Political and ideological discourse Essay Example for Free

Political and ideological discourse Essay America is founded upon some deeply disturbing prejudices, which are dangerously implanted in our youth at a young age. The impact is a sick culture, capable of terrible acts of impulse that are inspired by fear and contempt. This is at the core of The Crucible. In many ways, The Crucible, which recounts the awful details of the Salem Witch Trials, still resonates today. The term Witch Hunt is often invoked in modern social, political and ideological discourse to characterize any malicious or unfounded crusade against an innocent party or parties. The narrative of the 1954 Arthur Miller play helps to keep fresh the understanding of that which we are capable of at our worst, our most misguided and our most ignorant. In addition, it cautions against the type of repression which marked the Salem society, elucidating that such unnaturally draconian standards will inevitably cause revolt. Perhaps among the most shocking elements of the play is that which is revealed to the play’s reader in the introduction regarding the extraordinary young age of the girls. Acknowledging them as being barely out of their puberty, this introduction helps to pave the way for the cruel behavior perpetrated by such young aggressors, producing a useful discussion on the cultural impact bore upon our young by a culture that behaves with such virulent fanaticism. This also helps us in our consideration of the realities surrounding the witch trials, with Miller’s telling pairing with some historical notes of interest. These do help us to appreciate the danger tread by Americans in this context and in those modern parallels thereto. To this extent, the shocking detail noted in the introduction relates to the fact that in the years after the witch trials, when the state of Massachusetts had come to fully acknowledge and provide reparations for what had occurred, it did so with precious little remorse. Though it provided a small financial sum to the compensation of the Proctors—with John Proctor already deceased by execution—â€Å"perversely, damages were paid not only to the victims but also to such people as William Good, who was his wife’s accuser, and Abigail Hobbs, a ‘confessed witch’ who became a hostile witness. ’† (viii) In addition to this grotesque distortion of a reconciliation, the statement provided by the Governor accompanying this statement of apology would argue nonetheless that the accusers could be forgiven for their atrocities due to the fact that the time and place in question was â€Å"infested with a horrible Witchcraft. † (vii) This would seem a most unyielding apology. These observations lead to a number of questions concerning the play as a whole. Particularly, the fact of this unrepentence causes us to wonder whether Miller’s political enemies recognized the parallels suggested between McCarthyism and the Witch Trials. A second question wonders whether this play might have been made had not the era of McCarthyism begun to impact artists, authors and entertainers, even in spite of the fact that it was based on events more than 200 years passed. A final question as we enter further discussion on this subject questions whether or not—without a loaded intention—Miller’s analogy between the Witch Trials and the anti-communist loyalty trials of the 1950s. The story is presented with some dramatic elements which do not blunt but tend instead to make more relatable the impact of certain characters. The most prominent of distinctions from history is the set of dramatic liberties taken with regard to personal relationships, such as the affair between Proctor and Abigail, which would be a device intended to move forward themes of personal vindictiveness. Additional distinctions are the characterizations which in many contexts, Miller acknowledges, were intended as ‘composite’ sketches of groups of individuals identified by historical record. His characters were fictionalized for the purpose of economy. An additional detail of importance is that many of the character ages were altered in order to create dramatic tensions and possibilities central to the narrative action but distinct from historical accuracy. Ultimately, none of these distinction detract from the imposition of Miller’s message, which is that the danger present in this age would emerge once again in the era of McCarthyism, and perhaps we might argue, again today in the age of terrorism. Namely, we can see that fear of an unseen villain has bred a blind and irrational wave of paranoia and its attendant behaviors, establishing a society deeply vulnerable to exploitation and mob mentality. 2. Ultimately, it is impossible for this reason of mob mentality to place the blame for the horrific series of events upon any one individual. Though some appear as more insidious than others, and where others still will tend to even demonstrate remorse in eventuality, all individuals in the society may be said to play a hand in the disgrace for which Miller’s play accounts. Indeed, as much as the aggressive pursuit shown by some, it would be the spineless docility of others which would allow so many to lose there lives. Indeed, we may be immediately struck by how fast speculation is turned around in the sequence described by Act I. Here, the manipulative young girls escape culpability for deviant behavior by exploiting the primitive instincts of the townsfolk. Miller’s work seems largely fixated upon the easy and willing susceptibility of the Salem townsfolk to such a ploy. The story utilized fast sequence of narrative action in order to demonstrate the stunning quickness with which the Church moves to respond to allegations, eschewing sensible law enforcement or due process to instead begin a series of completely unfounded arrests. Indeed, the arrival of Hale, the specialist on witchcraft, brings with it a gloomy sense of foreboding that seems to target this man with the onus of blame for that which is to occur. With the sentence of death being the outcome to such proceedings as those brought forth, the reader is moved by the remarkably errant posing of Church authority. The courtroom drama which is used in the Third Act of the play is compelling if a little overstated. Here, the genuine hysteria has set in and the outrageous turnabout between first Mary and John toward Abigail and ultimately, Mary and Abigail toward John demonstrates the greatest problem of the play. It is clear that everybody is on trial, which we may denote is likewise how Miller views it. To his perspective, the town is indeed on trial for its behavior. The carnage and extremity of the outcome is perhaps less surprising therefore than something such as the reversal of Hale in the finally act. Initially, the reader views him as a sinister figure but it is clear by this juncture that the forces governing Salem had leapt far beyond his intent or control. The finality of the play here is unforgiving, as the accused are hanged with no redemption. The theme of intolerance as a crime of which the whole town is guilty is presented largely in the descriptions by Miller, who portrayed the Puritans as living in what â€Å"was a barbaric frontier inhabited by a sect of fanatics who, nevertheless, were shipping out products of slowly increasing quantity and value. † (4) Miller would describe them as a people who ‘forbade anything resembling a theater or ‘vain enjoyment. ’ We might therefore argue that the theme of intolerance is best exemplified by the impact which it has on the cruel and hateful children, made so by the puritan society. A contrary indication, given by the kindly Rebecca, notes that â€Å"a child’s spirit is like a child, you can never catch it by running after; you must stand still, and, for love, it will soon itself come back. † (24) Here, we are given an intuition otherwise absent from Salem, and much to the destruction of its people as it drives the neglected children to become ripe with meanness. Indeed, all are guilty, right down to the children who laughed while others died. Works Cited: Miller, A. (1964) The Crucible: A Play in Four Acts. Penguin Books.

Types of ownership Both Cadburys and Sainsburys and plc’s (public :: Business and Management Studies

Types of ownership Both Cadburys and Sainsbury's and plc’s (public limited companies). Company registered as a plc under t Types of ownership Both Cadburys and Sainsbury's and plc’s (public limited companies). Company registered as a plc under the provisions of the Companies Act 1980. The company’s name must carry the words ‘public limited company’ or initials ‘plc’ and must have authorized share capital over  £50,000, with  £12,500 paid up – paid to the company by the shareholders. Plc’s may offer shares to the public and are more tightly regulated than limited companies. Converting a private limited company into a public one has advantages, such as the ability to raise share capital. However, it does have potential disadvantages, such as being subject to the scrutiny of the financial media and city analysts (the company’s financial records must be available for any member of the public to scrutinize). If the founder of a plc perceives the company share price to undervalue the company they may take the company private once more, as Richard Branson did with Virgin in 1989.Selling shares means that you can raise money quickly. A disadvantage of selling shares is that it is very expensive. Limited companies are owned by shareholders. These are people who own shares in the company. Shares are the parts into which the value of the company is divided. So if a business is valued at  £100 million and there are 200 million shares, each share will be worth 50 pence. All shareholders have limited liability. They are only liable for the amount they have put into the business. If a company closes down, shareholders can only lose the money they have invested. They will not be liable for anything else. Limited companies are owned by their shareholders. Large limited Types of ownership Both Cadburys and Sainsbury's and plc’s (public :: Business and Management Studies Types of ownership Both Cadburys and Sainsbury's and plc’s (public limited companies). Company registered as a plc under t Types of ownership Both Cadburys and Sainsbury's and plc’s (public limited companies). Company registered as a plc under the provisions of the Companies Act 1980. The company’s name must carry the words ‘public limited company’ or initials ‘plc’ and must have authorized share capital over  £50,000, with  £12,500 paid up – paid to the company by the shareholders. Plc’s may offer shares to the public and are more tightly regulated than limited companies. Converting a private limited company into a public one has advantages, such as the ability to raise share capital. However, it does have potential disadvantages, such as being subject to the scrutiny of the financial media and city analysts (the company’s financial records must be available for any member of the public to scrutinize). If the founder of a plc perceives the company share price to undervalue the company they may take the company private once more, as Richard Branson did with Virgin in 1989.Selling shares means that you can raise money quickly. A disadvantage of selling shares is that it is very expensive. Limited companies are owned by shareholders. These are people who own shares in the company. Shares are the parts into which the value of the company is divided. So if a business is valued at  £100 million and there are 200 million shares, each share will be worth 50 pence. All shareholders have limited liability. They are only liable for the amount they have put into the business. If a company closes down, shareholders can only lose the money they have invested. They will not be liable for anything else. Limited companies are owned by their shareholders. Large limited

Professionalism in the Probation Officer Career Field

For this assignment I chose the Law Enforcement scenario, as this will hopefully relate to the probation officer career field I'd Like to pursue. I consider police officer to be very professional Individuals with assertive personalities. You have to be assertive In this profession, otherwise people might take advantage of you and try to walk all over you. I personally believe that If the officer takes pride In his personal appearance, this is also a direct reflection on the pride and work ethic he has.Vive always been a big believer that just because you might be great at your job, you also need to take the time to look good in your uniform. The appropriate attire for someone in my career field is Abs's. Being in the Air Force we have If's which govern how we must look anytime we are in uniform. We must keep our hair cut and in regulation, we can't have any visible piercing (unless you're a female), and our uniform must present a professional appearance at all times. I think that in order to e considered a professional in my career, you must not only look the part but you must be the part.What I mean by that is you have to take the time to make your uniform look good, live by our Core Values at all times, and be a positive example to the community and subordinates. Far too often you see military members who act professional while in uniform, but as soon as their uniform comes off so does their professionalism. I take pride on being someone that others can look up to, whether I have on the United States Air Force uniform or not. Professionalism extends on and off duty for me, in or out of uniform.

The Development of Monotheism in Judaism - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1420 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/10/30 Category Religion Essay Level High school Tags: Judaism Essay Did you like this example? The idea that there is only one god, monotheism, is shared by over half of the worlds population today. Whether you are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish you believe in monotheism. Where does this idea originate from though? Many scholars believe that the origin of this idea dates back to the Babylonian exile of the Jews from Jerusalem around 600 BCE. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Development of Monotheism in Judaism" essay for you Create order During this time the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the first temple built by Solomon. This is significant as at the time the Jews believed that God, or Yahweh, physically lived in the temple. So when the temple was destroyed, and subsequently the Jewish exile, the Jews were faced with questions surrounding Yahweh. The argument I will be making in this paper is how and why slowly over time, in answering those questions, the Jewish community created the idea of monotheism. The idea that the Jews created monotheism following the subsequent Babylonian exile overtime signifies that at one time Jewish religion was polytheistic. Proof of this can be found from the Old Testament Bible or the Torah. One such example found in the Bible is in Exodus chapter 15 verse 11 which states: Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? In the events leading up to this part of scripture, we find that, according to the Bible, Moses and the children of Israel have just successfully crosse d the red sea and fled from Pharoahs army with the Lord, or Yahweh, being responsible for freeing them from Egyptian bondage. After those events, Moses and the children of Israel start praising Yahweh, and the passage of scripture shared is one of the statements they make while praising him. This is one example of an instance in the Bible where we see the ancient Jews acknowledge the existence of other gods. Along with this are other verses in the Book of Psalm. Psalm 135 verse 5 states, For I know that the Lord is great and that our Lord is above all gods. This again shows that while they believed Yahweh to be above all other gods, they still acknowledged the existence of other gods. Even one of the ten commandments within the Bible implies the existence of other gods when it says in Exodus chapter 20 verse 3, Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This implies that there are other gods in which they could worship. All of these verses were written before the Babylonian exile, and they show that Jews were indeed at one time polytheistic. Once we have established that the Jews were at one time polytheisti c, the question now is when Judaism developed into a Monotheist religion, and whether they developed it themselves or adopted the idea from somewhere else. To start with, lets look at a verse written after the Babylonian exile. Isaiah chapter 44 verse 6 states: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me, there is no God. This shows the change in belief over time in the Bible from the acknowledgment of other gods to now stating that there are no other gods but Yahweh himself. Why is this though? When looking at the time periods of these verses written we can see that the change from polytheism to monotheism within the Bible occurs following the Babylonian exile. Although its not until after the exile that you see Isaiah stating that Yahweh is the only god, the groundworks for the change to monotheism evolved slowly over time according to the book, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, written by Robert Karl Gnuse. In his book, he states that the idea of Monotheism developed over time through certain events, and the culmination of these events following the Babylonian exile resulted in the change to Monotheism. Such events leading off to the change to Monotheism include when King David made Yahweh the national high god above Baal (page 101). Another development leading to monotheism was the prophets overtime pushing for the worship of only Yahweh and the claims of Yahweh having power over the other gods. An example of this is can be found in 1 Kings chapter 18 when the prophet Elijah challenges the prophets of Baal to see which god will be able to provide fire for them first. Elijah does this to prove that Yahweh should be followed instead of Baal. This is shown in biblical scripture when he says to the people, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. Following this is when he challenges the prophets of Baal. Elijah wins the challenge, proving to the people that Yahweh is the superior god. Following this, the people slaughtered the prophets of Baal and worshiped Yahweh above Baal. Others followed in solidifying Yahweh as the god to be worshipped in Israel, and all of this helped develop the idea of monotheism following the Babylonian exile. Why then did it take the exile for Judaism to officially become monotheistic? The growing belief that Yahweh was more powerful than the other gods and subsequently deserved to be worship ped above other gods led to political and social conflicts. Due to this, the state hindered the growth of Yahwism into becoming monotheistic in order to relieve those conflicts according to Gnuses book (page 104). Gnuses book also states that The full development of monotheism also was connected to a fight against the emergence of social classes. Hence, true monotheism could arise only in the exile after the collapse of society with all the attendant social structures and the political-national religion of Judah (page 105). Thus the Babylonian exile was necessary for Judaism or Yahwism to fully convert to monotheism, being free of the state and societal issues from hindering this growth. After concluding all of this it may be wondered what necessitated the complete change to monotheism. Following the exile the Jews were faced with being surrounded by foreign cultures, and to avoid being assimilated into those other cultures, and to keep other gods from being worshipped in their culture, they needed to develop their own distinctly Israelite culture. The result of this was the cultural change to Yahweh being the only true deity, which meant the denial of all gods of other groups of people around them. Another factor that could have played a role in the complete change to monotheism would be the desire to keep different sub-groups of Jews from developing. Gnuse talks in his book about the fact that there were Jews who only believed in and worshipped Yahwey prior to the exile, while there were others that worshipped Yahweh along with other gods. Jews having different theological beliefs could have led to splits into sub-groups following the exile, which would have weaken ed them and their culture as a whole, and eventually could have led to the assimilation into other cultures around them. All of this was avoided by the change to monotheism, which is why I believe that these problems could have been a contributing factor to the change to monotheism. Along with that, the questions that arose from the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem led to a change in thinking from believing that Yahweh physically lived in the temple, to that he could be anywhere at any time. Also with the destruction of the temple, under their prior belief of other gods, the logical conclusion to be made was that either Yahweh had lied to the Jews, or that he was weaker than the Babylonian gods. Neither of those answers gave any hope to Yahwism or the Jews, and neither answer was a satisfying conclusion to their questions. That is when the idea of monotheism came to fruition as the only satisfying answer to the questions brought up due to the destruction of the Temple were that he is the only God and that he doesnt physically live only in one place, and these ideas brought about the full transition to the idea of monotheism. In conclusion, we can see through biblical text that predates the Babylonian exile that Jews in ancient Israel were originally polytheistic and that the idea of monotheism developed over time, resulting in the change to monotheism following the Babylonian exile. We can also see that the reasons for the development of monotheism within Judaism resulte d from the questions following the destruction of the temple, and the new surroundings they were presented with due to the exile. Whether you are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, you believe in monotheism. And the Babylonian exile is the reason why you do.