The Bravest of Individuals Is One Who Obeys His or Her...

The bravest of individuals is one who obeys his or her conscience, was once stated by J.F Clarke, when this quote is broken down one may notice the amount of truth behind it. J.F Clarke s interpretation of braveness and conclusion on the topic of obeying their conscience is rather intelligent due to the belief of inner senses of what is right or wrong will lead to the right choices in life. Two examples of literature that strongly support this quote can be found in Of Mice And Men by John Steinbeck, as well as The Crucible by Arthur Miller. The use of literary elements, such as rising action, dramatic irony, mood and foreshadowing. In Arthur Miller s, The Crucible, John Proctor is faced with a life or death situation. Even†¦show more content†¦In this work of literature, George Milton s faced with a situation of what is right and wrong and which inner sense to listen to. George s long time friend and mentally handicapped friend Lennie Smalls has just killed Curley s wife, inside of a barnyard accidentally. Lennie attempts to run away from the whole situation, but George knows exactly where he will be, and that is at the exact spot he told him to go to if there was trouble. As George arrives at the river Lennie was instructed to go to, George realizes he has a great problem, should he kill his long time best friend and save him from the swarming angry mob of ranchers, or turn him in and let them have there way. As George s inner senses battle, he realizes what he must do and that is to put Lennie out of his misery and self entrapment and set him free once and for all. George makes Lennies death qu ick and painless as any good friend would, but he can not seem to shake the sense of guilt and anguish he is experiencing. As George lovingly kills Lennie he portrays his bravery and sense of what is right and wrong all by listening to what his inner senses and consciousness led him towards. John Steinbecks use of literary terms enhances the sense of bravery and drama that this scene of a friend killing another brings. The mood that John Steinbeck sets for George s attitude towards Lennie isShow MoreRelatedBravery in The Catcher in the Rye Essay593 Words   |  3 PagesSalinger’s novel. Author J.F Clarke’s quote, â€Å"The bravest of individuals is one who obeys his/her conscience† can be looked upon in many ways. It also relates to J. D. Salinger’s novel Catcher in the Rye. The protagonist Holden Caulfield shows a lot of bravery during the course of the novel. I disagree with the quote, but I do agree that there are many references that are similar between J.F. Clarke’s quote and J. D. Salinger’s novel. Conscience is described as the awareness of a moral or ethicalRead MoreKill A Mockingbird By Harper Lee1389 Words   |  6 PagesJ.F. Clarke once said The bravest of individuals is the one who obeys his or her conscience. This quote means that standing up for what is right is the most profound form of bravery. Obeying one’s conscience is most difficult and requires the most bravery when others are against you, disagree, and mock or even threaten violence because of the exercise of one’s conscience. This quote is proven true in the story To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee. It is revealed to be true through the actions

Indians and Europeans shape the different colonies Free Essays

It has been more than five centuries since Christopher Columbus reached the Americas. We know a great deal about Columbus, of course, and about the Europeans and Africans who crossed the Atlantic after him. We know much less about the â€Å"Indians. We will write a custom essay sample on Indians and Europeans shape the different colonies or any similar topic only for you Order Now † as Columbus mistakenly called them?the people already living in America. But we are learning more all the time, so I want to talk about early contacts between Native Americans and newcomers. We now estimate that as many as seven million people were living in North America 500 years ago, and that their ancestors had been on this continent for at least thirteen thousand years. For all this time?hundreds of generations?they had remained isolated from Asia and Africa and Europe, building their own separate world. Over many centuries, these first North Americans developed diverse cultures that were as varied as the landscapes they lived in. And they developed hundreds of different languages. Looking back, what can we say about early encounters between these diverse Native Americans and the strange newcomers who arrived from across the ocean? Let me give you a few things to think about. Remember, first of all, that these Minimal contacts stretched over the entire continent and occurred over several centuries. The encounters were nearly as varied as the people involved. But key issues such as language, belief, technology, and disease arose regularly in different times and places. We may never know exactly about the first contacts from overseas. Long before Columbus, occasional boats may have arrived across the North Pacific from Asia, or across the Atlantic from Africa or Europe. They may have sailed intentionally or drifted by mistake. But such encounters were brief. So was the encounter with Norse Vikings. They visited Newfoundland in Canada about 1,000 years ago?nearly 500 years before Columbus. Their little colony of 160 people was short-lived. We know from sagas (family stories passed down orally across generations) that local Inhabitants attacked the Norse settlers, forcing them to retreat to Greenland after several years. In contrast, the newcomers who followed Columbus after 1492 proved far more numerous and more willing to stay. Though few In numbers at first, these European strangers brought supplies and then enforcements from across the sea. Now, imagine that you are one of those newcomers, approaching my small portion of North America for the first time. As Native American, I have diverse friends and enemies living all around me, and because I engage in trade I am used to encounters with strangers who do not speak my language. But you are different in various ways, and I have probably already heard rumors about you?some true and some false? from neighbors who have seen your ships. And believe me, your ships are a big surprise. My people live near the ocean, and we understand boats. But when we addle out to observe you, we are Impressed by the size of your ship, with Its tall masts. On the East Coast, I greet you from a birch-bark canoe or a dugout canoe. Indians are small. If you enter Upset Sound, the cypress canoes of the Northwest Coast Indians are much larger. Maybe you are Russian fur-hunters reaching Alaska. If so, you are amazed at my light, quick kayak. If you are the English explorer James Cook approaching Hawaii for the first time, you are struck to see our outrigger canoes and surf boards. One way or another, we can push off from the beach or the river mouth and visit your ocean-going vessel. But it is strange for us; you needed iron tools to create this ship, huge sheets of cloth to make it sail, and navigational charts to find your way. We have none of these. On the other hand, you are totally ignorant of our home waters. It is no secret that along Florist’s coast and North Carolina’s Outer Banks, Native Americans often found European shipwrecks. We Indians know ?and we may be willing to tell you?which anchoring spots give protection from storms. We know the local streams and which house sites might flood in springtime. We know where there is fresh water?which you probably need after weeks at sea? ND we know sources of food for every time of year. The Indians in New England, watching the Pilgrims starve at Plymouth, showed them how to locate clams in the mudflats at low tide, how to trap fish, how to plant corn, and how to hunt strange, tasty birds called turkeys. But not all first encounters occurred near the coast. Before the middle of the sixteenth century, Spanish explorers were marching inland so far and so fast that rumors of their arrival scarcely had time to precede them. In the 1 sass, Native peoples living in the Carolinas, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas ere surprised by the fierce invasion of Despot and his army. At the same time, Indians further west on the Great Plains experienced the sudden arrival of Coronal’s force, traveling from New Mexico on horseback in search of sudden wealth. In these two instances, and in many later confrontations, Europeans reacted at first with disappointment, frustration, and violence. The new environment seemed strange and dangerous; local people did not fit European hopes and expectations. For Native Americans, the most serious outcome of initial encounters, whether near he ocean or far inland, was the arrival of contagious diseases?unfamiliar sicknesses that they had never experienced. Again and again, foreign newcomers brought deadly illnesses with them. Three hundred years would elapse between the early Spanish explorations and the forced removal of Native Americans from much of the expanding United States in the asses. That is a huge stretch of time, and the encounters between Indians and non-landing varied widely across those three centuries. Gradually, especially in the East, Non-landing gained the upper hand in terms of sheer numbers. Some general estimates regarding the southeast, from Virginia to East Texas, illustrate this point. In 1700, four out of five persons in the entire region were Indians. But by 1800, Indian numbers had declined and the European and African population had risen so fast that scarcely one person in thirty was a Native American. If sickness and death moved unevenly in one direction, from non-landing to Indian, Christianity moved in the same direction. Many of the earliest encounters involved missionaries, both Catholic and Protestant, who worked energetically to convert Native Americans to their Christian faith. In New England, the Reverend John Eliot spent years translating the Bible into the Massachusetts language, and in 1663 he printed 1000 copies to be used by converts known as efforts often met with fierce resistance. In the Southwest, Catholic priests and missionaries accompanied the earliest Spanish settlers in New Mexico, and efforts began around 1600 to suppress the Pueblo religion with harsh punishments. But Pueblo leaders fought back. In the successful â€Å"Pueblo Revolt† of 1680, Indian rebels expelled the Spanish colonizers. The Pueblos attacked missionaries, burned churches, and punished Christian converts. While the Christian religion and the strange new diseases moved in one direction, education and trade moved in two directions. Let’s take education first. Europeans were a literate society; many could write letters and read books. In America they began to share this powerful tool through schools. In the seventeenth century, Harvard build a separate Indian college on its campus. In the eighteenth century, Dartmouth College in New Hampshire emphasized Native American education, at least for a few. But at the same time, Indians who understood the American land and the natural world offered education to the newcomers. They were constantly explaining matters of geography, climate, and food. They knew when to plant and harvest crops, when fish were plentiful in certain streams, when the abundant oak trees dropped their acorns. Then knew which plants were edible, and how to track game. Gradually they shared their knowledge with newcomers. In Louisiana, white settlers often sent a young son to live among the local Indians to learn their language and pave the way for future trade. Trading, like education, was a two-way street. From the start, Europeans were scouring the land for items they could ship home and sell at a profit. Precious metals or spices would be best, but they saw few signs of these items. What they found instead was fur. In the Southeast, the soft hides of whitetail deer could be scraped and packed and shipped to Europe to make aprons and gloves. In New England and Canada, the pelts of beaver could be sent across the Atlantic to hat makers for the creation of fashionable beaver hats. Along the Northwest Coast, Russian traders obtained the valuable pelts of sea otters, which they could trade to the Chinese for spices and tea. More often than not, it was the Native Americans who hunted the animals and processed the pelts for shipment abroad. But if people in Europe and Asia were eager for North American furs of all sorts, Native Americans were equally eager for unfamiliar trade items from Europe. Indians exchanged hides and pelts for woolen blankets and coats, yards of cloth and ribbons, supplies of buttons, beads, and thread. Metal items of all kinds represented new and dramatic improvements in a world where utensils were shaped slowly from wood and rocks and clay. Metal knives and needles had obvious appeal. Metal pots, though heavy, were more durable and more versatile than clay pots. Besides, if they were poorly made and sprung leaks, they could be broken into pieces to be shaped into sharp arrowheads. When Dutch traders moved up the Hudson River to barter with the Indians for furs, the Mohawk called them â€Å"Kristin,† meaning â€Å"metal makers. Iron axes and hatchets were especially desirable. Native Americans knew how to kill trees by peeling off layers of bark. They could fell them by slowly burning away the base. But a durable metal axe made it possible to shape wood rapidly, whether building a house, carving a totem pole, or hollowing a dugout canoe. Various kinds of rum and spirits also figured early and often in the trade. Hard liquor gave European traders an person consuming alcohol also became less alert?more subject to an unfair trade or a robbery. Two other unfamiliar items?the gun and the horse?swept across North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth century as a result of trade between Indians and non-landing. Laws passed in Spain prohibited Spanish colonists in the Southwest from trading guns to Indians. So guns moved steadily westward instead, purchased from the French and Dutch and English in the East. Once a tribe acquired guns through the fur trade, neighboring tribes worked desperately to acquire similar weapons, or else they risked being defeated in war or outdone as hunters and fur traders. The horse, reintroduced into North America by the Spanish in the Southwest, moved in the opposite direction, After the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, horses spread north and east across the Great Plains?traded from one nation to another, or stolen in order to gain new mobility and power. A map shows clearly how the horse frontier and the gun frontier pushed in opposite directions. During the 18th century, tribes such as the Sioux on the Northern Plains and the Comanche on the Southern Plains gained access to both guns and horses, giving their cultures great power. For a long time, these complex exchanges proved mutually beneficial. Both Indians and non- Indians felt they were gaining valuable benefits from trade. But eventually, major changes undercut and ended this beneficial and agreeable trade. For one thing, the non-landing population continued to grow, while the Indian numbers declined sharply as a result of warfare and disease. But even more importantly, European newcomers sired Indian land even more than they wanted peaceful trade. Soon, land itself became an item of trade, and land that could not be bought was taken by force. Gradually, we are learning more about early contacts between Indians and non- Indians, and the way these relationships changed over time. The contacts were numerous and varied. They took a different shape in every part of the continent, depending upon which Indian cultures lived there and which foreigners first invaded their land. At first, these contacts were often mutually beneficial, as strangers learned from, and traded with, one another. But later, sickness, warfare, and crushing demands for land changed these connections. Contacts became more lopsided and destructive, through long chapters of our history. So, from now on, I hope that any time you see a horse or a rifle or a metal pot or a colorful ribbon you will think about these early contacts between Native Americans who had lived here for untold generations and newcomers who have been here scarcely five centuries. After all, these varied connections are a rich and forgotten part of our shared heritage here in North America. Thanks for Joining me. How to cite Indians and Europeans shape the different colonies, Papers

Communitarianism vs. cosmopolitanism Essay Example For Students

Communitarianism vs. cosmopolitanism Essay What are the differences between cosmopolitan and communitarian approaches to global politics? S) A P d x d AAT$ AA TA $ AA When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianismA. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which al l states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just.S A @ A A Aa 0 t Na T| $ AAc Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A 8 T $ AA S A @ A A T $ AA S A @ A A T $ AAA Communitarianism says that communities themselves define what rightful conduct is, and therefore should not be obliged to follow any universal moral code. Morality arises from the culture that makes up the community, and therefore determines what is right for that community, whether it is or not for anyone else. Communitarians say that there cannot be a universal moral standard because where would these standards come from? Who would decide what is right and wrong? However, the argument communitarianism can be turned against it if these communities are nation-states. It is only the predominant culture that will determine what the moral standards of the community are. Cosmopolitans argue that there should be a universal moral standard to which every community must abide. They allow for state autonomy, but only to an extent. States must not be able to be completely self-determined and free from moral obligations to the rest of the international community. But this raises significant questions. Can a universal moral standard exist? And how can it apply to all states? While cosmopolitanism allows for some state autonomy, the moral standard would mean that some states would be favoured in terms of how much they have to conform. For example, in western countries stoning someone to death is barbaric, but while in other more traditional or religious states this is part of their culture. The Sharia Law of Iran actually specifies that the stones thrown should not be so large that the victim dies after a few strikesA yet be big enough to cause serious injury. It is communitarianism that allows this to be law, while cosmopolitanism often seeks to inte rvene in cases such as this. Who is to decide which course of action is more correct? S A @ A A A 8 : H A 8 a A Arial A 8 a * AA 0 A NA TA $ AAQ Unknown, Woman Stoned to Death in APS Diplomat Recorder, vol. 55 July 14, 2001 S$ A A d A @ A . A 8$ A 8 Q Arial A 8 $ Q A 8 $ 9 A 8$ 9 A 8 ; BA 8 1 AT $ AA S A @ A A TA $ AAA Cosmopolitanism is most commonly identified with human rights because of this doctrine of a universal moral standard. It is in favour of humanitarian intervention, whereas communitarianism frowns upon intervention of any kind. State autonomy and self-determinism rate above all else. Both of these approaches have their flaws, however on the surface it does seem that a cosmopolitan system favours individual rights. But then, who is to say this is what is most important?S A @ A A T $ AA S A @ A A T $ AAA Cosmopolitanism seems more sophisticated in that it allows for the fact that states have basically been determined by territorial boundaries. Indeed, liberal democracy p resupposed that national communities were based on the presupposition that political communities could control their destinies and citizens might act together with a view of the common goodA. Following from this, one cannot deny that because of the impact of globalisation, the collective fortunes of human communities have become intertwinedA. Therefore it does appear that cosmopolitanism is the more versatile theory in that it can allow for change and the adaptability of international relations.S A @ A A AA 0  NA TA $ AAA David Held. The Changing Contours of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalisation in Barry Holden (ed.) Global Democracy: Key Debates p. 18 A 8a A 8a A w AA z A+ 0 N T $ AA Ibid. T $ AA S A @ A A T $ AAA Communitarians stress the importance of culture and the difference between states, whereas cosmopolitanism leads to the homogenisation of communities. The main critique of cosmopolitanism in the communitarian view is that it does no t allow for cultural differences. Cosmopolitanism quite obviously also has its own problems with communitarianism. For example, the problem of self-determination is, as Geoffrey Robertson puts it, that is gives power to majorities and not minoritiesA. This is unavoidable in communitarianism, for it is not possible for each facet of a community to be represented and the moral standards cannot arise from every culture in a community. The self-determinism is based on geography, which allows for distinctions to be made between domestic and international politicsA. However because there is no way of telling whether or not this is the best way of defining communities, the theory of communitarianism appears fundamentally flawed. S A @ A A As 0 A Na TX $ AA1 Geoffrey Robertson. Crimes Against Humanity p.430A 8A 8+ AA 0 NE TA $ AAv David Held. The Changing Contours of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalisation p. 18A 8v T $ AA S A @ A A T: $ AA The clearest dis tinction between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism is that the former says normative theories of world politics should focus on either humanity as a whole or on individualsA, whereas the latter says their appropriate focus is the political community (the state)A. We can see hear clearly that significant debates cannot help but arise around these two intellectual movementsA. The core debates that do arise centre around three main issues: (as Chris Brown states) state autonomy, international justice and the ethics of the use of forceA. The cosmopolitan view is that states should only have a right to autonomy if it does not behave in a way that conflicts with the moral right of either humanity as a whole or of individualsA. In contrast, the communitarian line is that state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. S A @ A A Aa 0 A Na T| $ AAc Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A 8 A+ 0 N T $ AA Ibid. Aa 0 ANa T| $ AAc Chris Brown, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 480A 8 Aa 0 4 Na T| $ AAc Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A 8 A+ 0 A N T $ AA Ibid. T $ AA S A @ A A TA $ AAa Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism differ vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international relations. Cosmopolitanism holds the view that the rights of humanity and the individual should override those of the state (or political community), whereas communitarianism is the opposite. It states that the rights of the community are more important than those of the state. It is because of these fundamental differences that they deal with international relations in significantly different ways. However, both theories have thei r flaws and it seems that we can have neither a fully cosmopolitan or communitarian world political system.S A @ A A T$ AA T4 $ AABibliography:S AP A 8 .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 , .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .postImageUrl , .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 , .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104:hover , .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104:visited , .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104:active { border:0!important; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104:active , .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104 .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ue58bb1cf8f861e3464185e1aef0a8104:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Baca vs bradstreet Essay