The End Of World War I - 1909 Words

Today, supposedly, women are equal to men. They have equal rights, equal jobs, and equal opportunities. However in 1914, at the start of World War I, this was not the case. World War I began on July 28, 1914 when Austria declared war on Serbia because the Serbs did not accept all parts of the ultimatum sent to them. Because of previously established alliances, this initial declaration of war led to a deeper conflict. The Triple Alliance or Central Powers, which consisted of Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Italy, was soon at war with the Allies, which consisted of Russia, Britain, and France (Ellis 454-455). During World War I, women’s main roles were to take over the jobs that the men had left when they went off to war. However, by the time World War II began on September 1, 1939 when Britain and France declared war on Germany after German forces invaded Poland (Ellis 567), women had gained confidence, power, and respect in society. Many things, such as propaganda, includ ing the character Rosie the Riveter, and more prominent roles at the home front empowered women and encouraged them to achieve greater involvement in the war effort. In the First World War, women’s roles, though limited, were significant to the war effort, and by World War II, women’s respective roles were expanded and more prominent. In World War I, there were few female journalists who were given permission to travel to the front-line to document their experiences to inform those who did notShow MoreRelatedThe End Of World War I : The End Of World War One815 Words   |  4 PagesThere are 816 words On November 11, 1918, the two sides of the war signed an agreement that was to be put to action at eleven oclock that same day. Two minutes before the armistice agreement would be put into play, Private George Price was shot and killed by a German sniper’s bullet in the French village of Ville-sur-Haine. Seconds later,at precisely at eleven a.m., all weapons and guns stopped. Soldiers and officers got up from their trenches and dugouts, bowed, and left the battlefield.Read MoreThe End Of World War I875 Words   |  4 PagesThe years following the end of World War I were a time of transition, leaving behind in its trail of destruction several devastated nations and historic changes that could not have been foreseen. Harsh treaties were imposed upon the defeated nations by the victorious western powers. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey and Bulgaria were stripped of substantial territories and significant war reparations were imposed (Brower and Sanders 64 – 65). The United States of America retreated from EuropeanRead MoreThe End Of World War I969 Words   |  4 Pagesmarketed the end of World War I. During the 2 yeas the United States fought, women became part of the labor force as well as African Americans, the Nineteenth Amendment was passed and factories were booming. Even After the war men returned to the work force and quality of life started to improve. October 1929, the stock market crashed as a result of many buying goods on credit. The Great Depression was the worst in American history and lasted until 1939 before America started in War preparationsRead MoreThe End Of World War I1329 Words   |  6 PagesBefore World War I, the countries of Europe competed with one another in a race to colonize the world. The end of World War I brought national sovereignty, and an end to colonization to the forefront of the Allies’ concerns as they drew up plans for peace, and as a result, the Allied countries received former enemy coloni es to watch over and guide to independence1. As a result of this mandate system, among other colonies, France received Syria. Instead of guiding Syria to independence, however, asRead MoreThe End Of World War I2396 Words   |  10 PagesAlmost a century has passed since the end of World War One, and the 1917 Belfour Declaration, which endorsed the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and the preservation of the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish Palestinian communities. Consequently, the British Mandate in the region of Israel, the former Palestine, which was initiated and endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, and which incorporated the Belfour Declaration. The control of Israel has changed hands multipleRead MoreThe End Of The World War I2100 Words   |  9 PagesWorld War I, which lasted from 1914 to 1918, was one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world, its horrors surpassed only by World War II. The start of the war can be traced back to t he assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in June 1918 by Gavrilo Princip, a member of a Bosnian Serb rebel group wishing to liberate ethnically Serbian parts of Bosnia from the Austro-Hungarian Empire and integrate them with the neighboring Kingdom of Serbia. The assassination led to aRead MoreThe End Effects Of World War I1555 Words   |  7 PagesThe End Effects of World War I World War I dragged on for a total of four years. Many were killed, some by another soldier, a mishap with a plane, or illness. On November 11, 1918, the war ended with an Armistice. The Armistice of World War I allowed the war to end without a winner. Germany got the heaviest load. The end of the war brought The Great Depression. Germany suffered the most during the Depression. The end of the war ignited a spark in many people that led to the roaring fire of WorldRead MoreWorld War I Predicted as the War to End all Wars847 Words   |  3 PagesWith the end of Great War in 1918, the world struggled to form a structure of peace that would avoid another world conflagration. It was anticipated that World War I would be â€Å"the war to end all wars.† President Woodrow Wilson was the primary leader to achieve this goal with his 14 Points making and keeping the peace in the world. Albeit the Treaty of Versailles amalgamated many of Wilson’s points, it struggled to be rati fied in the Senate. The defeat of the Treaty of Versailles was largely due toRead MoreThe Treaty Of Versailles And The End Of World War I1487 Words   |  6 PagesThe Treaty of Versailles was one of many peace treaties signed at the end of World War I. It ended war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed June 28, 1919. The signing of this treaty fell on the fifth anniversary of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination. Ferdinand was the prince of Hungary and Bohemia up until the date of his death. He was an heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Treaty of Versailles was drafted or created by the representatives of Great Britain, Japan, theRead MoreThe End Of World War I Enhanced Americans1020 Words   |  5 PagesThe end of World War I enhanced Americans’ confidence in their country as well as in themselves. The 1920s brought about flappers, the Charleston, and a radical turn of the century. During these 10 years, society’s disposition began to change to fit the newer, more youthful movements. The Harlem Renaissance caused an uproar of newfound interest in literature, music, art, and black culture. Jazz music became popular, more black writers such as Zora Neale Hurston came to prominence, and dancers like

Globalization the Americanization of the World Free Essays

string(71) " sent aid and rhetorical sympathies to the economically barren latter\." Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U. S. We will write a custom essay sample on Globalization: the Americanization of the World? or any similar topic only for you Order Now Diplomacy (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work (Norton, 2007). James L. Watson, ed. , Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia (2nd edition, Stanford University Press, 2007). Robert McCrum, Globish: How the English Language Became the World’s Language (Norton, 2010). Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (Norton, 2009). Globalization is the integration of the world’s different regions into a global culture, economy, geo-political arena, and communication network. It is the process by which the lines of nation states are blurred, smoothed over by new international institutions. Globalization is the undeniable destination of human history and as such permeates nearly every facet of it. It is liquid in this sense, flowing and changing to fill in wherever it flows, but there can be no doubts of the tide of globalizations source: The United States of America. At first glance, the distinctions between Globalization and Americanization are almost imperceptible. â€Å"Big Mac, Coke, and Disney† (Watson, 5) are as recognizable to Chinese and Russians as they are to Americans. The World Bank and IMF’s policies are more or less set by Washington. The American military has the most powerful armies and fleets the world has ever seen, and has effectively dominated the world from World War I onwards. The United States population which is less than 5% of the world population produces about a quarter of global GDP. Such realities might lead one to the conclusion that Globalization and Americanization are synonymous, but is this actually the case? In the discussion of the books at hand, globalization as it pertains to Americanization is made evident. Andrew Bacevich contends that the United States is the primary agent of modern globalization. It has capitalized on the opportunities it has been presented with in order to create a system of global politics and economics that is of the most benefit to itself, all the while packaging it in altruistic rhetoric. Joseph Stiglitz contends that the United States has conducted globalization by dominating the institutions of world governance and finance. It has done so to the detriment of other nations and as such, the American means of globalization is not the best strategy if true globalization† is the desired end. James Watson holds that McDonald’s, once as iconic of America as the stars and stripes and one of the leading agents of globalization, has been assimilated into many local cultures. As such, it no longer represents the Americanized aspect of globalization, but is rather an international institution and an agent of globalization at large. Yet, some of the seemingly obvious aspects of American led globalization are not as American as they may seem today. Robert McCrum asserts that English being the world’s language arises not from American economic and foreign policies, but is rather a legacy of the British Empire. Furthermore, that America is not spreading its culture through English, it is only a tool to be used for communication. Finally, Fareed Zakaria demonstrates that we are departing from a unipolar world dominated by America. Although it will continue to play a leading role in the globalization of the world, â€Å"the rise of the rest† is diminishing its role and the United States is no longer solely holding the reins of globalization. Andrew Bacevich’s assertion is that the idea of the American empire differs only in form from traditional imperialism. Its function, enriching the mother country, is precisely the same but employs a variety of techniques to make this less evident. The United States embraces its role in history of exerting power only as a last resort. Only when circumstances totally necessitated it would America resort to using Theodore Roosevelt’s proverbial â€Å"big stick† (Bacevich 117). The Spanish American war began only when General Valeriano â€Å"Butcher† Weyler could be tolerated no more. World War I was entered only because of the unprovoked German aggression upon the Lusitania. Cold War military and political endeavors were nobly pursued to defend against Communist aggression. Yet Andrew Bacevich rejects this view. He argues that this â€Å"myth of the ‘reluctant superpower’—Americans asserting themselves only under duress and then always for the noblest purposes† (Bacevich 7-8) is exactly that, a myth. That Roosevelt’s reportedly soft speaking and big stick carrying America uses the† reluctant superpower† myth only in order to justify acts of self-interest. Perhaps the more fitting description of America by Theodore Roosevelt is his affirmation that â€Å"of course, our whole national history has been one of expansion† (Bacevich, 7). The United States has conscientiously exerted itself at every opportunity in order to expand its global economic and strategic interests. America’s superpower status and role as an agent of globalization is driven entirely by the machinery of self-interest. Bacevich writes that â€Å"ever increasing prosperity† (Bacevich, 85) is the primary national interest. Furthermore, as Bill Clinton stated â€Å"Growth at home depends upon growth abroad. † Of course, there is still the legitimate idealistic side of globalization as â€Å"the ultimate promise of peace, prosperity, and democracy† (Bacevich, 42), but America’s actual interest and role in globalization is to expand the American economy. In other words, America’s aims in globalization are to benefit the world yes, but â€Å"benefit the United States most of all† (Bacevich, 96). The American economic empire, brought about by the domestic desire for continued growth is the overarching American interest in the realm of globalization. The fact that â€Å"where interests were slight, the United States seldom bothered to make the effort to assert any substantial leverage† (Bacevich, 107) vividly illustrates this. Considering the insubstantial economic incentives of Africa, it â€Å"consistently ranks dead last in U. S. strategic priorities† (Bacevich, 107). Now, take into account the economic and political incentives of Europe’s markets and the Middle East’s oil reserves. Based on US military intervention, it is telling that â€Å"conditions that in the Balkans or the Persian Gulf the United States found intolerable were in Africa merely unfortunate† (Bacevich, 108). The United States found it necessary to militarily intervene in the former two interest-rife locations, and merely sent aid and rhetorical sympathies to the economically barren latter. You read "Globalization: the Americanization of the World?" in category "Papers" The portrait of Americanization and Globalization that Andrew Bacevich paints acknowledges one of the primary facets upon which the two collide, the global economy and the United States role within it. To deny that America has been the driving force behind the creation and continuance of modern open market operations, and to deny that it has done so for the betterment of its own economic interests is to deny all but the rhetoric of American imperialism. The United States did not have, as the historian Ernest May naively stated, â€Å"greatness thrust upon it† (Bacevich, 7), but rather calculatedly and ingeniously shaped its responses to global politics and economics in order to integrate and derive the most benefit from the new globalized economy. Joseph Stiglitz, rather explicitly argues that â€Å"globalization should not mean the Americanization of either economic policy or culture, but it often does—and that has caused resentment† (Stiglitz, 9). He argues that â€Å"the worry about American unilateralism, about the world’s most powerful country imposing its will on others† (Stiglitz, 5) is fast becoming substantiated. Despite economic indicators such as GDP suggesting that poor countries seem to be improving, â€Å"globalization might be creating rich countries with poor people† (Stiglitz, 9). As Stiglitz argues, the United States’ goal of making Americanization a component of globalization is causing this. Particularly responsible has been the Washington Consensus, a set of development promoting policies created between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the U. S. Treasury. The former two of these are basically international lending bodies, delivering short and long term loans, respectively, to countries in need. The policies outlined are â€Å"downscaling of government, deregulation, and rapid liberalization and privatization† (Stiglitz, 17). Although these are the characteristics of western countries, western countries did not become this way through the â€Å"shock therapy† of instant implementation. Rather they came from a drawn out progression of events The implication is that the United States, in attempting to make its political and economic policies integral concepts of the grander one of globalization, is actually turning countries off to the Americanized aspect of globalization. Similarly, the manner in which the United States encourages international trade to be conducted is a hindrance to globalization at large within poor countries. Stiglitz writes that â€Å"countries often need time to develop in order to compete with foreign companies† (Stiglitz, 70). Yet, The United States and the international trade organizations which it dominates oppose tariffs for many industries on the grounds of it inhibiting trade and not allowing the all-wise power of the market to control the economy. However, â€Å"most successful countries did in fact develop behind protectionist barriers† and climbed the â€Å"ladder of development†. The anti-tariff policies that soundly developed countries advocate are viewed as trying to â€Å"kick the ladder away so others can’t follow† (Stiglitz, 71). The uncertain effectiveness of these western policies, policies necessary for developing countries to get assistance from the IMF and World Bank, which they almost undeniably need, calls into question the western policies which they don’t necessarily need, namely democracy. Stiglitz writes that â€Å"IMF conditionality undermines democracy† (Stiglitz, 56), that although â€Å"globalization has helped spread the idea of democracy, it has, paradoxically, been managed in a way that undermines democratic processes within countries† (Stiglitz, 12). America, in efforts to save countries from spending time on the economic policy learning curve, in reality ends up harming them. As such, the United States’ inadequacy for creating economic agendas for developing countries is a paradox of its own success. He posits that in order for the developing countries to benefit from globalization, the agenda of globalization needs to depart from the Americanized version, and instead â€Å"have the voices of developing nations (be) heard more clearly† (Stiglitz, 98). If the hardline factors of globalization—economics, geo-political military assertions, and international governance are the easiest to assess the American-ness of—the soft aspects: cultural and linguistic patterns, are the most difficult. James Watson contends that in some respect, global corporations gain their transnational appeal simply by being American; by being an image of modernity. However, he also holds that components of globalization that were once considered agents of Americanization are now accepted as local. Japanese McDonald’s have â€Å"clearly capitalized on the fact that it is associated with American culture† (Watson, 172). In China, McDonald’s promotes â€Å"the corporations image as an exemplar of modernity† (Watson, 42). McDonald’s in these countries represents what the West represents, or more accurately, what the locals believe the West to represent—â€Å"the promise of modernization† (Watson, 41). It has gone so far as to even change cultural eating habits. In these locations, McDonald’s sells more than hamburgers. It sells America as an ideology, a place of modernity, cleanliness, efficiency, and equality. As Watson would contend in China and Japan, McDonald’s represents the convergence of the idealistic facets of Americanization and globalization: the United States as a favorable model to be emulated. Yet in the case of McDonald’s in Hong Kong, it is not considered â€Å"an example of American-inspired transnational culture† or â€Å"perceived as an exotic or alien institution† (Watson, 107). Rather it is a fully assimilated part of Hong Kong’s modern culture. As Watson writes, â€Å"the transnational is the local. † The younger generation could not â€Å"imagine life without it† (Watson, 109). Thusly, at least in Hong Kong, the American aspect of McDonald’s globalization has faded with its assimilation into the national identity. Although American, it no longer Americanizes or suggests that the American odel is something good and unique that should be followed. McDonald’s in Korea however suggests a different view of Americanization. Some people hold that â€Å"eating McDonald’s hamburgers is tantamount to treason and loss of Korean identity† (Watson, 158) At least here, to some degree McDonald’s is view ed as an American crusader of â€Å"cultural imperialism—a new form of exploitation that results from the export of popular culture from the United States† (Watson, 5). McDonald’s represents a conquering American agent seeking to enthrall and draw in cultures to that of its global Americanized one. Another phenomenon of globalization, one might argue American-driven globalization, is English becoming the language of the world. Robert McCrum argues however that this is not a legacy of the American century, but rather a legacy of the British Empire. America has helped to propagate it but it in fact is originally an agent of British-ization. McCrum writes â€Å"The nineteenth (century) was, supremely, the century of British English – first the King’s and then the Queen’s – but it also witnessed the beginnings of the world’s English† (McCrum, 174). English spread to the earth not as a result of America’s dominance in the 20th century, but rather Britain’s far flung immigration in the 19th. McCrum contends that this is what made Jean-Paul Nerriere’s global English (Globish) so accessible to so many people across the world. It is removed from American influence in that it was not asserted upon the world by America. Rather because of Britain and certain historical tilts towards English speaking, it simply fell into place. In essence, McCrum asserts that British English lay the foundation for English to become, as John Adams wrote in 1780, â€Å"in the next and succeeding centuries†¦the language of the world† (McCrum, 105), and as such is not truly an assertion of American influence. However, McCrum’s points are debatable. As a proud Englishman, he seems ready to assert the obvious role of Britain in making it a global language, but is less generous when it comes to the American aspects. Furthermore, his denial of English as a cultural force is problematic. The global media is dominated by America. The largest media conglomerates in the world are American. Ten of the highest twelve paid musicians in the world are American. McCrum seems to ignore the fact that media is one of the largest aspects of globalization, and that American influences dominate it. These have been the themes of globalization. The convergence of Americanization and globalization has dually permeated military affairs, economics, culture, and language. On the global stage, the United States has been the dominant player for over a century. However, to what extent will this remain true in the 21st century? Fareed Zakaria contends that it will, but will require a reassessment of the global community. Zakaria puts forth that we are â€Å"now living through the third great power shift of the modern era† (Zakaria, 2), not â€Å"the decline of America but rather†¦the rise of everyone else† (Zakaria, 1). What this means for Globalization as it is linked to Americanization is that although the U. S. ’s role will still be there, it is diminishing. The historically United States dominated past has paved the way for this. Its active efforts in globalizing the worlds consequence is the â€Å"rise of the rest† (Zakaria, 2). As Zakaria writes â€Å"the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission—it globalized the world. But along the way†¦it forgot to globalize itself† (Zakaria, 48). The arising international order that Zakaria see’s is a term invented by Samuel Huntington â€Å"uni-multipolarity†, which can be described as â€Å"many powers and one super-power† (Zakaria, 43). In the new international order, the United States will merely be a leading actor on a stage of many. The other actors are comprised of new powerful economies—China, India, Brazil. The United States has been able to maintain its preeminence within globalization in the past but the changing realities of the global economic landscape will require according change from America. Zakaria lays out a series of principles that the United States should or must follow in order to maintain its position in the modern world as a chief agent of globalization. These principles recognize the changing landscape and suggest how America can perpetuate its interests, its goal of Americanization within globalization. Firstly, the United States must choose which policies it actively wants to pursue. The ambiguity of policy facing Iran and North Korea do not allow the United States to reach an attainable international goal. If the United States were to decide that they were simply proponents of â€Å"regime change or policy change (that is, denuclearization)† (Zakaria, 234) they could more efficiently define the changes they wish to see in the global community. Similarly, in order for the US to continue to blend Americanization with Globalization, they must set out broad rules and seek to cultivate its bilateral relationships with other nations. As Zakaria argues, if the U. S. has strong relationships with other strong nations, better than anyone has with another, â€Å"it gives the United States the greatest leverage†¦maximizing its ability to shape a peaceful and stable world† (Zakaria, 242). The United States must also be careful in how it shapes it’s responses to international conflict. â€Å"Legitimacy is power† (Zakaria, 247) and the nature of the United States’ current conflicts are â€Å"asymmetrical†, meaning they are not facing conventional military forces or typical state actors. As Zakaria writes â€Å"asymmetrical responses have become easier to execute and difficult to defeat† (Zakaria, 244). Therefore in order to remain legitimate, to have the power to â€Å"set the agenda, define a crisis, and mobilize support† (Zakaria, 247) for the United States’ interests in globalization, reactions need to be shaped to fit the conflicts at hand. Overall, Zakaria contends that if the United States is not willing to change its policies and approach towards globalization and the global community, it will no longer effectively be able to mesh Americanization with globalization. In the analysis of how linked globalization and Americanization are within the context of these books, a complex and comprehensive picture can be draw. The United States has been able to use globalization as a tool to create a global economic empire and cultural model. Through the capitalization of opportunities to expand its markets, packaged in its â€Å"reluctant superpower† myth, the United States has been able to assert itself internationally and accomplish its political and economic aims. However, the changing nature of the global landscape calls for a recalculation of how this strategy of self-interest can be perpetuated. Furthermore, the United States will have to make some concessions regarding its hegemony as other nations with large populations and strong economies grow in power and importance. Culturally, the United States benefited from the British Empire’s legacy of spreading English around the world. However, it has also been able to capitalize on this and further Americanize the world through the consequentially large English speaking media outlets. Multinational corporations such as McDonald’s still possess their American identity abroad, but this is beginning to change in respect to the world’s youth. It is now dually perceived as a symbol of modernity (which sometimes equates to Americanization) but also a component of local culture. Therefore, whether globalization is the Americanization of the world seems to be a yes. The debate whether it will, or should continue to be, is still ongoing, and remains to be seen, dependent on how America conducts itself in the post-American World. How to cite Globalization: the Americanization of the World?, Papers

Free Romeo and Juliets Tragic Hero Romeo J Essay Example For Students

Free Romeo and Juliets Tragic Hero Romeo J Essay uliet Essays Romeo and Juliet: Tragic Hero Shakespeare is a well known author who wrote in the 1500s. Many of his plays are classified as tragedies. According to the Oxford dictionary of current English, a tragedy is described as a serious disaster or a sad event. In Shakespeare plays, tragedy is identified as a story that ends unhappily due to the fall of the protagonist, which is the tragic hero. For a play to be a tragedy, there must be a tragic hero. In the play Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is the tragic hero. The theme of tragedy plays a great role in the play Romeo and Juliet. By analyzing Romeos tragic flaw, his noble birth, his series of poor decisions, the suffering of Romeo that extends beyond himself, it is evident that Romeo and Juliet is classified as a tragedy. A person must posses certain qualities that classify one as a tragic hero. One of these qualities is the noble birth of a character. In the play Romeo and Juliet Romeo being the tragic hero, possesses that quality. Romeo is a Montague, and in the city of Verona the Montagues are a well known and respected family. It is a known fact that the Montagues are of noble birth when it is said by Benvolio in Act 1, Scene 1, Line 141: My noble uncle. Benvolio is referring to Lord Montague, who is the father of Romeo. The Montagues are also a rich family, and that is one of the reasons for the respect for Romeo. Verona brags of him a bears him like a partly gentleman. This was said by Lord Capulet in Act 1, Scene 5, Lines 65-66. This quote illustrates that even Romeos enemies know well of him and know that he is respected and talked about by the citizens of Verona. Usually when a character is introduced as being noble, the audience is aware that in the end of the play, the character will have a tragic fall. Another necessary quality possessed by a tragic hero is the heros tragic flaw, which in Romeos case is falling in love too quickly and deeply. To seek a tragic flaw in either Romeo or Juliet is a foolish and futile. comments Harold Goddard, a critic from the book: Modern critical views, William Shakespeare the Tragedies. Goddard supports the idea that having a tragic flaw is a part of being a tragic hero. Another critic states that if Romeos character does have a tragic flaw, it is youthful impetuosity; an older or more deliberate man might somehow have managed to avoid the quarrel and would not rush to kill himself as soon as he believed that Juliet was dead. ( Phillis Rackin, author of Shakespeare Tragedies.)In the play Romeo and Juliet romeos tragic fall being he falls in love too quickly and too deeply, brings him to an awful end. In the beginning of the play one is introduced to Romeo being deeply and hopelessly in love with Rosaline. However Rosaline does not feel the sam e way about Romeo. This is when Romeo is unhappy and says to Benvolio: Not having that which makes having short. ( Act 1, Scene 1, Line 162). This very well illustrates how deeply Romeo was in love with Rosaline. In the next scene the audience realize that Romeo ha fallen for another, which is Juliet. For I neer saw true beauty till this night. -Said by Romeo in Act 1, Scene 5, Line 52.The audience can quickly identify Romeos flaw of falling in love too quickly and deeply when he forgets about his feelings for Rosaline and concentrates on Juliet. Juliet too realizes that Romeos love for her was too fast when she said : It is too rash, too undvisd, too sudden.( Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 117-118). Having a tragic flaw could be foreshadowing of the fall of the tragic hero. .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 , .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .postImageUrl , .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 , .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38:hover , .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38:visited , .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38:active { border:0!important; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 { 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; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38:active , .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .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; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38 .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u999c1235839f7488ffde3179086b8d38:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Willy (death of a salesman) vs Essay Rome being the plays tragic hero makes a series of poor decisions. The first decision of many was going to the Capulets party. Direct my sail! Oh lusty gentlemen. Says Romeo in Act 1, Scene 4, Line 113. If Romeo did not go to the party he would not have met Juliet. It was unnecessary for Romeo to try to stop the fight between Tybalt and Mercutio. If Romeo did not try to stop the fight, Mercutio would not have been killed, and the fight between Romeo and Tybalt would not have existed. Romeo says in Act 3, Scene 1, Line 94 : Courage, man; the hurt can not be much., when he tries to stop the fight between Tybalt and Mercutio. Romeo makes the wrong choice when he decides to fight Tybalt for the death of Mercutio. Either thou, or I, or both, must go with him.( Act 3, Scene 1, Line 1290. This quote refers to Romeos challenge for Tybalt. If Romeo did not fight Tybalt he would not have been banished from Verona. Another one of Romeos poor decisions was the decision to commit suicide, which was also his last decision. O true apothecary, thy drugs are quick, thus with a kiss I die. Said Romeo in Act 5, Scene 3, Line 120, right before he died. If only Romeo decided not to drink the poison he would have been alive to see Juliet wake. All these decisions caused Romeo, the tragic hero, to end his life tragically. The suffering of the tragic hero also extends beyond himself. Due to the actions of Romeo, Mercutio and Tybalt died. When he tries to make peace between them and Mercutio is fatally wounded, Romeo remarks pathetically I thought out for the best. - Comments Phillis Rackin author of Shakespeare Tragedies. Mercutios soul is but a little way above our heads, remarks Romeo after Mercutios death, caused by Romeo. Tybalts death also results from Romeos poor actions. After Romeos death Lady Montague dies of a heart attack. Lord Montague says to the Prince in Act 5, Scene 3, Line 209: Alas my leige, my wife is dead tonight. Because of Romeo, Juliet decides upon her own death. She argues with her father, drinks the potion, and later stabs herself, all for the love for Romeo. Veronas peace is disturbed by all the commotion of the fights between the Capulets and the Montagues, caused mainly by Romeo. There is still no peace in the streets of Verona. The families of both Romeo and Juliet suffer over the loss of their children, and everyone is unhappy. Since Romeo brought suffering upon people rather than himself, he is truly the tragic hero and makes the play Romeo and Juliet a tragedy. It is obvious that in the play Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is the tragic hero. This is evident when the audience see Romeos noble birth, his tragic flaw, series of poor decisions he made and the fact that through his actions he brought suffering upon other people. Most plays, stories or novels have a moral. The moral of Romeo and Juliet is not to rush into things like love, hate and important decisions. All people should think twice about every decision they are making. From all the evidence stated in this paragraph along with the paragraphs above it is said that Romeo and Juliet is classified as a tragedy. WORKS CONSULTEDBloom, Nasold. Modern critical views. William shakespeare the Tragedies.1985Rackin, Phillis. Shakespeares Tragedies. 1978Brodley, A.C. Shakespearian Tragedy. 1986Oxford school Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet. 1982

The Debate Over Multicultural Education In America Essays

The Debate Over Multicultural Education in America America has long been called "The Melting Pot" due to the fact that it is made up of a varied mix of races, cultures, and ethnicities. As more and more immigrants come to America searching for a better life, the population naturally becomes more diverse. This has, in turn, spun a great debate over multiculturalism. Some of the issues under fire are who is benefiting from the education, and how to present the material in a way so as to offend the least amount of people. There are many variations on these themes as will be discussed later in this paper. In the 1930's several educators called for programs of cultural diversity that encouraged ethnic and minority students to study their respective heritages. This is not a simple feat due to the fact that there is much diversity within individual cultures. A look at a 1990 census shows that the American population has changed more noticeably in the last ten years than in any other time in the twentieth century, with one out of every four Americans identifying themselves as black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, or American Indian (Gould 198). The number of foreign born residents also reached an all time high of twenty million, easily passing the 1980 record of fourteen million. Most people, from educators to philosophers, agree that an important first step in successfully joining multiple cultures is to develop an understanding of each others background. However, the similarities stop there. One problem is in defining the term "multiculturalism". When it is looked at simply as meaning the existence of a culturally integrated society, many people have no problems. However, when you go beyond that and try to suggest a different way of arriving at that culturally integrated society, Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what will work. Since education is at the root of the problem, it might be appropriate to use an example in that context. Although the debate at Stanford University ran much deeper than I can hope to touch in this paper, the root of the problem was as follows: In 1980, Stanford University came up with a program - later known as the "Stanford-style multicultural curriculum" which aimed to familiarize students with traditions, philosophy, literature, and history of the West. The program consisted of 15 required books by writers such as Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aquinas, Marx, and Freud. By 1987, a group called the Rainbow Coalition argued the fact that the books were all written by DWEM's or Dead White European Males. They felt that this type of teaching denied students the knowledge of contributions by people of color, women, and other oppressed groups. In 1987, the faculty voted 39 to 4 to change the curriculum and do away with the fifteen book requirement and the term "Western" for the study of at least one non-European culture and proper attention to be given to the issues of race and gender (Gould 199). This debate was very important because its publicity provided the grounds for the argument that America is a pluralistic society and to study only one people would not accurately portray what really makes up this country. Proponents of multicultural education argue that it offers students a balanced appreciation and critique of other cultures as well as our own (Stotsky 64). While it is common sense that one could not have a true understanding of a subject by only possessing knowledge of one side of it, this brings up the fact that there would never be enough time in our current school year to equally cover the contributions of each individual nationality. This leaves teachers with two options. The first would be to lengthen the school year, which is highly unlikely because of the political aspects of the situation. The other choice is to modify the curriculum to only include what the instructor (or school) feels are the most important contributions, which again leaves them open to criticism from groups that feel they are not being equally treated. A national standard is out of the question because of the fact that different parts of the country contain certain concentrations of nationalities. An example of this is the high concentration of Cubans in Florida or Latinos in the west. Nonetheless, teachers are at the top of the agenda when it comes to multiculturalism. They can do the most for children during the early years of learning, when kids are most impressionable. By engaging students in activities that follow the lines of their multicultural curriculum, they