The Godly Family Of Colonial Massachusetts Essays

The Godly Family Of Colonial Massachusetts The Godly Family of Colonial Massachusetts Puritans didnt really think of their family as a private household, but as an essential part of society. Many communities tied families to each other by birth or marriage. The communities of the seventeenth-century, being small, had many marriages and remarriages that created a kinship, which was a difficult to understand. In-laws and distant cousins were known as brothers, sister, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, and cousins. This relationship was very important in the social, economic life of the community, because it helped to develop trading networks and investments. Partnerships within families were important, because some members had their own ships. Merchant and artisan families kept their craft skills within the family, by teaching their sons and/or nephews the trade. For economical purposes, it was very important that everything was within family. The father was the authority figure in the family. He represented his family and supported the family. His wife, servants, and children were to submit to his authority (if the children cursed or hit their father, they were penalized with death). Where the sons would live when they got married was up to their father (usually around the parental homestead). The Puritan doctrine states that the wife is not equal to her husband. She was not allowed to vote, had to submit to her husbands commands, and had to show him an attitude of reverence (fear him out of love). The Puritans did provide the wife with some safeguards in the doctrine; such as being able to divorce her husband if hes impotent, cruel, has abandoned and failed to provide for the family. Though the father seems to be the dominant one, his wife does have the power to leave him is she chooses to (with a good reason). History Essays

Contemporary Feminism essays

Contemporary Feminism essays The Type of contemporary, or second wave feminism that appeals to me the most is that of Black Feminism. This type of feminism appeals to me the most because I feel that the black feminists are the strongest. I feel this way because not only are they fighting for rights as women, they are also fighting for rights as people and as a race in this world. Black women are oppressed because of their race, and again because they are black. Yet, nonetheless, they continue to fight for womens rights and for black rights. In this cruel and ugly world, they find strength within each other to rise above their oppressors and continue to fight as slow as the process may be. They want to join other women in the fights for rights but at the same time realize that it is a step-by-step process and they must earn rights as a race before their voices can be heard as fighters for the gender. They have a strong sense of community and work hard to help each other. Black feminists offered a lot of in sight into what working towards freedom was, it was not only about womens rights. Shirley Chisholm said Working toward our own freedom, we can help others work free from the traps of their stereotypes, In the end, antiblack, antifemale, and all forms of discrimination are equivalent to the same thing, andtihumanism. This is something that perhaps a white feminist would not of thought of because they were too worried about their own rights. I appreciate black feminism the most because I believe they are the smartest when it comes to rising above oppression, their demands are not irrational and they represent all oppressed people. They have a strong sense of what they are fighting for and at the same time understand the complexity and struggle that comes with the fight. The type of feminism that appeals to me the least is that of Separatism. Separatist feminists believe that it is impossible to change society, so in the place of...

Minority Media in the U.S Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Minority Media in the U.S - Essay Example One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Hispanic media is the sheer size of its audience. There are approximately 40 million Hispanics in the US, the largest US minority, and 88% of them view Spanish language television (Porter 55). The number of Hispanic television viewers in Los Angeles is greater than the entire viewing audience in Boston (Ballve 20). In addition, nearly 80% of Hispanics listen to Spanish speaking radio and has resulted in Hispanic advertising growing at a rate of 20% in 2002 nearly 3 times the English speaking rate (Porter 55). These statistics translate into dollars as Hispanic radio and TV stations and their broadcasting networks bring in billions of dollars. Before the media industry was worth billions of dollars while selling politics and products to millions of listeners, there were newspapers and periodicals. Kanellos points out that there are two distinctive Hispanic media in the US; the immigrant media, and the primarily native Hispanic press, which is directed at the US citizens of Hispanic descent (4). By the mid-nineteenth century, both natives and immigrants were creating Spanish speaking newspapers and periodicals (Kanellos 3). These circulations would form the genesis of the Hispanic press and the coming electronic media. Kanellos contends that in 1910, during the massive immigration of economic and political refugees from Mexico into the US, the Hispanic press began to define itself. Publishers and columnists advocated using the press for the "defense of the community" (Kanellos 4). According to Kanellos, "...defense meant protecting immigrants civil and human rights, but just as important it also meant protecting the commun ity from the influence of Anglo-American culture and the Protestant religion" (4). It is on this foundation that the Hispanic media has been able to build a cohesive base that centers on a common

Physical Privacy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Physical Privacy - Essay Example Firstly, with regards to the underlying question of whether or not illegal steroid usage should be penalized to the same degree under the law that other forms of illegal drugs are penalized, it is the belief of this author that there must be a differential between the levels of punishment between these two types of drug users. This is due to the fact that the majority of illegal drugs target the means by which the user integrates with reality. What this implies is that the individual that takes mind-altering drugs is at a specific disadvantage with regards to interpreting reality and acting accordingly. As such, this means that the individual poses a risk to broader society in that they are oftentimes incapable of making rational decisions. However, with regards to the steroid user/performance enhancing drug user, although they are damaging their own health, they do not necessarily pose a risk to society at large due to the fact that steroid/performance enhancing drug usage does not impair one’s ability to make informed decisions. ... ams represent role models as opposed to financial instruments, it is the belief of this author that the idolization of sports players has reached something of preposterous proportions. Although there are many young and impressionable minds that seek to emulate the exploits and character traits of their favorite athletes, the society at large has become enamored with the means by which sportsmen, and sportswomen for that matter, represent the highest values that individuals can and should strive. Ultimately, the players should not be viewed in such a light due to the fact that they are merely investment tools utilized by corporations to increase profit (Murray, 2008). As such, one can and should revere the sportsman to no greater degree than members of a public transportation union. These members are merely performing a task and are receiving payment for doing so. Although this may come across as something of a rather jaded opinion, the utility of the onlooker is not served to any gre ater extent by viewing these individuals as demigods; rather, such an enterprise is only promoted as a means of furthering the bottom line of the corporate interests that promote the consumption of such programming and sporting events. However, before the reader can take the preceding argument against the criminalization of illegal steroid/performance enhancing drug usage too seriously, it should be stated that it the solid belief of this author that the ethical breach that such an action portends should have a high professional, albeit not legal, penalty. By breaking the public’s trust and cheating, the utility of the viewer is inherently reduced to near meaningless. As such, it is the strong belief of this author that even though it should be outside of the court’s jurisdiction to

Crisis Awareness and Organizational Audit Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Crisis Awareness and Organizational Audit - Essay Example The companies however must be aware of the underlying danger due to competition from other companies, especially the international ones. The companies reduced reputation may also mean loss of market and sales. The company must take caution on the arising effects of mortgage closers and move ahead to repair the damage by restoring trust among the clients. The companies need good and aggressive leadership to be able to forecast on what to do the arising crisis. Enough time and cash is also needed to be able to remunerate its workers well, plan and carry out research on available methods of dealing with every crisis. The companies also need creditors to be able to supply enough cash to sustain it during the crisis e.g. low sales. Legal and business advisers are also necessary to help the company come up with viable changes that are befitting and reverting the crisis. (See http://www.nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.phpnewsid=3008276

Role of the Media on Islamophobia Since Trumps Election

Role of the Media on Islamophobia Since Trumps Election Dramatically increased Islamophobia in American Media coverage since Trump’s Presidency: Muslims in America are more vulnerable to bigotry and Islamophobia as a result of Donald Trump’s behaviour and actions Abstract This research paper implies the role of International media in the propagation and multiplication of hatred and hostility vibe against Muslims in the American society since the U.S. presidential election campaign. The objective of this research paper is to focus on the reasons, role of media and Trump’s influence behind the increasing hostility and aggression against Muslims in US, and how it is utilized to legitimize the segregation towards them. Muslims have been more vulnerable to violence, threats and hatred since start of American presidential campaign especially after Trump’s hateful speeches. During the first GOP debate in August 2015, Islamophobia made an appearance just a month later in September 2017, the first incident of Muslims hatred of anti-Muslim occurred. Since 9/11 fear based oppressor exercises by white radical or Christians is a common hone, even after they have slaughtered numbers comparable to those hurt by Muslims. Yet we do not hear any segregati on towards Christianity or Christians by and large indeed in most cases they are displayed as solitary or lone wolf, mental case or medicate fiend but never as a terrorist, American news outlets are also more concerned about non-Muslim victims rather than Muslim victims of terror. Trump has a track record of advocating and encouraging Islamophobia during elections campaign and even after winning the elections. After just a year following the California and France terror attacks he called for a ban of Muslims entering US as it is obvious from his actions and words that he can’t distinguish between extremist’s groups of various radical elements and the rest of the world’s nearly 2 billion Muslims who played no role in these incidents who are merely a victim in all this. Meanwhile, he has been shockingly silent on the attacks on Muslims, showed no concern for Muslims victims whatsoever, which depicts a double standard regarding his concern over the issue of terrori sm. 30 articles have been reviewed for this purpose, the analysis of these research papers recommended that threatening vibe towards Muslims is seen as usual and regular practice in the west not only by common public but also the current President of United States of America. By analysing all the articles, it will be sufficing to say that Trump’s entire political career was based on the hatred towards Muslims and Islamophobia. Keywords: Muslims, Terror incidents, American Media coverage, Lone wolf, Islamophobia, Islam, 9/11, Election Campaign, President Trump, American President, Trump’s Administration Introduction For everyone in America and all over the world it was shocking when Donald Trump suggested a ban on Muslims entering the US, but this behavior towards Muslims has remained a common practice throughout American history. In 2016 Donald Trump’s claim that â€Å"Islam hates us†. What is alarming about this is that it comes from an orientalist misconception which have never been changed over the last 200 years. Reality is that Islam doesn’t hate America or the West. There are certainly Muslims radical organizations who despise the United States, but they do not hate US because of their religion (Saladin, 2016). A critical point in the portrayal of negative media depiction of Muslims happened in the post- 9/11 period, Muslims were freely related with terror. There are several TV pictures, serials, talk shows, cartoons, and news coverage, where Muslims are depicted as uncivilized, anti-modern, anti-democratic, and psychological militants, fundamentalists, radicals, aggressors, primitive, and anti-western. Violent happenings or terror incidents are immediately and mostly linked with Islamic nations by the western media. The western world own major news networks, and TV stations, many of them are headquartered in other nations around the world. Larger part of them is either run by the Jews or is beneath capable campaign of Jews and Christians who significantly restrict any positive accomplishment on portion of the Muslims (Nurullah, 2010). Donald Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner during his elections campaign promoted anti-Muslim stance in the wake of Paris attacks, November 2015 rather than calling for peace, harmony and international unity. Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim statements during his elections campaign and television interviews and appearances on international and national networks impacts millions of viewers across US and the globe (Abdelkader, 2016). The media is connected to religion in the way that it depicts the expression of religion to its given disciples as well as to the individuals out there. It too upgrades the understandings of a specific religion through important insignia of it. Media is basically a platform which spread the message and sets standards. In this way, the media plays two roles in the depiction of religion: to emphatically depict it or delineate it contrarily to the masses. Subsequently, it depends on the editors who select the material to be broadcasted in the media. The beliefs and worldviews of those guardians unequivocally influence the choice of news and occasions. Acts of terrorism committed by people of other faiths are not connected to their devout character. Acc. to the media portrayal, fear mongering in advanced times has ended up the sole trade of Muslims. This wholesome attribution of Muslims as fear mongers has come about in Islamophobia, racial scorn, slaughter, and viciousness (Nacos & Reyna, 2003). This paper analysis the reasons behind the sharp rise in wrongdoings against Islam and Muslims or those seen to be Muslim in America. The article, in any case, will propose that there are critical changes taking put in U.S. culture which will enlighten the reasons why the surge in wrongdoings coordinated at Muslims in America was harsh, but brief (Kaplan, 2006). Further this paper explores President Trump’s anti-Muslim views and actions, linking them to the increase in hate toward Muslims during his tenure. His anti-Muslims actions basically served the political purpose maintaining his political support base of white American class and, creating a divide among west and Muslims (Nuruzzaman, 2017). The Washington Post’s reporting of the November 13, 2015, Paris attack distinguished from the paper’s coverage of the first Ankara assault. In terms of sheer unmistakable quality, coverage of the Paris assault overshadowed coverage of the Ankara assault. The feature conjured the word terror, while the rest of the article described—in distinctive detail—specific scenes of savagery (el-Nawawy, & Elmasry, 2017). The commonality of orthodox representations correlating Muslims with terror in standard media uncovers broad conviction among the makers of media messages that the affiliation, or association, is typical, sensible, and/or satisfactory, which is at that point suggested to, and learned by, youth, instead believing that, the affiliation is unfair and stereotypical and hurts Muslims, making them defenceless to preference and segregation in the public sphere (Jackson, 2010). Currently in US, Muslims are regularly depicted as pariahs in settings of national sharing, despite the fact that they are American-born citizens. Islamophobic conversations are based on the view that Islam don’t belong in the West and that Muslim refugees cannot be truly identified with the states in which they live (Shryock, 2013). The other common narrative is that white Christian extremists who commit terrorist attacks are not terrorists. There are exceptions. The Oklahoma bombing by a white Christian is generally considered to be an act of terrorism, although the attack was initially blamed on Islamic terrorist groups. For the most part, though, â€Å"terrorist† was not a word applied to the white Christian responsible for the Quebec City attack. Nor is he alone in avoiding classification as a terrorist (Corbin, 2017). Literature Review President Trump’s â€Å"America First† narrative is basically the continuation of the Bush’s anti-Muslim stance. It is President Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions that have made him look Islamophobic, but he is not only American leader with terrible anti-Muslim mind-sets. His anti-Muslim rhetoric serves his political purpose but at a high cost to the Muslims. Neither did he hide his anti-Muslim sentiments that has created a weird situation in the relationships between the Muslims and Trump’s America (Nuruzzaman). Even if media do not impart public to relate Muslims with terror, they will, in any case, learn that it is typical to do so, that it is recognized in the standard media as sensible or worthy, rather than as damaging to Muslims, who confront segregation, bias, and hatefulness when the breadth of their substances is not considered newsworthy or engaging, lacking an education that basically reacts to the transcendent generalization. Topical, expository, and basic lessons in media proficiency must complement the formal educational programs approximately Islam to optimize the dynamic mindfulness and basic gathering of what is eventually depicted as typical to think regarding Muslims in the mass media. What specific assets are utilized is not as critical as what is communicated through their consideration: that standard messages are inadequate or biased, and that informed members of an equitable society must hook with numerous viewpoints when it comes to troublesome, disputable subjects to act independently and in an educated way inside society (Jackson). Even with the strong opposition even from political parties and public opinion and with the disrespect for the American Constitution, why is it so that Trump still had so much support? It’s because he influences that fear that still prevails in people minds after 9/11 which is sufficient enough to believe that Muslims hates America and wants to harm them (Mutum, 2016). Soon after Trump’s Presidency, he begins carrying out the campaign he promises, the first travel bans a prerequisite. â€Å"The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.† (Patel, & Levinson-Waldman 2017). Conservative leader who openly share their hate for Muslims have escalates negative approaches. For the propagation of Islamophobia, the tremendous majority shares the media is partly guilty. The generalizations that are propagated in the media may not have pernicious expectation, but they are belittling to Muslims and may lead to incognito and unmistakable separation on interpersonal levels (Al-Hamdani, 2016). The 2016 U.S. presidential caused another wave of Islamophobia, threatening American Muslims freedom. In 2015, there were almost 174 incidents of anti-Muslim violence and Muslims suffered due to such attacks as they were more likely to be the victim of the crimes and assaults as compare to non-Muslims (Abdelkader, 2016). Role of a Muslim women in society is often projected through media which has become the main source of learning these days. Despite of social practice mostly Muslims women are viewed as subjugated, backward, oppressed and inclined toward terror (Watt, 2012). Donald Trump’s speeches indicated the rise in hatred towards Muslims in USA.   Donald said that Muslims only care for Jihad indicating ISIS, and Muslims hates US.   Acc. To Trump, â€Å"why does President Obama defend Muslims in America? Oh, I can see that he is one of them, he is a Muslim, right?† From this it is obvious that Trump really hates Muslim and President Obama. By all this he was trying to construct the bad image of Muslim to gain supports form the American society. He builds his own image of a leader for all the Non-Muslims and supporters of Anti Muslims sentiments which especially effected the family of terrorism victims. (Puspitasari, 2016) The affiliation of Islam with terror has come to be acknowledged as fragment of the discourse on security and terrorism; it will be sufficing to say that â€Å"Muslim† and â€Å"terrorist† have ended up nearly synonymous (Eid, & Karim, 2011). The narrative â€Å"our Lone wolf/ Your terrorists† by Phillips and many others, depicts the relation between civilizing Christians and regressing Islam.   (Humphrys, 2012). If Trump didn’t create the terror narrative such a racial stereotype, white innocence and white supremacy his administration did exploit these theme. These two propagandas complement each other and their consequence effect Muslims a lot (Corbin, 2017). It is obvious from the behavior of the voter that Trump follower’s attitudes on the views like sexism, authoritarianism and Islamophobia differs from that of Clinton, influence of Islamophobia is strong in Trump’s followers (Blair, 2016). Trump’s Muslims hate during the atmosphere of terror incidents make the environment even more intense which influence his presidential campaign (Beydoun, 2017). Brooks, R. A, claims that Muslim inhabitants or citizens of the US symbolise to a genuine and developing terror threat to American society, especially in their assumed readiness or capacity to execute dangerous assaults in the US. It doesn’t seem that Muslim Americans are progressively influenced or proficient of involving terror assaults against their inhabitants (Brooks, 2011). This study revealed that of media coverage of such terror incidents are based on the concept of depicting Islam as a culture and religion of violence and fear, while US is a great Christian country. Coverage of terrorism highlights contrast in religion, demonizing Muslims and civilising Christians. Fatalities of terror were characterized as innocent, imploring, Christian, and otherworldly in a few ways, being slaughtered, harmed or frightened by wicked Muslim terrorist. In the US Media coverage assist in creating a sense of triviality of domestic terrorism and highlights devout contrasts that contribute to a ‘‘holy war,’’ while upgrading a culture of fear of Muslims and Islam (Powell, 2011). Long-term and short-term revelation to media labelling of Muslims as terrorists increases recognitions  of Muslims as destructive, which in turn increments  bolster for policies that hurt Muslims locally and globally (Saleem, Prot, Anderson, Lemieux, 2017). The occasions  of 9/11 constrained  the media’s hand to cover the Muslim and Arab minorities more regularly. This moreover caused the press to show news consumers with a more inclusive picture of these groups. One consequence was that the news media allowed Muslim-Americans more access after 9/11, and individuals  of this minority made themselves accessible to the media (Nacos & Torres-Reyna, 2003). The augment of Islamophobia in the West has raised concerns among analysts  and policymakers. While the standard media and a few political leaders relate Islam with savagery, the reports by noticeable organizations focus upon a common loathe of Muslims. An initial look at the clear figures uncovered that Western citizens hold different approaches of Islamophobic outlooks and these views from a general feeling around Muslims to the discernment of Muslims as compassionate of terrorist organizations (Ciftci, 2012). Being a victim of such forms of biasness on ordinary basis can prompt character issues. The effort of combining and absorbing  two diverse  societies  can regularly  feel like an amusement  of tug of war for Muslim Americans Youth (Al-Hamdani). Due to Trump’s hate towards Muslims general public of America believes trump is a solution to the â€Å"Muslim problem† in the west. But in reality since his election campaign and after the presidency situation stared to get worse as he has no understanding of basic human rights or the respect for the different religions and the people (Greene, 2016). The terms such as â€Å"terrorist† and â€Å"guerilla† which were endorsed by American Media after 9/11 as public relies on Media for information so this framing influenced the public opinion (Eid, & Karim 2011). US need to realise that real enemy is not Islam nor the Muslims in US it’s their ignorance (Bennett, 2016). Islamophobia or hatred towards Muslims is not going to make America great again (Carlson, 2016). Hypothesis President Trump’s entire political career and his success in 2017 elections was based on Islamophobia. Muslims in America are more vulnerable to bigotry and Islamophobia as a result of Donald Trump’s behaviour and actions. Trump call for Shutting Down Mosques In the wake of Paris terrorist attacks Donald Trump called for shutting down the Mosques. â€Å"Trump Doubles Down On Closing Mosques: Were Gonna Have No Choice (VIDEO).† Thus resulting in increased in directly attacks on mosques. This surged once again in December, 2015 which resultantly increased the number of attacks on mosques and Islamic schools dramatically as compare to the beginning of presidential campaign. In most cases the suspects were public supporters of presidential candidate Donald Trump. This political rhetoric created fertile ground for hatred and fear against Muslims in US. These attacks on mosques and Islamic institutes sends a strong message all over the world that Muslims are not welcome and not safe in the American society (Abdelkader). Trump Supporters are more likely to be Islamophobic In relapses to anticipate voting for Clinton or Trump, attitude measures were the strongest, noteworthy indicators of voting eagerly. The design would lead one to anticipate social dominance introduction to altogether foresee voting for Trump, but due to the overpowering quality of Islamophobia in anticipating votes for Trump, social dominance introduction did not come out as a critical indicator of voting for Trump vs. all others. People were more than 3 times more likely to vote for Trump for 2/4 each step they expanded on the Islamophobia scale and 2.6 times more likely to be undecided or voting for a third party candidate for each step that they diminished on the Islamophobia scale (Blair, 2016). All Terrorists Are Muslims This biased media depiction implies that Muslims are more inclined towards violence and hatred thus making them a threat to US and other western societies. Hence, it is important to part the general perceptions about Muslims from more specific approaches linking Muslims to aggression and terrorism (Ciftci). Association of Islam with terrorism seems to be accepted as part of the communication on security and terrorism, so much that the words â€Å"Muslim† and â€Å"terrorist† have become almost identical (Eid & Karim, 2011). This description of all Muslims as one psychological ‘species’, horribly chronological as it is, can at that point be utilized regularly  interface  Muslim  outrage  with all the ills of Islam, repeating the same xenophobia this time in pseudo-psychological discussion (Humphrys, 2012). Mass media links Islam and Muslims, with terrorism, depicting the religion and the group most normally as irrational, fundamentalist, and/or inclined to receptive aggression (Jackson). Why this was happening and what was the origin? Trump may not be the reason for making situation worse for Muslims in US but he didn’t help either (Bennett, 2016). Trump’s racist election campaign The racist factor during Trump’s election campaign help his throughout his entire political career. It is really ironic that in the most developed country like US a person like Trump can win with majority, most of the researchers believes that Trump won the elections due to his racism and Islamophobic stance and it was due to his attitude that caused the uprising and protest in throughout US even when his votes were being counted (OFarrell, 2017). What makes this even more threatening is that Trump is very bold, open and vocal about his feeling about anything (Carlson, 2016). No White People Are Terrorists In today’s mass societies individuals are indeed more reliant on the news since they have â€Å"nowhere else to turn for information about general affairs and for guidelines on how to perceive and decipher that information† (Neuman, Russell, Just & Crigler 1996). A Muslim accountable for aggression that expresses adoration for previous mass shooters and writes â€Å"[t]hose that allow their God to be mocked have no God† would instantly be branded a terrorist. A white Christian accountable for aggression that expresses adoration for the Charleston attacker and who compose that exceptional sentence, however, is not (Corbin). The Washington Post portrays assault against Western European targets (2015-2016), and assault against Muslim majority communities, differently. In covering assaults on France and Belgium, The Post utilized â€Å"terrorism frames† to formulate coverage while constantly humanizing victims and drawing associations between European societies and the Western world more usually. Assaults against Turkey and Nigeria were covered less significantly and were mainly portrayed as domestic clash (el-Nawawy & Elmasry).   Accordingly, journalists, editors and producers in the news media make decisions persistently about who, how and what to display  in the news; such choices are affected by their organizations’ standard working  methods  (Nacos & Torres-Reyna, 2003).   Major networks in US rarely aired helpful content for Muslims  neither externally nor internally.   Important issues that consider on the news about Muslims involve residential security, worldwide clashes, and terrorism (Al-Hamdani, Y, 2016). The Islamophobic Trump’s Administration Trump’s hate and bigotry which laid foundation to his political career has now reached White House. His team includes some Islamophobics like Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Sebastian Gorka. Trump support and inclination towards Muslims has encouraged hateful elements to act freely against Muslims (Patel & Levinson-Waldman, 2017). Subjugation of Muslim Women In the evolution of chronological Islamophobia to gendered Islamophobia, Juliane Hammer outlined the complications of Islamophobia focussed towards Muslim women in America. She makes the case that gender, as a social develop, is depicted as Muslim men being brutal terrorists and Muslim women being dominated by Muslim men; thus the need for Muslim women to be liberate from their religion and civilization (Ernst, 2013). Instead of the fact that social tradition shifts broadly, numerous non-Muslims have tended to view the role of women as permanent and homogenous, and western societies deliver a set of presumptions and depictions about the Islamic custom of covering for ladies which build it as a representation of backwardness, spiritual fundamentalism, male domination, and terrorism (Watt, 2012). Discrimination among White Terrorists & Muslim Terrorists Reporting of terrorist incidents shows a design of media coverage of terrorism in which fear of global terrorism is central, mainly as Muslims=Arabs=Islam functioning mutually in structured terrorist cells in opposition to ‘‘Christian America,’’ whereas household terrorism is radiate as a slight danger that occurs in confined occurrences by disturbed people (Powell). As Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon (2011): What it says is what we’ve seen over an over: that Terrorism has no purposeful meaning and, in any case in American political conversations, has come partially to mean: aggression committed by Muslims whom the West loathes, no matter the reason or the objective. Undoubtedly, in many media circles, argument of the Oslo assault rapidly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was accepted Muslims did it) to no, this isn’t Terrorism, just extremism (once it got to be likely that Muslims didn’t).   The Politics of Islamophobia These political views of Trump were shared by precedence Presidents and pioneers as well (Beydoun, 2017). Western citizens see Muslims as obsessive, aggressive and supportive of terrorism because they believe them to be hostile to their physical well-being and social values. This feeling is used by media and right-wing leaders to nourish the xenophobia of a new variety (Ciftci, 2012). The media also reported that pioneers like President Bush and New York’s Mayor Rudi Giuliani advice Americans not to express their rage toward cultural and devout minorities. It appears that these reports did not obliterate the public’s questions regarding Muslim- and Arab-Americans’ patriotism (Nacos, & Torres-Reyna, 2003). Ban on Muslims On March 6, 2017, Trump issued an executive order that hits Muslims. This ban has a variety of negative outcomes and more far reaching consequences. It reinforces the idea of Islamophobia in the country, thus the US administration is responsible for promoting hate against Muslims not only in the US but the whole world. The first executive order, January 2017 faced protests by disheartened Americans across the US. Trump administration’s unjust ban on Muslims community helped Muslims American in gaining sympathetic support among America’s mainstream. (Jamal, 2017). Conclusion Lack of interest and knowledge regarding Muslims, their culture, norms and values leads to a manipulative Islamophobia. Muslims must be sentient that in the view of Non –Muslims they represent themselves collectively not individually. Media should play a vital role in negating such anti-Muslim propagandas. Balanced news reporting of Muslims, in the US as well as internationally, can decrease the perception that Muslims are supporting terrorism or extremist activities. The Muslim community is diverse in US in many aspects of race, class or creed so associating an individual, as a Muslim on the basis of their appearance is not usually accurate. When society assumes that all Muslims practices same religious practices and convictions, they are making the judgment that fundamentally all the Muslim community is same there no distinction between the individuals of that bunches and all of them are inalienably homogeneous. Why precisely is this fear and hate occurring in spite of the fact that and where is it coming from? Trump isn’t the reason Americans are undermining Muslims and mosques in specific all through the US, but he isn’t making a difference either. After each incident that happens including a terror assault, hate crimes emerge. An article by Corky Siemaszko from NBC found that after the Paris assaults, 38 anti-Muslim assaults happened in the blink of an eye from there on. 18 of those assaults happened straightforwardly after the December 2nd butcher in San Bernardino as well. Politically incorrect statements like this are fueling the fire of the fear and hatred the American people are feeling. The generalizations that are circulated in the media may not have hurtful expectation, but they are maligning Muslims picture in the western society and may lead to clandestine and obvious separation on interpersonal levels. Representations in US media of Islam and Muslims barely scratch the surface when it comes to the differing qualities of the community, around the world: in Middle East, in UN, and in other Western and Eastern nations. Thematic, logical, and critical lessons in media education must complement the formal educational programs almost Islam to optimize the dynamic mindfulness and basic gathering of what is eventually depicted as ordinary to think almost Muslims in the mass media. It will suffice to say that Donald Trump due to his hatred towards Muslims has made the situation in the USA for Muslims worst after terrorism attacks in California and San Bernardino. He manipulates and takes advantage from these attack which are committed by Muslim to provoke anti Muslims elements and gain their favour like he did during his elections campaign by announcing a ban on Muslim from entering US. Due to which the anti-Muslims elements side with and cast vote for him, his Islamophobic actions contribute to his political career and success making the life of Muslims in US worse and worse day by day. References Al-Hamdani, Y. (2016). Islamophobia and the young Muslim American experience (Doctoral dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University). Abdelkader, E. (2016). When Islamophobia turns violent: the 2016 US presidential elections. Brooks, R. A. (2011). Muslim â€Å"homegrown† terrorism in the United States: how serious is the threat?. International Security, 36(2), 7-47. Blair, K. L. (2016). A ‘basket of deplorables’? A new study finds that Trump supporters are more likely to be Islamophobic, racist, transphobic and homophobic. USApp–American Politics and Policy Blog. Beydoun, K. A. (2017). Muslim Bans and the (Re) Making of Political Islamophobia. U. Ill. L. Rev., 1733. Bennett, S. (2016). Republican Party Jumps on Board for Islamophobia. Ciftci, S. (2012). Islamophobia and threat perceptions: Explaining anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 32(3), 293-309. Carlson, G. A. (2016). I’m Not Racist, I Love Those People: How Trump’s Language Reveals His Bigotry. Corbin, C. M. (2017). Terrorists are Always Muslim But Never White: At the Intersection of Critical Race Theory and Propaganda. Eid, M., & Karim, K. H. (2011). Ten years after 9/11—What have we learned?. Global Media Journal—Canadian Edition, 4(2), 1-12. el-Nawawy, M., &Elmasry, M. H. (2017). Valuing Victims: A Comparative Framing Analysis of The Washington Post’s Coverage of Violent Attacks Against Muslims and Non-Muslims. International Journal of Communication, 11, 20. Greenwald, G. (2011). The Omnipotence of Al Qaeda and Meaninglessness of ‘Terrorism.’.  Salon, July,  23. Greene, R. L. (2016). Islamophobia â€Å"Trumps† Reason. Humphrys, E. (2012). Your ‘Terrorists’, Our ‘Lone Wolves’: Utà ¸ya in the shadow of 9/11. Journal of International Relations Research, 72. Jackson, L. (2010). Images of Islam in US media and their educational implications. Jamal, A. A. (2017). Trump (ing) on Muslim Women: The Gendered Side of Islamophobia. Journal of Middle East Womens Studies, 13(3), 472-475. Kaplan, J. (2006). Islamophobia in America?: September 11 and Islamophobic Hate Crime 1. Terrorism and Political Violence, 18(1), 1-33. Nacos, B. L., & Torres-Reyna, O. (2003). Framing Muslim-Americans before and after 9/11.  Framing terrorism: The news media, the government, and the public, 133-158. Nurullah, A. S. (2010). Portrayal of Muslims in the media:â€Å"24† and the ‘Othering’process. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1), 1020-1046. Nuruzzaman, M. (2017). President Trump’s Islamophobia and the Muslims: A Case Study in Crisis Communication. International Journal of Crisis Communication, 1(1), 16-20. Neuman,Russell W.,Marion R. Just and Ann N. Crigler. 1996. Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mutum, D. M. (2016). Leading Trump: Why the United States Shouldn’t Accept the Hand that has been Dealt. OFarrell, D. (2017). Trump’s first 5 months-this isn’t normal Irish Marxist Review, 6(18), 55-64. Powell, K. A. (2011). Framing Islam: An analysis of US media coverage of terrorism since 9/11. Communication Studies, 62(1), 90-112. Puspitasari, D. G. ISLAMOPHOBIA PORTRAYED IN DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES. SENABASTRA| 8, 57. Patel, F., & Levinson-Waldman, R. (2017). The Islamophobic Administration. Brennan Center for Justice.   Saleem, M., Prot, S., Anderson, C. A., & Lemieux, A. F. (2017). Exposure to Muslims in media and support for public policies harming Muslims. Communication Research, 44(6), 841-869. Saladin, C. S. (2016). What do Donald Trump and John Quincy Adams have in Common? Islamophobia. Shryock, A. J. (2013). Attack of the Islamophobes. In Islamophobia in America (pp. 145-174). Palgrave Macmillan US. Watt, D. (2012). The urgency of visual media literacy in our post-9/11 world: Reading images of Muslim women in the print news media. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(1), 4.

Coming Home Essay -- Homosexuality

Marriage: n. The uniting of a man and woman as husband and wife (Webster’s Standard Dictionary 178). Up until the 1970‘s, homosexuals were highly looked down upon and could not come out about their sexual feelings for fear of undergoing abuse socially. Presently, same-sex marriage has caused the unity of two people to become a far more complicated, constitutionally and politically questioned issue than once imagined. Same-Sex Marriage: A Brief Background If marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, then it becomes severely difficult for a man and another man to marry, or two women. The first state to allow same-sex marriage, Massachusetts, had a large impact on homosexuals in America. Since 2003, a multifold of gay couples have taken the opportunity to legally wed in this unique state (Friedman). Currently, many states are being fought over between supporters and opposers of same-sex marriage; the key states are New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania (Gallagher). The support and opposal of same-sex marriage has drastically changed in the past decade. Seven or eight years ago American opinion polls display that the people opposed gay marriage by a 2-1 margin (Klarman). Furthermore, another poll taken in April 2005 told differently; according to a CNN/USA Today, Gallup poll, 68% of Americans felt that same-sex marriage should not be recognized as valid; 28% felt they should be valid, and 4% had no opinion. However, current opinion polls have presented that a slender majority of Americans support gay marriage (Klarman). Beside the fact that not everyone supports same-sex marriage, more homosexuals have come out to the people in their lives. â€Å"The number of Americans ... ...Gay Marriage, Empathy Is A Two- Way Street.† Dallas Morning News (Dallas, TX). 10 Nov 2009: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Apr 2012. Friedman, Laurie S.. Gay Marriage: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Gallagher, Maggie. â€Å"Gay Marriage: New York’s GOP Let’s Down the Base.† Wall Street Journal. 30 Jun 2011: A. 15. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Apr 2012. Jacobs, Deborah. "It's time to stop fighting about same-sex marriage." Forbes.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 27 Apr 2012. . Klarman, Michael. â€Å"Why Gay Marriage Is Inevitable.† Los Angeles Times. 12 Feb 2012: A. 27. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 12 Apr 2012. Olson, Walter. â€Å"Gay Marriage: An Amen for Albany.† Wall Street Journal. 30 Jun 2011: A. 15. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Apr 2012. Coming Home Essay -- Homosexuality Marriage: n. The uniting of a man and woman as husband and wife (Webster’s Standard Dictionary 178). Up until the 1970‘s, homosexuals were highly looked down upon and could not come out about their sexual feelings for fear of undergoing abuse socially. Presently, same-sex marriage has caused the unity of two people to become a far more complicated, constitutionally and politically questioned issue than once imagined. Same-Sex Marriage: A Brief Background If marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, then it becomes severely difficult for a man and another man to marry, or two women. The first state to allow same-sex marriage, Massachusetts, had a large impact on homosexuals in America. Since 2003, a multifold of gay couples have taken the opportunity to legally wed in this unique state (Friedman). Currently, many states are being fought over between supporters and opposers of same-sex marriage; the key states are New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania (Gallagher). The support and opposal of same-sex marriage has drastically changed in the past decade. Seven or eight years ago American opinion polls display that the people opposed gay marriage by a 2-1 margin (Klarman). Furthermore, another poll taken in April 2005 told differently; according to a CNN/USA Today, Gallup poll, 68% of Americans felt that same-sex marriage should not be recognized as valid; 28% felt they should be valid, and 4% had no opinion. However, current opinion polls have presented that a slender majority of Americans support gay marriage (Klarman). Beside the fact that not everyone supports same-sex marriage, more homosexuals have come out to the people in their lives. â€Å"The number of Americans ... ...Gay Marriage, Empathy Is A Two- Way Street.† Dallas Morning News (Dallas, TX). 10 Nov 2009: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Apr 2012. Friedman, Laurie S.. Gay Marriage: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Gallagher, Maggie. â€Å"Gay Marriage: New York’s GOP Let’s Down the Base.† Wall Street Journal. 30 Jun 2011: A. 15. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Apr 2012. Jacobs, Deborah. "It's time to stop fighting about same-sex marriage." Forbes.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 27 Apr 2012. . Klarman, Michael. â€Å"Why Gay Marriage Is Inevitable.† Los Angeles Times. 12 Feb 2012: A. 27. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 12 Apr 2012. Olson, Walter. â€Å"Gay Marriage: An Amen for Albany.† Wall Street Journal. 30 Jun 2011: A. 15. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Apr 2012.

Electricity Comes to Cocoa Bottom

ocoa Electricity comes to Cocoa Bottom – Essay There are several literary techniques that are used in this poem such as â€Å"lamps†¦Oil† this is very ironic because they have brought old technology to come and see the new technology being unveiled. Also the fact that they are â€Å"waiting for sunset† is ironic because they are replacing natural light with artificial light.Near the beginning there is a Simile used â€Å"Cable was drawn like a pencil line across the sun† This uses one of the main themes of the poem – technology verses nature, it seems that the â€Å"Cable† is taking over from the sun and is sapping some of its power also a â€Å"pencil line† is not as colourful as the sun with the many different shades this implies that the world is going grey and will have less life in it after the technology has â€Å"taken over†.There is also personification and anticipation used in â€Å"A breeze coming home from the s ea held its Breath†; this shows that even nature is aware of how special this event is. Also the â€Å"Bamboo lining the dirt road stopped swaying† even though this is logical being that the wind has stopped it also heightens the sense of anticipation of the grand event. Sibilance is used in â€Å"as soft as chiffon curtains: Closing. Closing. This uses the repeated â€Å"s† sound to give a gentle ending to the verse and the full stop in between the â€Å"Closing† suggests an amount of time has passed. Irony is used again in â€Å"Is there one among us to record this moment? But there was none† this is ironic because the poem is in fact a written record of the moment. The poem is a narrative and you get this feeling of a story all the way through, It has three stanza two long ones and a shorter one the first one is 17 lines and they get smaller to 15 lines then only 6. – couldn’t find much about the form and structure.

Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia Essays

Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia Essays Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia Paper Khrushchev was the most successful leader of Russia Paper Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev was and remains Russia’s most conscientious leader, who correctly identified problems within Russia and the first to initiate fundamental change, which would bring about sustained prosperity and stability within all aspects of Russia. In order to implement this, Khrushchev had either rejected previous policies for their failure or weaknesses to adequately work, in order to replace them with ones more functional at grassroots level, or to first produce policies that would allow initial growth to occur. It is these policies which have remained fundamental to Russia; though later leaders may have furthered or readjusted them, their initial purpose remained at the core of many later policies. Reforms were intended to produce an improvement in all elements of Russia’s state functioning collectively; with the intension of such policies providing the groundwork for their further development by later leaders and this is precisely what is noticed in succeeding offices, which saw an elaboration of certain elements of Khrushchev’s initial policies. It is these initial policies which laid the basis for further reform, which allow me to deem Khrushchev the most successful leader; as it was reformations implemented on his behalf, which provided the framework for further sustained successful development. An example of Khrushchev’s rejection of previous policies to function sufficiently and replace them with adequate ones, is the 20th party conference in 1956. Khrushchev spoke of a â€Å"new political thinking†, in which he made visible, that previous attempts to successfully implement â€Å"socialism† were ineffective. If Russia was to transgress from its current position economic, political and social instability it had to part with former ways in order to accomplish this. Khrushchev acknowledged that transgression to economic and social prosperity had to come at a price. Khrushchev largely knew that the Russian political spectrum had been manufactured and dictated by the sole decisions-making of one individual: Stalin. As A. J. P. Taylor writes: â€Å"Stalin alone made every great decision [2] Russia’s stagnation was confound, to the political momentum in which Stalin was the sole instigator. The concept of Stalinisation was one in which all elements of Russian diplomatic and civil expression where entranced in absolute totalitarian control by one man. Transgression in any direction was indentured, by that individuals own perception of development – be it even if it was or wasn’t justifiable or applicable; as-long as they deemed it just. As Khrushchev stated at the 20th party conference: â€Å"Stalin acted not through persuasion nd cooperation with people, but by demanding absolute submission to his opinion. †[3] It is therefore to no surprise, that the implementation of de-Stalinisation was pivotal in permitting development in Russia. De-Stalinisation was a political tool which permitted the political domain of Russia to freely express new political initiatives, without being restricted by fear of opposing the totalitarian regime. The infrastructure was not reformed by this process, rather re-opened: it was now liable to change. It is this fundamental principle which became immensely pivotal for the development of Russia. De-Stalinisation fragmented previous policies which were deem unbeneficial, so their reconstruction for a more prosperous one in which sustained abrupt industrial, agricultural, civil and diplomatic advances where sufficiently developed and maintained- could be achieved. The rejection of previous failings is an intellectual concept pioneered by Khrushchev and adopted by every successor of his; for its practical advantages. It allowed the person in power to reform certain elements of the state; by initially focusing of on the weaknesses of the current system, than providing an alternative structure, which was in direct comparison to the sole failures of the previous one, obviously superior though whether or not these advantages where correctly comprehended by such individuals, is a different matter all together. [4] The â€Å"thaw† was the first attempt by a communist leader, to alleviate tensions between ideological and social demands, with John Keen claims: â€Å"His [Khrushchev’s] greatest accomplishment was to end the reign of fear [5] Such policies are testimony of Khrushchev’s implementation of combating Long-term problems confronting Russia, as Khrushchev claimed: â€Å"we must help people to live well. You cannot put theory into your soup or Marxism into your clothes. †[6] The â€Å"thaw† was a reformation of the ideological constraints, that communism had previously put on the Russian people. Previous rule restricted the development of civil reform: working conditions and general civil liberty remained severely undeveloped. The constant shrift between restricted and relaxed censorship was a long-term problem persistent throughout Russian history. Previous attempts of totalitarian rule had proved to be of little benefit to the state; in certain instances it furthered dissidents towards the government by the populace. As repression of censorship was bound to frustrate the Russian people, who were continuously placed in direct comparison with the west, yet in reality societal functioning differed greatly between the two: especially in terms of freedoms. What we see here, is Khrushchev’s realisation that reformation of any aspect of Russia, goes hand-in-hand with each other. It is of little significance if industrial reforms take place for economic growth, if social reforms which accommodate those who take on such policies are poor: one is bound to affect the other, as they are not of equal standards. Such tactics are similar to that of Witte and Stolypin; who both saw economic growth accompanied by social reform. We see here Khrushchev being the first (within communism), to create the basis for civil reformation; in order for it to accompany other reforms, which go hand-in-hand with overall prosperity. Therefore Vladimir Putin, who indicates a return to authoritarian rule, whereby media production is censored and suppression of regional provinces (such as Dagestan and Chechnya’s) right to self-governing bodies, may indicate a leadership were comprehension of the consequences of totalitarian rule verses increased civil liberty, are not correctly identified. As Sakwa states, Putin’s Russian society is characteristic of a centralised â€Å"Soviet-style bureaucracy†: similar to Stalin. [7] However, a conclusion on Putin’s office is not comprehensive, as his government remains; still reforming elements of society. The â€Å"thaw† is a clear demonstration of the importance of state prosperity (economic growth), being interlinked with general reforms. The sole expansion of one aspect of the state (e. g. the economy), cannot adequately develop, as the overall environment of the state would still be lacking behind. These general reforms can be seen as the long-term problems of Russia: agricultural and social reforms. The major mistake of leaders is to solely focus on the economic aspect of Russia, while ignoring the possible social elements; consequently drifting attention away from the ameliorated conditions of one aspect, to poorer ones. This is precisely what Khrushchev – along with Witte and Stolypin – emphasised; if all aspects of Russia are not reformed equally, disdain for a condition which is improved, is displaced onto another condition that is less developed: consequently leading to possible anarchy. These persistent long-term problems had to be assessed equally with other pivotal reforms, in order for the state to progress; this is apparent in the rule of Nicholas II. Industrial growth was prioritised, with industrial output increasing from 810 in 1908, to 1165 in 1913; showing signs of stability. [8] Yet what remained prominent, was the fundamental issue of poor social conditions. [9] Consequently leading to upheaval and opposition: such as the Lena Goldfields Massacre (1912) and Bloody Sunday (1905). These were all expressions of discontent with the conditions at hand. [10] These matters were further ignored, to point were upheaval against poor conditions was common place in 1917; which saw the Petrograd protest leading to a string of events, that brought about the collapse of the Tsar. [11] Khrushchev’s point is further empathised here; possibly the Tsarist regime would have been better equipped, if it had improved such persisting issues equally: continuity of industrial, agriculture and social development. Historians Koenker and Von Laue concur with this view, claiming that Nicholas’ incompetence in meeting social and industrial demands, further intensified the already fragile situation. [12] If long-term matters were equally addressed, possibly the collapse of the tsarist regime could have been prevented. The tenure of Khrushchev saw the greatest attempt at reforming the economic system, into one which would pose the most benefit: such are the policies of democratisation and decentralisation. [13] Such policies were compelled by mid-1957. Between 1954-55 approximately 11,000 enterprises moved from central to independent control, May 1955 major planning and financial decisions were removed from state Moscow control, to republican hold: Russia had become decentralised. [14] Proportions of industry were also subject to the effects of decentralisation; with Moscow-based ministries replaced with sovnarkhozy: independent organisations, free to regulate industrial activity within their provenance. In turn, greater autonomy was given to the industrial spectrum. The purposes of these policies were not to transform the economic structure into a western one, but rather allow beneficial advancements to be made. Prior to Khrushchev, the economic system created by Stalin, meant that the majority of state revenue was derived from the exportation of grain and with state farms operating at a loss, an alternative was â€Å"necessary. †[15] Yet the economic system was so entrenched in collectivisation, that no other alternative was deemed possible. Decentralisation and democratisation were proposed alternatives by Khrushchev. These policies provided Russia with the basis for possible further economic reform: it initially reopened the economic system, by making it more flexibly in areas of production and management. The fact that Khrushchev’s relatively short tenure did not permit sustained development of the vast amount of his policies, may indicate why these policies did not produce substantial industrial growth initially. Rather if time was permitted, these policies could have been further developed and produced possible growth. Thus if Brezhnev’s tenure had experienced prosperity at the beginning of his office, it may be due to an elaboration of Khrushchev’s policies; with later stagnation resulting from a reversal of these policies. Statistics show an initial increase in production: such as iron output increasing by 56 percent during 1965-75 and then decreasing to less than 7 percent from 1975-85. [16] Furthered by Brezhnev’s later crippled economic output, prior industrial growth stagnated in 1970-80, falling to less than 2. 6 percent. Similarly the Soviet Union’s GNP had fallen from 5. 2 percent in 1970, to 2. percent in 1980. [17] It appears that the effects of decentralisation were beneficial and a reversal of such policies would therefore counter-track production: which is seen under the centralised economy of Brezhnev. [18] The fact that Khrushchev’s policies were contributing to industrial growth, was an indicator of its successfulness. Therefore what was the necessity of their reversal? Thereby allowing us to stratify Brezhnev’s tenure into two categories: continuity of success due to the Khrushchev era and poor economic leadership by Brezhnev; causing further economic stagnation. Likewise, Stalin’s Collectivisation process had failed to produce an economic structure of continuity, with state farms operating at a loss, since procurement prices which were set by the state, had hardly been increased since 1928. [19] Stalin was indeed conscious of this, stating to the party that they had become â€Å"dizzy with success†; however no economic alternative was proposed. [20] If centralisation proved economically ineffective, why were decision not taken to alter the cause of direction – similar to Khrushchev? Perhaps these are largely signs of a poor economic leadership, on behalf of Brezhnev and Stalin. Gorbachev’s office shows that Khrushchev’s policies were later adopted and furthered by his successors. Though these policies were not initially adopted, when Gorbachev acknowledged that the state was in a point of crisis, these policies were then re-implemented. This initial misconception, is seen in Gorbachev’s foremost policies, which akin to the predecessors of Khrushchev, perceived stability solely through economic expansion; as he stated in the Central Committee meeting: economic growth was â€Å"the key to all our problems [21] Though unaware that economic growth demanded general reformation, expected growth bore no noticeable gain and thus lead Gorbachev to recognise the necessity of Khrushchev’s earlier policies; that general reform accompanied economic expansion. Therefore the later office of Gorbachev saw a continuity and elaboration of Khrushchev’s primary policies. He re- engaged in the process of denunciation, stating at the 27th Party Congress: â€Å"readjustment of the economic mechanisms begins with a rejection Peaceful co-existence was revisited; seen in the agreement with the US, to destroy intermediate-range nuclear weapons and the approval of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. Moreover, the civil and economic reforms of glasnost and perestroika, were but a build up of Khrushchev’s initial policies of reforming communism and decentralisation. Though McCauley argues Gorbachev’s reforms were pivotal to the creation of a civil state, the question is whether these policies would have been perused, if Khrushchev would have not laid the framework for their development? Likewise to Gorbachev’s initial perspective, Yeltsin perceived stability to be through economic might. [22] Yeltsin provided state initiatives (vouchers), with the purpose of creating a new entrepreneurial class (oligarchs), which would increase privately owned corporations; in turn pose similar benefits as Kulaks. Such a class would evolve into the dominant force to allow the economic structure of Russia to transform to one similar to western lines; as Yeltsin stated: the vouchers were â€Å"a short ticket to the free market. The oligarchs creation, meant the majority of the state’s economic resources were tied within the oligarchs; yet they redirected their own resources in international investments, rather than Russia’s. The result was a misjudgement of the oligarchs function, as they produce no abrupt economic growth as hoped. Rather they stimulated the growth of a corrupt black market. Though these policies were unsuccessful, the fact remains that the previ ous failing economic structure was redeveloped to the point, were transgression to a new system which could be further developed, was conceivable. An identical question to Gorbachev is posed: would any change have been permitted, if Khrushchev did not lay the foundation for their development, as they were continuations of Khrushchev’s decentralisation policies? T. A. Morris and Alan Wood, hold a conventional view that soviet agricultural growth was the consequence of Stalin, though such a perceptive can be challenged [23] Khrushchev’s initial policies of â€Å"Thaw† fragmented the Russian infrastructure, thus allowing reformation to take form: in this context, agriculture. During the near end of the Stalinist era, collective farms were operating at a substantial loss; agricultural functioning was in need of redevelopment. [24] Khrushchev’s methods of agricultural melioration were not merely intended for economic gain; they posed the first signs of agricultural and social advances. Taxes and compulsory state quotas was reduced, private plot was reintroduced, wages amounted, surplus labour was rewarded not demanded and Stalin’s practically insufficient â€Å"collective farms†, were lessened of their power. 25] Such policies were furthered by the 1954 Virgin Lands Scheme: its primary concern being the pre-occupation of uncultivated lands within the state. [26] Between 1954-60, 41. 8million hectares of â€Å"virgin land† had been ploughed. [27] Agricultural production was officially augmented by 3 per cent in 1954, with state procurement of grain rising by 50 per cent annually during 1954-63: predominantly from the virgin lands scheme. 28] The significance is thus, agricultural production may not have experienced a boom like that of Stalin’s, yet for the first time in soviet history, it did not stagnate nor fluctuate: it stabilised throughout the whole of Khrushchev’s tenure – largely unparalleled with pervious or later leaders Stalin had told party delegates of â€Å"a new policy of eliminating the Kulaks † as they were perceived to be the reason for Russia’s agricultural Laxness. [29] It is these actions, which form the basis for Khrushchev’s argument in the de-Stalinisation speech. Were the Kulaks not of economical benefit, during and before the tenure of Stalin? The primary creation of the Kulaks by Stolypin, was for economic growth. [30] Khrushchev’s criticism was not on the idea of producing grain on a grand scale to export for an economic capital, in turn redirecting the capital to industrial expansion, rather the way it was implemented. Was it utterly â€Å"necessary†, to liquidate the most prosperous and agriculturally beneficial class in Russia? Where there no other alternatives, which would show the same output as collectivisation and yet keep this class? The Virgin Lands Scheme was the alternative solution pioneered by Khrushchev, yet the alternative agricultural strategy was always available. Collectivisation under Stalin, involved the mass consolidation of grain; under state control. In order to hasten the rate of state grain procurement, forceful measures had to be implemented; involving the genocide of Russia’s most prized agricultural labourers: Kulaks. The Virgin Lands Scheme removed the need for state interference in order to raise state grain procurement. The necessity of collectivisation is once again questioned, with Getty viewing it as a necessity and those such as Perry, believing it to be â€Å"a tragedy for Russia †[32] Khrushchev was once again at the forefront of deconstructing inadequate policies, in order to replace them with ones more beneficial; thereby allowing these newer policies to be of greater economic advantage, as they remove the weaknesses of previous policies (i. e. annihilation of the Kulaks). If Stalin’s own direct predecessor acknowledged such a scheme prior to taking the post of general secretary, why didn’t Stalin? Its benefits are evident: grain production would have increased and without the removal of the Kulaks, it could have further stimulated production. This could rather be a sign of not only Stalin’s but all Russian leaders’ ignorance, of Russia’s own economic and agricultural potential. Does not the fact that Khrushchev clearly realised this, indicate his superior economic strategising and leadership? The creations of Khrushchev’s policies of Detente and Peaceful co-existence, steamed from Khrushchev’s tenure into that of every succeeding leader: for the sheer benefits which these policies brought. Prior to Khrushchev, poor foreign relations between Russia, the west and America, confound Russia in continuous international conflicts; bringing a halt to economic and social development of the state. We only have to examine the predecessors of Khrushchev to understand this. Within the tenure of Lenin, social stability was prevented, as the state remained in constant battle with international forces, consequently bring about civil war. Moreover, John Griggs states, Lenin’s government never saw effective attempts at ameliorating the state’s improvised economic situation. The fact remains, that involvement in war prohibited development. A state in international conflict had to redirect its resources, from industrial expansion and/or social development, to defence departments; Stalin’s tenure is testimony to this. Though at the beginning priority was given to economic matters, during the later part (1939 onwards), all economic resources were redirected into military expansion and development, in preparation for war. Furthermore, tensions between the USSR and other western democratises during the office of Stalin, became so ripe it lead to the greater development of the Cold War. As Churchill claimed: â€Å"an iron curtain† was drawn between the USSR and the rest of the world. 33] It’s the removal of this â€Å"iron curtain† which remained fundamental to Khrushchev’s foreign policies: constant poor international relations had prohibited positive development in the USSR and if such relations continued, the Cold War itself would evolve into one that would bring the same demise as previous wars. Khrushchev installed Detente and peaceful co-existence, because of its necessity; Russia could not continue nor economically afford perpetual involvement in War. Thus leading to relations with America, Europe and even China, being reaffirmed rather in the case of China, begin development on a positive note. Consequently In 1963, after a bad harvest, grain was imported from America – later becoming a regular occurrence and feature of the improved Soviet-US relationship. [35] However, this is not to say that the Soviet Union was not subject to international tensions: like the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. [36] It can be argued that the Crisis was a contradiction of Khrushchev’s policies of Peaceful co-existence, as is posed the possible outbreak of nuclear war and an increase in international tensions. However, attention should be drawn to the outcome of the matter. After an initial warning by President Kennedy, Khrushchev agreed on the removal of nuclear missiles within Cuba and a S. A. L. T. [37] What is seen here is a pursuit for international peace, rather than an expansion on nuclear defences; which would prevent a similar occurrence in the future. Khrushchev’s development of positive foreign policies – or rather his approach as a peace maker are what gave Russia the framework to remain a superpower and allow development to occur; as if these policies were not initiated, the USSR would have seen a continuity in war which would have brought her to her knee’s sooner, rather than later. What does not allow us to solely focus on the tenure of Khrushchev to draw a comprehensive conclusion, is the relatively short period he remained in office. What remains problematic is the fact that policies which Khrushchev had implemented, were merely initiated in his tenure and developed in the that of others, and those that remained underdeveloped (such as the Virgin Lands Scheme), is the consequence of the lack of time, which Khrushchev had to firmly implement them. Moreover, Khrushchev’s policies did not cease at the end of his tenure, but were further developed in that of his successors. Examination of later economic, diplomatic and civil reformations by latter leaders, shows evidence of Khrushchev policies being further developed, not abandoned, in order to bring about change or maintenance of an aspect of Russia. Nowhere is this more evident, than in the tenure of Gorbachev; which saw an utter elaboration of Khrushchev’s economic and civil policies. I believe the continuity of the vast amount of Khrushchev’s policies into the office of later leaders, as self acclaimed success: they were adopted by leaders not because there was no alternative, rather because they were necessary policies. Therefore the one who first initiated these policies (Khrushchev), allows me to deem them, the most successful leader during 1905 -2005.

history4 essays

history4 essays Africa is the world's second-largest continent, the biggest after Asia. It is more than three times the size of the U. States. It also contains more independent nations than any other continent on Earth-55 in all. Africa is centrally located on the Earth's surface. It straddles the Equator, extending for thousands of miles north and sough of that line. The continent stands between two major oceans. To the west is the Atlantic Ocean and to the east lies the Indian Ocean. The Mediterranean Sea in the north and the Red Sea in the I have 10 different opion on the most common stereotypes about Africa. For the Climate of Africa they said it is hot and dry, for most vegetation they said grassy lands, for most common animal in Africa people said monkeys, African common skin color black, Africans do for living they said herding and farming, types of family Africans live in extended, most common religion in Africa are catholic, common language spoken in Africa is English, civilization white people, government of African countries are democratic, and the biggest problem in Africa today is hunger. These are the results of my CLIMATE: Because of its size, almost every type of climate and vegetation can be found in Africa. The largest climate zone in Africa is the tropical climate with a wet and dry season. The savanna, a grassland, occupied this region, which covers almost half the continent. Like the tropical rain forest, the tropical savanna region is warm all year. In the summer, or rainy season, the climate is hot and wet. In winter it is warm, with little POPULATION: Today the population of Africa is approaching 680 million and is growing rapidly. Population growth has created problems in the drier parts of the savanna. During times of plentiful rainfall, people seeking land move into these semiarid ...

Exploratory Narrative Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Exploratory Narrative - Essay Example They even use hidden cameras to see pin numbers as they are typed in by cardholders and then later on they steal wallets and withdraw cash from ATM machines (Safdar). The ease of robbing others is making this crime popular amongst individuals with criminal minds and intentions. This crime is on the rise and the loss of wealth can be significant if this crime goes undetected. I therefore strongly feel that we can all become the next target of such criminals. I feel that this crime must be stopped by card issuing companies by changing the design of information storage on cards, which is possible if they use small chips for storing information. Moreover, on individual basis we can take certain precautions to prevent criminals from getting access to our private information. When using the cash machine I will surely look out for any signs of glue, hidden cameras, and even cover my hand when I type in my pin code. Only this way I can avoid being robbed and loose my hard earned

Creativity in Enterprise Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Creativity in Enterprise - Essay Example This essay discusses that  a business environment with students who have polished ideas in how they can put their ideas into real practice to improve the business enterprise and its performance is the purpose of module guidelines in an enterprise. A module has been meant to help students solve their business problems in an ample business environment by coming up with effective solutions. The knowledge gained from the module helps them to form part of good leadership in any business enterprise; by application of their creative tools and skills, they gain. The module knowledge enables the students understand how teamwork can promote the performance of the business.  From this study it is clear that  teamwork is a key issue to determine the success of a business, and it helps any business enterprise advance in its productivity and has promising returns. Therefore, it is important for students to understand that teamwork will help them in their performance of the business operation s as either managers or just mere employees. Every other employee in a business enterprise needs the other to promote the success of the business.  A workshop advances good relations between the managerial, entrepreneurial position leaders in the enterprise and the mere entrepreneurs. Use of workshops is a method in which entrepreneurs in a business collectively sit down and come up with fresh implementations into the business enterprise to advance its success.