I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry. Essay Example

I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry. Paper There are few historical debates that have aroused such controversy as that of the causes and origins of World War One. There is an abundance of sources, both reliable and not so, and the blame for the war has been thrown around and indeed at everybody involved. Unlike the Second World War, where Germany is generally accepted as being to blame, WW1 is steeped in disagreement even to this day. Unfortunately for the historian, the blame for the war simply depends on who you ask. Britain, Germany, France, Russia, even capitalism itself have strong arguments against them. A problem one faces when investigating the crisis is that each argument does have its strong points, and, if approached unwarily, each could be accepted as the main cause of the war.Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that Baldrick should become a little confused as to the state of affairs. It accepted that at the time of the war, many Tommies and indeed civilians were unclear as to the reasons for conflict. The obvious point Baldrick is referring to is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in June of 1914. This short term cause was accepted by many at the time to be the main cause of the war, but I believe this is only because of the events proximity to war itself, and media hype (the British popular press becoming prominent in the late eighteen hundreds).I do not question the fact that the death of Ferdinand contributed to the start of the war, but I believe that war would have broken out if the assassination had not taken place. It was, we must remember, the state of international affairs which made Ferdinands death so significant in the first place. For example, the Black Hand, the organisation to which Gavro Princip, Ferdinands killer belonged, had been formed to aid the creation of a Greater Serbia. I think that this is evidence that international diplomacy, although perhaps not so dramatic (and accessible to the masses), played the key role in the start of war.I think that, as has been refle cted in the media coverage of war in Iraq, peoples ideas of the causes and justification of war are largely influenced by the popular press. As is the same now, different newspapers had different opinions on the war. The most prominent papers, such as The Daily Mail, promoted the idea of the evil hun, skewering babies on bayonets and suchlike, and the idea was generally accepted by the British public. I think it is the presss influence which is largely responsible for the public perception of war, but with the extremely useful tool known as hindsight, we can see the whole picture.Marxist historians state Imperial rivalry and capitalism as the underlying causes of war. I agree with the idea that Imperialism significantly contributed to the war. The fact that there was a fairly hefty rivalry between nations is clear from their aggressive actions overseas, with the major powers such as Britain and Germany scrabbling to obtain and retain significant areas around the globe. The Marxist t heory, however, goes on to say that the acquisition of new territory led capitalists to look for new markets abroad, which in turn encouraged governments to obtain more and more land, adding to the tensions between states.They claim that this ultimately led to war. I disagree with this theory, one, because the hostilities in Africa and Asia never truly threatened international war, and two, because I think that business heads at the time were keen to encourage amiable relations between states, with trading between nations truly coming into is own at this time. Fritz Fischer, a prominent German historian, claimed that all of the nations international diplomacy was ruled by domestic policy. I disagree with this statement. If we look at the political circumstances of the nations at the time, I think it is clear that the general public were not adequately empowered to influence diplomacy. For example, Germany, who had more voters than any other country, parliament had no actual power ov er the government. This meant that although public opinion was probably taken into consideration, it is unlikely that her actions were actually dictated by the masses.It is my opinion that the First World War was not caused by a single event. It may be fair to say that Ferdinands assassination sparked the war, but I find it incredulous to think that this one spark was the actual cause of a world war. I think that the reasons for war are numerous and interlinked; a patchwork quilt if you will of diplomacy and economy. The treaties and agreements at the time the Franco-Russian alliance of 1892 (although it was not made public until 1918), the triple entente, the German-Habsburg alliance of 1879, and the various trade treaties at the time all set the stage for war. So was war inevitable?I believe so, although I think that the circumstances of war could have been very different. I think that the rise of Germany itself thanks to Bismarck, and the amazing acceleration of production there , was bound to lead to competition with another state. The theory of Social Darwinism; that if you are not growing you are dying (originally invented by English philosopher Herbert Spencer), could be argued to be illustrated by the actions of Germany and Britain during the naval arms race. Their expansion, both militarily and territorially, I think is fair to say was only down to competition with each other; Britain had been a clear leader in Europe, and had no real need to expand other than to prevent a rival close to home.There is an idea that if Britain had made its stance clear during the July crisis in 1914 (we must remember that the triple entente was only an informal agreement, rather than a binding alliance), then Germany would not have gone to war with France. I think that this is plausible, as Germany would certainly have been reluctant to fight such a close rival, but I retain the belief that war would have taken place, if not that month, perhaps not in 1914, but at some point in the near future.So how close was Baldrick to the truth? It could be argued that he is right in saying the war started when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, but I think it would be wrong to say it started because of his death. The tangled web of alliances in Europe at the time ensured that if one country went down, they all went down. Because of this I believe that if Princip had not shot Ferdinand and his wife, there would have been another incident to act as a catalyst to war.

To what extent do you think Shylock deserves the treatment given to him in the trial scene Essay Example

To what extent do you think Shylock deserves the treatment given to him in the trial scene Essay Example To what extent do you think Shylock deserves the treatment given to him in the trial scene Essay To what extent do you think Shylock deserves the treatment given to him in the trial scene Essay Essay Topic: Everything I Never Told You Play Shylock receives a variety of treatment during Act 4 Scene 1. He receives pity, mercy but most of all he is treated as bad as a dog; a wolf, being viewed as heartless and vicious. Gratiano begins insulting Shylock before Portia enters; at the beginning of the court hearing. He says thou be damned inexecrable dog, hoping Shylock would die for what he is doing. Gratiano tends to express the opinions of other people rather than his own, which shows how hated Shylock is. However, Shylock does receive (what turns out to be) mercy when Portia tell Shylock to be merciful. It is an attribute to God himself, Portia exclaims, showing she has considered how to appeal to Shylock and how she considers him as an equal, talking about their god and not excluding shylock as a non-believer etc. as others do. Although, while I think she is being fair in giving him mercy, I consider the possibility that if it was Antonio seizing a pound of Shylocks flesh, then Portia would not of tried to stop him. But I cannot be sure of this as there is no evidence supporting this apart from the Christians general hatred towards Jews and more specifically Shylock. Later on, Shylock is offered to take 9000 ducats, thrice what he wanted, and leave. However, Shylock declines this offer due to it not being paid, according to the tenour, while the date to pay the money back has been passed and therefore Shylock was entitled to the forfeit, it still comes across to me as evil to want to kill Antonio instead of taking substantially more money. This shows that Shylock was being evil and unforgiving, leaving you to think that later on in the scene; the treat he got was deserved. Furthermore, Shylock was asked to Have by some surgeon but Shylock denies Portias request as it is not nominated in the bond. This clearly confirms if it wasnt already that Shylocks aim is to kill Antonio, and in my opinion no one should have the right to kill an innocent man. However, I cant help but think about Shylocks and Antonios history, before the play began. From my point of view, Shylock is reacting in retaliation to Antonio, by the fact hes so determined yet nervous, this means to me that Antonio has done bad things to shylock and is not completely innocent, although again the only evidence I have for this is that Shylock says you spat on me, called me dog. But it also seems Antonio has done something more than that too. Moreover, Shylock is constantly insulted for his religion; whether it be Gratiano calling him a currish Jew or just people constantly referring to him as the Jew, perceiving him as maybe not human and categorising and segregating him because of his religion. Its quite clear that in Shakespeares time, very few people would be aware of their racism, as it is natural in their time. In fact, the only character to make a point of racism is Shylock with the Hath not a Jews eyes speech, however, he is also guilty of it himself, constantly stopping his daughter from seeing a boy or going to a party with one for he is a Christian. However, you cannot know if this is blatant racism or a You hate me, so I hate you situation. Either way Shylock definitely doesnt deserve the racial abuse he gets. Again, in Shakespeares time it would be different with the audience even cheering when anybody insults Shylock or even shouting out racist insults at him themselves. At this point in the play, just before Shylock cuts Antonio, I felt as if Shylock was receiving his justice, even if it is sick and wrong. Antonio had agreed to the bond so in a legal viewpoint, everything was fine, even if it was off quite a bit from a moral Viewpoint. I felt as if Antonio seemed to deserve a punishment for what hes (supposedly) done, but death, I still felt, was too harsh. Portia then says this bond doth give thee here no jot of blood. I feel as if this is incorrect, Antonio knew blood would be drawn and he was ready to die which proves it. However, this was a good solution to the problem, Antonio lives; Shylock can take the money and it would all be over. But again, Shylock does not receive justice due to this, and after the treatment he gets, I think he deserves it. Here, I think Portia is being especially unfair by leading Shylock on, leading him to think he was going to get his revenge but then right at the last second she crushes his spirit. I think she couldve easily laid down this information at the start of the hearing. She is clearly trying to humiliate him in front of everybody, which, in my opinion, is disgusting considering the humiliation he already receives plus what that information alone would do to him to start with! Portia punishes him further when she reveals that since Shylock is an alien trying to seek the life of an innocent, half his goods got to Antonio, and the other half to the Duke. From earlier on in the play, Shylock has shown that money is one of the most important things to him. So on top of clearly, the most important thing to Shylock, his revenge on Antonio, he has also been subject to losing all his money. He is ganged up on by almost every Venetian because he is a Jew. I believe the only reason we dont hear about it being so for different Jews is because of Shylock trying to do something about the abuse and treatment he receives. Shylock is also told he would have to beg for his life, beg mercy of the Duke. However, the Duke instantly says I pardon thee thy life before tough ask it. This is the first real mercy Shylock receives, even if it was out of pity. In my opinion, the Duke is the only important character in the play who truthfully just wants peace between everyone. For example, the Duke basically says what other people want and whats best, but he doesnt insult people like Shylock. I believe Shylock deserves this kind of treatment normally. Fortunately, it seems Antonio follows the Dukes path; quit the fine for one half of his goods. Antonio gives Shylock more pit, be giving him half of his money back but when he dies it passes unto his son Lorenzo. I, at this point, feel sorry for Shylock that all that has happened is that he has lost half his money and it will go to the person who stole his daughter and his ducats. At the same time I felt good that Shylock isnt going to die and its not a punishment that is too big and in fact its mercy from Antonio. But then Antonio says he presently become a Christian. From my point of view, this is the worst treatment Shylock could ever receive. The duke then forces Shylock to agree or he will recant the pardon he gave to Shylock, so he would die. This is another point where I believe everyone has ganged up on Shylock. However, 400 years ago, it wouldve been a great event for Shylock to become a Christian so he can become a good person, because how the Christians saw it, Jews were evil. However, living in the time that I do, I believe that everybody has a right to have their own beliefs. Shylock should not have been forced to become a Christian. Judaism is his life. The way I see it you would have to be extremely ignorant to believe that this was good action taken by Antonio. I believe no matter how evil the Christians viewed Shylock as, this makes Antonio dwarf Shylocks evil. Shylocks final words are I pray you give me leave to go from hence. I am not well. These show how broken Shylock has become from the trial. He has always been a confident person but everything has been taken away from him bit by bit during the play and theres clearly not much left. How I see it ending for Shylock, is for him to end his life on his own terms. At the start of the play, I would have never thought he would do that, he wasnt that kind of person. But after his outer shell and his inner too were broke down, I can see he is very brittle and sad because he is alone. And suicide is what I can see him doing because he thinks if he kills himself, he will have at least be doing it on his own terms, when in fact, its the opposite. In conclusion, I believe Shylock didnt receive the treatment he got. He has been segregated and insulted. He was a normal man trying to make profit, who had been insulted and spat on. He failed in getting his revenge and was humiliated for it. If I wrote this is Shakespeares time, Im sure Id be writing a very different essay with a very different conclusion. Id be supporting Antonio etc. With all the lessons Ive learnt from the past generations, I see Shylock should not be treated differently because of his religion. The outcome of the story would be so different if Antonio was to try and kill Shylock even though really theyre so similar. They both are trying to get business done with a slightly evil side to them. Antonio wouldnt have been treated badly, so Shylock shouldnt have been.

Country paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Country paper - Essay Example The country is endowed with a number of minerals such as emerald, iron, copper, bauxite and gold. The temperatures along the coastline, for the most part of the year are usually high. The interior is usually warm even during the cool seasons that come in between April and September. The country has an estimated population of aboput24, 692,144 of which the Maku Lomwe of the north accounts for more than half. The country has over 9 ethnic groups. The larger demographic of the population is between the ages of 25 to 54 with females accounting 3,553,256 for while males account for 3,113,095. The major religions are Roman Catholics (28.4%) and Muslims (17.9%). Two political organizations; Frelimo and Renamo dominate the country, though allowing of multi–party democracy. As of 2013, the Gross Domestic Product stood at 15.63 Billion dollars with 25.83 Million people living under or dangerously close to the poverty line. The per capita income, in the same period stood at $605.5. As of 2013, statistics illustrated that domestic tourism accounted for 7.2% of Mozambique’s economic growth. The country’s population is not as indulgent in tourism because they are focused more on development through agriculture. In the same period, international tourism only brought in 6.11% of the economic development. This could be attributed to low levels of tourism promotion. The infrastructural development is substantially low and is rated amongst the worst in the world. In light of this, there country’s government has taken measures to try to improve this. Notably, the development of infrastructure is directly linked to the success of tourism. $17 Billion has been invested in pipeline development as a bid to improve economic growth. Mozambique has 7700 hotel beds that register only 40% occupancy rate. The country is challenged with access to land for hotel development in terms of speed and availability for access.