Women and men Essay Example for Free

Women and men Essay Non violence is a philosophy that has been used as a strategy to bring change. It follows a line which rejects the path of violence. This method of using an alternate to aggression and armed struggle against oppression has been preached and practiced from time immemorial. In recent times, non violence has been used as a means for getting India independence from British rule. This movement was preached and led by Mahatma Gandhi, who immortalized himself to the whole world with the way he went about it. Another fine example is recent history is that of Martin Luther King, who adopted Gandhi’s non-violent ways , in the struggle to help win civil rights for African Americans. Jesus and Non Violence History shows many examples of non-violence struggles, but if we look into our ancients texts we will be able to understand that even Jesus Christ was an advocate of non violence. Until the very end Jesus never renounced his privilege of being the anointed one. Nevertheless, he destroyed the wall that separated non-Jews from the God of Israel. He became the new and living way by which all people had access to the kingdom of God. By acting in this way he removed every pretext for the use of violence. He advocated that gods grace was offered to all and with it the hand of fellowship and the offer of reconciliation. (Walter Wink. Ch. 1. p119) Nonviolence in Theory Practice Nonviolence has always been understood as the absence of violence, but the leading proponents of nonviolence have always defined in positive terms. Thus Mahatma Gandhi spoke of nonviolence as Satyagraha , meaning literally holding onto truth. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of it as a commitment to resisting injustice without regarding one’s success as a triumph over those 2 who stand for injustice. (Robert. H Barry . L. G. Nonviolence in Theory and Practice) Nonviolence can be understood from many viewpoints and has many aspects to it. To some it may seem as if it is the study of any psychological, social, or political technique to bring about social change, which does not involve the use of the military force, yet again to others it is the study of the spiritual pursuit of a nonviolence as interpreted by particular religions. Discussion There is a belief among many, that nonviolence is actually nothing more than a form of cowardice. Nothing can be further from the truth. In the case of Jesus Christ it took tremendous mental strength and will power to stand up for what he believed. Similarly, in the case Mahatma Gandhi, though violence was used brutally against his followers who were both women and men, by their belief in what they were doing they could bear physical beating and brutalities inflicted upon them by the British without ever losing sight of what they were expected to follow the path of nonviolence. Man has within him an inbuilt mechanism of self preservation and this manifests itself when he is attacked and being bodily harmed. This instinct takes over and counters the attacker by fighting back. The ability to resist this natural instinct and to stay on the path of nonviolence is a sure show of courage and strength. In the case of both Gandhi and Jesus Christ, they were dealing against oppressive rule. They could have chosen an easier way, but that they chose the courageous path of nonviolence . REFERENCES: Walter Wink. Jesus and Nonviolence. Ch. 1. p. 119 . [online} Available at http://www. plough. com/ebooks/pdfs/Jesus. pdf Robert L. Holmes Barry . L. Gan (Part one: origins) Nonviolence in Theory and Practice

Girl Interrupted vs. The Yellow Wallpaper -- essays research papers

The main character in Susanna Kaysen’s, â€Å"Girl, Interrupted† and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s, â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† are similar in the fact that they both were suppressed by male dominants. Be it therapist or physicians who either aided in their mental deformities or created them. They are similar in the sense that they are both restricted to confinement and must endure life under the watchful eye of overseers. However similar their situations may be, their responses are different.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the stories, there were both positive and negative aspects and characteristics that the two protagonists possessed. Both women were thought insane and although they may not have been originally, being locked up made other characters question their sanity. In, â€Å"Girl, Interrupted,† Kaysen’s character was a passive yet promiscuous eighteen year old woman. Ten minutes into her visit with an analyst, Kaysen is being told she’s tired and that she needs a rest. The therapist makes a couple of phone calls, puts Kaysen in a cab and sends her off to the psychiatric ward at McLean Hospital. In the cab, she doesn’t put up a fight or try and escape and once she arrives at the hospital, she signs herself in because she is of age. Even before then, while she was still in the therapists’ office she showed no sign of struggling against the force that was her doctor. Instead she willingly accepted the fact that she was tired and to go then rather than on Friday to the hospital. This passiveness is a dominant characteristic of Kaysen throughout the rest of the story. But I view the trait as both a positive and a negative one. It seems like it would be a positive because Kaysen allowed herself to enjoy her time in the hospital. She made an effort to make the best of the situation. However, it’s also a negative trait to possess for the simple fact that had she fought or argued with the doctor or the cab driver, she would never had to go near McLean. During her taxi ride to the hospital she said, â€Å"I let my head fall back against the seat and shut my eyes. I was glad to be riding in a taxi instead of having to wait for the train.† This passive act, not only wins Kaysen a spot at McLean but doesn’t help change her therapist opinions on her.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  While reading, â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper,† I realized that Gilman also is a passive person. But I feel Gi... ... appearances which is why I think she does what her husband and brother prescribe. She even says, â€Å"If a physicican of high-standing, and one’s own husband, assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one but temporary nervous depression – a slight hysterical tendency—what is one to do?† This brings me to the point that women in those times had to follow their husbands orders. Anything else was unheard of!   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  By the end of both stories, the women had changed. Kaysen for the better and Gilman, I feel changed for the worse. In â€Å"Girl, Interrupted,† Kaysen meets friends, learn about life, love, and herself and gets out of McLean. She meets a very wealthy bachelor and they date. I feel she had the more positive ending of the two stories. Gilman in â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† on the other hand, should be sent to a real phsychiatric hospital. She did not have such a positive outcome. Basically, Gilman had her freedom and sanity stripped from her by her husband. Living in solitary confinement, I would have gone insane two. But in those times, she had no choice but to do what her husband requested. However sad, that was life at the time.

Four Freedoms Essay

The poster that I chose to do my analysis on is by Adam Lewin. His art is modern and is representative of current events. He is an illustrator and an art director. He has studied at the Pratt Institute, the Gerrit Rietveld Academie in Amsterdam, and New York University (http://www. thoughtsondemocracy. blogspot. com/ 2009). The poster is representational of what is currently happening in American culture today. Lewin’s poster persuades me not to want to live in the United States anymore. His poster depicts our freedoms being taken away from us. The â€Å"Freedom of Speech† picture persuades me not to want to protest. It conveys to me that if we go out into the streets and exercise our freedom of speech we will be gagged and hauled off to jail. The Police in the poster look menacing and colossal, and the protester looks small and meager. The â€Å"Freedom of Worship† poster persuades me not to tell anyone what religion I am for fear that I may get killed, for not being the right religion. The man looks as though he is lying on a gurney and has been shot dead because he was worshiping to the wrong religion. Lewin’s â€Å"Freedom From Want† reminds me that we should not feed our children McDonald’s. Children know what the golden arches mean before they can even read. The fast food industry has made Americans huge. The little boy in the picture has a super-size coke in front of him, and he looks like he is pointing to get some more food, which he clearly does not need. This persuades me that there is no freedom from want because Americans are gluttons. They want as much as they can possibly acquire to fill them up emotionally. Lastly, â€Å"Freedom From Fear† persuades me not to want to break any laws (running a red light, talking on cell phone while driving) big brother is always watching us especially at every stop light. On the positive side it might make some people feel safe and might deter a criminal from committing a crime. Lewin’s and Rockwell’s posters look completely opposite from each other. Rockwell’s poster is indicative of what the people looked like in the 1940’s (wholesome). It seemed to be a more innocent time, but it wasn’t. Rockwell was painting an ideal instead of reflecting a reality. Whereas, Lewin is doing the opposite, he is reflecting the reality of the current American way of life. However, there are many similarities between the two pictures. In Rockwell’s â€Å"Freedom of Speech† painting it looks as though the people in the painting are giving the man respect and listening to what he has to say. However, I read that these men did not agree with what this man was saying. Therefore, it relates to Lewin’s poster because both these men are being degraded for speaking their minds. Also both men look like they are from the working class. The religion that I saw represented in Rockwell’s â€Å"Freedom of Worship â€Å"is Christianity. Thus the painting failed to represent multiple religions. This relates to Lewin’s poster because in my opinion Lewin’s poster is suggesting that the man in the picture is dead. This suggests that the predominate religion of the 1940’s (Christianity) is dying. practicing one Also people should have the right to practice any religion they want as FDR suggested in his speech. Lewin’s and Rockwell’s â€Å"Freedom FromWant† relate because neither of these scenes are lavish and the food seems to be the focal point. Also, the elderly woman seems to be the one serving everyone and the boy in the picture is pointing as though he is waiting for someone to serve him or give him more food. Although these two pictures look completely different they relate to each other in the same way. They both depict safety and security. When I was a little girl my mother use to tuck me into bed every night and this made me feel safe as the mother and father in the Rockwell painting are doing to their children. The man is holding a paper which tells of the horrors going on overseas. They are protecting their children from the evils of the world and easing their young minds. I think that Lewin’s depiction of the cameras eases the American people’s minds or maybe the powers that be. Surveillance cameras may help catch criminals or even terrorists. The poster, which depicts four separate themes, will be shown to reflect contemporary understandings of democracy and the democratic system in operation. The theme in the upper left hand corner under â€Å"Freedom of Speech† depicts a young man being dragged by two police officers. Although our Constitution guarantee’s freedom of speech, nevertheless the arrest of this young man portrays what occurred recently when the Wall Street protesters gathered peacefully in front of the New York stock exchange, yet they were arrested and thrown in jail for disturbing the peace. However, what they were actually doing was exercising their first amendment rights of free speech. The second image on the top right hand corner under â€Å"Freedom of Worship† depicts a dead person. Unfortunately this depiction is very true in today’s society. We are constantly informed of suicide bombers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq who , in the name of religion, strap bomb belts on themselves and blow themselves up in mosques and other places where their co-religionists ( of different sects) are worshiping. It also suggests to me that the practice of one religion in the United States no longer exists. Since there are people from all over the world living in the United States we have an array of different religions. The third image on the bottom left hand corner under â€Å"Freedom of Want† depicts a young man pointing to a half empty glass. This expresses the current division in contemporaneous society of the haves and the have not’s. This young boy seems overweigh and is probably a member of the have not’s. I say this because insufficient funds results in poor eating habits, such as overindulgence of processed foods. The final image on the lower right hand corner under the caption â€Å"Freedom from Fear† depicts an array of surveillance equipment. Thanks to the increased awareness of crime coupled with modern high technology, these surveillance cameras are designed to catch criminals in the act of committing a crime there by resulting in quicker arrests and convictions, and possibly preventing the crime from being committed in the first place. Surveillance cameras which were installed in all entrances to the London underground have effectively prevented a repeat of the 2005 underground bombings. Therefore commuters have no fear using the â€Å"tube† and are thus free from fear, exactly as the artist intended to demonstrate.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 Landmark Legal Case

The Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden established important precedents about interstate commerce when it was decided in 1824. The case arose from a dispute concerning early steamboats chugging about in the waters of New York, but principles established in the case resonate to the present day. The decision in Gibbons v. Ogden created an enduring legacy as it established the  general principle that interstate commerce as mentioned in the Constitution included  more than just the buying and selling of goods. By considering the operation of steamboats to be interstate commerce, and thus activity coming under the authority of the federal government, the Supreme Court established a precedent which would impact many later cases. The immediate effect of the case was that it struck down a New York law granting a monopoly to a steamboat owner. By eliminating the monopoly, the operation of steamboats became a highly competitive business beginning in the 1820s. In that  atmosphere of competition, great fortunes could be made. And the greatest American fortune of the mid-1800s, the enormous wealth of Cornelius Vanderbilt, could be traced to the decision that eliminated the steamboat monopoly in New York. The landmark court case involved young Cornelius Vanderbilt. And Gibbons v. Ogden also  provided a platform and cause for Daniel Webster, a lawyer and politician whose oratorical skills would come to influence American politics for decades. However, the two men for whom the case was named, Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, were fascinating characters in their own right. Their personal histories, which included them being neighbors, business associates, and eventually bitter enemies, provided a raucous background to the lofty legal proceedings. The concerns of steamboat operators in the early decades of the 19th century seem quaint and very distant from modern life. Yet the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 1824 influences life in America to  the present day. The Steamboat Monopoly The great value of steam power became apparent in the late 1700s, and Americans in the 1780s were working, mostly unsuccessfully, to build practical steamboats. Robert Fulton, an American living in England, had been an artist who became involved in designing canals. During a trip to France, Fulton was exposed to advances in steamboats. And, with the financial backing of the wealthy American ambassador to France, Robert Livingston, Fulton began working to build a practical steamboat in 1803. Livingston, who had been one of the nations founding fathers, was very wealthy and possessed extensive  landholdings. But he also possessed another asset with the potential to be enormously valuable: He had secured, through his political connections, the right to have a monopoly on steamboats in the waters of New York State. Anyone who wanted to operate a steamboat had to partner with Livingston, or purchase a license from him. After Fulton and Livingston returned to America, Fulton launched his first practical steamboat, The Clermont, in August 1807, four years after he met up with Livingston. The two men soon had a thriving business. And under New York law, no one could launch steamboats in New York waters to compete with them. Competitors Steam Ahead Aaron Ogden, a lawyer  and veteran of the Continental Army, was elected governor of New Jersey in 1812 and sought to challenge the steamboat monopoly by buying and operating a steam-powered ferry. His attempt failed. Robert Livingston had died, but his  heirs, along with Robert Fulton, successfully defended their monopoly in the courts. Ogden, defeated but still believing he could turn a profit, obtained a license from the Livingston family and operated a steam ferry between New York and New Jersey. Ogden had become friends with Thomas Gibbons, a wealthy lawyer and cotton dealer  from Georgia who had moved to New Jersey. At some point the two men had a dispute and things turned inexplicably bitter. Gibbons, who had participated in duels back in Georgia, challenged Ogden to a duel in 1816. The two men never met to exchange gunfire. But, being two very angry lawyers, they began a series of antagonistic legal maneuvers against each other’s business interests. Seeing great potential, both to make money and harm Ogden, Gibbons decided that he would go into the steamboat business and challenge the monopoly. He also hoped to put his adversary Ogden out of business. Ogden’s ferry, the Atalanta, was matched by a new steamboat, the Bellona, which Gibbons put into the water in 1818. To pilot the boat, Gibbons had hired a  boatman in his mid-twenties named Cornelius Vanderbilt. Growing up in a Dutch community on Staten Island, Vanderbilt had started his career as a teenager running a small boat called a periauger between Staten Island and Manhattan. Vanderbilt quickly became known about the harbor as someone who worked relentlessly. He possessed keen sailing skill, with an impressive knowledge of every current in the notoriously tricky waters of New York Harbor. And Vanderbilt was fearless when sailing in rough conditions. Thomas Gibbons put Vanderbilt to work as the captain of his new ferry in 1818. For Vanderbilt, used to being his own boss, it was an unusual situation. But working for Gibbons meant he could learn a lot about steamboats. And he also must have realized he could learn a lot about business from watching how Gibbons waged his endless battles against Ogden. In 1819 Ogden went to court to shut down the ferry run by Gibbons. When threatened by process servers, Cornelius Vanderbilt continued sailing the ferry back and forth. At points he was even arrested. With his own growing connections in New York politics, he was generally able to get the charges thrown out, though he did rack up a number of fines. During a year of legal skirmishing the case between Gibbons and Ogden  moved through the New York State courts. In 1820 the New York courts upheld the steamboat monopoly. Gibbons was ordered to cease operating his ferry. The Federal Case Gibbons, of course, was not about to quit. He chose to appeal his case to the federal courts. He had obtained what was known as a â€Å"coasting† license from the federal government. That allowed him to operate his boat along the coasts of the United States, in accordance with a law from the early 1790s. The position of Gibbons in his federal case would be that federal law should supersede state law. And, that the commerce clause under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution  should be interpreted to mean that carrying passengers on a ferry was interstate commerce. Gibbons sought out an impressive attorney to plead his case: Daniel Webster, the New England politician who was gaining national fame as a great orator. Webster seemed the perfect choice, as he was interested in advancing the cause of business in the growing country. Cornelius Vanderbilt, who had been hired by Gibbons because of his tough reputation  as a sailor, volunteered to travel to Washington to meet with Webster and another prominent lawyer and politician, William Wirt. Vanderbilt was largely uneducated, and throughout his life he would often be considered a fairly coarse character. So he seemed an unlikely character to be dealing with Daniel Webster. Vanderbilt’s desire to be involved in the case indicates that he recognized its great importance to his own future. He must have realized that dealing with the legal issues would teach him a lot. After meeting with Webster and Wirt, Vanderbilt remained in Washington while the case first went to the U.S. Supreme Court. To the disappointment of Gibbons and Vanderbilt, the nation’s highest court refused to hear it on a technicality, as the courts in New York State had not yet entered a final judgment. Returning to New York City, Vanderbilt went back to operating the ferry, in violation of the monopoly, while still  trying to avoid the authorities and at times skirmishing with them in local courts. Eventually the case was put on the Supreme Court’s docket, and arguments were scheduled. At the Supreme Court In early Februrary 1824 the case of Gibbons v. Ogden was argued in the Supreme Court chambers, which were, at that time, located in the U.S. Capitol. The case was briefly mentioned in the New York Evening Post on February 13, 1824. There was actually considerable public interest in the case due to changing attitudes in America. In the early 1820s the nation was approaching its 50th anniversary, and a general theme was that business was growing. In New York, the Erie Canal, which would transform the country in major ways, was under construction. In other places canals were operating, mills were producing fabric, and early factories were producing any number of products. To show off all the industrial progress America had made in its five decades of freedom, the federal government even invited an old friend, the Marquis de Lafayette to visit the country and tour all 24 states. In that atmosphere of progress and growth, the idea that one state could write a law that might arbitrarily restrict business was seen as a problem which needed to be solved. So while the legal battle between Gibbons and Ogden may have been conceived in a bitter rivalry between two cantankerous lawyers, it was obvious at the time that the case would have implications across American society. And the public seemed to want free trade, meaning restrictions shouldnt be placed by individual states. Daniel Webster argued that portion of the case with his usual eloquence. He delivered a speech which was later considered important enough to be included in anthologies of his writings. At one point Webster stressed that it was well-known why the U.S. Constitution had to be written after the young country encountered many problems under The Articles of Confederation: â€Å"Few things are better known than the immediate causes which led to the adoption of the present Constitution; and there is nothing, as I think, clearer, than that the prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law.† In his impassioned argument, Webster stated that creators of the Constitution, when speaking of commerce, fully intended it to mean the entire country as a unit: â€Å"What is it that is to be regulated? Not the commerce of the several States, respectively, but the commerce of the United States. Henceforth, the commerce of the States was to be a unit, and the system by which it was to exist and be governed must necessarily be complete, entire, and uniform. Its character was to be described in the flag which waved over it, E Pluribus Unum.† Following Websters star performance, William Wirt also spoke for Gibbons, making arguments about monopolies and commercial law. The lawyers for Ogden then spoke to argue in favor of the monopoly. To many members of the public, the monopoly had seemed unfair and outdated, a throwback to some earlier era. In the 1820s, with business growing in the young country, Webster seemed to have captured the American mood with an oration that evoked the progress that was possible when all the states operated under a system of uniform laws. The LandmarkDecision After a few weeks of suspense, the Supreme Court announced its decision on March 2, 1824. The court voted 6-0, and the decision was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.  The carefully reasoned decision, in which Marshall generally agreed with Daniel Websters position, was published widely, including on the front page of the New York Evening Post on March 8, 1824. The Supreme Court struck down the steamboat monopoly law. And it declared that it was unconstitutional for states to enact laws that restricted interstate commerce. That decision in 1824 about steamboats has had an impact ever since. As new technologies came along in transportation and even communication, efficient operation across state lines  has been possible thanks to Gibbons v. Ogden.   An immediate effect was that Gibbons and Vanderbilt were now free to operate their steam ferry. And Vanderbilt naturally saw great opportunity and began building his own steamboats. Others also got into the steamboat trade in the waters around New York, and within years there was bitter competition between boats carrying freight and passengers. Thomas Gibbons did not get to enjoy his victory for long, as he died two years later. But he had taught Cornelius Vanderbilt a lot about how to conduct business in a freewheeling and ruthless manner. Decades later, Vanderbilt would tangle with Wall Street operators Jay Gould and Jim Fisk in the battle for the Erie Railroad, and his early experience watching Gibbons in his epic struggle  with Ogden and others must have served him well. Daniel Webster went on to become one of the most prominent politicians in America, and along with Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, the three men known as the  Great Triumvirate would dominate the U.S. Senate.