Colonist Revolt essays

Colonist Revolt essays Throughout American history there have been many ups and downs, especially in the beginning. When different groups from different parts of the world come together you are going to have conflicts no matter what the situation is. In the case of the American colonists revolting against Great Britain I feel that the American colonist had every right to be angry and wage war. The colonists were treated unfairly and they helped out in changing they way America was and they way it is today. In the beginning Great Britain wanted to tax the American colonist on top of what they had already were being taxed by the local governments. The American colonists did not feel that this was fair and did not want to pay the taxes. I agree with the colonists. There is no reason that they should be taxed twice for the same thing. I do realize that Great Britain was in debt a lot of money from coming to America and helping out to start the New World. I do not feel that they were wrong for what they were trying to do but it was not fair and they could have come up with other solutions. The revolt changed the country economically in many ways. First, the revolt had a huge affect on what was taxed and what was not taxed. I feel that it was appropriate for things to be taxed. With out taxation things can not be paid for to help the economy and help out in fixing things and paying government officials. I can not take the side of the colonist or Great Britain. I feel that they Britain had good intentions and the colonist were just upset because of all the taxation taking place at one time. The different taxes such as the tea tax, the stamp act, and other taxes were brilliant ideas in my mind to take care of the debt and for numerous other things. It is not possible for the government to have any authority without it. I feel that the revolt after it was all over brought many people together and helped to change the way peop ...

American History Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

American History - Research Paper Example Clayton Holbert’s mother and grandmother were freed in this way but later captured by â€Å"what they called ‘nigger traders’† and sold them back into slavery (p. 287). The Holbert family experienced the end of slavery like so many others: they were free, but had no way to earn a living, no place to go, and no education. The Holberts stayed on with their former master and eventually bought a small farm nearby (pp. 288-289). The concept of freedom for these families only meant that they were no longer owned by someone; they continued to live their lives in familiar places doing what they had always done. Looking back on their slavery experiences, both Holmes and Holbert remember their former lives with some nostalgia. Clayton Holbert comments, â€Å"People were more friendly than they are now. They have almost lost respect for each other† (p. 286). Joseph Holmes comments, â€Å"in dose days white folks wuz white folks an black folks wuz black folks† (p. 7). Admittedly, both of them were children at the end of the Civil War, and both had lived a vast majority of their years as free men. The difficulties and hard living which happened to them and their families after the war affected how they felt about slavery, and when white people and black people mixed together freely the black people were exposed to many more hateful whites than when they were segregated. Reading these interviews gives us an interesting perspective on what freed slaves felt and thought, both about their freedom and about their lives afterward. Everybody remembers their lives through the filters of time. These two men did not remember being mistreated by their masters, and so they have few bad memories of their former lives. For them the transition from slavery to freedom made little difference in how they eventually led their

Patient-Physician relationship Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Patient-Physician relationship - Assignment Example This sets humans apart from any other animal that humans may use as commercial commodities. This way, Kant sets humans apart thereby influencing the formation of ethical values. â€Å"Human beings are above any price† is a phenomenal explanation in Kant’s explanation of human dignity. As explain earlier, Kant argues that human life is special and has value that sets it apart from any other form of life on earth. Other animals both wild and domestic have life just as humans. However, they lack dignity. Humans on the other hand occupy a dignified position in the society and have authority over other animals. As such, humans can use the other animals as commercial commodities thereby obtain financial benefits. However, a human can never use another as a commercial commodity owing to the similarity in the value of human life. This therefore limits human interactions since each human has a dignity. Personalism is a fundamental school of thought in philosophy that explains th e uniqueness of God and that of humans. The concept of personalism compares humans to other animals and establishes that humans are superior beings that have both dignity and free will. The two are fundamental features in humans that help set them apart from other animals thereby establishing the relationship that humans have with God, the creator. Self-consciousness is a unique human feature that influences human activity and their pursuit for happiness. The concept of personalism is therefore important in the formulation of ethical principles.

Corporate conflict and analyze the legal case Research Paper

Corporate conflict and analyze the legal case - Research Paper Example The key factor that denies the organization an appeal is its own guilty plea regarding the environmental crimes it had been charged with. Secondly, the organization opted for an administrative Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) as a way of getting a resolution to the violations. Among the limited conditions under which the courts can accept the withdrawal of a guilty plea is if it is presented before the judges have accepted the plea, and that is usually in the pre-sentence scenario (Weaver, 2001). It could also be accepted before defendants have been sentenced. Further, Walmart cannot show that they were served with obvious injustice because of conditions that existed during the time they were charged with the environmental crimes. The organization was aware of federal laws that required them to determine hazardous waste, prepare its manifest, and handle and dispose it as stipulated but failed to meet those requirements. At the same time, Walmart contracted Greenleaf to recycle its pesticide products, yet Greenleaf lacked the capacity for handling such products, which lead to the release of hazardous substances. Although it is not clear whether or not Walmart of aware of this lack of capacity, it was their legal responsibility to establish whether Greenlea f met all the requirements stipulated by law. This means that Walmart becomes legally responsible for contractors conducting business on its behalf. It can, therefore, be shown that the judgment served was sufficient to hold the organization accountable for its own as well as its contractor’s illegal and irresponsible business conduct that was a threat to the environment and life. Walmart may also not appeal against the ruling because there are no sufficient indications that they are not guilty because of lack of understanding the charges or consequences of pleading guilty. That can be demonstrated by United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 239 (6th Cir. 1987). If the lawyers entered the guilty plea

Historic leaders Vs Nowadays leaders Dissertation

Historic leaders Vs Nowadays leaders - Dissertation Example Copyright Copyright in the text of this dissertation rests with the Author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author. The ownership of any intellectual property rights, which may be described in this dissertation, is vested in the author and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written consent of the author, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement. Acknowledgements I dedicate this dissertation to my loving mother and father as well as all of my friends who helped in numerous ways to conclude successfully this project. Abstract It is unfortunately true that no one single perfect leader in human history is the ideal in terms of leadership, and this means that it is impossible to define precisely the set of characteristics and skills that any leader should aspire to. However, it makes sense to try to understand better leadership and the attributes, sk ills and characteristics desired in leaders by examining that which great leaders have demonstrated through the ages because such an effort assists with the understanding of leadership and aspirations for leadership. Although leadership is an intensely human activity, leaders must strive to attain the right vision for the future of their group in an environment in which they exist with their groups and in their time. This means that the right leadership must present a regard for the complexity of organised society and the state of development of humanity to confront future challenges. Because leadership is of significance for any group and there is a shortage of talented leaders in all spheres of human activity, with unique challenges lying ahead, it is possible to gain from insights about leadership by comparing a sample of leaders of the past with a sample of modern leaders to decide about leadership and its evolution over time. This dissertation presents a comparison of Alexander the Great, King Leonidas, Napoleon, Che Guevara, Margaret Thatcher and Barack Obama as leaders to decide about leadership and the evolution of leadership. Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Objectives of study 7 1.3 Scope of study 9 1.4 Structure of dissertation 10 Chapter 2 Historic Leaders 11 2.1 Alexander the Great 13 2.1.1 Alexander the Great in the Light of the Trait Theory of Leadership 14 2.1.2 Alexander the Great and the Situational Theory of Leadership 16 2.1.3 Alexander the Great in the Light of Contingency Theory of Leadership 17 2.1.4 Alexander the Great as a Transformational Leader

Lockes Effect On Liberal Constitutionalism And Democracy Politics Essay

Lockes Effect On Liberal Constitutionalism And Democracy Politics Essay As a political thinker Locke may be regarded as a precursor of liberal constitutionalism and even, to a limited extent, of liberal democracy Discuss this statement. John Locke, an English philosopher was born in Somerset on the 29th of August, 1632 and died on the 28th of October, 1704. Locke is considered as one of the great British political philosophers, his ideas had enormous influences on the development of epistemology. Locke is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers of the modern century and hence contributors to liberal theory of democracy. His writings influenced Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau and many other thinkers including the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of independence. John Lockes Two Treatises were published in 1689 despite that the work celebrity has rested to a considerable degree on its supposed relationship to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It is apparent that the Two Treatises did eventually become very successful and influential achievements. They came to be regarded as containing the Principles of 1688 and, as David Hume indicated, they provided the Whig party of the mid-eighteenth century with its philosophical or speculative system of principles. Yet the immediate reaction to the works is rather startling to the twentieth century observer. Lockes work did not immediately become the principal authority of the Whigs. In fact, Locke did not introduce any strikingly new ideas into political debate. Locke was so far from occupying the front place among Whig authorities in the House of Commons. The Two Treatises seems to indicate the elevated modern view of Locke and importance as a political writer during the late seventeenth and early eight eenth centuries (Dyson, 2003: 63-5). The aim of this essay is to reassess the historical writings of John Locke into the discourse of political theory and his religious views. It is apparent that Locke is continually relevant for current politics. For instance, I would like to set some tasks in which Locke based his account in writing. The first is to provide an account of Lockes thought that is historically accurate and why Locke wrote it. The second is to establish that Lockes thought is relevant to politics in modern society, thirdly to assess these ideas and their influence in the latte liberal thought. Despite Lockes political thought, he was later recognised as one of the British intellectuals of his time due to his epistemology, ethical theory, philosophy of religion and his political philosophy. Locke established a considerable work on his Essay and the Letter Concerning Toleration and the Two Treatises on Government. The theory contained in these works has a consistent architecture of the late liberal philosophy, it constitutes a major theory of thought that could be recognised as a set of mutually consistent arguments that fit together to form a Liberal constitutionalism. Richard Ashcraft stated that Lockes masterworks were the political manifesto of this moment (Jones, 2002: 68). During the time he was writing these works Locke had an overriding political project, which was to unite members of different religious groups into a single political community. Locke believed the only way to do this was by establishing a moral consensus, a set of shared normative convictions and commitments which will justify the coercive rules that are seemingly the only hope of keeping a multi-religious society from falling apart. Locke attempted in his works to construct a moral theory that c an accomplish his goal (Thomas, 2005: 37).It is true that Locke is regarded as a precursor of liberal democracy, thereby he made a major and lasting contribution to liberal thought, and this contribution was mainly on his work of the two treatises of Government, especially through the second treatise.   By means of this work, Locke defended the proposition that government rests on popular consent and rebellion is permissible when government subverts the ends the protection of life, liberty, and property for which it is established. For many years, it was argued that the treatises were written in defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Hence the first treatise was written in response to the version of the divine right of king theory developed by the Royalist author Sir Robert Filmer. This was seen as a systematic and more or less laboured attack in detail on Sir Robert Filmer, and particularly on Patriarcha, a work published in 1680. Patriarcha was a sustained attack in protection of divine monarchy. Locke seemingly was not interested in Filmer, rather he was using him as a crossing bridge to attack the monarchy (Ibid: 41). Locke clearly presented his main ideas in the second treatise, which presented his belief that individuals are born into society and they learn the laws of society.   Each person is by birth a sovereign, but nature inclines man toward seeking happiness, it is a law of nature and presents his assertion that political institutions should protect and preserve what the law of nature implies for human community. Thereby, he started by pointing out his first reason to establish the first treatise that no one by nature or by the divine will subject to anyone else. All men are born equal; each individual is, as it were, the sovereign ruler of his own person. From this it follows that no one can become subject to anyone else, or to any law save by his own consent (Adams, 2003: 63).   Lockes Second Treatise is his most influential work; he set forth his theory of natural law and natural right; in it, he shows that there does exists a rational purpose to government and one need not rely on myth, mysticism, and mystery. Against anarchy, Locke saw his job as one who must defend government as an institution. Lockes objective was to insist not only that the public welfare was the test of good government and the basis for properly imposing obligations on the citizens of a country but also that the public welfare made government necessary. Locke argued the liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but   what the legislative shall enact, according to the trust in it (Ibid: 67).It is possible that Lockes writing is viewed as one the influential works that contributed in foundation of the Liberal constitutionalism, especially on his Second Treatise of Government which was effectively excellent and had outlined some of the familiar futures of our currently government. This includes the foundations of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers and for the sanctity of private property. Thus, the influence of others is also marked in the liberal states constitution, for example writers such as Languet and Bodin, Hooker and Grotius but the fundamental influence is Lockes Treatise, the very quarry of libera l doctrines(Ibid:69). A veritable quarry of liberal doctrines is The Second Treatise of Government. Through this Locke outline the cause of human liberty, the principle of separation of powers, and the inviolability of private property, thus, all three are the major doctrines of American constitution. John Locke was a politician as well as a thinker that made him capable in creating the philosophical foundations of liberalism. Locke tried to draft a pre-emptive constitution of the state; the states makes the law which is binding to it citizens, such a contract between citizens and the states, this will act on the behalf of the citizens living in that territory, however Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterised by reason and tolerance. He further maintained that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions, and that these were unchallengeable rights (Jones, W, 1947: 188). Locke thought pre-social man as a moral being and as an individual contracted out into civil society by surrendering personal power to the ruler and magistrates, and did so as a method of securing natural morality more efficiently According to Locke, natural justice exists and this is so whether the state exists or not, it is just that the state might better guard natural justice. The rights of individuals will continue to exist even within absence of the state or government, for example in many failed state countries the human rights organisations still monitoring the behaviour of each group so that human rights can not be abuse, such as in Iraq or Somalia. And also the Human rights will continue to exist even within absence of the state government because in democratic states the government changes while the people remain the same (Ibid: 189).   Locke finds the state with a significant monopoly scope authority and gives to it a legitimate right to use the force when needed, a sta te can maintain peace and order, provide common defence, protect property rights of individuals, and establish jurisdiction systems. The state like society is a hope of an extent evolutionary process and not the work of the one generation. The state does a positive role in preserving culture and order and is upholding the interest of the community above individuals. Lockes views on democracy were such as precursor of liberal constitutionalism, hence did not mention a word democracy, but he stated civil limited Government in which the power of government was bound by a set of laws or constitution. By doing so he gave rise to the liberal constitutional themes such as laws and the distinction of powers between legislative and executive. He pointed out the superiority of the legislative over executive. By doing so he developed the idea of a strong parliament where the majority consent would prevail in the key decisions and directions of the civil government. Democracy according to Locke is supposed theoretically to be the rule of majority. It seems to the implied, therefore that in a democracy every citizen shall consent to, and approve of, the acts which the community as a whole does, but if a democracy has to wait upon the free consent of every one of its members, it is no democracy or indeed any government at all; it simply lapses into anarchy. O n the other hand, if democracy be the of a majority, many men no longer rule themselves and this kind of government is quite compatible with the most brutal and cruel of tyrannies, but consent to the will of the majority. Therefore, if they really wanted to leave the state of nature and to enter a political society we may assume that they must have meant to give up their liberty to do whatever tacitly implied in their original contract unless the whole community abides by the decision of the majority, even when it disapproves of that decision, the state will disintegrate. Since, in a word we can never or only very rarely achieve unanimity, if the state is to act at all, it must conform to the will of the majority. Neither of these arguments is very satisfactory, it is because he thinks no society is a political society unless it is founded upon the consent of its members. Democratic societies are founded upon consent, just as much as in other societies, minorities are compelled. Loc ke definitely affirms that states have been founded by contract. By contract Locke meant the constitution of the civil government(Adams,2003:p141). The traditional liberal views regarding democracy derived from Locke, they wanted more freedom from the state, demanding that some individual freedoms, or rights, should be protected from the state and the majority decisions. Such as John Locke said that the government is established to protect individual rights and the consent of the governed is required to legitimize government and limit its powers. Locke is also the first major thinker to give a prominent place to the right of private property as an extension of individual rights and liberty (Thomas, 1995 p: 53). As the image of the individual in liberal thought has shifted from that of the state authority, that rise up they believe with the ideology of liberal democracy, which was found to be the best way to defend freedom. Many see Locke as the first thinker to defend the image of the individual in liberal thought from that of state authority, that rise up they believe with ideology of liberal democracy, which was found to be th e best way to defend freedom. The modern state has been designed within the context of liberal democracy which started in western world spreading throughout the world. The concept of democracy meant the rule of the citizen body as opposed to rule of the aristocracy of the monarchy (Ibid, p: 166). Lockes religious believes seems to be ultimately in his acceptance of the existence of God, Locke was a dualist and while only barely  he did not consider man to be a divine creature fixed with ideas on coming into this world. Locke was an empiricist; all knowledge comes to us through experience. No mans knowledge here can go beyond his experience. There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts, we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection. Not only has Lockes empiricism been a dominant tradition in British philosophy but it has been a doctrine which with its method, experimental science, has brought on scientific discoveries ever since, scientific discoveries on which our modern world now depends. John Locke argued that land should be owned by the people who live on it and/or work it. Lockes ideas were applied in Ireland in the 1870s today much or rural Britain is in the hands of aristocratic landlords. We have only really had land reform in urban Britain. So Locke speaks to the modern condition. Perhaps we can call Locke the primeval Liberal (Gray, 1995.p:268). Finally, the value and importance of Lockes theory rests on how it has been translated to the societies, if rights do not exit than treatise should obviously be ignored as meaningless nonsense. However, if there are rights we have to take Lockes work into high consideration whether Locke has covered all particulars about list of rights which he assigns to men. The importance of his work is that he recognises that human is a moral being and that the state, hence should be an institution for moral. Through this he expressed some kind of ambiguous notion of a contract between free men to form a political society for their convenience and mutual advantage, is simple the acknowledgment that the individual man and his well-being are the end of the state that not merely desirable.

Subversive Power of the Theater Revealed in Hamlet an Othello :: The Tragedy of Hamlet Essays

Subversive Power of the Theater Revealed in Hamlet and Othello      Ã‚   Theatrical performance is vital not only to the presentation of Hamlet and Othello, but it is vital to each of the play's respective stories. Several key characters control, manipulate, or script a theatrical performance of their own. Through subtle suggestion and explicit or implicit storytelling, Shakespeare's use of theatrical performance within his own plays underscores the subversive power of the theater. It is no secret that Shakespeare embeds within many of his plays subtle suggestions which were subversive to the thoughts and attitudes at the time. Through the construction of the play within a play, Hamlet subverts the notion of kingship. In the play, without even speaking himself, Hamlet constructs a particular version of reality so chilling that Claudius leaves the theater. While this is obviously due to the startling similarity that Claudius sees between the play and his own life, the subtle idea implied is the idea that royalty can be simplified to nothing more than acting. If the roles of the king and queen can be played so well that Claudius leaves the room, seeing the striking similarity between the play and his life, then there is no reason why kingship itself cannot be acted. This subversively delegitimizes the power of the throne. Moreover, it is only in the scenes related to the mousetrap that Hamlet shows signs of leadership. He says to the players, "Follow him, friends . We'll hear a play tomorrow . . . You could for a need / study a speech of some dozen or sixteen lines / which I would set down and insert in't, could you / not?" (Shakespeare II.2:546-553). He is directing the action, asking the ability of the players and telling them exactly what they should do. The fact that Hamlet, the man who would be king, is a leader only in a performance subverts the idea of leadership being something firmly ingrained within the soul of a human being. Instead, it is replaced with the notion that kingship is not something that can be passed down from generation to generation, but something that can be acted, as if it could be turned on and off at will. The nobles and leaders of a country, then, are not inherently born with power because of their familial origin, but they have the same basis of human experience as the common man, an idea which would've been utterly rejected in Shakespeare's time.