gin Craze. Looking at the effect gin shops had on society and their threat to the authorities, there was an ever-increasing consumption of gin following the banning of French brandy in 1689 by William III. This ban and the London Company of Distillers losing its monopoly led to the increased production of cheap British gin and the establishment of unregulated distillers, who often put turpentine and other lethal ingredients as part of their concoctions. Consequently, thousands of small gin-shops opened in cellars, back rooms of private homes, some people even sold it from pushcarts in the streets. With no regulations in place and a cheap price, the so-called Gin Craze took off. By the mid-1720s the practice of regularly attending dram shops, especially amongst Londons labouring and poor classes, had become a significant social and health concern for the authorities, with the impeding need to pass legislation designed to control the consumption of gin. In contrast to the alehouses, the gin trade and its consumption were opposed mainly by the propertied classes, Puritans and a coalition of Middlesex and Westminster Justices. It can be claimed that the 1729 Gin Act did little or nothing to limit the number of unlicensed premises, which in London alone were about 4,000.[20] Protests against the gin trade reached a fever-pitch by 1735 with the publication of pamphlets, cartoons and treatises. These discourses claimed that drunkenness caused by gin in the street was responsible for social disorders, with an increased number of robberies, fights, murders and deaths by intoxication. It was inferred that the consumption of gin may have been linked to idleness and the incapacity to work, resulting in opportunistic crimes being committed to obtain money to satisfy their addiction to Mother Gin. The Puritans feared that the addled minds of drunk people might have supported the ever-present Jacobean threat, resulting in a return to Catholicism in Britain. These concerns have been well summarised in the 1736 Thomas Wilsons pamphlet Distilled Spirituous Liquors the Bane of the Nation: people were enervated by a fatal love of a slow but sure Poyson.[21] The likely lobbying of Sir John Gonson, a Westminster magistrate, associated with the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and Sir Joseph Jekyll, played an active role in the contended passage of the 1736 Gin Act that increased license fees and fines, and also aimed to reduce the smuggling of gin.[22] Historians have started to investigate the impact of gin drinking on society, and according to Peter Clark, the reformists campaign against the spirits trade was exaggerated and sensationalist.[23] His theory is supported by records of the time which demonstrate that in Clarkenwell, Mile End and Stepney, where gin selling was widespread, there was no substantial evidence of increased crime rates, and this was also reflected in the wider country. Despite legislation being enacted in 1736, it failed to regulate gin selling leading to widespread public disorder by 1738. Many of the gin-shops and street gin selling occurred in the southern and eastern suburbs of London where gin was mostly popular amongst women. The increasingly observable situation of drunk mothers and neglected children caused moral outrage to the Puritans with their view of family life[24]. There was a polarisation between drunken behaviour and thriftiness promoted by moralists. It was believed that heavy drinking was increasing the number of mothers and babies deaths, and that gin was the root of disruption of domestic oeconomy and respectability. It was also widely perceived that gin-drinking mothers were regarded to produce a Spindle shankd generation,[25] with the foetus being damaged in the womb. Above all, it was a commonly held thought that drunkenness led to fecklessness, and people were condemned to a life of misery. The renowned 1751 engraving by Wi lliam Hogarth, Gin Lane,[26] highlights all these threats posed to society. The print pictorialises the violence of excessive gin consumption depicting a ragged bare-breasted mother scraping the contents of her snuff box as her child is toppling from her arms down a cellar that bears the inscription Drunk for a penny, Dead drunk for twopence. The new 1751 Act was effective and restricted retailing to respectable sellers and raised duties on distilling, subsequently gin consumption fell. Overall, it can be asserted that the offensives of Parliament, middling urban society and reformers towards gin consumption blamed the poor for their behaviour. This essay had discussed the different reasons why alehouses and gin-shops were a threat to the authorities in early modern England. Even though the consumption of ale had existed within English society in perpetuity, the increased popularity and concentration of excessive beer drinking became a problem from the mid-sixteenth century. Although the authorities were not against drinking per se, they were worried about the acts of disorder caused by excessive drinking. The authority exercised on the alehouses came from above, government and Parliament, and from below by Puritans and citizens. On the other hand, the gin craze was a sudden import from the continent in the late 1600s and started in metropolitan areas as opposed to the mostly rural alehouses. As demonstrated, the gin craze presented similar problems to the authorities as the alehouses, but included more acute threats that required urgent action: extreme criminality, adult mortality and infant deformity. It should be noted t hat the authorities reaction to the alehouses spanned a period of about one-hundred and fifty years and multiple acts of legislation by Parliament. This is a marked difference to legislation against the gin trade that took over a period of about twenty years culminating in the provisions set out in the Act of 1736. The seditious nature of alehouses only became to be considered a problem from the mid-1600s, prior to this period the alehouses were a focus of social discord which could have deemed to have been a threat to authority but it was not in its nature seditious. On the other hand, gin-shops were deemed to be seditious since their inception. The difference in the response by authorities to the alehouses and gin-shops could be partially explained by the hidden rural proliferation of the alehouses amongst the poor, compared to the self-evident chaos observable in Gin Lane by the urban upper and middle-classes. The influence of puritanism and its revulsion of the amoral family val ues, that resulted from the gin-craze, was probably more keenly felt in the metropolitan areas rather than in the countryside. Ultimately, it is very interesting to note the changes in historical perspective with regards to beer. As detailed in Hogarths Beer Street and Gin Lane[27], intended to be viewed together, alehouses were not seen as places of chaos and disorder any more, they were rather a site of social conviviality, in contrast with the parish of St. Giles portrayed as an urban image of an alcohol-induced road to oblivion. [1] Christopher Hudson 1631 in Peter, Clark, The Alehouse and the Alternative Society in Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (eds.), Puritans and Revolutionaries. Essays in Seventeenth-Century History presented to Christopher Hill, (Oxford, 1978), p.47 [2] Hogarth, William and Fielding, Henry, Gin Lane, (1751) [accessed 15 February 2017] [3] Mark, Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship in Early Modern England, (Boydell and Brewer Ltd, 2014),p.5 [4] Peter, Clark, The English Alehouse: a Social History 1200-1830, (London, 1983),pp.42-47 [5] Clark, The Alehouse,p.53 [6] Patricia, Fumerton, Not Home: Alehouses, Ballads and the Vagrant Husband in Early Modern England, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies,32:3 (Fall 2002),p.505 [7] Hailwood, Alehouses,p.41 [8] The Bad-Husbands Folly; or, Poverty made known (c.1671-1702), in Pepys Ballads, IV, p. 77 [accessed 15 February 2017] [9] James, Nicholls, The Politics of Alcohol: A History of the Drink Question in England, (Manchester University Press, 2011),p.11 [10] Sir Richard Grosvenor 1625 in Hailwood, Alehouses,p.19 [11] Angela, McShane, Material Culture and Political Drinking in Seventeenth Century England, Past and Present Supplement 9, (2014),p.260 [12] Marika, Keblusek, Wine for Comfort: Drinking and The Royalist Exile Experience, 1642-1660, in Adam Smyth (ed.), A Pleasing Sinne. Drink and Conviviality in Seventeenth-Century England, (Cambridge, 2004),pp.55-68 [13] Bernard, Capp, Englands Culture Wars: Puritan Reformation and Its Enemies in the Interregnum, 1649-1660, (Oxford University Press, 2012),pp.162 [14] Keith, Wrightson, Alehouses, Order and Reformation in Rural England, 1590-1660 in Eileen Yeo and Stephen Yeo, (eds.), Popular Culture and Class Conflict 1590-1914: Explorations in the History of Labour and Leisure, (The Harvester Press Limited, 1981),p.8 [15] Nicholls, Politics,pp.13-15 [16] Scott in Hailwood, Alehouses,p.65 [17] Ibid.,pp.70 [18] James, Brown, Drinking Houses and the Politics of Surveillance in Pre-industrial Southampton, in B. KÃ ¼min (ed.), Political space in Pre-industrial Europe, (Ashgate, 2009),pp.61-80 [19] Mark, Hailwood,'It puts good reason into brains: Popular Understandings of the Effects of Alcohol in Seventeenth-Century England,Brewery History,150 (2013),p.14 [20] Peter, Clark, The Mother Gin Controversy in the Early Eighteenth Century, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,vol.38 (1988),p.68 [21] Wilson in Jonathan, White, The slow but sure Poyson: The Representation of Gin and its Drinkers,1736-1751, Journal of British Studies,42:1(2003),p.46 [22] Clark, Mother Gin,pp.74-75 [23] Ibid.,p.72 [24] Maddox in White, The Representation,p.59-63 [25] Nicholls, The Politics,p.40 [26] Hogarth, Gin Lane, (1751) [27] Hogarth, Beer Street and Gin Lane (1751)
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
jurassic park :: essays research papers
Iteration Seven & Epilogue Summary      Malcolm and Hammond engage in an argument. Hammond is relieved that the animals did not get free and overrun the world. Malcolm says that the world cannot be destroyed. It will always survive whatever disasters take place. The park seem finally to have been brought under control. There are now fewer animals, because some have been killed by other animals. Since the fences were down for so long, all the animals have mingled. Grant and Muldoon decide to search for the animal nests, especially the raptor nests. They have to account for every animal born on the island before they let the Costa Rican National Guard destroy the entire place. Grant explains the mystery of how the dinosaurs were able to breed. Under certain conditions frogs can change sex, and the dinosaurs all have frog DNA.      Malcolm is going into a coma, and Hammond blames everyones else for the failures of the park. Hammond is met by a juvenile tyrannosaur. He tries to run away, but falls down in a stream. It appears that he broke his ankle. Ellie and Gennaro join grant in the dinosaur nest and hide behind some boxes. They see two adult raptors and some babies. Grant concludes that there are thirty-four raptors have been born. Ellie notices theat when the raptors stand still they all face a certain direction. She thinks that it is some kind of ritual. Grant thinks that it is a form of communication.      Hammond tries to climb the hill. He is tired, dizzy, and in pain. He sees some compys approaching. He tries throwing rocks at them to ward them off, which only works for a while. The compys soon attack him, poisoning him with their bites. Hammond feels relaxed and peaceful when he dies. Grant and the others watch the raptors on the edge of a swamp, near the beach that looks out onto the Pacific Ocean. They are all lined up together, starring south. A ship appears from the south and the animals watch it. Grant observes how they all behave as a group, and decides that they are organized around a matriarchal pecking order. He concludes that they are starring at the ocean because they want to migrate.      Grant, Ellie and Gennaro are picked up by a helicopter.
Monday, September 2, 2019
An Explication of The Garden of Love :: Garden of Love Essays
An Explication of The Garden of Love     My original interpretation of "The Garden of Love" encompassed the speaker as a person who was scared to move on in their life and in love. I thought (he) was afraid of failure, afraid of losing childhood innocence in the wake of adulthood decisions and expectations. I funneled my theory into a neat little package that contained the Chapel as a symbol for marriage (or adult themes), and the Garden to stand for his life, or thoughts. I further belabored my opinion and interpretation.  After long deliberation with the writings of Blake 'experts,' I have conceded to concur with their interpretations of "The Garden of Love," and therefore: According to Ostriker, Blake "celebrates sexuality and attacks repression" (156). I agree that his attack on repression is apparent in this poem, in that Blake seems to want the speaker, and the readers, to take a chance on life, love, or sex. Whatever the convention of each individual, Blake wants us to not be afraid to go against the conventional. Yet the speaker in "The Garden of Love" is constrained to move forward with his own decisions, probably restricted by the strict conventions of the Church. The priests follow suit as a reminder of 'conventional holiness.'  Blake has often ridiculed the Church, and it seems as though he uses "The Garden of Love" to display the affects of the Church's manipulation on youth. Regarding the two youngsters kneeled behind the priest, Kauvar explains, "The bowed figures reveal the presence of Urizenic (def. Reason - mine) repression and morality, for instead of embracing, the youths kneel submissively behind the priest" (60). As I grasped in my first response to this poem, Blake's 'Garden' represents new growth and childhood innocence. Kauvar continues that thought with the opposite side, "but in Experience he sees nature dying and the graveyard supplanting the garden" (60).  It seems to me that Blake was highly disturbed with the manipulating effects placed on the public by the Church. I think he believed the public was mislead by the Church and its expectations, and further, believed their lives were governed as such. Pagliaro continues with the mention of, ".
Wedding in Saudi Arabia
In Saudi Arabia, wedding marks the beginning of a new life. Men and women who decide to get married will throw out their old clothing and buy new ones (Wedding Customs). They attribute new life by means of having new properties and things. Marriage is also sacred and calling the couple bride and groom is a very common way. The best way to call them is by looking upon them as man and wife. Choosing a spouse in Saudi Arabia is never easy before. The tradition of arranged marriage was a big issue for the Arabs (Monger 11). The most common basis of choosing the best spouse is by examining the wealth of the family and how powerful they are in the society. Tribal alliances are also another basis for the marriage that’s why there are instances when a man is married to his first cousin (Monger 11). At present, this tradition is still followed but the good thing is that brides are now allowed to choose their potential mates. The basis for their choice should be the properties and assets that the man could provide her as they establish their own family (Wells 171). Marital foundation in Saudi Arabia is often based on the Sharia law or on what is written in the Quran (Robertson). Cultural barriers can be solved if the couple is really willing to pay tribute to the culture of Saudi Arabia. Despite of the many changes in customs and traditions in marriage, women in Saudi Arabia are strictly prohibited to marry men who are not Arabs. They are only permitted to marry a non-Arab once they are given consent by the King. â€Å"This holds true if the Arab is not a citizen of a country belonging to the Gulf Cooperation Council†(Robertson). Westerners are qualified to marry an Arab woman only if they came from rich families and who will decide to live outside the country right after their wedding. In the case of marrying a male Arab, a woman should ready herself to submit her life not only to her husband but to his gamily as well. â€Å"Parents of the husband to be have a huge amount of influence over the couple†(Robertson). Dating is not part of the culture in Saudi Arabia; most couples are based on the choice of the bride’s mother (Monger 11). She will decide if a man is the best match for her daughter. There are also instances when matchmakers are paid to find the perfect husband for a female Arab. A woman must also marry for the sake of her welfare and safety (Kavanwal). Female are well treasured in the culture of Saudi Arabia, the men around them should look after them and give all their needs which includes clothing, food, shelter and protection (Robertson). â€Å"Caring for a woman becomes burdensome, and traditionally, women are married as soon as possible†(Kavanwal), Saudi women marry much younger than expected. If a 10 year old girl gets married, it is not a big deal for her family as long as the groom is capable of providing all her needs (Wells 171). The most common age for a Saudi woman to get married is between the age of 16 to 18 while the groom is between 16-20. There is such a thing as polygamous households where a young bride will end up as a junior wife because she married a much older man (Wells 172). For those who marry more than one wife, the traditional view is because they wanted to have more children and in order to satisfy the sexual needs of husbands. In this fast changing world, the western part of the world greatly influenced the people of Saudi Arabia. Arabs are now open to international influence like making oil sales and reinventing the wedding tradition with a different twist. Marriage has become more expensive and detailed based on the preference of the couple. For wealthy families, wedding is frenzy in Saudi Arabia. Women will begin competing for attention because they are adorned with splendid accessories which are mostly expensive (Wells 172). A traditional wedding in Saudi Arabia is always accompanied by an engagement party. This is celebrated by means of introducing the bride and the groom to each other. The bride to be is expected to be as beautiful as possible. Her hair is arranged like a camel’s hump and is piled up. Her skin is painted white, her eyes painted with black circles and her nails manicured to perfection (Kavanwal). She sits on a table and waits for her groom and the groom’s family like a figurine on display. There are rare instances wherein a bride is allowed to speak over the meal and decides if she wants to marry the groom chosen by her family. Once an agreement is made, the detail of the wedding will be discussed by both parties including the contract, the dowry and what should be done with the properties once the couples decides to divorce (Wells, 172). The dowry or mahr in Islamic language is paid by the groom to the bride’s family as a sign of good intention for his wife to be. In the earlier times, it is paid by means of camels, sheep or goats but at present the dowry is paid by means of money in Riyal currency (Monger 105). The amount of dowry depends on the social status of the family of the bride. The more influential the family, the higher is the dowry to be paid. Court registry is now part of the marriage in Saudi Arabia. A contract is based on the negotiation of the groom and a male representative from the bride’s family. A witness will attest the validity of the contract under the Sharia law. After the document is signed, the marriage is considered valid and binding. The marriage contract can also include prenuptial agreements like children custodies, divorce, and permission of wife to travel outside the country and if marriage should be terminated in case the husband dies (Wells 172). Sahria Law allows male Arabs to marry up to four wives (Kavanwal). But he must assure the family of the wife that he can support everything and provide a good life to all of his wives and children. Now that the modern period is costly, more and more Saudi men prefer marrying 1 wife only. The cost of getting married is never easy because it includes many things and practices (Kavanwal). Signing the marriage contract in the court is not the only basis of marriage in Saudi. It should be incorporated by a henna party where the wedding events are held for the bride and another party for the groom (Robertson). Henna parties are intended for the bride only (Monger 150). It is usually done before the wedding and a sugaring is done where all body hairs are removed from the bride. There are also instances where female circumcision is done during henna parties. If the sugaring was not able to remove all the hair from the bride’s body, the groom has the right to divorce her because this is a sign of dishonoring and displeasing him (Kavanwal). The groom on his wedding night will wear white colored clothes and covers himself with a Bisht (Wedding Customs). The bride on the other hand wears an abaya that covers her hair (Kavanwal). The bride wears a long white gown while the bridesmaids are dressed in red which signifies youth and virginity. Guests are all female and the only male present is the groom (Wells 172). The wedding also includes the gift ceremony where the groom gives his offering to the bride which is usually a piece of jewelry that is equivalent to the price of the dowry. The celebration of the wedding is based on the generosity of the groom and his family. Meanwhile the gentlemen and other male relatives are gathered in one room as they sip coffee of tea (Wells172). After the wedding rites, the groom will pay respect to his relatives as he comes with his father and sits with them to drink some coffee before they leave (Robertson). The same thing goes with the bride who will come with her mother and also drink with her relatives. The said ritual is done to release the stress of the newly weds (Wedding Customs). This will ensure them that their new life will be free of any struggles and be well prepared in facing the new life. In most cities of Saudi Arabia, wedding should be celebrated very well by letting other people know that a special event is going on. This is done by the bridegroom and his friends who will go to the party hall which is usually located near the groom’s house. His friend on the other hand will take their cars and honk its horns while flashing the headlights so that neighbors and other people will know that a wedding party is being held (Wedding Customs). Cake cutting is also present in the wedding culture of Saudi Arabia. The said ceremony is the symbolic representation of how couples will look after each other (Wedding Customs). Marriage marks the beginning of a more intimate relationship between the bride and the groom because they are expected to take care of one another. The cake cutting ceremony is done by the bride and the groom who walks towards the table where their wedding cake is placed (Robertson). The guest gives way for them and with astonishment they will witness how the bride gets his bride’s hand and they will hold the knife together. They will cut a small portion of the cake and the groom will take a piece of the cake and allow his bride to take a bit of the piece (Monger 49). The bride will also do the same thing as she holds another piece and let her groom eat it. After the cake ceremony, the crowd will start rejoicing for them (Monger 49). Marriage customs in Saudi Arabia also includes the part where the bride and groom goes to their wedding tent or most commonly known as the honeymoon. If the groom is not capable of paying his own apartment, he has the alternative to take his wife and live with his parents. The house of the newly weds are comprised of the groom’s siblings and other relatives. Nevertheless, male and female are segregated as much as possible even at home (Kavanwal). Marriage under the culture of Saudi Arabia is quite complicated especially if the woman is not an Arab. Living with the groom is often associated with the fact that the woman will also live with families and relatives of the male Arab. Extended family is a typical scenario in Saudi Arabia. Since women are not allowed to socialize with men, the only circle of friends of the wife will be those who are related to her husband like his relatives for example (Robertson). This becomes a problem for foreigners who are married to male Arabs especially if they are not familiar with the language of Saudi Arabia. Females are not allowed to go out, drive and take public transportation if they are not accompanied by relatives or their children (Robertson). The goal of marriage in Saudi Arabia is to establish a family that is stable and happy (Wells 172). Although there are lots of expectations from the family of the bride and groom, husband and wife also struggle to meet their romantic fulfillment. The most vital factor in their marriage is financial stability and social standing. This is the main reason why most marriages in Saudi are prearranged and marrying one’s cousin is common. Being aware of each other’s family background will ensure that the risk of having bad family life is avoided.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Media and Democracy Essay
In 1990, the Americans faced a situation that badly calls for their attention. An all out war against Saddam Hussein and the country he governs named Iraq was the argument being raised by the Bush Administration to his people. The administration needs the support of the public and it is when they decided to make propagandas that may affect the decisions of the people. While sensationalizing news and even opinions about wars and things connected to these acts, people are drawn closer into being deceived and this news may cause them conflicts in developing their own side of the story. Furthermore, with the use of media, journalism and press releases, a major impact is formed that can affect the opinion of the public or the majority which can somehow be very threatening to the outcome, conclusion or result of the battle and the cause being fought for by both sides. During the Gulf War that lasted from 1990 to 1991, media, propagandas and press releases played a big role in forming the opinion of the people of the United States of America about the suggested war against Iraq proposed by the Bush Administration which resulted to an attack against Saddam Hussein and Iraq in a wider, different picture. Related Literature Before finally opening the discussion about the media censorship during the Gulf War, how about we first talk about the group, people and terms involved in the whole sharing of ideas and construction of a this research. War as the key topic that will connect media, public and the incident together will allow us to understand how important the participation of media during the Gulf War years was to the United States of America and at the same time, how it affected the both Iraq and Kuwait. War Defined A three-letter word that can change the whole story of our entire history, war is more like a problem, a conflict made to destroy not just places but also human lives. It is commonly described as a dangerous act and a conflict that would mostly cause problems and loss of human lives. However, the word â€Å"War†is a term that serves various meanings and uses. It could be a figure of speech which creates an allusion to serious strife, campaigns and even struggles. In so many ways, the word, vague as it is can be is used in identifying a certain issue or incident like â€Å"war on terrorism†, â€Å"class wars†and other occurrences that could definitely be understood easily with the presence of the word â€Å"war†. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary, War is defined as (1)’ a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations’, (2) ‘a period of such armed conflict’, and (3) ‘State of War which corresponds to the art or science of warfare like the weapons, equipment used in war, soldiers and equipped soldiers ready for the war’ . It is also the ‘struggle or the competition between opposing forces or for a particular end’. Although the word is used in many ways, the usual aim of war is to ‘overthrow the enemy’ which ‘does not always imply the complete conquest of the enemy’s country’. Media Defined There had been several definitions of media. People refer to means or medium of communication as media too. Talking in general, it ‘refers to various means of communication’ which stands for ‘television, newspaper and radio’. At the same time, Media is also a ‘collective noun for the press or news reporting agencies’. The same definition of media as a term is also used by Paul Hawken in his book to characterize the word. While this author mentioned the same purpose of media which is to identify the medium and tools used for communication, he also insisted that media ‘is a term that also applies to those people whose profession it is to discover, report and communicate information and news to the public’. Furthermore, we now understand that media is a term used to describe both the medium used in communication and the people who we also call press. They serve as our ears and eyes about what is happening in our surroundings. Through their news, reports and discoveries, we learn from them the truth and the reality. However, the role of media although is very essential in the lives of the people, in the existence of humanity and truth can also be misused and mislead us from the certainties. History of Gulf War It is said that the Gulf War, also referred to as the Second Gulf War is unique compared to other wars happened in the history of this century, probably in the rest of human race account and existence. In so many ways, this war has several features that make it different from other armed conflicts in the whole world. Compared to the Second World War and Vietnam War, there had been several, much more bombs thrown to the enemy country than the amount of explosives used to destroy Vietnam. Also, the treatment of media towards the incident is more intense compared to how they reported their coverage during the World War II and the War in Vietnam. On the second day of August in 1990, Iraq made a move to invade Kuwait. Kuwait, a small democratic country rich in oil and produces the needed amount of the United States of America. This incident of 1990 is not the first in the history of Kuwait. It was the third conflict between Iraq and Kuwait in just one century. The first one was in July 1897 and the second one was in June 1961. Aside from these two, there is also a semi-crisis between the two countries which happened in March 1939. These account of events show that the two countries had been rivals for a long time already and the conflict between them only grows bigger as the years pass by. The Complaints of Iraq According to Suzanne Murdico, there are three complaints that Iraq issued over its neighboring country which is Kuwait. Although some of the complaints of Iraq over Kuwait concerns the past events wherein both countries were involved. One among the several disputes was the money that Iraq borrowed from Kuwait which was used as payment for the Iran-Iraq War. Secondly dispute is concerned with the oil being produced by Kuwait. Since Kuwait, though small country can produce oil that is demanded by the oil market which even angered Saddam Hussein and accused them of producing oil more than the allowed amount as stated by Organization of Petroleum Exporting. The third dispute is about the border between the Iraq and Kuwait territories wherein there is enormous oil. The disputes between Kuwait and Iraq became the same reasons why the latter invaded Kuwait. In June 8, 1991, a victory parade was held in Washington. After almost a year of conflict, the United States of America was able to â€Å"save†Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Media Coverage of the Gulf War As Dilip Hiro said in his book â€Å"Desert Shield to Desert Storm†the Gulf War had its share of popularity. Media coverage during the Persian Gulf War or the Second Gulf War can never be compared to the exposure given to World War II and Vietnam War. Censorship Media and People Media and the Gulf War Censorship during the Gulf War Western coverage of the Gulf War Demonizing Saddam Hussein Saddam Hussein had been an ally of the United States of America for almost a decade before the former invaded Kuwait, an oil producing country which supplies the U. S. within eight years, Hussein, a dictator was able to kill 150,000 Iranians and around 13,000 Iraqis. There had been complaints coming from international human rights group about these killings but being an ally of both Reagan and Bush, he was not given enough attention for punishment. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, April Glaspie, Ambassador of the United States of America asked the media to allow the appearance of Hussein in television even for a few minutes. In this case, Hussein will have the chance to explain himself and also Iraq to the public. These words of the Ambassador served as a hint for Hussein that U. S. sympathizes with him and Iraq. He thought that if he will invade Kuwait, U. S. will not see it as a crime. However, the Bush Administration thought that Hussein’s crime is serious and it is not just killing refugees but it threatens the oil supply already. In 1979, Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s new leader took his post and changed the story of their country. A man with sheer desire for wealth and power, Fiske’s Argument Conclusion Incidents happen for a reason. Nothing exists without its motives and everything; all things in life have its purpose. At first we may find it absurd, crazy and foolish but in the end, what happened will be the biggest story we would want to uncover for the truth. War is a very huge word made by people dominating the entire world. While some people and probably most of the people prefer to have peace in the world rather than endless bloodsheds everywhere, others, especially those who have personal biases and some individual agendas over certain things that concern themselves and some other people existing in their world. Although the word is used in different situations and contains diverse meaning, war is still a word that is very dangerous to the innocent ones. In 1990, media and war finally met to destroy innocent lives and at the same time to hate each other. A story of destroying a nation and manipulating the emotions, feelings and opinion of the greater majority, the gulf war of 1990 was one of the tragic stories for the exercise of freedom of speech. In times of war and conflict between two opposing parties, the opinion of the people involved is very important that it may either serve as a better result or it may complicate things more. One of the most helpful tools in telling the truth, probably the mirror of reality is the media. However, Media and War became best of friends in some cases that together, these two may promote a fight worth dying for or may destroy lives of innocent people. Their companionship most of the time does not mean that they do help each other but because with the use of media, one side of the face of the war will win. Persuasion and propagandas helped a lot in promoting the means that the opposing parties were fighting for. In so many ways, media was both a tool in persuading the people of the United States of America to go in the war with Bush towards Saddam Hussein and at the same time was a battered medium of communication, a means that was used to tell a lie and to mandate what the people should feel. Bibliography Atkinson, Rick. Crusade the Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1993 Center for Media and Democracy. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, Chapter 10: How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf. Retrieved January 19, 2009 from http://www. prwatch. org/books/tsigfy10. html Clausewitz, C. , Graham, J. , Natusch, F. , and Willmot, L. On War. Wordsworth Edition. 1997, page 351. Dinstein, Yoram. War, Aggression and Self-defence 4th Edition. Cambridge University Press. 2005, page 3. Hawken, Paul. Blessed Unrest. Viking. 2007, page 267. Hiro, Dilip. Deset Shield to Desert Storm. iUniverse, 2003, page 4 Media. In TechTerms. com, Retrieved January 19, 2009 from http://www. techterms. com/definition/media Murdico, Suzanne J. The Gulf War. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004, page 11. War. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/war
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)