Types of cults
Two main kinds of cults exist today:
Messianic Cults
This is a cult that has a leader. Whatever the leader orders his members to do must be done, whether it would be sacrifice or murder, it must be done. In return the leader of the cult would "save" his followers.
Mellenarian Cults
This is a type of cult that refers to the 1,000 year reign of Christ. These groups believe that dramatic events, such as the end of the world or judgment day, will occur at the turn of the century.
Traits of cults
A feeling and a certainty of belief.
A single strong and powerful leader.
A tendency to control communication.
A totalistic outlook; a view that spiritual life in the group must be present 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This would not allow a member to do any hobbies, work or interests outside of the cult.
People who join cults
There are four different types of people who participate in cults. The first type of people are normal people who come from intact families and turn to cults at a moment of difficulty in there life. These people haven't had any other problems previously. The second group of people are people who had problems in there past in development and emotion. The third and smallest group of cult members are psychotic individuals. The fourth group of people feel as if they don't fit into society.
Different cults
Charles Manson was never close to his parents, for he never met his father and his mother was an alcoholic. This lead Manson through a confusing age. He was always getting in trouble with the law. After he got out of prison he began to experiment with the psychedelic drug LSD. In San Francisco he learned how to talk like a hippie and sounded very wise, to lost and confused young men and woman. He always looked for sad or disordered young women. As he found them he talked to them, and they quickly trusted him deeply. In a short time he had gathered up enough young women to be his slaves and do whatever he asked. This is were Charles Manson began his cult leadership. Manson told four of his followers to break into a wealthy home in Los Angeles and kill everyone in it. The followers armed with knives and guns obeyed there master and murdered five innocent people. The next night Manson lead six of his followers to the LaBianca house a rich couple lived together in. Manson tied the LaBianca's up and ordered three cult members to execute them. Now the Manson family fled to a remote part of Death Valley in Southern California. There the family stole cars and continued to take drugs. Eventually the Highway Patrol spotted the stolen cars outside and linked them to the murders.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Cuban Revolution
Jason Rosenzweig January 9, 1997
Cuban Revolution Mr. Barron
After the Cuban Revolution many change occurred in Cuba. Cuba was once a corrupt dictatorship, now and for the past 36 years Castro has led a communist government.
Before Castro took over Batista, Batista ran a biossed economy for the rich. Officials took pay offs, keeping the majority of the peoples thoughts invisible. Protestors of Batista were murdered, and their body's were thrown in gutters. During these times the life for the rich was plentiful, they had more Cadillacs than any other city in the world, and the highest number of T.V. sets per capita out of all the Latin American countries . Many gambling casinos were also present. While life for the poor was plagued with unemployment, inadequate health care, and a high illiteracy rate.
Castro's take over of the government, changed many ways of life in Cuba, most of which benefited the poor or the majority of the people. Education was improved for the poor, there are many times more schools and staff members to educate the young. Health care was improved, infant mortality rate has dropped from 60 to 11.1 which is comparable to industrialized nations.
Even with all the good changes their are hardships do go with them. Castro took over business's, some of which were owned by foreign investors, collecting some of the revenue to help Cuba's economy. Some of Batistas followers and the wealthy fled to the U.S. to escape the taking of their wealth or being jailed. On April 17, 1961 the CIA arranged a invasion with 2000 exiles to invade Cuba to spark a uprising against Castro, this was known as the Bay Of Pigs. The invasion failed, this opened a window of opportunity for the Soviet Union to change the global power balance towards the Soviet. In 1962 a event known as The Cuban Missile Crisis was born, the Soviet Union plant Nuclear War Heads in Cuba to prevent the U.S. from any farther attempts to invade Cuba. The U.S. in return setup a quarantine to stop trade with Cuba. After six days of public statements and secret diplomacy Khrushchev ordered the missile sites dismantled in return for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba
All in all Cuba is a very difficult place to live, even with the education and health care improved. The economy is paralyzed by the embargo put on them, with the Soviet collapse they lost almost all there imports/exports. Food is very scarce, sometimes people have to wait days in a food line, and when it's there turn theirs nothing left.
The U.S. should stop the embargo on Cuba, for Communism is no longer a threat, the embargo puts too much suffrage on the people of Cuba, just for their beliefs on the government.
Cuban Revolution Mr. Barron
After the Cuban Revolution many change occurred in Cuba. Cuba was once a corrupt dictatorship, now and for the past 36 years Castro has led a communist government.
Before Castro took over Batista, Batista ran a biossed economy for the rich. Officials took pay offs, keeping the majority of the peoples thoughts invisible. Protestors of Batista were murdered, and their body's were thrown in gutters. During these times the life for the rich was plentiful, they had more Cadillacs than any other city in the world, and the highest number of T.V. sets per capita out of all the Latin American countries . Many gambling casinos were also present. While life for the poor was plagued with unemployment, inadequate health care, and a high illiteracy rate.
Castro's take over of the government, changed many ways of life in Cuba, most of which benefited the poor or the majority of the people. Education was improved for the poor, there are many times more schools and staff members to educate the young. Health care was improved, infant mortality rate has dropped from 60 to 11.1 which is comparable to industrialized nations.
Even with all the good changes their are hardships do go with them. Castro took over business's, some of which were owned by foreign investors, collecting some of the revenue to help Cuba's economy. Some of Batistas followers and the wealthy fled to the U.S. to escape the taking of their wealth or being jailed. On April 17, 1961 the CIA arranged a invasion with 2000 exiles to invade Cuba to spark a uprising against Castro, this was known as the Bay Of Pigs. The invasion failed, this opened a window of opportunity for the Soviet Union to change the global power balance towards the Soviet. In 1962 a event known as The Cuban Missile Crisis was born, the Soviet Union plant Nuclear War Heads in Cuba to prevent the U.S. from any farther attempts to invade Cuba. The U.S. in return setup a quarantine to stop trade with Cuba. After six days of public statements and secret diplomacy Khrushchev ordered the missile sites dismantled in return for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba
All in all Cuba is a very difficult place to live, even with the education and health care improved. The economy is paralyzed by the embargo put on them, with the Soviet collapse they lost almost all there imports/exports. Food is very scarce, sometimes people have to wait days in a food line, and when it's there turn theirs nothing left.
The U.S. should stop the embargo on Cuba, for Communism is no longer a threat, the embargo puts too much suffrage on the people of Cuba, just for their beliefs on the government.
Cuba
Cuba is the largest island of the West Indies, lying south of Florida and east of Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula. The Republic of Cuba is combined with the surrounding islands. On the East, Cuba is separated from the island of Hispaniola by the Windward Passage. The U.S. maintains a naval base at Guantánamo Bay in the Southeast. The capital and largest city of Cuba is Havana.
The island extends about 760 miles from Cabo de San Antonio to Cabo Maisí, the western and eastern extremities. The average width is about 50 miles. The total area is 44,218 square miles including the area of the Isla de la Juventud (Isle of Youth) and of other islands of the country.
Land and Resources
About 1/4 of the surface of Cuba is hilly, the remaining consists of flat or rolling terrain. The hilly areas are scattered throughout the island and do not come from a central mass. The main 3 ranges are the Sierra de Trinidad in the central part of the island, the Sierra Maestra, in the Southeast, and Sierra de los Órganos in the West. The first two ranges are under 3000 feet. The Sierra Maestra, has the greatest in altitude and mass, and contains Pico Turquino (6561 ft), the highest point in Cuba. Most of the soil of Cuba is relatively fertile.
One of the natural features of the island is the large number of limestone caverns. Most of the many rivers of Cuba are short and unnavigable. The main river is the Cauto, located in the Southeast. The coast of Cuba is very irregular and is indented by numerous gulfs and bays. The total length is about 2500 miles. The island has a large number of harbors.
Climate
The climate of Cuba is subtropical, the annual temperature is 77°. The annual rainfall averages about 52 inches. More than 60% of the rain fall during the wet season, which extends from May to October. The island lies in a region heavily hit by hurricanes during the hurricane season.
Natural Resources
The island extends about 760 miles from Cabo de San Antonio to Cabo Maisí, the western and eastern extremities. The average width is about 50 miles. The total area is 44,218 square miles including the area of the Isla de la Juventud (Isle of Youth) and of other islands of the country.
Land and Resources
About 1/4 of the surface of Cuba is hilly, the remaining consists of flat or rolling terrain. The hilly areas are scattered throughout the island and do not come from a central mass. The main 3 ranges are the Sierra de Trinidad in the central part of the island, the Sierra Maestra, in the Southeast, and Sierra de los Órganos in the West. The first two ranges are under 3000 feet. The Sierra Maestra, has the greatest in altitude and mass, and contains Pico Turquino (6561 ft), the highest point in Cuba. Most of the soil of Cuba is relatively fertile.
One of the natural features of the island is the large number of limestone caverns. Most of the many rivers of Cuba are short and unnavigable. The main river is the Cauto, located in the Southeast. The coast of Cuba is very irregular and is indented by numerous gulfs and bays. The total length is about 2500 miles. The island has a large number of harbors.
Climate
The climate of Cuba is subtropical, the annual temperature is 77°. The annual rainfall averages about 52 inches. More than 60% of the rain fall during the wet season, which extends from May to October. The island lies in a region heavily hit by hurricanes during the hurricane season.
Natural Resources
Crime and the United States
A crime is defined as "an act committed in violation of a law forbidding it and for which a variety of punishments may be imposed." Crimes are classified into two basic groups; "mala in se" which are crimes that are evil in themselves, and "mala prohibitita" which are crimes that are only crimes because society at the time deems them wrong.
In these days crime is more easy perceived by society. Surveys of public opinion in the United States show that more and more people believe that crime is increasing. People feel less safe in their environment and have thus taken measures to protect themselves.
But is this view accurate? Most of the crime rates from 1973 to 1992 have risen greatly. In 1973 there was a murder every 27 minutes. Now there is a murder every 22 minutes. The astounding fact is in 1973 there was a violent crime every 6 minutes but now it has increased to a murder every 16 seconds. Crime per thousand from between 1983 and 1992 rose 9.4 percent but from 1991 to 1992 it went down 4 percent. In recent years crime has been decreasing. Property crime, murder, robbery, and burglary have all decreased at least three percent in recent years but that is not much. There is one exception; rape which has gone up 3 percent. Violent crime has risen 40.9 since 1983 while in recent years it has only gone down a tenth of a percent. This may be one of the reasons people feel less safe. People aren't afraid of larceny or property crimes. They are afraid of violent crimes, which is why is recent years they feel insecure.
Many people believe the problem is in the trial system itself. Not enough people are convicted. In our trial system where you are innocent until proven guilty and to be proved guilty it must be done beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence in civil cases. After it has finally been very well proven a judge or jury must unanimously decide the criminal is innocent or guilty or it is declared a hung jury. It also is too easy to get a shorter sentence on a plea bargain. For instance a person accused of armed robbery, an offence that on average a person would get thirty years for; the criminal will often plead guilty to a lesser offence such as carrying a concealed weapon. Carrying a concealed weapon would often give a six year sentence but the criminal often gets off in half that time. So you see how the sentencing just went from thirty years to three years.
Another possible cause is our prison system. Prisons breed crime themselves. If a burglar is sent to prison he must contend with the violence inside it by being rough himself. This means a burglar who enters a prison may emerge a murderer. Prisons are often used to rehabilitate and made more pleasant as so to not create the cultures that develop more criminals in them. This often makes prison seem not so bad to criminals. That solution is worse then the problem.
Is the United States crime problem as bad as people think it is? The crime rate in the United States isn't even in the top fifteen. The problem in the United States is the rise in violent crime. The United States ranks third in the world in robbery and violent theft. There is a rise in juvenile crime too. A possible reason for this is the breakdown of the family. In families where both parents work the kids are left alone or in a day care. The parents are around less for support. This makes it that much easier for the kids to become delinquents.
There are many possible ways to fix the United States crime problem and the rise in violent crime. One solution is to use the death sentence. One less murder alive is one less murderer on the streets. Another answer is to prohibit handguns. The second amendment may give the right to bear arms but it isn't clear whether this right should be granted to individual citizens or an official state militia. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. Without handguns nobody would be afraid to be held up. It would be much safer to go out at night. When crime makes people live their lives differently and possibly in fear something must be done.
In these days crime is more easy perceived by society. Surveys of public opinion in the United States show that more and more people believe that crime is increasing. People feel less safe in their environment and have thus taken measures to protect themselves.
But is this view accurate? Most of the crime rates from 1973 to 1992 have risen greatly. In 1973 there was a murder every 27 minutes. Now there is a murder every 22 minutes. The astounding fact is in 1973 there was a violent crime every 6 minutes but now it has increased to a murder every 16 seconds. Crime per thousand from between 1983 and 1992 rose 9.4 percent but from 1991 to 1992 it went down 4 percent. In recent years crime has been decreasing. Property crime, murder, robbery, and burglary have all decreased at least three percent in recent years but that is not much. There is one exception; rape which has gone up 3 percent. Violent crime has risen 40.9 since 1983 while in recent years it has only gone down a tenth of a percent. This may be one of the reasons people feel less safe. People aren't afraid of larceny or property crimes. They are afraid of violent crimes, which is why is recent years they feel insecure.
Many people believe the problem is in the trial system itself. Not enough people are convicted. In our trial system where you are innocent until proven guilty and to be proved guilty it must be done beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence in civil cases. After it has finally been very well proven a judge or jury must unanimously decide the criminal is innocent or guilty or it is declared a hung jury. It also is too easy to get a shorter sentence on a plea bargain. For instance a person accused of armed robbery, an offence that on average a person would get thirty years for; the criminal will often plead guilty to a lesser offence such as carrying a concealed weapon. Carrying a concealed weapon would often give a six year sentence but the criminal often gets off in half that time. So you see how the sentencing just went from thirty years to three years.
Another possible cause is our prison system. Prisons breed crime themselves. If a burglar is sent to prison he must contend with the violence inside it by being rough himself. This means a burglar who enters a prison may emerge a murderer. Prisons are often used to rehabilitate and made more pleasant as so to not create the cultures that develop more criminals in them. This often makes prison seem not so bad to criminals. That solution is worse then the problem.
Is the United States crime problem as bad as people think it is? The crime rate in the United States isn't even in the top fifteen. The problem in the United States is the rise in violent crime. The United States ranks third in the world in robbery and violent theft. There is a rise in juvenile crime too. A possible reason for this is the breakdown of the family. In families where both parents work the kids are left alone or in a day care. The parents are around less for support. This makes it that much easier for the kids to become delinquents.
There are many possible ways to fix the United States crime problem and the rise in violent crime. One solution is to use the death sentence. One less murder alive is one less murderer on the streets. Another answer is to prohibit handguns. The second amendment may give the right to bear arms but it isn't clear whether this right should be granted to individual citizens or an official state militia. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. Without handguns nobody would be afraid to be held up. It would be much safer to go out at night. When crime makes people live their lives differently and possibly in fear something must be done.
Crearion Evolution and interventon which theory is correct
Creation, Evolution and Intervention:
Which Theory is Correct?
For: Mrs. Talbot bb
Class: Socioledgy88
Date Due: Oct. 9/96
By: Neel Ghelani89
Creation, Evolution and Intervention:
Which Theory is Correct
For many years, it has been widely debated how modern man came about. In this essay, I will explain the ideas of the three main theories: Evolution, Creation, and Intervention. I will also discuss which theory I believe and why it is that I believe it.
Evolution
Evolution, in biology, is the complex process by which organisms which originated on earth change because of changes in their environment and their function on earth. The earliest fossils ever discovered are from single celled organisms which resemble today's bacteria. People who believe in evolution believe that for approximately 3.4 billion years these single celled organisms have changed and evolved into many different species including humans. This theory also states that humans and other species continue to evolve today and as a result of all these changes they will eventually become a totally different species then what they are now. Evolutionists believe that evolution has created many organisms spread across the globe, some of which have become extinct and some of which are the plants and animals which live today.
The theory that groups of organisms can be transformed into different organisms has been suggested many times since the early 1800s, when scientists began looking for evidence that the evolution process took place. "The most outstanding evolutionists in the nineteenth century was Jean Baptist de Lamarck, who argued that the patterns of resemblance arose through modifications of a common lineage-for example , that lions tigers and others all descendant from a cat like ancestor." (Dickey p.42) It had already been a widely accepted theory that different animals adapt to different modes of life and environmental conditions. Lamarck argued that physical and mental changes occurred from animal adaptations to different environments. Once the animal changed, Lamarck believed that the changes would be passed on to the offspring through genes. Unfortunately this theory was never really scientifically tested.
Charles Darwin successfully explained the evolutionary process , with his famous book On The Origins of a Species by Means of Natural Selection. In this book, Darwin stated that, in the environment organisms who have better qualities such as being faster or trail scenting are more fit to survive. Consequently they are able to take the vital ingredients required by unfit organisms such as living space and food. Eventually, they kill off the unfit and unadapted. This theory is best known as, survival of the fittest, and can be summarized in the following statement. When environmental conditions change populations must change in order to be fit and thus survive.
Understanding the evolutionary process depends a great deal upon the interpretations of the fossil record, which many consider to be incomplete because many fossils can not be found. For this reason, there are many different views about what the fossil record states. One fact that puts doubt in the evolution theory is that when a fossil appears in the fossil record it does so very abruptly, and then stays their for several years. The fossil usually does not show the gradual changes that take place in the evolution of species. For this reason, Jay Gould of Harvard university developed a "punctured equilibrium" theory stating that the changes do occur rather quicker than some believe.
Creation
"The notion of creation is defined as the production of an existing thing out of no preexisting material".(Dickey 237) In the bible and in other comparable ancient literature, creation is a theme used to explain how human beings came to earth. In the bible and most other creation stories from ancient religions, the universe is said to be a great mess in which order was introduced by a God. In the bible, it states that the creator cleaned up the world and organized everything such as the stars and the day from night. In many ancient cultures the stories tend to be similar and differ only in terms of places and figures.
Other ideas of creation include myths of emergence. According to the bible, earth, all of its species and the universe were created less then 10 000 years ago. The bible also stated this process took place in six days. It states that man was created when god put two humans onto the earth, Adam and Eve. The bible said that from these two people came the entire worlds population today. People who believe the bible creation story word for word are called fundamentalists.
In the 1700s, James Usher disturbed many traditionalists with his theory that the earth was probably more then ten thousand years old. What disturbed the creation theory even more was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory states that living things are a product of less sophisticated species. Many fundamentalists refuse to except this because it would mean that the bible was wrong, or because they didn't want to accept the idea that we came from a lower order species. They want to believe they want to believe that god created them and they did not come about as a freak of nature. Today, evolutionists believe that the creation story is greatly flawed, and the fundamentalists believe that the theory of evolution is greatly flawed.
Interventionists
In the middle of evolution and creation is Intervention. Interventionists believe that evolution did take place and that human beings have always been evolving as the theory of evolution states. Interventionists believe that, in some point in human development, something from somewhere in the universe, possibly a superior intelligence, another species or even space aliens, bred with humans thus changing the ape like creatures into modern humans. One of the most famous interventionists was Alfred Russell Wallace who presented this theory in the mid to late 1800s.
Interventionists believe that intervention most probably took place when the most intelligent life was only the Homo Erectuses, A less sophisticated mammal who could walk upright. There are three major pieces of evidence for intervention: the first is the quote from the bible discussing intervention: "When the sons of god came down to earth and bore children to the daughters of humans."(Moses p.17) This quote is straight out of a creation story many believe to state exactly how humans were created, this is why it is so compelling and makes some people believe intervention must have taken place. Secondly the fact that the speed of gradual change caused by evolution greatly increased after the Homo Erectus. Interventionists believe that "the process of evolution is too slow and gradual to account for such a rapid change."(Dickey pg.92) They believe that the changes increased because the Homo Erectus bred with a different organism giving its offspring half of its features through its genes.
What I believe
I believe that evolution did take place, because this is the only logical explanation to explain how fossils have been found in Asia and Africa of creatures that do not exist today. Many people contend that these fossils were put in these places so God could test our faith, but it is my opinion that these people want to believe something so badly that they have fooled themselves into believing this. These people only say this because there is no other explanation for fossils being where they are other then evolution did take place. These people want to believe that we are the supreme beings in the galaxy and not that we came from a unsophisticated monkey so they will do anything to prove evolution wrong. If god did exist with all the technology we have today we would be able to scientifically prove it but he doesn't so we can't. We can though prove scientifically how man was in fact created, through evolution and we know this from fossils.
I believe intervention took place at some point in the middle of the evolution process, but not with creatures from other planets or even with god but with a different species from our own planet, who came about from evolution, possibly a Neanderthal and another smaller less sophisticated creature. I believe this because Charles Darwin's' very believable theory stated that only the fit survive. Neantherthals were extremely fit. They were twice as strong as the average human and had much bigger brains. Some people believe they became extinct during the finale ice age, but they were smart so I believe they moved south to Africa and adapted to the climate. This could be done by humans and Neanderthals are considered twice as smart as us so they must have been able to do it. Once they were in Africa they bred with smaller less sophisticated animals possibly monkeys and this created the modern human. This explains why the speed of changes in the fossil record increased so dramatically around the Homo erectus stage in evolution. What has made me even more sure of intervention is the quote from the bible saying "the sons of god bore children to the daughter of humans" This quote is straight from a major creation story many fundamentalists take very seriously. I don't know how they can believe that god put man on earth when there only source for information about creation they have tells them intervention did take place.
Conclusion
Evolution, creation and intervention all are valid theories of how humans came into existence. The question of which theory is correct is up to each individual to decide . I believe that evolution does occur and this created many species but I do not believe this created modern man. I believe intervention occurred and that two products of intervention bred together in order to make the modern human.
Bibliography
1)Dickey, Norma H. Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. R. Donnelley and sons; Washington,1985
2)Moses. "Genesis" The Holy Bible. Thomas Benson; Nashville,1990
3)Skeoch, Alan. Focus on Society. Merrill Publishing Company; Toronto,1988
Which Theory is Correct?
For: Mrs. Talbot bb
Class: Socioledgy88
Date Due: Oct. 9/96
By: Neel Ghelani89
Creation, Evolution and Intervention:
Which Theory is Correct
For many years, it has been widely debated how modern man came about. In this essay, I will explain the ideas of the three main theories: Evolution, Creation, and Intervention. I will also discuss which theory I believe and why it is that I believe it.
Evolution
Evolution, in biology, is the complex process by which organisms which originated on earth change because of changes in their environment and their function on earth. The earliest fossils ever discovered are from single celled organisms which resemble today's bacteria. People who believe in evolution believe that for approximately 3.4 billion years these single celled organisms have changed and evolved into many different species including humans. This theory also states that humans and other species continue to evolve today and as a result of all these changes they will eventually become a totally different species then what they are now. Evolutionists believe that evolution has created many organisms spread across the globe, some of which have become extinct and some of which are the plants and animals which live today.
The theory that groups of organisms can be transformed into different organisms has been suggested many times since the early 1800s, when scientists began looking for evidence that the evolution process took place. "The most outstanding evolutionists in the nineteenth century was Jean Baptist de Lamarck, who argued that the patterns of resemblance arose through modifications of a common lineage-for example , that lions tigers and others all descendant from a cat like ancestor." (Dickey p.42) It had already been a widely accepted theory that different animals adapt to different modes of life and environmental conditions. Lamarck argued that physical and mental changes occurred from animal adaptations to different environments. Once the animal changed, Lamarck believed that the changes would be passed on to the offspring through genes. Unfortunately this theory was never really scientifically tested.
Charles Darwin successfully explained the evolutionary process , with his famous book On The Origins of a Species by Means of Natural Selection. In this book, Darwin stated that, in the environment organisms who have better qualities such as being faster or trail scenting are more fit to survive. Consequently they are able to take the vital ingredients required by unfit organisms such as living space and food. Eventually, they kill off the unfit and unadapted. This theory is best known as, survival of the fittest, and can be summarized in the following statement. When environmental conditions change populations must change in order to be fit and thus survive.
Understanding the evolutionary process depends a great deal upon the interpretations of the fossil record, which many consider to be incomplete because many fossils can not be found. For this reason, there are many different views about what the fossil record states. One fact that puts doubt in the evolution theory is that when a fossil appears in the fossil record it does so very abruptly, and then stays their for several years. The fossil usually does not show the gradual changes that take place in the evolution of species. For this reason, Jay Gould of Harvard university developed a "punctured equilibrium" theory stating that the changes do occur rather quicker than some believe.
Creation
"The notion of creation is defined as the production of an existing thing out of no preexisting material".(Dickey 237) In the bible and in other comparable ancient literature, creation is a theme used to explain how human beings came to earth. In the bible and most other creation stories from ancient religions, the universe is said to be a great mess in which order was introduced by a God. In the bible, it states that the creator cleaned up the world and organized everything such as the stars and the day from night. In many ancient cultures the stories tend to be similar and differ only in terms of places and figures.
Other ideas of creation include myths of emergence. According to the bible, earth, all of its species and the universe were created less then 10 000 years ago. The bible also stated this process took place in six days. It states that man was created when god put two humans onto the earth, Adam and Eve. The bible said that from these two people came the entire worlds population today. People who believe the bible creation story word for word are called fundamentalists.
In the 1700s, James Usher disturbed many traditionalists with his theory that the earth was probably more then ten thousand years old. What disturbed the creation theory even more was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory states that living things are a product of less sophisticated species. Many fundamentalists refuse to except this because it would mean that the bible was wrong, or because they didn't want to accept the idea that we came from a lower order species. They want to believe they want to believe that god created them and they did not come about as a freak of nature. Today, evolutionists believe that the creation story is greatly flawed, and the fundamentalists believe that the theory of evolution is greatly flawed.
Interventionists
In the middle of evolution and creation is Intervention. Interventionists believe that evolution did take place and that human beings have always been evolving as the theory of evolution states. Interventionists believe that, in some point in human development, something from somewhere in the universe, possibly a superior intelligence, another species or even space aliens, bred with humans thus changing the ape like creatures into modern humans. One of the most famous interventionists was Alfred Russell Wallace who presented this theory in the mid to late 1800s.
Interventionists believe that intervention most probably took place when the most intelligent life was only the Homo Erectuses, A less sophisticated mammal who could walk upright. There are three major pieces of evidence for intervention: the first is the quote from the bible discussing intervention: "When the sons of god came down to earth and bore children to the daughters of humans."(Moses p.17) This quote is straight out of a creation story many believe to state exactly how humans were created, this is why it is so compelling and makes some people believe intervention must have taken place. Secondly the fact that the speed of gradual change caused by evolution greatly increased after the Homo Erectus. Interventionists believe that "the process of evolution is too slow and gradual to account for such a rapid change."(Dickey pg.92) They believe that the changes increased because the Homo Erectus bred with a different organism giving its offspring half of its features through its genes.
What I believe
I believe that evolution did take place, because this is the only logical explanation to explain how fossils have been found in Asia and Africa of creatures that do not exist today. Many people contend that these fossils were put in these places so God could test our faith, but it is my opinion that these people want to believe something so badly that they have fooled themselves into believing this. These people only say this because there is no other explanation for fossils being where they are other then evolution did take place. These people want to believe that we are the supreme beings in the galaxy and not that we came from a unsophisticated monkey so they will do anything to prove evolution wrong. If god did exist with all the technology we have today we would be able to scientifically prove it but he doesn't so we can't. We can though prove scientifically how man was in fact created, through evolution and we know this from fossils.
I believe intervention took place at some point in the middle of the evolution process, but not with creatures from other planets or even with god but with a different species from our own planet, who came about from evolution, possibly a Neanderthal and another smaller less sophisticated creature. I believe this because Charles Darwin's' very believable theory stated that only the fit survive. Neantherthals were extremely fit. They were twice as strong as the average human and had much bigger brains. Some people believe they became extinct during the finale ice age, but they were smart so I believe they moved south to Africa and adapted to the climate. This could be done by humans and Neanderthals are considered twice as smart as us so they must have been able to do it. Once they were in Africa they bred with smaller less sophisticated animals possibly monkeys and this created the modern human. This explains why the speed of changes in the fossil record increased so dramatically around the Homo erectus stage in evolution. What has made me even more sure of intervention is the quote from the bible saying "the sons of god bore children to the daughter of humans" This quote is straight from a major creation story many fundamentalists take very seriously. I don't know how they can believe that god put man on earth when there only source for information about creation they have tells them intervention did take place.
Conclusion
Evolution, creation and intervention all are valid theories of how humans came into existence. The question of which theory is correct is up to each individual to decide . I believe that evolution does occur and this created many species but I do not believe this created modern man. I believe intervention occurred and that two products of intervention bred together in order to make the modern human.
Bibliography
1)Dickey, Norma H. Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. R. Donnelley and sons; Washington,1985
2)Moses. "Genesis" The Holy Bible. Thomas Benson; Nashville,1990
3)Skeoch, Alan. Focus on Society. Merrill Publishing Company; Toronto,1988
Costs and contributions The Wave from South of the Border
Costs and Contributions:
The Wave From South of The Border
Every year, hundreds of millions of people enter the US via land ports of entry, and the INS each year apprehends over 1.3 million aliens at or near the border. Over 90 percent of those apprehended near the border are Mexicans, and some who enter the US legally and illegally are carrying drugs into the US. This influx of illegal immigrants from south of the border has created quite a stir in many places. Is this good that people are coming to the U.S.? What will happen if this pattern keeps up? Will they steal our jobs? What effect will this wave of people have on us? These questions plague many and deserved to be answered in the following paper on: "Costs and contributions: The Wave From South of The Border".
"Dowell Myers (USC) reported on his double cohort method--by age and year of entry-- of analyzing what happened to immigrants arriving in the seven southern CA counties after 1980. His analysis shows that especially young immigrants make considerable economic progress after their arrival--as measured by their total incomes--and that some of their behavior converges rapidly to that of natives, e.g., they rapidly abandon buses and drive cars to work. In southern CA, one-third of all bus riders are recent immigrants.
Myers noted that immigration is raising other issues, including overcrowded housing. The US definition of acceptable housing was two or less persons per room until 1960, when the definition was change to one or less per room. However, as immigrants
moved into southern CA, overcrowding jumped, raising questions about how aggressively cities should enforce housing codes developed during a non-immigrant era." Many are haunted by the question: will we be hurt? Over crowding has had a major impact on families living near the Mexican border lowering standards of living and living space as well. Also, citizens wonder about the filthy scum that comes from south of the border-are all illegal immigrants scum?
George Vernez outlined an ambitious project that is dealing with the question of whether immigration is a plus or minus for CA by examining the effects of immigration on internal migration, on wages, and on public finances since 1960. Those studies showed that immigrants from most countries do catch up to similar natives in average weekly earnings after 10 to 20 years, but not immigrants from the major country of origin--Mexico. Furthermore, immigrant children tend to follow in their parents' footsteps, meaning that the children of Asian immigrants tend to do well in school, etc., while the
children of Mexican immigrants do not.
Is this a problem to worry about? I mean, come on, a few illiterate children doesn't hurt anything, right? How many immigrants are there again?
While immigration to the US in 1994 was substantial - 800,000 people - this still falls far short of the peak year of 1907 when 1.3 million people entered the country; and since, at the beginning of the century, the total US population was only around one-third of what it is today, the impact was much greater.
Another economic concern is that immigrants will swamp social services such as education, health and welfare. Immigrants who arrive traumatized in their new countries are indeed likely to need considerable support. But other immigrants generally contribute much more in taxes than they take in benefits. This means that in contrast to popular belief, legal immigrants actually benefit the U.S. as a whole. On the other hand, illegal immigrants can cause many economical drains.
The U.S. is a little leery about people migrating to the U.S. for many reasons.
The chief concern is that poverty will drive people in increasing numbers from developing to industrialized countries. The United States frets over its border with Mexico - and the 2.6 million illegal immigrants it already has.
On the flip side of the coin, if there is a minus, there must be a plus. Money will need to be spent on the education of immigrant children but adult immigrants are likely to be young and healthy and few will require welfare or pensions. In the United States, for example, legal immigrants who arrived in the 1980s have been found to use welfare at a rate well below that of the natives. Illegal immigrants, fearing detection, are of course even less likely to use welfare - even though through sales taxes they make a considerable contribution to the public coffers.
Others worry about the economic impact - nervous that immigrants are going to steal their jobs. Such fears may be understandable but are generally groundless. In reality, immigrants do not substitute local workers but rather complement them - often doing the "dirty, dangerous, and difficult" jobs that local people refuse. This was spotlighted in the United States in 1993 when the presidential nomination for Attorney General was found to have employed an illegal immigrant. She was not alone: the employment of women in the United States is critically underpinned by 350,000 illegal immigrants working as domestic help. Despite the continuing international debate on the impact of immigration on employment, the argument that workers take jobs from existing residents has usually been shown to be without grounds for accusation.
Immigration can help rejuvenate the population, though it would have to take place on a really massive scale to have any impact on the age profile. Cutting off immigration may satisfy populist political sentiment but it is doubtful whether it makes much economic sense. Apart from making a useful contribution to the labor force they can also have a useful demographic contribution. Many industrial countries are facing steadily aging populations - and will have fewer active workers to support a growing retired population.
In conclusion, it is this detective's belief that trying to cut off the influx of immigrants into the U.S. would be, economically speaking, stupid. There is substantial evidence piling up by the hour that immigrants help the economy rather than hinder it. Leave the gates open. These people help us in the right amounts.
The Wave From South of The Border
Every year, hundreds of millions of people enter the US via land ports of entry, and the INS each year apprehends over 1.3 million aliens at or near the border. Over 90 percent of those apprehended near the border are Mexicans, and some who enter the US legally and illegally are carrying drugs into the US. This influx of illegal immigrants from south of the border has created quite a stir in many places. Is this good that people are coming to the U.S.? What will happen if this pattern keeps up? Will they steal our jobs? What effect will this wave of people have on us? These questions plague many and deserved to be answered in the following paper on: "Costs and contributions: The Wave From South of The Border".
"Dowell Myers (USC) reported on his double cohort method--by age and year of entry-- of analyzing what happened to immigrants arriving in the seven southern CA counties after 1980. His analysis shows that especially young immigrants make considerable economic progress after their arrival--as measured by their total incomes--and that some of their behavior converges rapidly to that of natives, e.g., they rapidly abandon buses and drive cars to work. In southern CA, one-third of all bus riders are recent immigrants.
Myers noted that immigration is raising other issues, including overcrowded housing. The US definition of acceptable housing was two or less persons per room until 1960, when the definition was change to one or less per room. However, as immigrants
moved into southern CA, overcrowding jumped, raising questions about how aggressively cities should enforce housing codes developed during a non-immigrant era." Many are haunted by the question: will we be hurt? Over crowding has had a major impact on families living near the Mexican border lowering standards of living and living space as well. Also, citizens wonder about the filthy scum that comes from south of the border-are all illegal immigrants scum?
George Vernez outlined an ambitious project that is dealing with the question of whether immigration is a plus or minus for CA by examining the effects of immigration on internal migration, on wages, and on public finances since 1960. Those studies showed that immigrants from most countries do catch up to similar natives in average weekly earnings after 10 to 20 years, but not immigrants from the major country of origin--Mexico. Furthermore, immigrant children tend to follow in their parents' footsteps, meaning that the children of Asian immigrants tend to do well in school, etc., while the
children of Mexican immigrants do not.
Is this a problem to worry about? I mean, come on, a few illiterate children doesn't hurt anything, right? How many immigrants are there again?
While immigration to the US in 1994 was substantial - 800,000 people - this still falls far short of the peak year of 1907 when 1.3 million people entered the country; and since, at the beginning of the century, the total US population was only around one-third of what it is today, the impact was much greater.
Another economic concern is that immigrants will swamp social services such as education, health and welfare. Immigrants who arrive traumatized in their new countries are indeed likely to need considerable support. But other immigrants generally contribute much more in taxes than they take in benefits. This means that in contrast to popular belief, legal immigrants actually benefit the U.S. as a whole. On the other hand, illegal immigrants can cause many economical drains.
The U.S. is a little leery about people migrating to the U.S. for many reasons.
The chief concern is that poverty will drive people in increasing numbers from developing to industrialized countries. The United States frets over its border with Mexico - and the 2.6 million illegal immigrants it already has.
On the flip side of the coin, if there is a minus, there must be a plus. Money will need to be spent on the education of immigrant children but adult immigrants are likely to be young and healthy and few will require welfare or pensions. In the United States, for example, legal immigrants who arrived in the 1980s have been found to use welfare at a rate well below that of the natives. Illegal immigrants, fearing detection, are of course even less likely to use welfare - even though through sales taxes they make a considerable contribution to the public coffers.
Others worry about the economic impact - nervous that immigrants are going to steal their jobs. Such fears may be understandable but are generally groundless. In reality, immigrants do not substitute local workers but rather complement them - often doing the "dirty, dangerous, and difficult" jobs that local people refuse. This was spotlighted in the United States in 1993 when the presidential nomination for Attorney General was found to have employed an illegal immigrant. She was not alone: the employment of women in the United States is critically underpinned by 350,000 illegal immigrants working as domestic help. Despite the continuing international debate on the impact of immigration on employment, the argument that workers take jobs from existing residents has usually been shown to be without grounds for accusation.
Immigration can help rejuvenate the population, though it would have to take place on a really massive scale to have any impact on the age profile. Cutting off immigration may satisfy populist political sentiment but it is doubtful whether it makes much economic sense. Apart from making a useful contribution to the labor force they can also have a useful demographic contribution. Many industrial countries are facing steadily aging populations - and will have fewer active workers to support a growing retired population.
In conclusion, it is this detective's belief that trying to cut off the influx of immigrants into the U.S. would be, economically speaking, stupid. There is substantial evidence piling up by the hour that immigrants help the economy rather than hinder it. Leave the gates open. These people help us in the right amounts.
Correctly Political A Look into the dynamics of Political Co
Correctly Political:
A Look into the Dynamics
of Political Correctness
Every American probably knows what it means to be politically correct. After all, we hear about it on the news almost every night. We have to be constantly aware of whether or not something we say or do is going to offend someone. This mode of communication is present in every aspect of our lives, from the most formal to the most informal situations.
This paper will answer questions on the origin of the term 'politically correct' and the applications of the communication pattern it refers to: who started it, who is doing it, and why. Is political correctness a good idea? Is it too pervasive?
Varying opinions on the definition of political correctness exist. For the purposes of this writing the most concise definition available has been selected. Political Correctness refers to matters of inclusive speech, advocacy of nonracist, nonageist, nonsexist terminology, and insistence on affirmative action policies, avoidance of Eurocentrism as reflected in a "traditional" canon of literature, acceptance of multiculturalism as a valued feature of American society, and dismantling hierarchy as controlled by a white male power structure. (Hoover and Howard 963)
In a nutshell, political correctness is an attempt at changing the way we look at things. The goal is to be respectful of all people and cultures. Unfortunately, in the process of fostering understanding, the culture and ideas that are presently embraced must be discredited and virtually destroyed. This "traditionalist" power structure is constantly under fire in the debate over political correctness. Nontraditionalists have proposed that we "regard the creation of a culturally diverse community as not just fair, but as a valued objective in its own right." (qtd. in Hoover and Howard 967) In order to fully understand the effects of politically correct thinking, it is necessary to see it through time to its present state.
There is a wealth of information on the history of the term "political correctness" and it's applications. However, scholars usually do not agree. The most common commentaries have noted its use in North American social movements from the late 1960's and within Leninist parties before this time.
"Politically Correct" seems to have originally been an approving phrase of the Leninist left to mean someone who steadfastly toes the party line. It evolved into a term of disapproval among leftists for those whose line-toeing fervor was too much to bear. (Richer and Weir 53) Thus, the expression went from having a positive meaning to having a negative meaning.
What we think of today as political correctness (PC) began in a recognizable form during the social movements of the late 1960's. PC was used as a self critique by social movements, each saw itself as politically/ethically correct. PC referred to the culture or practices of the women's movement or gay liberation or a Marxist party, but not to a common culture cross-cutting these movements. There existed a shifting line of conflict between movements, and groups could signify affinity or hostility with another group by proclaiming these movements politically correct. (Richer and Weir 53) Paul Berman, a well-known essayist, has a very interesting view of the social movement culture of the 1960's:
"The left wing uprising of circa 1968 had two phases, which were in perfect discord. The first phase was an uprising on behalf of the ideals of liberal humanism -- an uprising on behalf of the freedom of the individual against a soulless system. The second phase was the opposite, at least philosophically. It was a revolt against liberal humanism. Is said, in effect: Liberal humanism is a deception. Western-style democracy, rationalism, objectivity, and the autonomy of the individual are slogans designed to convince the downtrodden that subordination is justice." (Berman 6)
The first phase of the social movement culture seems to have been the search for peace and love for all. It appears that as time went on, groups became either excessively radical or merely disillusioned, and turned on their earlier goals. A once idealistic movement became cynical. Once again, "political correctness" changed from positive to negative.
The best way to illustrate the incongruity of political correctness is to present a few cases of it in use. Arguably one of the most outstanding examples of affirmative action in the Eighties is the insistence of John Paul II on beatifying Kateri Tekakwitha and thereby placing her on the road to canonization, even though this 17th century Mohawk Indian maiden appeared not to have performed any of the miracles traditionally required for Sainthood. (Seligman 60)
PC is applied to everyday situations in many ways, but one of the most easily recognized is terminology. It is surprising how many books and stories are on the 'not PC' list. It is also surprising to read them once they have been altered to contain more inclusive language.
Another intriguing illustration of applied political correctness is the "Dates to Remember" list on the California Teachers Association 1995-96 calendar: Massacre of the Sioux at Wounded Knee Day (December 29), Internment of Japanese-Americans Day (February 19), Diwali (October 23), the Birthday of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism (April 30), National Coming Out Day (October 11), and the Stonewall Rebellion Anniversary (June 27-28). (Leo 18)
Perhaps a more familiar story can better show the significant language of PC. How about the Three Little Pigs? In the book Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, The Three Little Pigs begins: "Once there were three little pigs who lived together in mutual respect and in harmony with their environment. Using materials that were indigenous to the area, they each built a beautiful house." (Garner 9) Most Americans are likely to be familiar with this story, but does it sound a little different when transformed into something politically correct?
One of the oddest publications of this politically correct era is a PC version of the Christian Bible, The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (Oxford University Press). Note these changes: The Lord's Prayer now begins, "Our Father-Mother in Heaven." The 63rd Psalm's "Thy right hand upholds me" made left-handers feel bad and is now "your strong hand upholds me." "Kingdom," an overly male word is now "dominion." And the word "darkness" when referring to evil or ignorance has been removed out of deference to dark-skinned peoples. (Leo 19)
Included in the definition of political correctness is "acceptance of multiculturalism as a valued feature of American society." This is perhaps the most difficult task of nontraditionalists. Diversity is not difficult for an American to accept, after all, you see diverse people every day. Multiculturalism is something different, though. Not only is one expected to recognize the existence of other groups, but to learn about them and treat their heritage as equal in importance to one's own. Author Dinesh D'Souza sums up multicultural education:
"I'm in favor of multicultural curriculum that emphasizes1/4the best that has been thought and said. Non-Western cultures have produced great works that are worthy of study, and I think young people should know something about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. To do so, it's helpful to be exposed to the Koran. Young people should know something about the rise of Japanese capitalism. Is there a Confucian ethic behind the success of Asian entrepreneurship in the same way we hear about Max Weber, the Protestant ethic, and the spirit of capitalism? These are legitimate questions. But they are not the questions routinely pursued in most multicultural courses, which instead have degenerated into a kind of ethnic cheerleading, a primitive romanticism about the Third World, combined with the systematic denunciation of the West." (Berman 31)
In my experience, this is exactly the way schools look at multicultural education. I have participated in several attempts at multicultural classes, and they all turn out the same: we study holidays, important figures, and learn a few songs from an African or Indian culture. Is this really important information in the fight against cultural illiteracy and ignorance?
Because of the ambiguity of PC theory, it can be used as a tool by two groups of polar opposites: neoconservatives and leftists. (Richer and Weir 253) Right now it is advantageous to appear politically correct. So the left, which traditionally upholds PC, can do so without losing public approval. That is, until the right holds them to it.
When political correctness is applied to an institution, such a University, many problems arise. Look at something like textbooks. If the University insists on the use of inclusive language in their textbooks, isn't the school promoting a type of censorship of alternative works? Larger issues are more difficult. When the right looks to the University and says, "Isn't the left going to do something about the hate speech on campus, where is the freedom to learn without fear?" the left is forced to reply by advocating speech codes and other forms of restrictive expression. Therein lies the "Catch-22" of political correctness: in order to have freedom for all, some freedoms must be compromised.
The debate over political correctness seems to be most heated when it comes to Universities. There are countless books and articles which study and debate the problems and effects of PC. The left and right of the University are the nontraditionalists and the traditionalists. Debates over Universities center on curricula, in particular the literary canon. The canon is made us primarily of works by dead white males and is part of the core curriculum at nearly every University in America. Nontraditionalists seek to alter the canon by either supplementing it with a multicultural emphasis, or overhauling it and starting from scratch to create a more diverse base of literary education. Traditionalists wish to continue to teach the current canon, and see the nontraditionalists' aims as subversive and irresponsible. (Hoover and Howard 968)
At a few Universities, nontraditionalist views are influencing class scheduling. Some schools have instituted "alternative" courses: Dartmouth offers "The Invention of Heterosexuality and How to Have Promiscuity in an Epidemic." At Brown one could find a course called "Christianity, Violence, and Victimization." Even Yale has PC courses: "Gender and the Politics of Resistance: Feminism, Capitalism, and the Third World." (Leo 18)
PC affects more than University campus
A Look into the Dynamics
of Political Correctness
Every American probably knows what it means to be politically correct. After all, we hear about it on the news almost every night. We have to be constantly aware of whether or not something we say or do is going to offend someone. This mode of communication is present in every aspect of our lives, from the most formal to the most informal situations.
This paper will answer questions on the origin of the term 'politically correct' and the applications of the communication pattern it refers to: who started it, who is doing it, and why. Is political correctness a good idea? Is it too pervasive?
Varying opinions on the definition of political correctness exist. For the purposes of this writing the most concise definition available has been selected. Political Correctness refers to matters of inclusive speech, advocacy of nonracist, nonageist, nonsexist terminology, and insistence on affirmative action policies, avoidance of Eurocentrism as reflected in a "traditional" canon of literature, acceptance of multiculturalism as a valued feature of American society, and dismantling hierarchy as controlled by a white male power structure. (Hoover and Howard 963)
In a nutshell, political correctness is an attempt at changing the way we look at things. The goal is to be respectful of all people and cultures. Unfortunately, in the process of fostering understanding, the culture and ideas that are presently embraced must be discredited and virtually destroyed. This "traditionalist" power structure is constantly under fire in the debate over political correctness. Nontraditionalists have proposed that we "regard the creation of a culturally diverse community as not just fair, but as a valued objective in its own right." (qtd. in Hoover and Howard 967) In order to fully understand the effects of politically correct thinking, it is necessary to see it through time to its present state.
There is a wealth of information on the history of the term "political correctness" and it's applications. However, scholars usually do not agree. The most common commentaries have noted its use in North American social movements from the late 1960's and within Leninist parties before this time.
"Politically Correct" seems to have originally been an approving phrase of the Leninist left to mean someone who steadfastly toes the party line. It evolved into a term of disapproval among leftists for those whose line-toeing fervor was too much to bear. (Richer and Weir 53) Thus, the expression went from having a positive meaning to having a negative meaning.
What we think of today as political correctness (PC) began in a recognizable form during the social movements of the late 1960's. PC was used as a self critique by social movements, each saw itself as politically/ethically correct. PC referred to the culture or practices of the women's movement or gay liberation or a Marxist party, but not to a common culture cross-cutting these movements. There existed a shifting line of conflict between movements, and groups could signify affinity or hostility with another group by proclaiming these movements politically correct. (Richer and Weir 53) Paul Berman, a well-known essayist, has a very interesting view of the social movement culture of the 1960's:
"The left wing uprising of circa 1968 had two phases, which were in perfect discord. The first phase was an uprising on behalf of the ideals of liberal humanism -- an uprising on behalf of the freedom of the individual against a soulless system. The second phase was the opposite, at least philosophically. It was a revolt against liberal humanism. Is said, in effect: Liberal humanism is a deception. Western-style democracy, rationalism, objectivity, and the autonomy of the individual are slogans designed to convince the downtrodden that subordination is justice." (Berman 6)
The first phase of the social movement culture seems to have been the search for peace and love for all. It appears that as time went on, groups became either excessively radical or merely disillusioned, and turned on their earlier goals. A once idealistic movement became cynical. Once again, "political correctness" changed from positive to negative.
The best way to illustrate the incongruity of political correctness is to present a few cases of it in use. Arguably one of the most outstanding examples of affirmative action in the Eighties is the insistence of John Paul II on beatifying Kateri Tekakwitha and thereby placing her on the road to canonization, even though this 17th century Mohawk Indian maiden appeared not to have performed any of the miracles traditionally required for Sainthood. (Seligman 60)
PC is applied to everyday situations in many ways, but one of the most easily recognized is terminology. It is surprising how many books and stories are on the 'not PC' list. It is also surprising to read them once they have been altered to contain more inclusive language.
Another intriguing illustration of applied political correctness is the "Dates to Remember" list on the California Teachers Association 1995-96 calendar: Massacre of the Sioux at Wounded Knee Day (December 29), Internment of Japanese-Americans Day (February 19), Diwali (October 23), the Birthday of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism (April 30), National Coming Out Day (October 11), and the Stonewall Rebellion Anniversary (June 27-28). (Leo 18)
Perhaps a more familiar story can better show the significant language of PC. How about the Three Little Pigs? In the book Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, The Three Little Pigs begins: "Once there were three little pigs who lived together in mutual respect and in harmony with their environment. Using materials that were indigenous to the area, they each built a beautiful house." (Garner 9) Most Americans are likely to be familiar with this story, but does it sound a little different when transformed into something politically correct?
One of the oddest publications of this politically correct era is a PC version of the Christian Bible, The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (Oxford University Press). Note these changes: The Lord's Prayer now begins, "Our Father-Mother in Heaven." The 63rd Psalm's "Thy right hand upholds me" made left-handers feel bad and is now "your strong hand upholds me." "Kingdom," an overly male word is now "dominion." And the word "darkness" when referring to evil or ignorance has been removed out of deference to dark-skinned peoples. (Leo 19)
Included in the definition of political correctness is "acceptance of multiculturalism as a valued feature of American society." This is perhaps the most difficult task of nontraditionalists. Diversity is not difficult for an American to accept, after all, you see diverse people every day. Multiculturalism is something different, though. Not only is one expected to recognize the existence of other groups, but to learn about them and treat their heritage as equal in importance to one's own. Author Dinesh D'Souza sums up multicultural education:
"I'm in favor of multicultural curriculum that emphasizes1/4the best that has been thought and said. Non-Western cultures have produced great works that are worthy of study, and I think young people should know something about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. To do so, it's helpful to be exposed to the Koran. Young people should know something about the rise of Japanese capitalism. Is there a Confucian ethic behind the success of Asian entrepreneurship in the same way we hear about Max Weber, the Protestant ethic, and the spirit of capitalism? These are legitimate questions. But they are not the questions routinely pursued in most multicultural courses, which instead have degenerated into a kind of ethnic cheerleading, a primitive romanticism about the Third World, combined with the systematic denunciation of the West." (Berman 31)
In my experience, this is exactly the way schools look at multicultural education. I have participated in several attempts at multicultural classes, and they all turn out the same: we study holidays, important figures, and learn a few songs from an African or Indian culture. Is this really important information in the fight against cultural illiteracy and ignorance?
Because of the ambiguity of PC theory, it can be used as a tool by two groups of polar opposites: neoconservatives and leftists. (Richer and Weir 253) Right now it is advantageous to appear politically correct. So the left, which traditionally upholds PC, can do so without losing public approval. That is, until the right holds them to it.
When political correctness is applied to an institution, such a University, many problems arise. Look at something like textbooks. If the University insists on the use of inclusive language in their textbooks, isn't the school promoting a type of censorship of alternative works? Larger issues are more difficult. When the right looks to the University and says, "Isn't the left going to do something about the hate speech on campus, where is the freedom to learn without fear?" the left is forced to reply by advocating speech codes and other forms of restrictive expression. Therein lies the "Catch-22" of political correctness: in order to have freedom for all, some freedoms must be compromised.
The debate over political correctness seems to be most heated when it comes to Universities. There are countless books and articles which study and debate the problems and effects of PC. The left and right of the University are the nontraditionalists and the traditionalists. Debates over Universities center on curricula, in particular the literary canon. The canon is made us primarily of works by dead white males and is part of the core curriculum at nearly every University in America. Nontraditionalists seek to alter the canon by either supplementing it with a multicultural emphasis, or overhauling it and starting from scratch to create a more diverse base of literary education. Traditionalists wish to continue to teach the current canon, and see the nontraditionalists' aims as subversive and irresponsible. (Hoover and Howard 968)
At a few Universities, nontraditionalist views are influencing class scheduling. Some schools have instituted "alternative" courses: Dartmouth offers "The Invention of Heterosexuality and How to Have Promiscuity in an Epidemic." At Brown one could find a course called "Christianity, Violence, and Victimization." Even Yale has PC courses: "Gender and the Politics of Resistance: Feminism, Capitalism, and the Third World." (Leo 18)
PC affects more than University campus
Corporate Culture The Key to Understanding Work Organisatio
Corporate Culture : The Key to Understanding Work Organisations
Organisational or corporate culture is widely held to refer to a system of shared meanings held by members that distinguishes the organisation from other organisations, that is a set of shared key characteristics or values.
The culture that an organisation has will play an important part in its success in its market sector. Likewise an organisation's continued success will depend to a large extent on the ability of the leadership of the organisation to perpetuate that culture.
A large, established organisation in a mature market is likely to have objectives of moderate growth and the maintenance of its position within the market. McDonald's is an example of such an organisation. You could walk in to a McDonald's restaurant in London, Tokyo or Moscow and expect to see staff dressed in the same uniform serving the same food from within restaurants that look remarkably similar. There are no risks to be taken here and rarely a snap decision to be made and certainly not by the staff.
Contrast this with a small organisation, thirsty for success in an emergent market such as Steve Job's Apple Computers in the early eighties. Here was a company led by a very strong character who was highly motivated, possessed a highly practical imagination and was fanatical about detail. He built up a multinational company on the strength of his ability to promote free thinking coupled with the attention to detail that is required to produce a world class computer within the organisation that he ran.
It is quite clear that if the cultures of these two organisations were transposed there would be internal chaos and the company's would lose their positions within their markets. A McDonald's restaurant that started to add flair to its menu would soon cut in to the company's tightly controlled profit margins whereas a company with tightly enforced rules and regulations could never lead the market in innovative technologies.
It is not by chance that these two organisations have such different cultures. They are each the product of a clearly constructed and executed leadership policies reinforced by the organisation's founders and subsequently their top management. The processes of selection and socialisation are key tools in the maintenance of an organisation's culture.
The selection process is typically employed within organisations not only to select individuals who have the technical skills and knowledge to perform their roles within the organisation but also to select people who will fit in with, and not undermine, the organisation's culture.
The process of socialisation has as its key objective the moulding of the individual, who has already been selected partly for their apparent conformity with the organisation's core values, in to a true member of the organisation where their values and norms are synchronised with those of their work group
A work organisation cannot be understood, however, by studying it's culture in isolation to the areas of group dynamics, leadership, power and influence. It is indeed not possible to understand organisational culture without putting it within the context of organisational behaviour as a whole.
Leadership plays a key role in the establishment of organisational culture. As culture is principally the subjective perception of the organisation's and how it achieves those aims then leadership must play a central role in setting the values that underlie this perception.
The founders of an organisation hold the responsibility for the establishment of an organisation's culture. In an embryonic company this does not necessarily have to be done with much thought. In this environment the organisation's founders generally have a lot to do with the day to day running of the organisation. The founders or their close associates will interview prospective employees and the successful candidates will be those who not only have the appropriate skills but those who also possess values and behaviours that are similar to those of the interviewer.
As the organisation develops and grows a number of sub-cultures will develop and it is now more important that the organisation's values are communicated in an effective way. Now the interviewers are further removed from the founders and direct exposure to their values and behaviours. Now it is important that the founders develop an effective way of communicating their values and behaviours so that they are seen as the basis of the dominant culture within the organisation.
Likewise the group dynamics within the organisation will have a direct relationship to the organisation's culture. In fact the norms that are established within the various groups that make up an organisation form a substantial part of the organisation's culture and it is in the establishment of these norms that leadership is so important for if dysfunctional norms are established within a group, for example a department of an organisation, then the effect on the organisation's culture would be potentially very damaging. We would see the norms within the department come in to conflict with the organisation's culture and if decisive leadership were not taking in tackling the dysfunctional norms then the possibility of these norms spreading throughout the organisation and overthrowing the organisation's existing culture is posed.
An organisation's culture may be seen as the commonality between the various group norms within the organisation. With effective leadership these norms can be centred around those of the organisation's official leadership through the effective communication and reinforcement of the leadership's values.
It can , therefore, be seen that the statement 'organisational culture is the key to understanding work organisations' cannot be substantiated as an organisation cannot be understood by simply looking at one aspect of its behaviour in isolation to the broad body of study collectively known as 'organisational behaviour'.
Organisational Culture within London Underground
London Underground was formed out of the railway lines that were built, owned and operated by a number of private railway companies that served the centre of London. These companies were formed around the turn of the century and were finally brought under the unifying umbrella of London Regional Transport in the 1940's. The private rail companies had developed the most modern technology to generate profits and had, on the whole, done this successfully
London Underground was formed out of the need to have a co-ordinated transport plan for the growing capital city in order to move people around without choking the streets with traffic.
It was only with the arrival of a new government in the late 70's that was intent on dismantling the nationalised industries that the leadership within London Underground was forced to rethink the direction it had been taking over the previous decades. London Underground had become a club. An organisation where high value was placed on fitting in, on loyalty, and on commitment. This club culture placed along side the lack of direction that the organisation was plagued with started to foster dysfunctional norms within groups that were furthest away from the leadership. As these individuals were promoted due to their seniority the organisation started to take on these dysfunctional norms as its dominant culture.
The government had been using its influence throughout the 80's to appoint a new leadership to London Underground and in the early 90's this leadership announced the 'company plan'. In order to obtain the finance from government that the organisation required to replace or repair the now crumbling infrastructure the organisation was to undergo a full review of its activities that would slash staffing levels by almost 25% through a complete review of the company's activities. The end result would be an "underground fit for the next century".
The culture within London Underground had become very strong and a whole range of tactics were employed to overturn the old culture. The organisation's leadership was replaced not only on the board of directors but wherever necessary throughout the organisation with 'outsiders' brought in from what has now become known as 'the real world'; where this was not possible or where there were suitable candidates within the company then employees who espoused the company's new values were promoted. The unwritten norms that had become the basis for the old culture were replaced, after months of long, heated discussions with the unions, with formal rules and regulations that were, and still are to a great extent, tightly enforced.
The net result today is an organisation that is at least pulling in the same direction as its leadership and where the values and behaviours have now been published and are being used to point the way forward.
· Openness, Honesty, Trust, Respect
· More for Less
· Empowerment Within a Framework
· Continuous Improvement, Steady State, Innovation Management
· Constructive Descent
Organisational or corporate culture is widely held to refer to a system of shared meanings held by members that distinguishes the organisation from other organisations, that is a set of shared key characteristics or values.
The culture that an organisation has will play an important part in its success in its market sector. Likewise an organisation's continued success will depend to a large extent on the ability of the leadership of the organisation to perpetuate that culture.
A large, established organisation in a mature market is likely to have objectives of moderate growth and the maintenance of its position within the market. McDonald's is an example of such an organisation. You could walk in to a McDonald's restaurant in London, Tokyo or Moscow and expect to see staff dressed in the same uniform serving the same food from within restaurants that look remarkably similar. There are no risks to be taken here and rarely a snap decision to be made and certainly not by the staff.
Contrast this with a small organisation, thirsty for success in an emergent market such as Steve Job's Apple Computers in the early eighties. Here was a company led by a very strong character who was highly motivated, possessed a highly practical imagination and was fanatical about detail. He built up a multinational company on the strength of his ability to promote free thinking coupled with the attention to detail that is required to produce a world class computer within the organisation that he ran.
It is quite clear that if the cultures of these two organisations were transposed there would be internal chaos and the company's would lose their positions within their markets. A McDonald's restaurant that started to add flair to its menu would soon cut in to the company's tightly controlled profit margins whereas a company with tightly enforced rules and regulations could never lead the market in innovative technologies.
It is not by chance that these two organisations have such different cultures. They are each the product of a clearly constructed and executed leadership policies reinforced by the organisation's founders and subsequently their top management. The processes of selection and socialisation are key tools in the maintenance of an organisation's culture.
The selection process is typically employed within organisations not only to select individuals who have the technical skills and knowledge to perform their roles within the organisation but also to select people who will fit in with, and not undermine, the organisation's culture.
The process of socialisation has as its key objective the moulding of the individual, who has already been selected partly for their apparent conformity with the organisation's core values, in to a true member of the organisation where their values and norms are synchronised with those of their work group
A work organisation cannot be understood, however, by studying it's culture in isolation to the areas of group dynamics, leadership, power and influence. It is indeed not possible to understand organisational culture without putting it within the context of organisational behaviour as a whole.
Leadership plays a key role in the establishment of organisational culture. As culture is principally the subjective perception of the organisation's and how it achieves those aims then leadership must play a central role in setting the values that underlie this perception.
The founders of an organisation hold the responsibility for the establishment of an organisation's culture. In an embryonic company this does not necessarily have to be done with much thought. In this environment the organisation's founders generally have a lot to do with the day to day running of the organisation. The founders or their close associates will interview prospective employees and the successful candidates will be those who not only have the appropriate skills but those who also possess values and behaviours that are similar to those of the interviewer.
As the organisation develops and grows a number of sub-cultures will develop and it is now more important that the organisation's values are communicated in an effective way. Now the interviewers are further removed from the founders and direct exposure to their values and behaviours. Now it is important that the founders develop an effective way of communicating their values and behaviours so that they are seen as the basis of the dominant culture within the organisation.
Likewise the group dynamics within the organisation will have a direct relationship to the organisation's culture. In fact the norms that are established within the various groups that make up an organisation form a substantial part of the organisation's culture and it is in the establishment of these norms that leadership is so important for if dysfunctional norms are established within a group, for example a department of an organisation, then the effect on the organisation's culture would be potentially very damaging. We would see the norms within the department come in to conflict with the organisation's culture and if decisive leadership were not taking in tackling the dysfunctional norms then the possibility of these norms spreading throughout the organisation and overthrowing the organisation's existing culture is posed.
An organisation's culture may be seen as the commonality between the various group norms within the organisation. With effective leadership these norms can be centred around those of the organisation's official leadership through the effective communication and reinforcement of the leadership's values.
It can , therefore, be seen that the statement 'organisational culture is the key to understanding work organisations' cannot be substantiated as an organisation cannot be understood by simply looking at one aspect of its behaviour in isolation to the broad body of study collectively known as 'organisational behaviour'.
Organisational Culture within London Underground
London Underground was formed out of the railway lines that were built, owned and operated by a number of private railway companies that served the centre of London. These companies were formed around the turn of the century and were finally brought under the unifying umbrella of London Regional Transport in the 1940's. The private rail companies had developed the most modern technology to generate profits and had, on the whole, done this successfully
London Underground was formed out of the need to have a co-ordinated transport plan for the growing capital city in order to move people around without choking the streets with traffic.
It was only with the arrival of a new government in the late 70's that was intent on dismantling the nationalised industries that the leadership within London Underground was forced to rethink the direction it had been taking over the previous decades. London Underground had become a club. An organisation where high value was placed on fitting in, on loyalty, and on commitment. This club culture placed along side the lack of direction that the organisation was plagued with started to foster dysfunctional norms within groups that were furthest away from the leadership. As these individuals were promoted due to their seniority the organisation started to take on these dysfunctional norms as its dominant culture.
The government had been using its influence throughout the 80's to appoint a new leadership to London Underground and in the early 90's this leadership announced the 'company plan'. In order to obtain the finance from government that the organisation required to replace or repair the now crumbling infrastructure the organisation was to undergo a full review of its activities that would slash staffing levels by almost 25% through a complete review of the company's activities. The end result would be an "underground fit for the next century".
The culture within London Underground had become very strong and a whole range of tactics were employed to overturn the old culture. The organisation's leadership was replaced not only on the board of directors but wherever necessary throughout the organisation with 'outsiders' brought in from what has now become known as 'the real world'; where this was not possible or where there were suitable candidates within the company then employees who espoused the company's new values were promoted. The unwritten norms that had become the basis for the old culture were replaced, after months of long, heated discussions with the unions, with formal rules and regulations that were, and still are to a great extent, tightly enforced.
The net result today is an organisation that is at least pulling in the same direction as its leadership and where the values and behaviours have now been published and are being used to point the way forward.
· Openness, Honesty, Trust, Respect
· More for Less
· Empowerment Within a Framework
· Continuous Improvement, Steady State, Innovation Management
· Constructive Descent
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PHSICAL ABUSE
Corporal Punishment is physical abuse
Corporal punishment is the execution of a judicially imposed sentence that inflicts a manner of physical pain upon the offenders body without killing him. In the past corporal punishment included flogging, whipping, branding and facial or bodily mutilation of all types. Corporal punishment also refers to the discipline of children at home and in schools but it was made illegal for punishing schoolchildren in 1986.
Historically, corporal punishment was used in the ancient law codes of Hammurabi and Moses, in laws of Sparta and other Greek city states, in early Christian church teachings and in Anglo-Saxon common laws. It is still used in many parts of the world and remains in the criminal codes of several European communities. In the twentieth century, corporal punishment has received severe criticism. Many people believe it is a barbaric relic of a bygone age, completely opposite with present day humanitarian ethics.
With a rising crime rate many are favouring the reinstitution of physical punishment for very wicked crimes. It has been shown that many adults in England want the restoration of corporal punishment for certain crimes, hoping that it will effect the reaction against an ever increasing amount of crime.
The use of corporal punishment on children has also dropped sharply. In many school systems of the United States, for example, corporal punishment has been outlawed, it is also illegal in countries such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway.
Corporal punishment for certain offences is very effective, because it's done quickly and feared by all. Not only will it teach the offender not to repeat his violent actions but it will also discourage him. It teaches the school boy or convict that doing wrong will be followed by pain and suffering. When used justly and without anger the giver is not brutalised. In many independent schools where it still occurs it is thought of as a final punishment. It accustoms the pupils to the hardships of real life and no bitterness is left after it has been used for good reasons. It is always impossible to make the punishment fit the crime, with corporal punishment the amount can be adjusted to suit the offender. It is much better than other punishments which are deadening to the mind and the body. Schools which don't find corporal punishment essential, especially for young children, substitute it with other methods which are equivalent to terrorising. Detentions are also harmful because they increase the number of hours a boy is forced to spend indoors in physical inactivity. His restlessness is increased by the enforced restraint which leads to further offences against discipline.
Corporal punishment is humiliating and harmful to the sensitive victim, while it is no discouragement to the hardened culprit who often boasts about it to his friends and girlfriends trying to impress them as though it were a battle of honour. It appeals to the strain of cruelty that exists somewhere in everyone. If it were true that corporal punishment accustoms children to life's hardships then every boy should receive it's benefits daily. Corporal punishment is an excuse for laziness in teachers. By using terror instead of discipline, a bad teacher can continue his work when otherwise the impatience of the students would force him to change his method. Detentions are more effective because they interfere with the boys leisure time , which worries him far more than physical pain, and may give him an opportunity for impression. In modern schools there are many opportunities for physical exercise and its nonsense to imply that depriving a boy of this is physically harmful. The infliction of corporal punishment on a person who regards violence as a means of achieving his ends is not likely to have any correct action; on the contrary, past experience has shown that it will lead to a deeper feeling of hatred towards authority and society.
I believe that discipline is necessary in the raising and teaching of children so they can become social, productive and responsible adults. Punishment is a method of disciplining and corporal punishment is only one aspect of punishment.
Parents and teachers who lower themselves to physical violence and aggression in order to control children are setting an example that children may try to follow (Bandura, 1967). This is the hypocrisy of "Do what I say, not what I do," but the actions are often louder than the words. By refusing to use physical punishment, perhaps we can refine and develop other techniques which may prove more beneficial than the easy and quick brutality. Punishment does nit have to be physical; it can be social, emotional or mental. "One form of punishment is the administering of an aversive stimulus contingent upon disapproved behaviour. The other is the removal of a reward or positive reinforcer" (Skinner, 1938).
Bibliography :
Beck, S, Alternatives to corporal punishment (internet)
Danellan, C, Crime and punishment (1991)
Great, B, Supervision and punishment in the community, HMSO, 1990
Pros and Cons, RGB, 1992
Corporal punishment is the execution of a judicially imposed sentence that inflicts a manner of physical pain upon the offenders body without killing him. In the past corporal punishment included flogging, whipping, branding and facial or bodily mutilation of all types. Corporal punishment also refers to the discipline of children at home and in schools but it was made illegal for punishing schoolchildren in 1986.
Historically, corporal punishment was used in the ancient law codes of Hammurabi and Moses, in laws of Sparta and other Greek city states, in early Christian church teachings and in Anglo-Saxon common laws. It is still used in many parts of the world and remains in the criminal codes of several European communities. In the twentieth century, corporal punishment has received severe criticism. Many people believe it is a barbaric relic of a bygone age, completely opposite with present day humanitarian ethics.
With a rising crime rate many are favouring the reinstitution of physical punishment for very wicked crimes. It has been shown that many adults in England want the restoration of corporal punishment for certain crimes, hoping that it will effect the reaction against an ever increasing amount of crime.
The use of corporal punishment on children has also dropped sharply. In many school systems of the United States, for example, corporal punishment has been outlawed, it is also illegal in countries such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway.
Corporal punishment for certain offences is very effective, because it's done quickly and feared by all. Not only will it teach the offender not to repeat his violent actions but it will also discourage him. It teaches the school boy or convict that doing wrong will be followed by pain and suffering. When used justly and without anger the giver is not brutalised. In many independent schools where it still occurs it is thought of as a final punishment. It accustoms the pupils to the hardships of real life and no bitterness is left after it has been used for good reasons. It is always impossible to make the punishment fit the crime, with corporal punishment the amount can be adjusted to suit the offender. It is much better than other punishments which are deadening to the mind and the body. Schools which don't find corporal punishment essential, especially for young children, substitute it with other methods which are equivalent to terrorising. Detentions are also harmful because they increase the number of hours a boy is forced to spend indoors in physical inactivity. His restlessness is increased by the enforced restraint which leads to further offences against discipline.
Corporal punishment is humiliating and harmful to the sensitive victim, while it is no discouragement to the hardened culprit who often boasts about it to his friends and girlfriends trying to impress them as though it were a battle of honour. It appeals to the strain of cruelty that exists somewhere in everyone. If it were true that corporal punishment accustoms children to life's hardships then every boy should receive it's benefits daily. Corporal punishment is an excuse for laziness in teachers. By using terror instead of discipline, a bad teacher can continue his work when otherwise the impatience of the students would force him to change his method. Detentions are more effective because they interfere with the boys leisure time , which worries him far more than physical pain, and may give him an opportunity for impression. In modern schools there are many opportunities for physical exercise and its nonsense to imply that depriving a boy of this is physically harmful. The infliction of corporal punishment on a person who regards violence as a means of achieving his ends is not likely to have any correct action; on the contrary, past experience has shown that it will lead to a deeper feeling of hatred towards authority and society.
I believe that discipline is necessary in the raising and teaching of children so they can become social, productive and responsible adults. Punishment is a method of disciplining and corporal punishment is only one aspect of punishment.
Parents and teachers who lower themselves to physical violence and aggression in order to control children are setting an example that children may try to follow (Bandura, 1967). This is the hypocrisy of "Do what I say, not what I do," but the actions are often louder than the words. By refusing to use physical punishment, perhaps we can refine and develop other techniques which may prove more beneficial than the easy and quick brutality. Punishment does nit have to be physical; it can be social, emotional or mental. "One form of punishment is the administering of an aversive stimulus contingent upon disapproved behaviour. The other is the removal of a reward or positive reinforcer" (Skinner, 1938).
Bibliography :
Beck, S, Alternatives to corporal punishment (internet)
Danellan, C, Crime and punishment (1991)
Great, B, Supervision and punishment in the community, HMSO, 1990
Pros and Cons, RGB, 1992
Conflict between liberals of 1920s and the old guard
The contrast between the new and changing attitudes and traditional values was unmistakably present during the 1920's. This clash between the old and the new had many roots and was inevitable. A new sense of awareness washed over minorities in our nation, especially blacks who began to realize that they were entitled to their own subculture, pursuit of success, and share of the American dream. This ideal was expressed by Langston Hughes in "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain." They were supported by the growing number of young, financially well-to-do liberals who formed the new intelligencia. Each group sought the use of logic and rational reasoning in their rethinking of reevaluation of society's current status. Still, they constituted a minority and their reformist views were not well-taken by the greater part of the population who had become accustomed to a certain way of thinking were not willing to budge, thus keeping the radicals silent. Individualism was also partially suppressed by the succession of three traditionalist Republican presidents whose partiality to the strong was displayed by their strong backing of big business while discouraging the Labor Union movement. Literature was one medium by which the new intelligencia could express their views on impracticality and injustice of the social system and government in the 1920's.
Sinclair Lewis was one such author who used his writing to condemn the stale and outdated ways of thinking that were so widely popular in our nation during the 1920's. In addition to exposing the poor working conditions of most factory labor, particularly the meat-packing industry, he criticized the common man who could not think or act individually in his novel, Babbit, which was published in 1922. His description from the novel of the common man portrayed a person who acted in a manner that was socially acceptable who also strived for success based on society's definition of purchasing material goods. In essence he was a man defined by the society that he lived in.
Religion was also a topic of controversy during the twenties. Traditionalists who were usually older and less intelligent than the rising young class of liberal intellectuals were primarily Christian and would only accept literal interpretations of the Bible. The liberals were not so quick to take the Bible at face value and came up their own interpretations. The tension between the old and the new regarding religion was perhaps most obviously prevalent at the Tennessee Evolution Court Case of 1925.
In this time of where individual thinking was a rarity, public misconception and ignorance ran abound. People looked to scapegoats to account for society's problems. Often minorities such as black in addition to the young liberals were the source of such a scapegoat. For this reason, the Ku Klux Klan experienced widespread popularity during the 1920's. The KKK relieved the majority of white conservative America of any responsibility for the shortcomings of society. It also gave them a sense of security by forming a large alliance against minorities.
The conflict between patrons of the KKK and the uprising group of intellectual liberals was quite flagrant. The young continued to take more liberties and adhered less to society's standards than the preceding generation. They sought self-satisfaction rather than living in harmony with the rest of society. As a result, many non-traditional trends began to appear in the lives of the young liberals in the 1920's. Women began to feel more sexually liberated and realized that they also had needs aside from only existing to accommodate their male counterparts. Many women also took up smoking, an activity previously delegated exclusively to men. In addition, more and more women pursued jobs outside of the home. The rate of divorce rose during these times as well. The young generation had stopped living their lives according to traditional society values and had inserted their own sets of desires, goals, and values by which to live instead.
Sinclair Lewis was one such author who used his writing to condemn the stale and outdated ways of thinking that were so widely popular in our nation during the 1920's. In addition to exposing the poor working conditions of most factory labor, particularly the meat-packing industry, he criticized the common man who could not think or act individually in his novel, Babbit, which was published in 1922. His description from the novel of the common man portrayed a person who acted in a manner that was socially acceptable who also strived for success based on society's definition of purchasing material goods. In essence he was a man defined by the society that he lived in.
Religion was also a topic of controversy during the twenties. Traditionalists who were usually older and less intelligent than the rising young class of liberal intellectuals were primarily Christian and would only accept literal interpretations of the Bible. The liberals were not so quick to take the Bible at face value and came up their own interpretations. The tension between the old and the new regarding religion was perhaps most obviously prevalent at the Tennessee Evolution Court Case of 1925.
In this time of where individual thinking was a rarity, public misconception and ignorance ran abound. People looked to scapegoats to account for society's problems. Often minorities such as black in addition to the young liberals were the source of such a scapegoat. For this reason, the Ku Klux Klan experienced widespread popularity during the 1920's. The KKK relieved the majority of white conservative America of any responsibility for the shortcomings of society. It also gave them a sense of security by forming a large alliance against minorities.
The conflict between patrons of the KKK and the uprising group of intellectual liberals was quite flagrant. The young continued to take more liberties and adhered less to society's standards than the preceding generation. They sought self-satisfaction rather than living in harmony with the rest of society. As a result, many non-traditional trends began to appear in the lives of the young liberals in the 1920's. Women began to feel more sexually liberated and realized that they also had needs aside from only existing to accommodate their male counterparts. Many women also took up smoking, an activity previously delegated exclusively to men. In addition, more and more women pursued jobs outside of the home. The rate of divorce rose during these times as well. The young generation had stopped living their lives according to traditional society values and had inserted their own sets of desires, goals, and values by which to live instead.
computers in our lives
There is a dispute over computers and the knowledge which is requied
to operate them.
First of all, some people say that anyone who does not know how to use the computer
is not preapered for the future.
Second of all,without knowledge of computers anyone dont stand a chance on
the job market.
Because without education in this field there is no way to succed
in life or to find ajob which would provide decant pay for an average
person.
However,other people have different opinion about this issue.
In theit opinion knowledge of computers is not required in today's
job market.
They also thinks that people should not depend so much on computers
but more on their own education and capibilities to make the right
decisions.
Even knowing for a fact that the computers are almost everywhere
in use it's not appropriate for people to get addicted to them and to make
them solve all of our problems for us.
That is the only one of many reasons why so many people are divided
about this topic on both sides.
Altough from my own experience with a computer all I can say is that THe
computers are one of the most important things which were discover since
pencilin.
That is why I wiil have to agree with people who support computers and education
that is involve to operate them.
the end.
to operate them.
First of all, some people say that anyone who does not know how to use the computer
is not preapered for the future.
Second of all,without knowledge of computers anyone dont stand a chance on
the job market.
Because without education in this field there is no way to succed
in life or to find ajob which would provide decant pay for an average
person.
However,other people have different opinion about this issue.
In theit opinion knowledge of computers is not required in today's
job market.
They also thinks that people should not depend so much on computers
but more on their own education and capibilities to make the right
decisions.
Even knowing for a fact that the computers are almost everywhere
in use it's not appropriate for people to get addicted to them and to make
them solve all of our problems for us.
That is the only one of many reasons why so many people are divided
about this topic on both sides.
Altough from my own experience with a computer all I can say is that THe
computers are one of the most important things which were discover since
pencilin.
That is why I wiil have to agree with people who support computers and education
that is involve to operate them.
the end.
Comparison of the Three Major Sociological Theories
SOCIOLOGY 303
CLASSICAL THEORY
Comment on the three types of sociological theories, explain and argue, based on
your library or Internet research, which type of theory is the most appropriate
theory for sociology to adopt.
The three general types of sociological theory are positivistic, interpretive and
critical theory. In determining which theory is the most appropriate for sociology to
adopt, a basic understanding of each theory's strengths and weaknesses is necessary. In
defining each of these theories, it is important to determine the ontological basis or the
theory's basis for determining what is knowable; the epistemological basis or the theory's
relationship between the knower and the knowable; and, finally, the methodological basis
or the theory's method for gathering data and obtaining knowledge.
A. POSITIVISTIC
1. Ontology.
The positivistic theory is based on an ontology of being a realist. The realistic
slant of positivism is also known as determinism. The positivist knows that a reality is
"out there" to be defined and categorized. The hard sciences from the time of Newton
and Decartes have traditionally relied on the positivistic approach. The positivist hopes to
be able to approximate "reality" in a detailed generalization or theory on how reality
operates. The theories of a positivist generally take the form of cause and effect laws
describing the outside reality. Robert Merton defined these theorems as "clear verifiable
statements of the relationships between specified variables."
2. Epistemology.
Positivism relies on an objective epistemology. The observer remains distant and
does not interact with the observation or experiment. Values and any other factors that
might lead to bias are to be carefully removed so that the cold, monological gaze of
science can be used to analyze the data. The positivist is an objectivist.
3. Methodology.
The methodology of positivism is experimental and manipulative. The approach is
the same as propounded in most junior high science classes: begin with a hypothesis on
how "reality" works, then gather data and test the data against the hypothesis. The
question propounded initially is tested against empirical data gathered in the experiment
under carefully controlled conditions.
B. INTERPRETIVE
1. Ontology.
The interpretivist ontology is relativism. The belief, unlike the positivist, is that
knowledge is relative to the observor. Reality is not something that exists outside the
observor, but rather is determined by the experiences, social background and other factors
of the observor. Because of this view sociological law is not a constant, but a relationship
between changing variables.
2. Epistemology.
The epistemology of interpretivism is the subjective. The inquirer in interpretisim
becomes part of an interaction or communication with the subject of the inquiry. The
findings are the result of the interaction between the inquirer and the subject. Reality
becomes a social construction.
3. Methodology.
The methodology of interpretivism can best be described as hermenutic or
dialectic. Hermenutics is the study of how to make interpretive inquiry. Dialectic is
reflective of the dialogue imagined in the subjective approach and the need to test
interpretive theory against human experience. Max Weber described the methodology as
"a science which aims at the interpretative understanding of social conduct and thus at the
explanation of its causes, its course, and its effects."
Through hermenutics, the raw data consists of description. The description is made through the
naturally symbolic use of language. The meaning of the language is derived in part by the society from which it
arises. Interpretive theory is tested by referring back to human practice within the society. If the interaction
produces the anticipated result then the theory is corroborated and vice versa.
C. CRITICAL THEORY
1. Ontology.
Critical realism is the ontology of critical theory. Critical realism believes that a
reality exists "out there" and is not merely relative. However, reality can never be fully
comprehended or understood. Natural laws still control and drive reality and to the
extent possible should be understood.
2. Epistemology.
Critical theory is value oriented. Therefore, the critical theorist is subjective to the
extent that the inquiries are governed and conducted in the context of the values
expounded by the theorist.
3. Methodology.
Critical theory has a transformative methodology. The answers provided should
be on how we should live. The status quo is critiqued and attacked. Actions are criticized
because of the result they will bring. The transformation is brought about by making
societal participants more aware of the language and the world in which they live. By
rallying members of society around a common, clear and "true" point, societal injustice
and exploitation can be eliminated.
POSITIVISM VERSUS INTERPRETIVISM
The positivistic approach is excellent for examining exterior data that can
essentially be utilized in an objective fashion. The positivist is an excellent philosophy for
viewing societal trends and changes. The monological or scientific gaze is limited in its
perceptions and can best be used for determining when and to what extent groups in the
society interact.
The interpretivist, on the other hand, wants to know why things are happening in a
particular society. The subjective approach allows communication with the cultural
background of a society and an understanding of why things operate.
An illustration of how the two approaches differ can be seen by examining
something like the local Mormon baptism ritual for 8 year old children. The positivist
would tell percentages of children who participated in comparison to the time the parents
spent in church. The hypothesis may begin that a higher percentage of children would
participate in the ritual if their parents were more active in the religion. Data would be
gathered and tested against the hypothesis. The conclusion would be that the data
confirmed the hypothesis and so the conclusion could be reached that the more active the
parents , the more likely that the child would participate in the ritual.
The interpretivist would survey and examine why the children were baptized and
what the baptism meant to the participants. The final construct for the interpretivist would
be that the baptism signified a religious cleansing and a new beginning and acted as a right
of passage for the young children.
Both conclusions are correct, the results are vastly different. The positivist looks
at the exterior of society, while the interpretivist looks at the interior. It is the difference
between examining the electrical synapses in the brain and knowing what someone is
thinking. Both inquiries have there value, but in the end, they are looking at different
aspects of the same subject. The positivist examines the exterior, while the interpretivist
examines the interior.
Critics of interpretivism and positivists attack interpretive theory for being
subjective and therfore being unreliable. This is not an accurate critique. Just as there
can be poor positivistic theories, there can be poor interpretive theories. Likewise, there
can be good positivistic and interpretive theories.
An analogy to literary critique is the best illustration. Literary critique is always
interpretive. A positivistic critique of Hamlet would amount to nothing more than a
catalog of the number of times each word is used, the amount of ink and the number of
pages in the story. It would tell us nothing about the power and strength of the play.
Interpretive approaches of Hamlet can be either good or bad. An interpretation that it is a
play about "being happy" would be a bad interpretation, while a critique on revenge would
be more accurate. The common experience of people who have seen or read the play
helps determine the quality of an interpretation. While it is subjective, a reasonable
determination can be made as to its value.
Positivism also has some inherent difficulties in maintaing the objectivist view
when doing sociological research. Unlike physical science which can measure equations
like Force equals Mass times Acceleration, human institutions are replete with human
subjectivity. Positivistic science is a tool which only works for external examinations.
Biesta and Miedema describe the problem in this way:
The point here is, that the scientific study of human subjectivity has aims that differ
radically from the aims of physical science. Physical science aims at control of a
(human) subject over a (non-human) object. The relationship between the two can
be characterized as an external relationship, firstly because the object is controlled
by the subject, and secondly becasue the knoweldge acquired by the subject in
order to explain the behavings of the object does not influence the behavings of the
object.
While effective for the external analysis, positivism is lacking in explaining social
behavior.
Probably, the biggest problem in utilizing positivism in a sociological setting is the
difficulty with language. Language, by its very nature, defies establishing empirical truth.
Positivism relies on empirical facts derived from observation, yet "[t]here is no absolute
way to isolate the analytic, necessary truths from the merely empirical."
Because of the inherent problems positivism has been modified in the postpositivism movement. The
ontology is that of the critical realist. The objectivity is modified to recognize that it can only be approximated.
The methodology is a modified experimental which tries to conduct the research in more natural settings with
more qualitative components. This postpositivism remains an ideal methodology for examining external
components of the society.
POSITIVISTIC AND INTERPRETIVE VERSUS CRITICAL THEORY
The objective requirements of positivism are directly antagonistic to subjective
critical theory. Critical theory approaches sociology as a means to facilitate societal
change. A positivist would rather observe from behind a thick glass and stand removed
from the observation.
The stated purpose of critical theory is to transform society into a better reality.
Positivism merely wants to define reality, not redefine. Positivism will be reductionsitic,
while critical theory will tend to be holistic. The two theories could not be farther apart.
The goals and objectives are antithetical. Balaban summarizes the conflict as follows:
Positivism and Critical Theory offer us a positivistic account of a fetishistic
society. The first accepts it (evaluates it positively); the second rejects it
(evaluates it negatively). Positivism praises society, Critical Theory blames
society. Meanwhile the human sciences await a true critical explanation of society.
Likewise, interpretive theory and critical theory differ. Interpretive theory is looking at the inside to
understand why. Critical theory is trying to change the society. The difference is between trying to understand
and trying to change. Thomas R. Schwandt described the difference betweeen the two theories as follows:
If constructivism [interpretivism] can be characterized by its concern with a hermeneutic
consciousness -- capturing the lived experiences of participants -- then critical theory can by
characterized by its critical consciousness -- systematically investigating the manner in which that
lived experience may be distorted by false consciousness and ideology. . . . If the constructivist
[interpretivist] methodologies are preoccupied with the restoration of the meaning of human
experience, then critical science methodologies are preoccupied with reduction of illusions in the
human experience.
CONCLUSION
All three methodological approaches involve safeguards to regulate objectivity.
This is not the same as objectivism. Each has its own "norms for proceeding with a
particular form of inquiry in a rational manner." However, because of the orientation of
each theory, the end results will vary.
Based upon these difference, critical theory does not seem to be a theory that should be adopted by
sociologists. It belongs more in the realm of politics and legislation. Critical theory in that context could take
advantage of scientific inquiry by both positivistic and interpretive sociologists to make determinations about
social change. If indeed critical theorist are to be involved in sociological study, full disclosure of prejudices
and objectives would be needed for any inquiry to be beneficial and trustworthy.
Postpositivism remains the best approach for observing the exteriors of society. Coupled with the
interpretivist's view of the interior culture, the two theories working hand in hand would be most beneficial for
the sociologist in examining society. Utilizing a dual approach would be the most comprehensive and give the
scientific inquiry both depth and span in evaluating our societies and creating a useable body of sociological
research.
CLASSICAL THEORY
Comment on the three types of sociological theories, explain and argue, based on
your library or Internet research, which type of theory is the most appropriate
theory for sociology to adopt.
The three general types of sociological theory are positivistic, interpretive and
critical theory. In determining which theory is the most appropriate for sociology to
adopt, a basic understanding of each theory's strengths and weaknesses is necessary. In
defining each of these theories, it is important to determine the ontological basis or the
theory's basis for determining what is knowable; the epistemological basis or the theory's
relationship between the knower and the knowable; and, finally, the methodological basis
or the theory's method for gathering data and obtaining knowledge.
A. POSITIVISTIC
1. Ontology.
The positivistic theory is based on an ontology of being a realist. The realistic
slant of positivism is also known as determinism. The positivist knows that a reality is
"out there" to be defined and categorized. The hard sciences from the time of Newton
and Decartes have traditionally relied on the positivistic approach. The positivist hopes to
be able to approximate "reality" in a detailed generalization or theory on how reality
operates. The theories of a positivist generally take the form of cause and effect laws
describing the outside reality. Robert Merton defined these theorems as "clear verifiable
statements of the relationships between specified variables."
2. Epistemology.
Positivism relies on an objective epistemology. The observer remains distant and
does not interact with the observation or experiment. Values and any other factors that
might lead to bias are to be carefully removed so that the cold, monological gaze of
science can be used to analyze the data. The positivist is an objectivist.
3. Methodology.
The methodology of positivism is experimental and manipulative. The approach is
the same as propounded in most junior high science classes: begin with a hypothesis on
how "reality" works, then gather data and test the data against the hypothesis. The
question propounded initially is tested against empirical data gathered in the experiment
under carefully controlled conditions.
B. INTERPRETIVE
1. Ontology.
The interpretivist ontology is relativism. The belief, unlike the positivist, is that
knowledge is relative to the observor. Reality is not something that exists outside the
observor, but rather is determined by the experiences, social background and other factors
of the observor. Because of this view sociological law is not a constant, but a relationship
between changing variables.
2. Epistemology.
The epistemology of interpretivism is the subjective. The inquirer in interpretisim
becomes part of an interaction or communication with the subject of the inquiry. The
findings are the result of the interaction between the inquirer and the subject. Reality
becomes a social construction.
3. Methodology.
The methodology of interpretivism can best be described as hermenutic or
dialectic. Hermenutics is the study of how to make interpretive inquiry. Dialectic is
reflective of the dialogue imagined in the subjective approach and the need to test
interpretive theory against human experience. Max Weber described the methodology as
"a science which aims at the interpretative understanding of social conduct and thus at the
explanation of its causes, its course, and its effects."
Through hermenutics, the raw data consists of description. The description is made through the
naturally symbolic use of language. The meaning of the language is derived in part by the society from which it
arises. Interpretive theory is tested by referring back to human practice within the society. If the interaction
produces the anticipated result then the theory is corroborated and vice versa.
C. CRITICAL THEORY
1. Ontology.
Critical realism is the ontology of critical theory. Critical realism believes that a
reality exists "out there" and is not merely relative. However, reality can never be fully
comprehended or understood. Natural laws still control and drive reality and to the
extent possible should be understood.
2. Epistemology.
Critical theory is value oriented. Therefore, the critical theorist is subjective to the
extent that the inquiries are governed and conducted in the context of the values
expounded by the theorist.
3. Methodology.
Critical theory has a transformative methodology. The answers provided should
be on how we should live. The status quo is critiqued and attacked. Actions are criticized
because of the result they will bring. The transformation is brought about by making
societal participants more aware of the language and the world in which they live. By
rallying members of society around a common, clear and "true" point, societal injustice
and exploitation can be eliminated.
POSITIVISM VERSUS INTERPRETIVISM
The positivistic approach is excellent for examining exterior data that can
essentially be utilized in an objective fashion. The positivist is an excellent philosophy for
viewing societal trends and changes. The monological or scientific gaze is limited in its
perceptions and can best be used for determining when and to what extent groups in the
society interact.
The interpretivist, on the other hand, wants to know why things are happening in a
particular society. The subjective approach allows communication with the cultural
background of a society and an understanding of why things operate.
An illustration of how the two approaches differ can be seen by examining
something like the local Mormon baptism ritual for 8 year old children. The positivist
would tell percentages of children who participated in comparison to the time the parents
spent in church. The hypothesis may begin that a higher percentage of children would
participate in the ritual if their parents were more active in the religion. Data would be
gathered and tested against the hypothesis. The conclusion would be that the data
confirmed the hypothesis and so the conclusion could be reached that the more active the
parents , the more likely that the child would participate in the ritual.
The interpretivist would survey and examine why the children were baptized and
what the baptism meant to the participants. The final construct for the interpretivist would
be that the baptism signified a religious cleansing and a new beginning and acted as a right
of passage for the young children.
Both conclusions are correct, the results are vastly different. The positivist looks
at the exterior of society, while the interpretivist looks at the interior. It is the difference
between examining the electrical synapses in the brain and knowing what someone is
thinking. Both inquiries have there value, but in the end, they are looking at different
aspects of the same subject. The positivist examines the exterior, while the interpretivist
examines the interior.
Critics of interpretivism and positivists attack interpretive theory for being
subjective and therfore being unreliable. This is not an accurate critique. Just as there
can be poor positivistic theories, there can be poor interpretive theories. Likewise, there
can be good positivistic and interpretive theories.
An analogy to literary critique is the best illustration. Literary critique is always
interpretive. A positivistic critique of Hamlet would amount to nothing more than a
catalog of the number of times each word is used, the amount of ink and the number of
pages in the story. It would tell us nothing about the power and strength of the play.
Interpretive approaches of Hamlet can be either good or bad. An interpretation that it is a
play about "being happy" would be a bad interpretation, while a critique on revenge would
be more accurate. The common experience of people who have seen or read the play
helps determine the quality of an interpretation. While it is subjective, a reasonable
determination can be made as to its value.
Positivism also has some inherent difficulties in maintaing the objectivist view
when doing sociological research. Unlike physical science which can measure equations
like Force equals Mass times Acceleration, human institutions are replete with human
subjectivity. Positivistic science is a tool which only works for external examinations.
Biesta and Miedema describe the problem in this way:
The point here is, that the scientific study of human subjectivity has aims that differ
radically from the aims of physical science. Physical science aims at control of a
(human) subject over a (non-human) object. The relationship between the two can
be characterized as an external relationship, firstly because the object is controlled
by the subject, and secondly becasue the knoweldge acquired by the subject in
order to explain the behavings of the object does not influence the behavings of the
object.
While effective for the external analysis, positivism is lacking in explaining social
behavior.
Probably, the biggest problem in utilizing positivism in a sociological setting is the
difficulty with language. Language, by its very nature, defies establishing empirical truth.
Positivism relies on empirical facts derived from observation, yet "[t]here is no absolute
way to isolate the analytic, necessary truths from the merely empirical."
Because of the inherent problems positivism has been modified in the postpositivism movement. The
ontology is that of the critical realist. The objectivity is modified to recognize that it can only be approximated.
The methodology is a modified experimental which tries to conduct the research in more natural settings with
more qualitative components. This postpositivism remains an ideal methodology for examining external
components of the society.
POSITIVISTIC AND INTERPRETIVE VERSUS CRITICAL THEORY
The objective requirements of positivism are directly antagonistic to subjective
critical theory. Critical theory approaches sociology as a means to facilitate societal
change. A positivist would rather observe from behind a thick glass and stand removed
from the observation.
The stated purpose of critical theory is to transform society into a better reality.
Positivism merely wants to define reality, not redefine. Positivism will be reductionsitic,
while critical theory will tend to be holistic. The two theories could not be farther apart.
The goals and objectives are antithetical. Balaban summarizes the conflict as follows:
Positivism and Critical Theory offer us a positivistic account of a fetishistic
society. The first accepts it (evaluates it positively); the second rejects it
(evaluates it negatively). Positivism praises society, Critical Theory blames
society. Meanwhile the human sciences await a true critical explanation of society.
Likewise, interpretive theory and critical theory differ. Interpretive theory is looking at the inside to
understand why. Critical theory is trying to change the society. The difference is between trying to understand
and trying to change. Thomas R. Schwandt described the difference betweeen the two theories as follows:
If constructivism [interpretivism] can be characterized by its concern with a hermeneutic
consciousness -- capturing the lived experiences of participants -- then critical theory can by
characterized by its critical consciousness -- systematically investigating the manner in which that
lived experience may be distorted by false consciousness and ideology. . . . If the constructivist
[interpretivist] methodologies are preoccupied with the restoration of the meaning of human
experience, then critical science methodologies are preoccupied with reduction of illusions in the
human experience.
CONCLUSION
All three methodological approaches involve safeguards to regulate objectivity.
This is not the same as objectivism. Each has its own "norms for proceeding with a
particular form of inquiry in a rational manner." However, because of the orientation of
each theory, the end results will vary.
Based upon these difference, critical theory does not seem to be a theory that should be adopted by
sociologists. It belongs more in the realm of politics and legislation. Critical theory in that context could take
advantage of scientific inquiry by both positivistic and interpretive sociologists to make determinations about
social change. If indeed critical theorist are to be involved in sociological study, full disclosure of prejudices
and objectives would be needed for any inquiry to be beneficial and trustworthy.
Postpositivism remains the best approach for observing the exteriors of society. Coupled with the
interpretivist's view of the interior culture, the two theories working hand in hand would be most beneficial for
the sociologist in examining society. Utilizing a dual approach would be the most comprehensive and give the
scientific inquiry both depth and span in evaluating our societies and creating a useable body of sociological
research.
Comparison Between African and American Cultures
Comparison Between African and American cultures
Our culture has advanced so far and fast in the last decade. The thing that has advanced our culture most is the technology we have. Our technology has produced us with many new products and entertainment that we really enjoy but don't actually necessarily need. The next few paragraphs will talk about comparison of our culture and Africa's culture.
The culture in Kenya is only advancing in certain parts, mainly the bigger cities. There are also many very remote towns and villages that still have some of the native people left in them. Since there are so many different tribes they have lots of native languages. In America Spanish is one of the only other languages spoken. Some of the different tribes in Africa are the Sanburose, Omallose, and Turcanas. The people in these places use many of the old ways and follow most of the traditions their ancestors did because they haven't been introduced with very much of the modern technology we have.
Instead of having an occupation like most of the people here in the United States they grow up learning how to become worriers, graze their animals, hunt for food, etc. The closest thing our society comes to hunting is using guns, and other powerful weapons mostly just to hunt for fun.
Even though most of the native towns and villages are not very advanced there are still many big cities that are very much like ours. One of the things that really shocked me the most was how much the average worker made their. It was about 200 dollars. I don't think this applied to the city workers. 200 dollars is nothing to the average worker here in America.
Our culture has advanced so far and fast in the last decade. The thing that has advanced our culture most is the technology we have. Our technology has produced us with many new products and entertainment that we really enjoy but don't actually necessarily need. The next few paragraphs will talk about comparison of our culture and Africa's culture.
The culture in Kenya is only advancing in certain parts, mainly the bigger cities. There are also many very remote towns and villages that still have some of the native people left in them. Since there are so many different tribes they have lots of native languages. In America Spanish is one of the only other languages spoken. Some of the different tribes in Africa are the Sanburose, Omallose, and Turcanas. The people in these places use many of the old ways and follow most of the traditions their ancestors did because they haven't been introduced with very much of the modern technology we have.
Instead of having an occupation like most of the people here in the United States they grow up learning how to become worriers, graze their animals, hunt for food, etc. The closest thing our society comes to hunting is using guns, and other powerful weapons mostly just to hunt for fun.
Even though most of the native towns and villages are not very advanced there are still many big cities that are very much like ours. One of the things that really shocked me the most was how much the average worker made their. It was about 200 dollars. I don't think this applied to the city workers. 200 dollars is nothing to the average worker here in America.
Comparing China and the USA
Skyler Ditchfield
Per. 5
Comparing China and the United States World Cultures
Religions are very different in both countries. In the US most people are Christian, but
there is a freedom of religion so you have the right to practice any religion that you want to. In
China they are against religion, because it brings people away from communism, they want
communism to be the official religion of China. Status symbols of living in the US are things that
you can buy, cars, houses, clothes ect. In China everyone is given an equal amount of money
because of the communist society, so it is much harder to have these sort of things. US people
value money, the next thing they are saving up for, a new boat, or something else of value. But in
China their values are different, mostly because of their communist government. They want to do
everything for the good of the group, or their country, the more they can help out the better.
The government of China you probably already know, it's one of the last communist
governments left in the world. In a communist government the government runs everything, the
businesses and jobs, they pay everyone equally. This does though have problems. People have no
incentive to work, no matter how good a job they do they still get the same pay. In the US we
have a Democratic-Republic which means we elect who we want to run the government for us.
People are free to sell anything for any price they want as long it has been approved and is not an
illegal substance. The US has always been a Democratic-Republic, that was the reason why the
United States was formed. China though has not always been communist. In 1949 Mao Se Dung
started the Communist revolution and changed China to a Communist country and it has been
Communist ever since then. There are no social classes in a Communist society everyone is equal
and on the same level, because everyone is supposed to have the same amount of money. This didn't work quite exactly right though in China because leaders in the government become
corrupt and take more money for them self. So realistically there are two social classes, the
government and high ranking officials, and then everyone else below them. We have three
classes in the US, upper, middle, and lower. They are determined by money, the rich are on the
top and poor on the bottom. The largest class is the middle class. Because of the type of
economy that we have in the US small families are preferred.
Entertainment is a big part of the American culture. Television is the most common form
of entertainment. Almost every single home in America has a television. Americans love sports,
sporting events draw huge crowds and millions of people watch them on TV. During the super
bowl one billion people watch it. The most popular American sports are Baseball, Basketball,
Football, and Hockey. One of the biggest sports in China is ping pong. Not many people own
their own ping pong tables, but they can play ping pong in local rec. centers.
The geography of China is very diverse, China has the tallest mountain in the world, Mt.
Everest. It also has several of the other tallest mountains around the world. There are over 1
billion people in China, and it is the largest country in the world. 72% of China is rural because of
the many mountains people have less area to live. The US has 275million people and is the third
largest country in the world. The United States is the richest country in the world, and has an
average income of $14,000 per year.
Problems in the US are solved mostly by the courts, if they are between people or
businesses inside the United States. People that live here them self usually fight when they are
mad about something. Everyone always says to, "talk it out" but it never really happens. In
China when there is a problem it is crushed by the government. For example, Tienamen sq.
Where thousands of people were killed by the government because they opposed the government.
The United States of America and China are quite different in ways, mostly their
government, but when it comes down to it, the people are pretty much the same.
Per. 5
Comparing China and the United States World Cultures
Religions are very different in both countries. In the US most people are Christian, but
there is a freedom of religion so you have the right to practice any religion that you want to. In
China they are against religion, because it brings people away from communism, they want
communism to be the official religion of China. Status symbols of living in the US are things that
you can buy, cars, houses, clothes ect. In China everyone is given an equal amount of money
because of the communist society, so it is much harder to have these sort of things. US people
value money, the next thing they are saving up for, a new boat, or something else of value. But in
China their values are different, mostly because of their communist government. They want to do
everything for the good of the group, or their country, the more they can help out the better.
The government of China you probably already know, it's one of the last communist
governments left in the world. In a communist government the government runs everything, the
businesses and jobs, they pay everyone equally. This does though have problems. People have no
incentive to work, no matter how good a job they do they still get the same pay. In the US we
have a Democratic-Republic which means we elect who we want to run the government for us.
People are free to sell anything for any price they want as long it has been approved and is not an
illegal substance. The US has always been a Democratic-Republic, that was the reason why the
United States was formed. China though has not always been communist. In 1949 Mao Se Dung
started the Communist revolution and changed China to a Communist country and it has been
Communist ever since then. There are no social classes in a Communist society everyone is equal
and on the same level, because everyone is supposed to have the same amount of money. This didn't work quite exactly right though in China because leaders in the government become
corrupt and take more money for them self. So realistically there are two social classes, the
government and high ranking officials, and then everyone else below them. We have three
classes in the US, upper, middle, and lower. They are determined by money, the rich are on the
top and poor on the bottom. The largest class is the middle class. Because of the type of
economy that we have in the US small families are preferred.
Entertainment is a big part of the American culture. Television is the most common form
of entertainment. Almost every single home in America has a television. Americans love sports,
sporting events draw huge crowds and millions of people watch them on TV. During the super
bowl one billion people watch it. The most popular American sports are Baseball, Basketball,
Football, and Hockey. One of the biggest sports in China is ping pong. Not many people own
their own ping pong tables, but they can play ping pong in local rec. centers.
The geography of China is very diverse, China has the tallest mountain in the world, Mt.
Everest. It also has several of the other tallest mountains around the world. There are over 1
billion people in China, and it is the largest country in the world. 72% of China is rural because of
the many mountains people have less area to live. The US has 275million people and is the third
largest country in the world. The United States is the richest country in the world, and has an
average income of $14,000 per year.
Problems in the US are solved mostly by the courts, if they are between people or
businesses inside the United States. People that live here them self usually fight when they are
mad about something. Everyone always says to, "talk it out" but it never really happens. In
China when there is a problem it is crushed by the government. For example, Tienamen sq.
Where thousands of people were killed by the government because they opposed the government.
The United States of America and China are quite different in ways, mostly their
government, but when it comes down to it, the people are pretty much the same.
Community Srvice
Luke Adovasio
The Greenwich Association for Retarded Citizens (G.A.R.C.) of Greenwich High is a group of students interested in interacting with disabled students. These students go to the high school as well, and look forward to getting to know us. Each of the students have different disabilities but they each have the desire to make friends. This group is totally volunteer basis for all of it's members, no one has to attend. I have been a member of this group for the three years I have attended in Greenwich High. Spending a lot of time with these children I have learned to understand that they are just looking to make friends.
I joined this group as a freshman because I had worked with children with Down Syndrome during the eighth grade at Central Middle School. My interest carried on through out the years because of the numerous fun times I have had, and have made friends with many of the girls. They are all very personable and pleasant to talk with. They each have special characteristics defining them from the others, making each of them special in different ways, just like the rest us.
Aside from the meetings that we have every so often to discuss activities we can do, we usually do fun and interesting activities. We go out for pizza frequently because it seems to be the group consensus on what we would all like to eat. During the holidays we celebrate in interesting ways; on Halloween we have a party where every one gets dressed and brings candy. For the Christmas season we are going to celebrate with a party at a members house and listen to Christmas carols, and have dinner. We have had bake sales and have sold candy in order to raise money for the clubs activities. These are usually a success because every one participates and we all seem to function well as a group. When there are dances or football games at school we each take one of the girls and it's good for them because they get to interact with the rest of the school at a big function.
This club is not only fun, but it's like going to a meeting with some of your friends. We are a small group and we all get along. Since we are a small group it is also difficult for us to do a lot of things. It is difficult to educate the larger part of the public who doesn't know what these kids are like. It is also hard to raise money to do many activities. It would be great if more kids would join each year, and it would be great if the ignorance level had lowered. Many students just don't want to know anything of these kids. I chose to discuss G.A.R.C. because it is a group that could use help from the community at Greenwich high, and I thought I could help by explaining exactly what we do. Why talk about something else, when I could tell of something I enjoy and that needs more attention.
The Greenwich Association for Retarded Citizens (G.A.R.C.) of Greenwich High is a group of students interested in interacting with disabled students. These students go to the high school as well, and look forward to getting to know us. Each of the students have different disabilities but they each have the desire to make friends. This group is totally volunteer basis for all of it's members, no one has to attend. I have been a member of this group for the three years I have attended in Greenwich High. Spending a lot of time with these children I have learned to understand that they are just looking to make friends.
I joined this group as a freshman because I had worked with children with Down Syndrome during the eighth grade at Central Middle School. My interest carried on through out the years because of the numerous fun times I have had, and have made friends with many of the girls. They are all very personable and pleasant to talk with. They each have special characteristics defining them from the others, making each of them special in different ways, just like the rest us.
Aside from the meetings that we have every so often to discuss activities we can do, we usually do fun and interesting activities. We go out for pizza frequently because it seems to be the group consensus on what we would all like to eat. During the holidays we celebrate in interesting ways; on Halloween we have a party where every one gets dressed and brings candy. For the Christmas season we are going to celebrate with a party at a members house and listen to Christmas carols, and have dinner. We have had bake sales and have sold candy in order to raise money for the clubs activities. These are usually a success because every one participates and we all seem to function well as a group. When there are dances or football games at school we each take one of the girls and it's good for them because they get to interact with the rest of the school at a big function.
This club is not only fun, but it's like going to a meeting with some of your friends. We are a small group and we all get along. Since we are a small group it is also difficult for us to do a lot of things. It is difficult to educate the larger part of the public who doesn't know what these kids are like. It is also hard to raise money to do many activities. It would be great if more kids would join each year, and it would be great if the ignorance level had lowered. Many students just don't want to know anything of these kids. I chose to discuss G.A.R.C. because it is a group that could use help from the community at Greenwich high, and I thought I could help by explaining exactly what we do. Why talk about something else, when I could tell of something I enjoy and that needs more attention.
Communism
Communism is the belief that everyone in a society should be equal and share their wealth.
It is an outgrowth of socialism and Anabaptism (Laski 45). It became a firmly rooted term
after the Russian Revolution of 1917. According to the words of Karl Marx, "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (monkeywrench@iww.org).
These theories were spread by Karl Marx. He believed that what a person made of himself
reflected his effort (McLellan 1). He also believed that communism, or the state of
equality was ones "final stage in life" (Leone 1).
Communism basically started in 1847, with the formation of the London
Communist League. This was an international association of worker, whose sole purpose
was to write a "theoretical and practical program which would serve as the basis for
uniting the working classes of Europe" (Leone 1). The London Communist League asked
Marx for help in drafting a document to represent their standings. He composed the
"Communist Manifesto" or "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (Leone 1).
The Russian Revolution helped foster communism. The Russian Revolution
started with the with the assassination of Rasputin. In March of 1917, the Duma declares
a prvisional government, including czars. During this period, there were also massive
strikes by the workers. It was furthered by the abdication of Czar Nicholas. The Russian
Revolution itself occured throughout 1917, with the start of the March Revolution. In
April of 1917, Lenin return from exil in Switerland and denounced the established
provisional government. The next general step was the gaining of the seats in the
Petograd Soviet Parliment by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks picked Lenin to then head
the government, just several days after the November Revolution. During this revolution
the peasants storm the palace, taking total control of the government. At this point, the
power was given to Lenin. Almost immediatly he issued the New Economic Plan, which
instituted the one party system or communism. They basicaly supported the basic
communist theories of Karl Marx, as interpreted by Lenin. He installed many of his beliefs
and helped reorganize the people, and essentially emmancipatte the working class. He
also is credited with the creation of the Soviet Union. Unlike many of the countries
previous leaders, he had more of the peseants support. This was extrememly influential
later in his career (McKay, et all 880). When he came into power, he gave land to the
peseants (Laski 48). He even went as far to nationalize the banks of Russia.
Lenin had help with the running of his government, especially from Joseph Stalin.
Stalin helped to advise Lenin on almost all of his problems. He even went as far as to help
lead the Red Army in the Civil War (Brzezinski 25).
The theory of communism was developed by Karl Marx. He was born in Trier of
the Rhineland Germany to Jewish parents and spent his life in an effort to improve the life
of the average working man (Foreman 6). Marx is probably best known for his
masterpiece, the Communist Manifesto.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx put forth his philosophy on society and the
way it would change. In essence, he developed "a set of proportions about human society
and the way it is supposed to behave over time" (Daniels 5). Communist's state that the
"greatest freedom, freedom from want, can only be realized went he abuses of big business
are eliminated" (Leone 6). This would require her citizens to give up everything they
own, and trust completely in the stability of their government.
The Marxist theory describes the cycle through which society revolves in six basic
steps. First, economic development would lead to the formation of a class structure. This
would occur because people would assume different roles in the production of process,
such as worker or supervisor. Second, the before mentioned classes would struggle for
dominance, and fight to gain power over the other classes. Third, the classes would form
political organizations to further the cause of the class. Fourth, the economic conditions
would change, causing new classes to arise. Fifth, the addition of more classes would
intensify the struggle for dominance. And sixth, the lower class would rise up and
overthrow the upper class. The cycle would then begin again with the new upper class
bringing about economic prosperity (Daniels 6).
Marx cannot be given the entire credit for his ideas. He collaborated with a fellow
German, Fredrich Engles. Engles met Marx in 1844, at the tender age of 24. From then
on, the two combined ideas and wrote not only the Communist Manifesto, but also the
three-volume Das Kapital (Forman 138). Engles served his purpose as the "literacy
executor" of Marx well (Ebenstein 13). Marx's genius was refined by Engles' brilliance.
However, through the course of time, Marx's and Engles' theories did not remain
as pure as they were penned. Marx himself declared "All I know is that I am not a
Marxist" (Daniels 4). A great amount of credit for the corruption of true communism is
due to Vladimir Illich Lenin. As the leader of the Russian Revolution (Foreman 139), he
felt it necessary to develop his own communist theory, how appropriately named
Leninism. Lenin's communism was very different from Marxism; the two terms cannot be
considered identical or interchangeable (Daniels 18). Russian Marxism generally tends to
lean towards "liberation of labor" (Laski 47).
The roots of communism can be traced back to the All-Russian Social Democratic
Party which split into the Bolshevik and Menshevik Parties. Bolshevik, meaning majority
and Menshevik meaning minority in representation. The Bolshevik party had Lenin, who
had just came back from Switzerland. In 1917, he announced his April Theses' to the
public and changed the party's name to the All-Russian Communist Party. This party was
modeled after the communist party of Germany (Laski 47).
Lenin did agree with Marx on one principle; in a situation of devastation
considerations, it would be necessary of the e lower class to rise up from their oppressing
and overthrow the domination upper class. However, he was of the opinion that if left to
themselves, the masses would not become revolutionaries (Daniels 20). Instead a very
special elite group was necessary to overthrow the autocracy for the lower class (Daniels
19). The working class was involved in the struggle and would be inadequate to
successfully revolt. What was needed was an outside, "neutral" group to initiate the
revolution. Lenin stated that "class political consciousness can be brought to the workers
only from without, that is only from the outside of the economic struggle, from the outside
of the sphere of relations between workers and employers" (Daniels 20).
Lenin also disagreed with Marx on another concept. Lenin did not thing that a
revolution was a result of natural forces, as Marx did. His philosophy stated that the
revolution was the result of the purposeful intervention of the elite group (Daniels 20).
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashivili, more commonly called Joseph Stalin, also rose
as one of the most powerful men in the world, especially with his commuist backing
(Brzezinski 27). He was exiled to Siberia early in his politiacl carrer, and returded to help
support the Bolshevik party. He was extrememly influential in decison making with Lenin,
and in 1922 he was raised to the Secretary-General of the Bolshevik party (Miller 68).
Stalin became a primary leader at Lenins death.
Stalin helped to create the Cold War Period. The cold war was essentially created
as a result of the soviets wanting to keep itself secure and happy on their own. The Soviet
Union also made demands from other countries to help to build up their economy once
agian. However, several countires, including the United States and England, refused to
grant these unreasonable sums for the fear of a giant communist sphere. The countries
drew up agreements on boundries, of which the USSR also violated. This hate towards
the United States climaxed during the presidency of John F. Kennedy. The Soviets
shadowed the government of Cuba in 1959,creating a communist country under the
dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Under this time period the Bay of Pigs took place. This was
an ambushed attempt of the United States to help some rebel war groups in Cuba to
overthrough their dictator. They failed miserably causing many deaths.
The Cold War continued with the Cuban Missil Crisis. During this Crisis period
the Soviets installed missiles on the shores of Cuba, aimed for major United States cities.
This "problem" was eliminated with talks between the Kremlin and the White House,
fortunaty a major disaster was prevented.
The Cold War ended with the presidency of Ronald Regan. He had outspent the
Soviets, thus putting them in a state of ruin, ending this period of hate.
Communism also developed in China. Around the turn of the 20th Century,
reformers began to voice their aspirations of a better China. By 1912 the Quing Dynasty
had fallen, the emperor had abdicated, and China had been declared a republic, instituted
by Sun Yat-Sen (Shanor 94). In 1921, the Chinese Communist Party had become the
largest formed in the world. (Shanor 95).
Unfortunately, the Chinese society was not ready for democracy. Those holding
offices of power accepted bribes and participated in other forms of corruption. Warlords
divided the country into unofficial petty kingdoms with armies of peasants. The economic
state of China made it much more profitable for a peasant to work for the warlord that
form the land (Shanor 95).
Because of the poor conditions, small Communist groups began to form in China's
cities. At first, they were allies with Sun Yat-Sen and his Nationalists. But the good
feelings between the two parties deteriorated quickly after Chiang Kai-Shek, Sun's
successor, ordered the Shanghai Massacre of the Communists. Chiang spent the following
years alternating between negotiating with and fighting against the Communists. The
situation became so drastic that the Communists eventually fled during the Long March of
1934-35 (Shanor 95).
The United States, who was very Anti-Communist after WWII, supported Chiang
Kai-Shek. Over a period of four years, the US gave $2.5 billion to support the Nationalist
cause. Despite their efforts, the Communists eventually overthrew the Nationalist
government, forcing Chiang and followers to flee to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949, Mao
Zedong, the leader of the Communists, proclaimed the country as the People's Republic of
China (Shanor 96).
The Christian Anti-Communism Crusade in April of 1975, stated
It is an outgrowth of socialism and Anabaptism (Laski 45). It became a firmly rooted term
after the Russian Revolution of 1917. According to the words of Karl Marx, "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (monkeywrench@iww.org).
These theories were spread by Karl Marx. He believed that what a person made of himself
reflected his effort (McLellan 1). He also believed that communism, or the state of
equality was ones "final stage in life" (Leone 1).
Communism basically started in 1847, with the formation of the London
Communist League. This was an international association of worker, whose sole purpose
was to write a "theoretical and practical program which would serve as the basis for
uniting the working classes of Europe" (Leone 1). The London Communist League asked
Marx for help in drafting a document to represent their standings. He composed the
"Communist Manifesto" or "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (Leone 1).
The Russian Revolution helped foster communism. The Russian Revolution
started with the with the assassination of Rasputin. In March of 1917, the Duma declares
a prvisional government, including czars. During this period, there were also massive
strikes by the workers. It was furthered by the abdication of Czar Nicholas. The Russian
Revolution itself occured throughout 1917, with the start of the March Revolution. In
April of 1917, Lenin return from exil in Switerland and denounced the established
provisional government. The next general step was the gaining of the seats in the
Petograd Soviet Parliment by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks picked Lenin to then head
the government, just several days after the November Revolution. During this revolution
the peasants storm the palace, taking total control of the government. At this point, the
power was given to Lenin. Almost immediatly he issued the New Economic Plan, which
instituted the one party system or communism. They basicaly supported the basic
communist theories of Karl Marx, as interpreted by Lenin. He installed many of his beliefs
and helped reorganize the people, and essentially emmancipatte the working class. He
also is credited with the creation of the Soviet Union. Unlike many of the countries
previous leaders, he had more of the peseants support. This was extrememly influential
later in his career (McKay, et all 880). When he came into power, he gave land to the
peseants (Laski 48). He even went as far to nationalize the banks of Russia.
Lenin had help with the running of his government, especially from Joseph Stalin.
Stalin helped to advise Lenin on almost all of his problems. He even went as far as to help
lead the Red Army in the Civil War (Brzezinski 25).
The theory of communism was developed by Karl Marx. He was born in Trier of
the Rhineland Germany to Jewish parents and spent his life in an effort to improve the life
of the average working man (Foreman 6). Marx is probably best known for his
masterpiece, the Communist Manifesto.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx put forth his philosophy on society and the
way it would change. In essence, he developed "a set of proportions about human society
and the way it is supposed to behave over time" (Daniels 5). Communist's state that the
"greatest freedom, freedom from want, can only be realized went he abuses of big business
are eliminated" (Leone 6). This would require her citizens to give up everything they
own, and trust completely in the stability of their government.
The Marxist theory describes the cycle through which society revolves in six basic
steps. First, economic development would lead to the formation of a class structure. This
would occur because people would assume different roles in the production of process,
such as worker or supervisor. Second, the before mentioned classes would struggle for
dominance, and fight to gain power over the other classes. Third, the classes would form
political organizations to further the cause of the class. Fourth, the economic conditions
would change, causing new classes to arise. Fifth, the addition of more classes would
intensify the struggle for dominance. And sixth, the lower class would rise up and
overthrow the upper class. The cycle would then begin again with the new upper class
bringing about economic prosperity (Daniels 6).
Marx cannot be given the entire credit for his ideas. He collaborated with a fellow
German, Fredrich Engles. Engles met Marx in 1844, at the tender age of 24. From then
on, the two combined ideas and wrote not only the Communist Manifesto, but also the
three-volume Das Kapital (Forman 138). Engles served his purpose as the "literacy
executor" of Marx well (Ebenstein 13). Marx's genius was refined by Engles' brilliance.
However, through the course of time, Marx's and Engles' theories did not remain
as pure as they were penned. Marx himself declared "All I know is that I am not a
Marxist" (Daniels 4). A great amount of credit for the corruption of true communism is
due to Vladimir Illich Lenin. As the leader of the Russian Revolution (Foreman 139), he
felt it necessary to develop his own communist theory, how appropriately named
Leninism. Lenin's communism was very different from Marxism; the two terms cannot be
considered identical or interchangeable (Daniels 18). Russian Marxism generally tends to
lean towards "liberation of labor" (Laski 47).
The roots of communism can be traced back to the All-Russian Social Democratic
Party which split into the Bolshevik and Menshevik Parties. Bolshevik, meaning majority
and Menshevik meaning minority in representation. The Bolshevik party had Lenin, who
had just came back from Switzerland. In 1917, he announced his April Theses' to the
public and changed the party's name to the All-Russian Communist Party. This party was
modeled after the communist party of Germany (Laski 47).
Lenin did agree with Marx on one principle; in a situation of devastation
considerations, it would be necessary of the e lower class to rise up from their oppressing
and overthrow the domination upper class. However, he was of the opinion that if left to
themselves, the masses would not become revolutionaries (Daniels 20). Instead a very
special elite group was necessary to overthrow the autocracy for the lower class (Daniels
19). The working class was involved in the struggle and would be inadequate to
successfully revolt. What was needed was an outside, "neutral" group to initiate the
revolution. Lenin stated that "class political consciousness can be brought to the workers
only from without, that is only from the outside of the economic struggle, from the outside
of the sphere of relations between workers and employers" (Daniels 20).
Lenin also disagreed with Marx on another concept. Lenin did not thing that a
revolution was a result of natural forces, as Marx did. His philosophy stated that the
revolution was the result of the purposeful intervention of the elite group (Daniels 20).
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashivili, more commonly called Joseph Stalin, also rose
as one of the most powerful men in the world, especially with his commuist backing
(Brzezinski 27). He was exiled to Siberia early in his politiacl carrer, and returded to help
support the Bolshevik party. He was extrememly influential in decison making with Lenin,
and in 1922 he was raised to the Secretary-General of the Bolshevik party (Miller 68).
Stalin became a primary leader at Lenins death.
Stalin helped to create the Cold War Period. The cold war was essentially created
as a result of the soviets wanting to keep itself secure and happy on their own. The Soviet
Union also made demands from other countries to help to build up their economy once
agian. However, several countires, including the United States and England, refused to
grant these unreasonable sums for the fear of a giant communist sphere. The countries
drew up agreements on boundries, of which the USSR also violated. This hate towards
the United States climaxed during the presidency of John F. Kennedy. The Soviets
shadowed the government of Cuba in 1959,creating a communist country under the
dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Under this time period the Bay of Pigs took place. This was
an ambushed attempt of the United States to help some rebel war groups in Cuba to
overthrough their dictator. They failed miserably causing many deaths.
The Cold War continued with the Cuban Missil Crisis. During this Crisis period
the Soviets installed missiles on the shores of Cuba, aimed for major United States cities.
This "problem" was eliminated with talks between the Kremlin and the White House,
fortunaty a major disaster was prevented.
The Cold War ended with the presidency of Ronald Regan. He had outspent the
Soviets, thus putting them in a state of ruin, ending this period of hate.
Communism also developed in China. Around the turn of the 20th Century,
reformers began to voice their aspirations of a better China. By 1912 the Quing Dynasty
had fallen, the emperor had abdicated, and China had been declared a republic, instituted
by Sun Yat-Sen (Shanor 94). In 1921, the Chinese Communist Party had become the
largest formed in the world. (Shanor 95).
Unfortunately, the Chinese society was not ready for democracy. Those holding
offices of power accepted bribes and participated in other forms of corruption. Warlords
divided the country into unofficial petty kingdoms with armies of peasants. The economic
state of China made it much more profitable for a peasant to work for the warlord that
form the land (Shanor 95).
Because of the poor conditions, small Communist groups began to form in China's
cities. At first, they were allies with Sun Yat-Sen and his Nationalists. But the good
feelings between the two parties deteriorated quickly after Chiang Kai-Shek, Sun's
successor, ordered the Shanghai Massacre of the Communists. Chiang spent the following
years alternating between negotiating with and fighting against the Communists. The
situation became so drastic that the Communists eventually fled during the Long March of
1934-35 (Shanor 95).
The United States, who was very Anti-Communist after WWII, supported Chiang
Kai-Shek. Over a period of four years, the US gave $2.5 billion to support the Nationalist
cause. Despite their efforts, the Communists eventually overthrew the Nationalist
government, forcing Chiang and followers to flee to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949, Mao
Zedong, the leader of the Communists, proclaimed the country as the People's Republic of
China (Shanor 96).
The Christian Anti-Communism Crusade in April of 1975, stated
Communcation style
The concept of communication style has been defined by Rober Norton as "the way one verbally, nonverbally, and para verbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood"(1996.p.229) In this, Norton has identified nine communicator styles. A persons style may be dominant, dramatic, contentious, animated ,impression leaving, relaxed, open, or friendly. These dimensions measure how you interact in various situations. For example, if I speak frequently and try to control the converstaion, you might assume that I am dominant in my communicator style.
In determining my own commuication style I had a questionnaire completed by both a friend, acquaintance , as well as completing one myself. The friend that I chose was my room mate
Ryan Seslow. . Ryan and I have been friends since highschool so he knows me very well. The person that I chose to complete the acquaintance section was my friend Leslie Margasak. Leslie is my girlfriends roommate therefore our communication is somewhat limited. Through the following research and analysis I have created a table (Table:1) that shows the means for my friend aquaitance, and myself.
The summaries and findings in which I calculated provided me with insight of my dominant yet friendly communication style. It also provided me with a different perspective as to how other people interpret my communication habits. For example, the mean for myself on the category "relaxed" scored a 1.3. However, my friends mean was 3.1 and my acquaintance was 5.1. Through the text of Interpersonal Communication, I was able to determine that this fluctuation has to do with the self concept theory. "Self -concept is defined as each person's own subjective view or image of him or herself as a person" (tremont p.213) In my opinion I do not see myself as relaxed(1.3), but my friend does as well as acquaintance. I do not see as relaxed as the others indicated in the table. Usually I feel rather more stressed and even a little nervous rather than relaxed when communicating.
One calculation in which which I noticed to have simmialr realuts was based on the means for being dramtic. I scored high in this category on all three surveys.(see table:1) When a person is classified as dramatic it refers that the person "likes to act out the point physically and vocally. Tells jokes and stories and often eaggerates to make the point.Speech tends to be picturesque" .(willmont,p.230) In my opinion this is an acurate calculation. This is a characterisitic of my communication stly which is both dramatic and firendly. The dramtic side is often seen when I choose to tell a story or when I am in confilct.
There were other noticeable simmilarities which were calculated about my communication style, For example, on "dominant" category the means were all relatively high marks. A dominant person means the person "tends to come on strong, take control of social situations, speak frequently, and otherwise control conversations" (Tremont,p.121) An example of this could be seen through my one-up messages. These are messages which " indicate a desire to take control or limit the action of others"(tremont,P.121). Through my verbal and nonverbal cues I seem to signal to people that I want to take control. This is evident in alll three scores.
Other simmilarities of this analysis were also found in the sub category "perception" Tese simmilaritie were between my friend and aquaitance. The mean in this are all relatively high and although i scored high in this category myself I was surprised that my score was lower than that of Ryan and Leslie. Impression leaving can be explianed as "a person who repeatedly turns a clever phrase or states his/her observations in offbeat ways"(Willmont,p.229) Through this estimation i can see that my dramatic styles of communication are do leave a strong impact and effect on people.
In contrast, there are also noticeable clusters of differences that i noticed. The most noticeable difference between means was on the category "relax" I scored myself relativel low and both Ryan and Leslie scored me low in this means. Relaxed is defined as "calm and collected durring interactin, especially under pressure. The rhythym and flow of speech is rarely affected by feelings of nrevousness"(ilmont,p.230) Through this analysis it is obvious that I see myself as nervous in contrast as to how my peers percieve me. This trend of fluctuaion of means sis also evident in the categoryopen. Here, I scored myself a low means while Ryan and Lesly gave me highe scores.
Communication is one of the most intricate and under looked areas of human beings. By completing this assignment I learned a great deatil about my self and how other percieve me. Though I do feel that I am an a good communicator I now realize what aspects of my communications skill that I need to fix. The areas I would like to change are to tr7y to be more open with others. I will attempt to do so by staying relaxed. I scored a relatively low mean in the openess category and this is an area I would like to change. The means showed that I am not open nor am I percieved to be a very open person.
Overall my communication style is very dominant, dramatic and friendly. Howvevr, despite this though Im not a very open person. I feel that my communication style does allow me to get people to listen to me closely becayse of my dramatics or ability to tell srotires in vivid detail and picturesqe. I am animated and expressive when I feel the need to emphasize a point or statement. This also helps my communication confidence since I know now that what I say often does an considerable impact on those who I am communicating with.
In conclusion I am very pleased with the dataz which I recorded. I now understand my communciation style better yet at the same time have located areas in which I can begin to improve on. Through this assignment I learned a great deal about how I communcate as well as how others percieve my communication style.
References
1.)Trenholm and Jensen, (1996). Intterpersonal Communication. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
In determining my own commuication style I had a questionnaire completed by both a friend, acquaintance , as well as completing one myself. The friend that I chose was my room mate
Ryan Seslow. . Ryan and I have been friends since highschool so he knows me very well. The person that I chose to complete the acquaintance section was my friend Leslie Margasak. Leslie is my girlfriends roommate therefore our communication is somewhat limited. Through the following research and analysis I have created a table (Table:1) that shows the means for my friend aquaitance, and myself.
The summaries and findings in which I calculated provided me with insight of my dominant yet friendly communication style. It also provided me with a different perspective as to how other people interpret my communication habits. For example, the mean for myself on the category "relaxed" scored a 1.3. However, my friends mean was 3.1 and my acquaintance was 5.1. Through the text of Interpersonal Communication, I was able to determine that this fluctuation has to do with the self concept theory. "Self -concept is defined as each person's own subjective view or image of him or herself as a person" (tremont p.213) In my opinion I do not see myself as relaxed(1.3), but my friend does as well as acquaintance. I do not see as relaxed as the others indicated in the table. Usually I feel rather more stressed and even a little nervous rather than relaxed when communicating.
One calculation in which which I noticed to have simmialr realuts was based on the means for being dramtic. I scored high in this category on all three surveys.(see table:1) When a person is classified as dramatic it refers that the person "likes to act out the point physically and vocally. Tells jokes and stories and often eaggerates to make the point.Speech tends to be picturesque" .(willmont,p.230) In my opinion this is an acurate calculation. This is a characterisitic of my communication stly which is both dramatic and firendly. The dramtic side is often seen when I choose to tell a story or when I am in confilct.
There were other noticeable simmilarities which were calculated about my communication style, For example, on "dominant" category the means were all relatively high marks. A dominant person means the person "tends to come on strong, take control of social situations, speak frequently, and otherwise control conversations" (Tremont,p.121) An example of this could be seen through my one-up messages. These are messages which " indicate a desire to take control or limit the action of others"(tremont,P.121). Through my verbal and nonverbal cues I seem to signal to people that I want to take control. This is evident in alll three scores.
Other simmilarities of this analysis were also found in the sub category "perception" Tese simmilaritie were between my friend and aquaitance. The mean in this are all relatively high and although i scored high in this category myself I was surprised that my score was lower than that of Ryan and Leslie. Impression leaving can be explianed as "a person who repeatedly turns a clever phrase or states his/her observations in offbeat ways"(Willmont,p.229) Through this estimation i can see that my dramatic styles of communication are do leave a strong impact and effect on people.
In contrast, there are also noticeable clusters of differences that i noticed. The most noticeable difference between means was on the category "relax" I scored myself relativel low and both Ryan and Leslie scored me low in this means. Relaxed is defined as "calm and collected durring interactin, especially under pressure. The rhythym and flow of speech is rarely affected by feelings of nrevousness"(ilmont,p.230) Through this analysis it is obvious that I see myself as nervous in contrast as to how my peers percieve me. This trend of fluctuaion of means sis also evident in the categoryopen. Here, I scored myself a low means while Ryan and Lesly gave me highe scores.
Communication is one of the most intricate and under looked areas of human beings. By completing this assignment I learned a great deatil about my self and how other percieve me. Though I do feel that I am an a good communicator I now realize what aspects of my communications skill that I need to fix. The areas I would like to change are to tr7y to be more open with others. I will attempt to do so by staying relaxed. I scored a relatively low mean in the openess category and this is an area I would like to change. The means showed that I am not open nor am I percieved to be a very open person.
Overall my communication style is very dominant, dramatic and friendly. Howvevr, despite this though Im not a very open person. I feel that my communication style does allow me to get people to listen to me closely becayse of my dramatics or ability to tell srotires in vivid detail and picturesqe. I am animated and expressive when I feel the need to emphasize a point or statement. This also helps my communication confidence since I know now that what I say often does an considerable impact on those who I am communicating with.
In conclusion I am very pleased with the dataz which I recorded. I now understand my communciation style better yet at the same time have located areas in which I can begin to improve on. Through this assignment I learned a great deal about how I communcate as well as how others percieve my communication style.
References
1.)Trenholm and Jensen, (1996). Intterpersonal Communication. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)