September free essay sample

Referring to the German invasion in Poland in 1939, Auden writes while sitting in a bar in New York City, noting the actions of those around him: people continue to carry on their normal lives in spite of the horrors of war going on abroad. The message of September 1, 1939 is timeless. Although referring to an event more than seventy years ago, the poem gained popularity following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The poem is a criticism of multiple things in society at the time. Auden appeals to man to reflect on themes such how German history led to the outbreak of WWII, the democratic industrialized man, and human sins concluding with a message of hope: people need to overlook their boundaries and differences and recognize that we must love each other. The first two stanzas refer to the German invasion of Poland and other historical accounts of war that may have brought glory to countries, but many people suffered. We will write a custom essay sample on September or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In the first stanza the speaker has a obvious tone of sadness, which is very noticeable due to the use of words as â€Å"Uncertain, afraid, anger and fear†.In the second stanza the speaker makes a reference to Linz, which is the city where Hitler was born. Auden chooses the words â€Å"psychopathic god† to refer to Hitler, giving that it was his the decision to invade Poland. The last two sentences of the second stanza are: â€Å"The unmentionable odor of death Offends the September night. † Those two lines are a clear reference to the invasion. He uses the word â€Å"unmentionable† to express that the death and destruction was ignored by many, or at least a blind eye was turned to it.The lines also are easily applied to the recent September 11, 2001 attacks, in that many people were killed on a September night as well. The speaker doesn’t only criticize Hitler, but also the democratic industrialized man and the â€Å"American Imperialism†. The speaker claims that the air is neutral, meaning that it doesn’t belong to anybody. However, modern men built skyscrapers in order to show off their power. Auden states, â€Å"Out of the mirror they state. Imperialism’s face. †This suggests that industrialized countries, such as America, are imperialist and cloud people’s views of reality, also making them think they are better than those in other countries. This makes it easier for them to ignore what is going on in the world. Auden also makes a reference to Thucydides, who wrote that history should be remember by what actually happened instead by the glory of a country, meaning that a war does not have a winner, and we should remember the people that we lost instead of glorifying whoever wins.Over time, we forget about all the innocent lives lost and we remember the past in a patriotic way. As the poem continuous the speaker touches the aspects of sin. Talking about selfishness, the speaker claims that one of the problem of society is that men cannot share different values, and again, considers himself to be the most important. Auden writes, â€Å"Not universal love But to be loved alone. † Clearly the author is implying that people are selfish, giving up a universal love in order to fight for being loved alone.Because the poem is referring to the World War II, we can imagine that Auden feels the world has not responded well to Hitler’s takeover of Poland. He looks around at â€Å"face along the bar/Cling to their average day† and laments that people continue their lives as normal despite what has happened. It refers to the values of each country individually, meaning that no country wants universal love, which would be achieve if every country would respect each other values and beliefs.This is all a part of the attitude of imperialism which is an â€Å"international wrong. † The sin of humans is to think they are more important than others, allowing these events to happen. Surprisingly the poem ends with a positive message. The speaker talks about Eros, he Greek god of love, claiming that every man has a little of love inside themselves. While war and death are occurring and â€Å"our world in stupor lies† there are some people, â€Å"the Just† who recognize the evil and speak out against.What all these people have in common is that they realize they are all the time, that all over the world we suffer from the same problems. Auden states that all the people are, â€Å"Beleaguered by the same Negation and despair, Show an affirming flame. † The speaker is trying to express that regardless of what is happening, there are lights in the darkness, people who are willing to speak out and pass along the message of hope. Although there is war, there are people who speak out against it and voice reason, and have faith in humanity. eo

Heart of Redness Essays

Heart of Redness Essays Heart of Redness Essay Heart of Redness Essay 15 October 2013 Heart of Redness Paper The cattle killing movement in the 19th century has proven to be a complex topic, and it is difficult to unravel the different perspectives held about this historical event. Heart of Redness by Zakes Mda is a historical fiction novel, which portrays the different viewpoints held about the cattle killing, both while it was happening, and in the aftermath in almost present day, and portrays a lot of the personal feelings held about the cattle killing. The JAH Article, The Central Beliefs of the Cattle Killing, by Jeff Peires gives the different views on the cattle killing from the perspectives of istorians. In Heart of Redness, the tension between the Believers and the Unbelievers has built up immensely, and the historical reasons (and misbeliefs) behind the Believers and Unbelievers original views on the cattle-killing, as shown in the article, are important in analyzing the struggle for these two groups to cohesively live together. The Believers felt strongly that the cattle killing was necessary in order to purify the amaXhosa and allow for the ancestors to be resurrected and replenish their stock with new fields, and healthy cows. Peires states that a lot of historians pin he cattle killing movement on tradition. The amaXhosa practiced purifying themselves, and sacrificing before the lung sickness arose, but historians and anthropologists are mistaken in calling it traditional in any way. As Peires puts it, Whatever traditional patterns may have existed in Xhosaland before 1856, they certainly did not include mass destruction of basic subsistence needs or the expectation of an imminent resurrection of the dead (Peires, 44). The Believers would not have risked the lives of the entire community without truly believing that he ancestors would be resurrected. Peires mentions that the Xhosa believe that the dead are still walking among the living, but in a different form, so their resurrection is very plausible thought. This combined with the fact that people were devastated by the lung sickness in the cows, and the hope that they could be saved was very appeasing. They truly believed that this was the most effective way to ensure their prosperity. They also believed that witchcraft among the amaXhosa caused the lung sickness to contaminate the cattle. In Heart of Redness, Mhlakaza says The existing attle are rotten and unclean. They have been bewitched. They must all be destroyed. You have all been wicked, and therefore everything that belongs to you is bad (Mda, 54). The Believers thought that it was necessary to go through a cleansing stage in order to regain healthy cattle, because they thought the lung sickness was due to their bad behavior. Although killing all the cattle and burning the crops was extreme, and not very plausible, their reasoning behind the movement is spiritually based and Justifies their actions. On the other side of the spectrum, the Unbelievers efused to kill their cattle, because they did not believe that the ancestors would return with the slaughtered cattle, but that the cattle killing would cause the amaXhosa to be left even more devastated. They thought that the actions of the Bellevers were going to Tar. Atter lwln Klllea some 0T lwln- lwlns cattle ana trampled over his crops, he begins to burn the homesteads of the Unbelievers. Twin-Twin is outraged, and hid the rest of the cattle before the Believers killed all of them. After the First and Second Disappointments, the Believers began to fade in their trust in the cattle killing movement. This also gave the Unbelievers more reason to go against the cattle killing, and many people began to question the prophets. King Sarhili is especially wavering when he says, How can we trust these prophets when they fail to keep there word? Until the prophets keep their word I shall command that the slaughter of the cattle should stop (Mda, 130). The Unbelievers take this as a sign that the Believers are wrong in their position, and they end up siding with the colonizers on the issue of cattle killing. Although the cattle-killing movement as a whole was not plausible, a lot of the heories held by the colonists are even more incredulous. When the British governor says, This whole cattle-killing movement is not Just superstitious delusion. It is a plot by the two chiefs cold-blooded political scheme to involve the government in war, and to bring a host of desperate enemies on us, he implies that he thinks that the chiefs (Believers) are promoting the Cattle Killing for personal gain rather than communal gain through war (Mda, 135). Although the Cattle Killing movement itself was not as plausible a theory as the philosophy of those who did not participate, hese assumptions that the British were making about the Believers a re extreme. Not only is this fact portrayed in Heart of Redness, but Peires also states that this theory was a very commonly held belief among Governor Grey and the colonists. That being said, those who were spearheading the cattle-killing movement were not necessarily looking for war (although they believed that the ancestors would drive away enemies) but are looking for their ancestors to return with the prosperity (cattle and crops) of the amaXhosa, free of lung sickness. Peires states that after the first ailure of the prophecies, in August 1856, the believers seem to have reached the conclusion that they had erred in excluding the whites and the Christians, showing that the Believers were looking more for the well-being of the amaXhosa, rather than the downfall of the white settlers (Peires, 56). In Heart of Redness, this is portrayed when Mhlakaza invites the colonists to Join them in the cattle killing, so that they may experience redemption as well (Mda, 133). This clearly shows that the intentions of the Believers was to raise the lives the of amaXhosa, and not to start a war that would rive away the white settlers. Of course, the British refused to kill their cattle, and although this led to more tensions between the Believers and the colonists, the British ultimately decided to go with the more rational of the two sides. Both the novel and the article show that the cattle killing is a complex issue because it pits the spirituality of the amaXhosa against rational thought about depleting their already shrinking supplies. The lung sickness in the cattle brought many rifts into the Xhosa community, and the schism between the Believers and Unbelievers is still present in many current events today.

Does age effect performance in Distance Learning Classes Research Paper

Does age effect performance in Distance Learning Classes - Research Paper Example However, certain students’ characteristics presently have led to the emergence of numerous heated debates based on academic performances that entail intensive research. These embrace age, gender, ethnic background and student’s background. The aspects according to numerous personalities’ arguments raised, thus far, cite to have contributed to either failing or excelling of students among those undertaking distance learning especially age (Urtel, 2008). Opposing Perspectives (Pros and Cons) Arguments raised by some people and scholars like Urtel (2008), cite older students tend to perform better than younger people do academically when undertaking distance learning. This is because of their effective study skills that they have attained over the years, which is contrary to the young people (Urtel, 2008). Therefore, according to him age does not have any effect on performance when undertaking distance learning. Conversely, opposing arguments claim the young people because of growing up in a technological knowhow that is advancing by the day; they are proficient in using it almost in all aspects of their lives including learning (Bender, Smith & Project Muse, 2008). Hence, making them excel academically compared to the older students due to their heightened expertise in searching using internet while doing their respective researches. My stand My position is that age affects performance in these classes based on the aspect of technological knowhow. The younger students are more familiar with the technology and with online interactions than those who have advanced (30-40) in years. Therefore, they have heighted advantage in accessing unlimited and most recent pool of resourceful materials online when undertaking their researches. Hence, they spent less time when searching for certain information meant to complete their tasks throughout their respective courses compared to those who have older students. Since, the latter due to unfamiliarity wit h diverse resourceful forums online, majority of them become stuck almost in every attempt before becoming conversant with the system they are using. This is evident when using online libraries whereby the latter are usually conversant with physical libraries, which to date majority use to supplement their researches whereas the younger prefer fast internet libraries (Liu, 2008). This prompts younger people to excel because they solely rely on online information (mostly scholarly), which is current compared to what older students may get from their physical libraries. Since, the latter intensively use what they are proficient in to attain the required information, which is their physical library. Presently, online forums have increased young people’s interactions whereby they can share varied and essential information irrespective of their regions with the intention of aiding them excel in academics (Liu, 2008). This is evident with online libraries like Phoenix besides other social sites where they share tips on how to undertake varied studies or researches. This is hard to old students because they end up disregarding some forums citing they are busy or see the talk (between the young people while chatting) as insignificant. Through these forums and social sites, young people end up increasing their internet savvy expertise, which is essential in aiding them while undertaking distance courses. Since, they will not only be internet savvy but also attain useful information concerning their respective fields,

My Ethical System and Its Justification Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

My Ethical System and Its Justification - Essay Example Divine command is a system where actions are made in accordance with those of a higher being, God, who is all-knowing. In this paper, I describe the ethical system which I ascribe to. Personal Ethical System My ethical system is one by which I live and use to decide which actions are moral or ‘good’. In my opinion, what is good is what allows my conscience to be clear and also what results in the greater overall good. My ethical system can be said to be an adaptation of the utilitarian and virtue ethics. The utilitarian ethical system attempts to maintain a balance between pleasure and pain, and in fact, rules that all actions should result in overall good (Rainbow, 2011). According to Rainbow, (2011), in case the moral consequences of alternative actions are not great, the utilitarian theory does not consider the choice a moral issue. While I ascribe to generally acting for good, the utilitarian theory sometimes does not help in distinguishing certain situations which i n themselves are wrong, but do result in good. An example is ‘robbing the rich, to help the poor’; an act which is morally wrong, because while the rich man may not be significantly affected by the crime, it offers enormous relief to the poor. My theory therefore differs from the utilitarian theory, in that, virtue ethics does cater for such occasions where the ‘right thing’ to do is a matter of great debate. Virtue ethics emphasize the building of personal character, without focus on external opinions (IEP, 2011). I therefore employ virtue ethics where my actions are based on what I feel is most in line with my disposition of what is right according to my assessment of the situation. In applying virtue ethics, one is encouraged to cultivate virtues resulting in the greater good of one’s soul and results in happiness. In this way, I view the combination of virtue ethics and utilitarianism as a comprehensive effort towards the happiness of humanity. J ustification of my ethical system My adaptation of utilitarianism and virtue ethics works very well and has assisted me in making many critical decisions. Utilitarianism considers what results in the greater good and then acts accordingly to promote this. Utilitarianism is most applicable in circumstances where the consequences of an action result in starkly different outcomes, where a decision has a significant impact on the individual and the society. However, it may be difficult to apply in circumstances where there is a thin line between right and wrong, and either action does not make a significant impact on the individual or the society. In such cases, utilitarianism may not regard such a decision as an ethical dilemma, which may be argued to propagate immorality as one may justify even a wrong action. These cases in daily living are very numerous, and use of utilitarianism alone may be insufficient. I therefore apply virtue ethics to be able to cover the loopholes which may b e present the utilitarian theory. Virtue ethics involves making decisions based on what brings about the greater development of the person (Annas, 2011). This means that any decisions made must also reinforce my personal disposition of what is right. My decisions should result in greater achievement of virtue and progression towards achieving individual thriving,

Archaeologists Interpretations of Sex and Gender

Archaeologists Interpretations of Sex and Gender How have archaeologists attempts to interpret sex and gender relations in the past changed? Gender, as a point of request in the investigation of prehistoric studies, has not been of essential enthusiasm until late history. It has just been as of late in the last thirty or forty years that the investigation of sex and gender relations as far as examining it in archaeological revelation has been a point that archaeologists have been truly seeking after. The subject of gender has still not been argued to the degree that which we need it to be, the sub topics considered a detail of investigation as opposed to the core interest. One of the obstinate conclusions on this theme is on account of it is for the most part accepted that the patriarchal society has been the prevailing social structure all through the current societies, along these lines to study sexual orientation relations is to summon a similar outcome through numerous social orders (Bettina and Wicker 2001).However, this is the centre issue with the path in which societies have been celebrated internationally through western conviction frameworks hence making suppositions about the way that sex and sex are considered inside those social orders subject to present day gauges of understanding it is imperative re-evaluate the way of social structures that have been resolved through one-sided suspicions keeping in mind the end goal to better build a photo of an antiquated social orders. In the last 40 years or so, Feminism has become one of the key influences for archaeologists, especially the post-processualists. Feminism was also one of the driving forces behind the interest in practice, meaning and identity in archaeological theory. It originated when women questioned why there was an absence of women in archaeological fields and also from the past that archaeologists wrote about. For instance, there were only a small number of fields that were run by women and although, there are usually more women that study archaeology than men, after they graduate, more men decide to get a job in archaeology. There is a drop off in number of female archaeologists with age. You could ask, why does feminism matter in archaeology? Some people would say that it is just about diversity, when it comes to feminism, allowing more equality between men and women. However, it is not just about this. It is also about the potential of archaeology as a subject. Many statements or stereotyp es made about gender and sexuality are still presented as timeless; Women care for children, men are superior leaders, etc. However, it can be argued that, the time depth of archaeology gives us the chance to modify these views and instead offer different narratives for the history of gender and sexuality. To show that it is not always the same, that it has changed through time and space. It is because archaeology is a potentially powerful subject that we have to think about these issues in the long term. In order to tackle the issue of gender, we must discuss what gender is and whether there is an absolute biological difference. One of the standard definitions of bodily identity is the classic biological description which is of two genders dictated by chromosomes, with females having XX chromosomes and males XY. The traditional biological view that sex defines gender was criticised by Simone de Beavoir who showed that the ideas of what a woman should be were not natural but cultural, I was not born, but rather, became a woman. People were expected to behave in certain ways. The idea that girls like pink, that they play with dolls not guns and that theyre passive quiet and submissive. Those classic ideas about what a woman was, particularly at the time Beavoir was writing are not at all natural but in fact cultural that are learned, that society placed upon us. In the New Archaeology, there was no consideration of gender. There was always the constant use of man and a failure to engag e with gender meant that there were essentially no roles for women in the past, and even if there were a role, it would most likely be secondary work and usually based on assumption rather than evidence. A particular example would be the idea that man was the hunter and woman the gatherer. Feminism had a huge impact in archaeology in the form of three waves which challenged he status quo. The first wave asked simple questions such as; where are the women in the past? Why arent there that many female archaeology professors? Why do men receive more benefits than women? Meg Conkey and Joan Gero who wrote the book Engendering Archaeology ­, which was the first active attempt to think about what the role of women in prehistory was. A lot of first wave feminism comes out of these two archaeologists (Gero and Conkey 1991). The second wave of feminism is even more concerned with the role of women and the sense that archaeologists have always presumed that men did all the important stuff (Nelson et al 1994). Janet Spectors book What This Awl Means thinks about the role of women in Dakota Village. As a result of all this, we get an increasing emphasis on the study of past gender relations. So, it is not just about what women are doing but about what the relationship between me n and women in the past. The third wave of Feminism begins to critique the other waves by asking whether the gender categories are universal, why do we assume that categories such as men and women have any meaning in the past? It also began to ask about transgender people, alternative genders and also different histories of sexualities. It is about thinking in a more complicated way and by this point, were not basing upon basic categories about men and women. Mary Louise Sorensens book Gender Archaeology focuses more on gender archaeology rather than feminist archaeology, thinking about the different gender combinations and how it all plays out. At this point, it can be argued that it is not just about women now. Archaeologists have taken a huge interest in masculinity, asking questions such as; How were male identities constructed in the past? How has the role of men changed? A solid example can be found in the works of Paul Treharne on the bronze age in Europe where he is looking at the idea of a warrior identity which we see in some of the graves in central and eastern Europe. This idea that there was a particular role in society and that they also had a particular look. The traditional sex model suggests that sex is biologically determined, that its clear genetically but also through sexual characteristics and the idea that sex is universal and natural. Opposed to this, we get the concept of gender, and gender in this sense is culturally determined, the product of our own experiences and the society that we grow up in as well as demonstrating through clothing, behaviour and possible bodily alterations. If we argue that that this is what it is about, if its sex being biological and gender being cultural, then isnt this just a nature/culture divide. In a sense, no. It is a lot more complicated; XX and XY are just two of eleven different possible chromosome combinations. Some people can be genetically XX but have male characteristics and vice-versa. In fact, the two-sex model, the idea that sex is just these two opposed identities is just a particular product of the way that we have thought about science in the west, in the same way that gender is a co nstruction and that we are easily willing to accept that. We see it as culturally determined, the product of the society we grow up in. Judith Butler looked at what we call Gender Performativity which was the attempt to move beyond the nature culture divide in our thinking about sexuality in the past. She argues that gender and sex are not pre-determined by our biology but something that we produce through practice and performance. Butler argues that there are male and female regulatory ideals and so it is not that we are born male and female but from the very moment we are born, our gender identity begins to be constructed and it is certainly affected by the regulatory ideals that society has for us (i.e. parents etc.). Butler uses the example of girling the girl; this notion that the midwife lifts up the baby and says its a girl. Begins the process for gender performance. Her argument is that in acting and performing the gendered regulatory ideals, we also sustain the gender performance. Her idea of a regulatory ideal is the idea that there are key concepts of what it is to be male and what it is to be female and t hat these are very particular and historically constructed and that we often attempt to try and live up to them or perhaps to question them? So, the idea that wearing certain clothes, acting in certain ways, having particular ideas about how one would want their life to work out, the idea that women should want to have children. All of these help us to live up the standards that we can never actually quite achieve. In doing so, we help to sustain these regulatory ideals. At one point, we can undermine and challenge regulatory ideals. By doing this we can act to shift them. Butler is often accused of playing the body. We do not choose our genitalia so how can we perform our gender. Butler points out that we are not meant to deny the role of the body but instead to argue that our bodies and biology are caught up in social discourse. We do not live in a world where we can only understand our bodies through brute biology, our understandings of our bodies are also always shaped by our cultural context. You can think about how you think about your own body, whether you think about it as biological, the product of our DNA and genes we inherit from our parents, or whether is it cultural, eat particular foods to look a particular way. Modifications to the body can also be thought about; tattoos and piercing, as cultural things. As a result of this, they are often viewed as superficial. What is personhood? The condition or state of being a person (Fowler). Not everyone understands sex, gender or the body in the same way across time and space and equally different cultures understand what it means to be a person differently. Who we recognise as a person, at what point do we recognise a person is different across culturally. In the west, we understand people and personhood to be about individualism, the idea that we are physically determined by our biology, that people have free will and as a result, they are responsible or their own actions and that we think this is the same in all time and space, and we consider the idea of the individual to be a natural state of being. This is a person who is bounded and defined by their skin. When the same way our bodies are not natural, the production of the western individual is not natural at all. Our individualism is created and sustained by our technology and culture. So, we have mobile phones, sleep in private beds, have dia ries etc. All of these are cultural choices about the way we organise our world. The opposite of individual personhood is relational personhood and in this model a person is defined by the relationships that they have with others. There are differing ideas about free will and personal responsibility. If a person is defined by their relationships and the other people that surround them then free will and responsibility shift. In a more modern view, boundaries of the body, skin and person are viewed as more permeable. The point is that if personhood isnt the same everywhere today, was it the same everywhere in the past? As a result, should we be walking about individuals in the past? In one sense, yes. People such Hodder and Meskell would argue that we should be looking for individuals in the past and tell their stories. However, there are other archaeologists such as Thomas and Fowler, who believe that we shouldnt talk about individuals in the past as they are just a concept as a result of western philosophy. We should recognise that although past personhood might have some familiar aspects we cannot assume people in the past were individuals. Personhood allows us to think in interesting ways about what it means to be a person in the past. This stops us universally and presuming that everyone always and everywhere understands what it means to be human in the same way. BIBLIOGRAPHY Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach. London: Routledge. Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter: on the Discursive Limits of Sex. London: Routledge. Gero, J. and Conkey, M. (eds.) 1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell. Meskell, L. 1996. The somatization of archaeology: institutions, discourses, corporeality. Norwegian Archaeological Review 29 (1): 1-16. Nelson, S. 1997. Gender in Archaeology. London: AltaMira. Sà ¸renson, M.L.S. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell. Spector, J.D. 1991. What this awl means: towards a feminist archaeology. In J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds.) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 388-407. Treherne, P. 1995. The warriors beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3 (1): 105-144 Gilchrist, R. 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. London: Routledge.

The Last Dalai Lama? Essay -- Tibet History Dalai Lama Essays

The Last Dalai Lama? The twentieth century is rife with examples of countries being torn apart or experiencing great upheaval. Multi-ethnic Yugoslavia broke apart into several nation states with loose foundations. The Soviet Union collapsed, transforming the area into the Commonwealth of Independent States. Germany split in half as a result of World War II and then reunited over forty years later. One country that has experienced tremendous crisis and upheaval on a scale even greater than these European nations, yet often goes unnoticed, is Tibet. Tibet enjoyed peace and autonomy until 1949 when Chinese Communists invaded the country under the guise of the "Peaceful Liberation." Coveting Tibet’s vast natural resources and strategic location in Central Asia, they sent off innocent civilians and peaceful protesters into prisons and concentration camps, subverted their economic and agricultural system, and ravaged Tibetan culture. As a result of the Chinese invasion, Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet has undertaken roles and responsibilities that no other previous Dalai Lama has attempted. Determined to salvage Tibetan life and culture he fled his palace in Lhasa and instituted the Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India. Since his flee into exile Tenzin Gyatso has diligently worked to negotiate peacefully with China and other nations to reclaim his country, institute a working democratic government in India, and promote the survival of Tibetan culture through the establishment of schools, monasteries, and cultural centers. Therefore as a result of the Communist invasion of Tibet and Tenzin Gyatso’s subsequent response to it, the role of the Dalai Lama has irrevocably changed. He has gone from an iso... ...e past half-century. His actions and success as a ruler provide a true example of the application of religion towards politics, and that faith can and does overcome. Works Cited Avedon, John. In Exile in the Land from Snows. New York: Harper Perennial, 1997. Goldstein, Melvyn. "The Dalai Lama’s Dilemma." Foreign Affairs, 77 no. 1, 1998, p. 83 – 98. Mullin, Glenn H. The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 2001. Pedersen, Kusumita P. "Tibet: Liberation as Oppression." Cross Currents 38, no.1, 1988, p. 100-102. Pilburn, Sidney, ed. The Dalai Lama: A Policy of Kindness. New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1993. Verhaegen, Ardy. The Dalai Lamas: The Institution and Its History. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2002. Wen, Wang. "Tibet: Change and Development." Beijing Review 44, no. 19, p. 12 – 15.

Rhetorical Anaylsis

Jorden House-Hay Rhetorical Analysis- Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor I chose Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor, by Garret Hardin, to analyze because, out of all the readings I have ever done for English, this particular one is by far the most memorable. It is also perfectly suited for my argument, because it is appropriately as offensive as it is logical. The essay, in short, is a rhetorical argument that claims that helping the poor or unfortunate people of the world-though it is considered the â€Å"right† thing to do- is, in actuality, harmful to the very future of our species. The actual message of the essay, however, is not what I want to endorse. When this essay was assigned to my class junior year, the almost overwhelming reaction was immediately a dismissal of the essay’s content, even though we had only so far been given the title. This can be attributed to the modern sense of morality regarding charity, or what the â€Å"politically right† thing to do is; my classmates were so outraged by the idea of not helping the poor that they formed their opinion before even being presented with the argument. This reaction- sensibility before rationality- is what I wish to argue against. I think that this takes place a lot in society, with public support unanimously given to the general agreement of what is â€Å"morally right†, even though what is considered â€Å"morally right† today may not actually be a good thing at all, and is arbitrary at that; different generations and societies over time- and even different cultures in the same time period- can have totally different views on what is moral and what is not. Therefore, there should always be, for the sake of intellectual purity, a detachment of sensibility from logic, especially regarding major decisions that can affect the entire country, or even the entire world. The essay is crude in terms of the modern western sense of morality, yes, but it is also very logically sound in a lot of ways, and worth at least dissection for truth before dismissal. So my purpose, or what I want to demonstrate in my analysis, is to show that just because something is offensive does not mean it is automatically incorrect. In regards to the essay, I am going to be analyzing the ways the argument against helping the poor is constructed, and why it is written at all. For my purpose, it is essential to my point- that something morally â€Å"wrong† can still have merit- that I demonstrate clearly that the argument Hardin makes is well thought out, written for a legitimate reason, and, above all, logically sound. In order to make my case, I think it is necessary for me to prove that Hardin did his research, and is writing the essay not just to offend people or get a reaction, but out of genuine concern and actual belief in what he is saying. This is important because when the essay was released in 1974, it did indeed generate a public reaction, and was published in a well-known magazine, Psychology Today, so the argument can be made that Hardin wrote the essay for the singular reason of getting attention and provoking people, which, if true, would debase everything I am trying to prove in regards to its validity. My goal in analyzing, then, is to provide enough rhetorical evidence of the legitimacy of Hardin’s argument that my own argument is subsequently well supported. To prove that Hardin’s argument- and therefore my argument- is legitimate, I am going to analyze four major rhetorical devices he uses to help deliver his message. The first, and arguably most prominent, of these devices is metaphor. Hardin constructs the world in terms of an ocean, with its people floating in it. Wealth, in this metaphor, is a lifeboat, or safety, while poverty is being stranded in the ocean, unprotected from almost certain death. The second device is logos; Hardin uses fact based evidence and logical appeal in his argument as opposed to emotional appeal or personal accreditation. A third major device found throughout the text is refutation; frequently, Hardin addresses opponent’s arguments to his own points, and then ably refutes them. The final major device I will describe that Hardin employs is specific example; instead of just talking in general terms, Hardin uses specific examples of policies and perceptions that were current at the time of the essay. I chose these devices to analyze in the essay because I think they are the most prevalent, and that together they provide very solid evidence that Hardin makes a sound argument. The first device, metaphor, is brilliant in the respect that it takes a complicated, general principle, and simplifies it down to a specific and easily understandable scenario, which in turn makes the point Hardin is trying to make more easily grasped. Hardin sets up the metaphor as this: a lifeboat has a capacity of sixty people, and this safety is related to wealth. So, a lifeboat is the rich nations, and all around it in the water are the poor people of the world. There are fifty people in the lifeboat, according to the metaphor, so that leaves room for ten more. The dilemma, however, is that there are significantly more than ten people that need to be saved. This is the basis of Hardin’s whole argument; it is considered morally right to help the people in the water, or the poor people in the world, but given the situation helping them all is just not possible; to do so would mean the demise of us all, just like letting one hundred people on a lifeboat that can afford ten, at the very most (Hardin actually demonstrates that even this is too much due to the need for â€Å"excess capacity† as a safety measure against disease and famine, but for the purpose of the paper I will not go into too much detail about that), will inevitably swamp it and save no one. Thus, Hardin’s argument is made clear; if we help the needy, we will all die in the long run, and in the short run suffer resultant consequences. This metaphor is used throughout the paper in addition to Hardin’s support to make the message perfectly clear†¦ for example, in addressing the guilt factor of ignoring the needs of the â€Å"drowning† people, he memorably states â€Å"Get out and yield your place to others. The point he makes is that short of switching places with a poor person, there is almost nothing we can do to help people that will not do more damage than good, so for reasons of absolute necessity we must be, to the appropriate extent, callous. While metaphor serves to make his argument clearer, Hardin’s other devices work to give it logical and fact based support. The next device, logos, is a prime method Hardin uses to support the essay. He argues from evidence, and logic, not emotion, and thus his information, which relies on the established credibility of others, cannot be refuted on basis of opinion, as the essay without evidence would almost certainly be handled that way. For example, in arguing that the population of poorer nations is increasing much faster than the richer nations, he uses actual data amongst his argument: â€Å"As of 1973, the U. S had a population of 210 million people, who were increasing by . 08 percent per year†¦ [poor nations] are increasing at a rate of 3. 3 percent per year. Using real evidence, he makes his point that poor reproduce faster in modern times, supports it with evidence, and then logically feeds the information back into his argument, again using the metaphor for clarification: not only are there more people in need of help-getting on the life boat- than we can afford to help, the numbers of the needy are creasing substantially faster, and the amount of people we cant afford to help is growing, making it necessary to become even more callous, or as Hardin puts it â€Å"The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become harsher†. Another example of this is in reference to an actual quote made ironically by a former senior member of a corporation Hardin is criticizing. He laces the specific point he is trying to make at the time with evidence from a source that can hardly be called unfairly biased, and thus sets up the same dynamic; he states his point, backs it with evidence, and logically ties it back to his thesis, which is a classic and textbook application of logos. By constructing his argument from logic, and fact –logos-, and not just opinion, Hardin makes it significantly more reliable. The next device, refutation, is extremely important given the context of Hardin’s thesis. Stating a case against helping the poor is understandably going to cause controversy, as it goes completely against the â€Å"politically correct† system of beliefs that state the opposite: helping those less fortunate than you is moral, and admirable. So, because of the touchiness of the subject, there is likely to be no shortage of counter arguments- by addressing some of what he probably considered the major ones, Hardin reinforces his case to some of his critics before they even start criticizing. A prominent example of this is when he addresses an argument he know will arise against his point of limiting immigration. He imitates an opponent and describes their argument: â€Å"’You say that immigrants should be kept out. But aren’t we all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants? ’† Having addressed his opponents case, Hardin then logically defeats it; he states that if we are to operate out of an inherent sense of guilt and â€Å"pure justice†, then it follows that in the case of America, we must return all land, as well as all the assets and profit gained as a result of it, back to what natives remain. It would be very hard to find even the most liberal opponent who would endorse this solution, thus Hardin shows that we have to operate based off real world situation, and â€Å"must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point we are today†, essentially refuting the refutation and logically demonstrating that argument from perspective of absolute justice is absurd, and irrelevant. Through employing this method of refutation here, and also at other particularly controversial points in the text, Hardin shows conclusively that his argument is well thought out, and also defends it in the process, adding yet another level of validity to the essay. Finally, in order to avoid being abstract and opening the door wide for increased criticism and skepticism , Hardin uses specific, real word examples to go along with his general statement. One of these is The World Food Bank, an organization in the process of being established during the time of the essay’s publication. The goal of the organization, in short, was to provide food for people in countries that had a lack of it. This is, of course, completely in opposition to what Hardin argues we should do, and so it is a very good example. To demonstrate why a global food bank is a bad idea, Hardin attacks it from several angles. First, he debases its intention, stating that while it â€Å"appeals powerfully to our humanitarian impulses†, it is not as pure of motive as its lobbyists claimed it to be. He outlines that an organization like that would mean â€Å"’Billions for U. S Business’†, using the past example of the â€Å"Food for peace program† that did indeed, in historical fact, profit its creators much more than its supposed benefactors. After showing corruption in modern institution of charity, Hardin then defeats it in its own terms, or in other words he argues against it as if it was in reality pure in its intentions. He argues that helping the overpopulated poor only leads to more overpopulation, and therefore a greater demand, that defeats possibility and would ultimately deplete the world’s resources, leading to the suffering of our posterity. Here, Hardin thoroughly defeats the advantage of charity in a specific scenario relevant to his time, which solidifies his thesis and makes it much harder to refute then if he had stated it as opinion; the argument was made relatable to the current political system and functioning that Hardin wished to criticize, and by doing so he criticizes much more effectively. Reading this essay years later gives us the advantage of analyzing his statements for truth, and subsequently having a better idea as to whether his argument was a valid one or not. One particular piece of assumptive data that jumped out of me was Hardin’s prediction that India’s population would increase from what it was in his time, â€Å"600 million†, to â€Å"1. 2 billion in a mere 28 years. † Today, 37 years later, India’s population is estimated around that number. This gave me pause because, while it didn’t increase quite as fast Hardin claimed, it was close enough that it proves the population numbers he was working with and the predictions he made were fairly accurate. I do not know the extent to which Hardin was right, and how much we should trust his solution to overpopulation, but I do know based on this evidence along with the clarity of his logic and the completeness of his argument that it certainly should not be dismissed without giving what it proposes careful consideration. The reaction of my class, then, in rejecting it immediately was ill advised, and if that is at all an indicator of the habits of people in general, it can be a very dangerous thing; what Hardin claims will be a result of ignoring his advice is the suffering of our posterity and, eventually, the demise of our race and ruin of our environment. As a concerned member of an overly sensitive society, I want to urge with this essay that we consider all proposal given from every source with any sort of legitimate or fact based ethos, and that we absolutely must take on this intelligent and logical consideration in order to avoid the mistake of disregarding something that could be as serious as the subject addressed in Lifeboat ethics, especially for the poor reason of adherence to arbitrary, current morality. The fate of our country, of our children, and of the world itself could depend on it. Literal application of this essay is tricky, because it argues for a general attitude more than a specific action, and an attitude is something that you apply constantly. A great example of a way this attitude can be applied, however, is in an election of any kind, obviously including the upcoming presidential one in 2012. A literal application of this essay would be to encourage people to really analyze what the country needs and what a candidate offers without including personal and irrelevant opinion into the decision, such as whether abortion should be legal or whether the candidate offers support or disapproval to gay marriage. I understand that these are powerful issues to people, but given the state of the country I think there are definitely more important things- foreign policy and financial plans for example- that deserve more consideration. This encouragement could take place in a campaign to convince people of the necessity to logically and intelligently evaluate campaigns, or something of the sorts.