The Scarlet Letter vs. the Crucible Essay - 703 Words

6 December 2010 The edgy tale of The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne is comparable in many ways to Arthur Miller’s haunting play The Crucible. Both are set in Puritan New England in the 17th century and revolve around the harsh law enforcement of the time. However, The Scarlet Letter tells the story of a woman as she deals with her heavy Puritan punishment, whereas The Crucible follows hysteria as it spreads throughout an entire town. Hester Prynne, the main character of The Scarlet Letter, was found guilty for adultery and sentenced to wear a red letter A on her chest to inform people of her sin. Similarly, The Crucible’s main character John Proctor admits to having committed lechery and is sent to jail for this and for being a†¦show more content†¦In an open courtroom John doesn’t only admit to his sin, but expresses his regret for it; yet Hester refuses to speak any details about her sin and shows no emotion towards it whatsoever. This lack of e motion shown by Hester is completely reversed when analyzing the antagonists involved in these works. The main similarity between the two villains is that they both have great emotions towards the main characters. â€Å"[Abigail] thinks to dance with [John] on [his] wife’s grave!† and wishes to once again win his love (Miller 106) The main emotion held by Abigail Williams is therefore lust. In contrast, Roger Chillingworth wishes for Hester to suffer for her sin. â€Å"Even if I imagine a scheme of vengeance, what could I do better for my object that to let thee live, – than to give thee medicines against all harm and peril of life, – so that this burning shame may still blaze upon thy bosom?† (Hawthorne 62) Another large difference between Abby and Roger is how they react with the other characters in their separate tales. Abby’s popularity is crucial in The Crucible. If she were not to have had the support of the other young girls of the to wn and the trust of Danforth and Hale, then Miss Williams never would have been able to accomplish as much as she did. On the polar opposite end, Chillingworth’s reclusiveness is a defining factor within The Scarlet Letter. His image as â€Å"The Leech† helps to demonstrateShow MoreRelatedThe Scarlet Letter And The Crucible821 Words   |  4 Pagesis one that that is both emitted in the Scarlet Letter and The Crucible. Both literary works share similar ideas, but also have quite a few differences. Nathaniel Hawthorne, the writer, utilizes symbolism for the scarlet letter, to be a symbol of Hester’s shame. The embroidered â€Å"A† on Hester’s bosom symbolizes the sin of adultery which she had committed. Not only was the sign of embarrasment used but also the scaffold had great importance in the Scarlet Letter. The scaffold was used as place of humiliationRead MoreThe Crucible : Nature Vs Nurture Debate2002 Words   |  9 Pagesrunning discussions in psychology is the nature vs nurture debate. That is, is human behavior influenced more by environmental factors in one’s life, such as parents, or by genetics and biological factors? In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch is described as an outstanding role model for his children, Jem and Scout, teaching them morals, discipline, and important lessons such as the acceptance of those who are different. In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne describes Hester PrynneRead More William Faulkners Use of Shakespeare Essay5388 Words   |  22 Pagesperspective of the present. One of the best illustrations of this point is Arthur Miller’s great play, The Crucible, on the literal level a treatment of the mass hysteria evidenced in the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692 but through contextual parallels an expose of the McCarthyism that was rampant in America at the time Miller published the play, 1953. There can be no denying that The Crucible is an â₠¬Å"historical† play; but it would certainly be a mistake to view the play as merely or even primarily

Is Latin America a More Democratic Place Today Free Essays

Is Latin America a more democratic place today than it was in 1945? Given the word and time restrictions, an in depth analysis of each Latin American country’s democratic progression across the time period would simply not be feasible. Instead I will attempt to look at Latin America’s progression as a whole and will provide examples of specific countries situations where relevant, in particular Venezuela. Firstly it is important to distinguish between two ideas. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Latin America a More Democratic Place Today? or any similar topic only for you Order Now One is democracy. For democracy to work, there must be free and fair elections. There must be more than one political party. The people of the country should have a good education so that they can make informed choices. They should share a common culture. All must accept the idea that everyone has equal rights. Finally, there must be rule by law, not by power. In other words there must be a separation of power, which means that the judiciary has to be a completely different body from the governing power of the country. Many nations in Latin America have had dif? culty achieving democracy because all these factors are not present. The second idea is that of democratic culture. This involves the existence of constitutions, respect for rights, transparency when it comes to policies and governmental decisions and crucially, no corruption. Latin America, when viewed as a whole, is generally viewed as a more democratic place now than in 1945 but it would be wrong to assert that during the past 68 years Latin American countries have undergone a steady increase in democracy. Brazil is a prime example of a country that has gone through fluctuations in democracy throughout the period. Currently in Latin America, despite being in a state of relative poverty when compared to the rest of the world, the majority of countries have become, at least formally, electoral democracies. 13 countries are now classed as free, 8 as partially free, with only Cuba and Haiti being deemed as not. Venezuela, following the recent passing of Hugo Chavez, is at a crossroads on its journey to democracy. However many question how democratic a ruler Chavez actually was in his time as president. One of two very important relationships to analyse is that of democracy and the level of development in a country or in this case Latin America. This leads on to what is one of the most stable relationships in social sciences, the positive correlation between high levels of wealth and established democracy (Lipset 1959). To back this statistic up, a democratic regime has never fallen after a country has reached a certain level of income per capita, which is said to be $6055 (Przeworski 2000). In 1945 Latin America was still recovering from the economic shockwaves caused by the great depression of 1930. This global economic crisis meant that the rest of the world was not demanding any imports from Latin America. At the time these would have been mainly raw materials and this lack of export revenue for the South American countries had a detrimental effect on their situations in the majority of cases. During the decade or so after the great depression, around 1945, the effects will have trickled down and income per capita and GDP levels will have been significantly reduced. This will in turn have destabilised democracy attempts and can be viewed as a reason for why Latin America was less democratic then than it is now. Without the economic and financial means it is very difficult to achieve a fully functioning democracy. Of course it is worth pointing out that we are nearing the end of a fairly gruelling global economic downturn today but the consequences for Latin America are far less in this instance. The economic growth in Latin America has been very modest throughout the 68 years in question but more importantly it has been volatile. Periods of prosperity in several countries have been followed by long periods of stagnation and even negative growth. This volatility can be seen in Latin American countries progression since independence in terms of democracy as well. Take Brazil as an example. The country became independent in 1822 and was ruled by a monarchy. In 1930 this monarchy was overthrown and the country was under a dictatorship for a couple of decades. In 1956 an elected leader was installed only to be replaced by military rule 10 years later. Finally in the 1980’s, as a result of yet another economic decline, Brazil was yet again ruled by an elected president. The other significant relationship that needs to be looked at is that of democracy and corruption. Corruption is usually defined as a violation of the norms of public office for personal gain (Nye 1967). It has been suggested that corruption permeates everyday life in Latin America with only very high profile cases ever being unveiled in a court of law and even then this only happens in the more democratic countries (Blake and Morris 2009). Here are a few statistics to back this assertion up. In a 2004 survey 42 % of respondents ranked the probability of paying a bribe to the police as high, while 35% expressed the same ease of bribing a judge (Blake and Morris 2009). In a 2005 survey, 43% of respondents in Paraguay and 31% in Mexico admitted to having paid a bribe just within the past twelve months (Blake and Morris 2009). Democracy has a complex and multifaceted relationship to corruption (Doig and Theobald 2000). It provides alternative avenues to obtain and then use power and wealth. This leads to brand new opportunities for corruption. However despite the fact that democracy makes it easier for corruption to exist, when there is a democracy it becomes of even greater importance to supress corruption as it strikes at the very meaning of democracy itself. To sum this idea up, corruption undermines the essence of citizenship, distorting and crippling democracy (Blake and Morris 2009). It is clear from the statistics in the previous paragraph that corruption continues in today’s Latin America to have a tight grip over many if not all of its countries. Therefore it is very difficult to say that democracy has come on in leaps and bounds since 1945 when as crucial a factor as corruption is still such a plague to the region. Another factor when looking at democracy in the continent is the level of education. People must be aware of the fact that there is more than one option in a democracy. It is also crucial that the population of a country understands the concept of propaganda. A democracy can only work in a country with a certain level of education otherwise it can easily be classed as brainwashing, especially with the level of influence that the media can have over an ill-educated population. An example of what a lack of education can do in a democracy is that during the elections in which Chavez was voted in, he very nearly missed out on the appointment because his main rival was a former Miss Venezuela. The implication of this is that a worrying amount of the Venezuelan public didn’t vote for Chavez because there was a far better looking female alternative. Of course this could just be cynicism and she may well have had a very impressive manifesto and realistic yet progressive goals. During Chavez’ time in power though, he managed to substantially increase literacy along with reducing poverty by over half. Chavez had many positive effects on Venezuela, not least providing them with 14 years of stable rule. However his recent death has thrown the country off its feet and they are at risk of descending into political turmoil. Further examples of why Latin America was less democratic in 1945 include the fact that leading South American countries such as Columbia and Argentina had still not given women the right to vote. Universal suffrage is something that can be found in certain definitions of democracy for example Dahl’s and was definitely holding those countries back at that stage in their bid for democracy (Dahl 1971). To conclude, it is safe to say that Latin American countries are in a better overall place than in 1945 but that corruption in particular is holding them back. A country needs to be not only ready for democracy but also willing to accept it. It can definitely be argued that not all Latin American countries are ready for democracy but one final point may indicate that they are nearing acceptance of it. This is that something the Latin Americans care greatly about is their national identity, an idea that is very closely linked to democracy. Therefore with the rapid increase in globalisation endangering this coveted national identity, South American countries are rapidly warming to the idea of being democratic. Bibliography: Charles H. Blake Stephen D. Morris (1999), Corruption and Democracy in Latin America, published by the University of Pittsburgh Press. * R. A. Dahl (1971), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, published by Yale University Press. * Alan Doig and Robin Theobald (2000), Corruption and Democratization. * S. M. Lipset (1959), Some Social Requisites of Democracy, Economic Development and Political Illegitimacy. * A. Przewor ski (2000), Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-being in the World 1950-1990, Cambridge University Press. How to cite Is Latin America a More Democratic Place Today?, Essay examples

Was Trade the Most Important Factor of British Empire free essay sample

At the Catty Sara I learned that the ship traded tea from China. It was able to carry 10,335 tea chests. It left from London with mining gear, beer, coal and household goods. This shows that trade was quite an important factor for the Empire because people were able to use items and foods that they did not get in their own country and it also increases colonization because some people from the UK would stay in China gathering all of the cargo onto the ship and would Stay there to make sure trade was always going on.The ship would of shipped off a lot of cargo and the living conditions would have been very bad. The men on board would of had to do many jobs. This shows that being on board a ship was not always a pleasant experience. The ship had many sales so that it could travel faster. We will write a custom essay sample on Was Trade the Most Important Factor of British Empire or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The Catty Sara would export cargo from the United Kingdom such as items like mining gear, beer, coal, household goods, some weaponry and especially wool. In Australia from 1869-1892 there ended up being 100,000,000 sheep in Australia. There were not that many men on board.There were 30 men on board at the most and almost half of them were apprentices. Most of the crew on board the ship would abandon it when they got to Australia. This increased colonization in another part Of the world. At the National Maritime Museum I learnt more about the East India Company. The Europeans began to trade with Asia by sea around the 1 asss. The first European to sail from Europe to Asia was Vases ad Gamma. Many different European countries traded with sailed to Southern India for things like spices and pepper. This is exactly what the Dutch did.Robert Knox sailed room Great Britain to Southern India because of the East India Company. Many of the things that were traded helped the ELK. Pepper which came from India protected people against the Plague. The Navy was the most important thing with trading because it allowed you to get to different countries. Trade caused a lot of conflict like at the Battle of Pleases in 1757 where Clive defeated the Nab(prince) Syria dud-Dual. This was a turning point because the British ended up capturing India. This is also a turning point because they would have more land and begin to colonies in India.It also would have made heir rivals such as the Dutch angry because they would now be trading with the British. The East India Company was very efficient during trade because it was able to give people more jobs, more goods and also more allies. At the Painted Hall there was not much to learn about trade or colonization etc.. Instead of those things we saw a whole room that was painted with different Gods, Kings, Queens, Seasons, Ships and these were all merged together to make as if it was telling small stories. The hall was painted by a man called James Thrills and he wanted to make this so that he could get ore money.I think that the hall was made like that for National Pride because when an apprentice would walk into a room like that they would be proud of their country and would be motivated to make his country proud. The men and women who made the British Empire would have been motivated because of factors such as national pride, wealth, fame, making allies, agriculture, weaponry. These all show that the British were trying to make their country known. It does not really surprise me because if you look at any country, they all want to spread their culture and gain power but some Mounties know how to do it better than others.I think that trade was the most important factor of the British Empire because it was the most powerful trading nation in the world, they arrived in the country to trade in the first place, many products Were brought to Britain some of which we still have today and if trade never began then we would not have things like tea, coffee, exotic fruits, spices etc.. The other factors are important because Britain created allies, spread religion quickly and beat their rivals in war. These are all good factors but none of it would have appended if trade did not really begin.From 1603-1677 million pounds more pepper was exported from India to the LIKE. This helped them in war because they were able to gain allies. Even though there was conflict like at the Battle of Pleases there was somebody in India to help the East India Company. The increase of tea exports from China between 1 701 to 1801 was 31,500,000 pounds. During trade with different countries it also increased the amount of money in the Trade is also important because of the slave trade and how many workers they were able to work for them. It also allowed them to get goods from the Caribbean and also gain allies from Africa. There are negatives to the slave trade on how they treated the workers and how much they made them work in such terrible conditions. The middle passage was the worst because the slaves would get whipped and the conditions below deck would be so bad because it wool be very cramped. They hardly got any food and they were made to work unwillingly with no pay. If they were punished they were either marked or in a really bad incident then they would be killed to set an example to the other slaves.Young children and old people would do minor jobs like picking up litter and extra grains to throw away. People who were quite Strong such as young men would work on the plantations and women would work in the slavers houses doing the cooking and cleaning in the houses. The white people would not do that much other than collect the money. The living conditions were also really bad because they would hardly have any space and it would be very cramped. That all changed when slaves became Christian and people began to feel as if they should not make their fellow Christians work with no pay.Religion was increased because of the slaves and colonization in different countries but they would have had to trade to make this happen. To beat their rivals Great Britain would have also used trade to gain allies and generate a larger army. They would have also gained more weapons. Trade was also a very big factor for the British Empire because it gained fame and wealth for the UK. It helped make their country known and to spread their culture. Even though it took quite a long time to get to each location that they needed to get to it was all worth it in the end because they ended up bringing jack a lot of cargo which could last the I.J for quite a long time. It helped that the navy were good because it meant that trade would be a lot easier because they would be able to get to each place quicker and would be able to navigate themselves well. Even though there were many important factors Of the British Empire personally think that trade was the most important because it increased the United Kingdoms economy, agriculture, fame, wealth, culture and goods exported from other countries. That is why trade in my opinion is the most important factor of the growth of the British Empire.

Free Essays on Catepillar Case

Caterpillar Case Between the 1980’s and 1990’s, Caterpillar was experiencing problems that could shake the foundation of their company’s stability and future. Several strategic analyses were done on the company along with solutions to get the company back on its feet. Some of the problems Caterpillar was experiencing included, core operations were too costly, some of their equipment was old, their production process was slow, their production design activities were too costly and they were having union disagreements. In the 1980’s, Caterpillar’s name was recognized globally and they were considered a leader in the heavy-duty construction equipment industry. They were facing an industry collapse and union difficulties. Global demand was dropping and the yen was weak which allowed their biggest rival, Japan’s Komatsu Ltd., to undercut prices by 40% and Komatsu began gaining market share. This coupled with a lengthy, debilitating strike with the Union Auto Workers (UAW) in 1990-91 made the situation worse. Donald Fites, who was named CEO of Caterpillar took an aggressive stance toward the UAW and put a strategy in place to rebuild Caterpillar as the industry leader. Mr. Fites strategic plan began with, seeking low-cost and speed enhancing leadership advantages. He would do this by integrating production activities across multiple models to gain economies of scale, speed up production processes with newer technology, and reduce inventory costs with increased JIT accommodated with speedier production activities: Mr. Fites began overhauling in Caterpillar’s manufacturing in the core truck and tractor operations. Almost $2 billion was invested to modernize his U.S. plants with new state of the art machinery, which helped to slash time, and vastly simplified production. Cat can now build 20 different models from the same basic design and coupled with the increased use of temporary workers in the nonunion plants h... Free Essays on Catepillar Case Free Essays on Catepillar Case Caterpillar Case Between the 1980’s and 1990’s, Caterpillar was experiencing problems that could shake the foundation of their company’s stability and future. Several strategic analyses were done on the company along with solutions to get the company back on its feet. Some of the problems Caterpillar was experiencing included, core operations were too costly, some of their equipment was old, their production process was slow, their production design activities were too costly and they were having union disagreements. In the 1980’s, Caterpillar’s name was recognized globally and they were considered a leader in the heavy-duty construction equipment industry. They were facing an industry collapse and union difficulties. Global demand was dropping and the yen was weak which allowed their biggest rival, Japan’s Komatsu Ltd., to undercut prices by 40% and Komatsu began gaining market share. This coupled with a lengthy, debilitating strike with the Union Auto Workers (UAW) in 1990-91 made the situation worse. Donald Fites, who was named CEO of Caterpillar took an aggressive stance toward the UAW and put a strategy in place to rebuild Caterpillar as the industry leader. Mr. Fites strategic plan began with, seeking low-cost and speed enhancing leadership advantages. He would do this by integrating production activities across multiple models to gain economies of scale, speed up production processes with newer technology, and reduce inventory costs with increased JIT accommodated with speedier production activities: Mr. Fites began overhauling in Caterpillar’s manufacturing in the core truck and tractor operations. Almost $2 billion was invested to modernize his U.S. plants with new state of the art machinery, which helped to slash time, and vastly simplified production. Cat can now build 20 different models from the same basic design and coupled with the increased use of temporary workers in the nonunion plants h...

A History of The Rolling Stones

A History of The Rolling Stones The longest-performing rock band of all time, the Rolling Stones have greatly influenced rock and roll throughout the decades. Beginning as part of the British Rock Invasion of the 1960s, the Rolling Stones quickly became the â€Å"bad-boy† band with an image of sex, drugs, and wild behavior. After five decades together, the Rolling Stones have amassed eight #1 singles and ten consecutive gold albums. Dates: 1962-Present Also Known As: The Stones Original Members: Mick Jagger - lead vocals, harmonicaKeith Richards - guitar, backing vocalsCharlie Watts - drumsBrian Jones - guitar, harmonica, sitar, backing vocalsIan Stewart - pianoBill Wyman - bass guitar, backing vocals Current Members: Mick Jagger - lead vocals, harmonicaKeith Richards – guitarCharlie Watts – drumsRon Wood - bass guitar Overview   The Rolling Stones were a British band, begun in the early 1960s, influenced by American rhythm and blues artists such as Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Fats Domino, as well as jazz musician Miles Davis. However, the Rolling Stones eventually created their own sound by experimenting with instruments and writing rhythm and blues mixed with rock and roll. When the Beatles hit international stardom in 1963, the Rolling Stones were right on their heels. While the Beatles became known as the good-boy band (influencing pop rock), the Rolling Stones became known as the bad-boy band (influencing blues-rock, hard rock, and grunge bands). Important Friendships In the early 1950s, Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were elementary-school classmates in Kent, England, until Jagger went to a different school. Nearly a decade later, their friendship was rekindled after a chance encounter at a train station in 1960. While Jagger was on his way to the London School of Economics where he was studying accounting, Richards was commuting to Sidcup Art College where he was studying graphic art. Since Jagger had a couple of Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters records under his arm when they met, talk quickly turned to music. They discovered that Jagger had been singing adolescent â€Å"love frustration† songs in underground clubs in London while Richards had been playing the guitar since the age of 14. The two young men once again became friends, creating a partnership that has kept the Rolling Stones together for decades. Looking for an outlet to try out their musical talent, Jagger and Richards, plus another young musician named Brian Jones, began to occasionally play in a band named Blues Incorporated (the first electric RB band in Britain). The band embraced aspiring young musicians with an interest in this type of music, allowing them to perform in cameo appearances. This is where Jagger and Richards met Charlie Watts, who was the drummer for Blues Incorporated. Forming the Band Soon, Brian Jones decided to start his own band. To get started, Jones placed an advertisement in Jazz News on May 2, 1962, inviting musicians to audition for a new RB group. Pianist Ian â€Å"Stu† Stewart was the first to respond. Then Jagger, Richards, Dick Taylor (bass guitar), and Tony Chapman (drums) joined as well. According to Richards, Jones named the band while on the phone trying to book a gig. When asked for a band name, Jones glanced down at a Muddy Waters LP, saw one of the tracks named â€Å"Rollin’ Stone Blues† and said, â€Å"Rollin’ Stones.† The new band, named Rollin’ Stones and led by Jones, played their first performance at the Marquee Club in London on July 12, 1962. The Rollin’ Stones soon secured a residency at the Crawdaddy Club, bringing in younger audiences who were looking for something new and exciting. This new sound, a renaissance of blues performed by young British musicians, had kids standing on the tables, rocking, dancing, and shouting to the sound of electric guitars with a provocative singer. Bill Wyman (bass guitar, backing vocals) joined in December 1962, replacing Dick Taylor who went back to college. Wyman wasn’t their first choice, but he had an amplifier the band desired. Charlie Watts (drums) joined the following January, replacing Tony Chapman who left for another band. The Rolling Stones Cut a Record Deal In 1963, the Rollin’ Stones signed with a manager named Andrew Oldham, who had been helping to promote the Beatles. Oldham saw the Rollin’ Stones as the â€Å"anti-Beatles† and decided to promote their bad-boy image to the press. Oldham also changed the spelling of the band’s name by adding a â€Å"g,† making it â€Å"Rolling Stones† and changed Richards’ last name to Richard (which Richard later changed back to Richards). Also in 1963, the Rolling Stones cut their first single, Chuck Berry’s â€Å"Come On.† The song hit #21 on the UK singles chart. The Stones appeared on the TV show, Thank Your Lucky Stars, to perform the song while wearing matching houndstooth jackets to appease television producers. Their second hit single, â€Å"I Wanna Be Your Man,† written by the Lennon-McCartney songwriting duo of the Beatles, reached #12 on the UK chart. Their third single, Buddy Holly’s â€Å"Not Fade Away,† hit #3 on the same chart. This was their first American hit that went to #48 on the American chart. Parents Hate the Stones The press turned an eye toward the Rolling Stones, a group of brash punks upsetting the status quo by playing black music to young white audiences. A March 1964 article in the British weekly Melody Maker titled, â€Å"Would You Let Your Sister Go With a Stone,† created such a stir that 8,000 kids showed up at the Rolling Stones’ next gig. The band decided the press was good for their popularity and thus purposely started shenanigans such as growing their hair and wearing casual, mod-style (modified) suits to receive more media attention. The Rolling Stones Roll into America Becoming too big to perform in clubs by early 1964, the Rolling Stones went on a British tour. In June 1964, the band rolled into America to perform concerts and to record at Chess Studios in Chicago as well as the Hollywood RCA Studios, where they captured the vibrant, earthy sound they desired due to better acoustics. Their American concert in San Bernardino, California, was well received by excited schoolboys and screaming schoolgirls, even without a major hit record in the States. But the Midwest concerts proved spotty because no one had heard of them. Crowds picked up again at the New York concert. Once back in Europe, the Rolling Stones released their fourth single, Bobby Womack’s â€Å"It’s All Over Now,† which they had recorded in America at Chess Studios. A fanatical Stones cult began to form after the song hit #1 on the UK charts. It was their very first #1 hit. Jagger and Richards Start Writing Songs Oldham urged Jagger and Richards to start writing their own songs, but the duo found that writing blues was harder than they expected. Instead, they ended up writing a type of morphed blues-rock, a hybrid of blues with a heavier melody than improvisation. On their second trip to America in October 1964, the Rolling Stones performed on the Ed Sullivan TV show, changing the words to â€Å"Let’s Spend the Night Together† (written by Richards and Jagger) to â€Å"Let’s Spend Some Time Together† due to censorship. That same month they appeared in the concert film the T.A.M.I. Show in Santa Monica, California, with James Brown, the Supremes, Chuck Berry, and the Beach Boys. Both venues greatly improved their American exposure and Jagger began to mimic the moves of James Brown. Their Mega Hit The Rolling Stones’ 1965 mega-hit, â€Å"(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction,† with Richards’ fuzz-guitar riff designed to imitate the sound of a horn section, hit #1 worldwide. Their musical attitude, a mixture of rebellion and irreverence using urgent guitars, tribal drums, forceful harmonicas, and sexually tensed vocals, seduced the young and alarmed the old. When the Rolling Stones had another #1 hit, â€Å"Paint It Black,† the following year, they had begun to secure their rock-star status. Although Brian Jones had started the band, the leadership of the Rolling Stones shifted to Jagger and Richards once they had proved themselves to be a strong songwriting team. Drugs, Death, and Citations By 1967, the members of the Rolling Stones were living like rock-stars, which meant they were abusing a lot of drugs. It was in that year that Richards, Jagger, and Jones were all charged with possession of drugs (and given suspended sentences). Unfortunately, Jones was not only addicted to drugs; his mental health spiraled out of control. By 1969, the rest of the band members could no longer tolerate Jones, so he left the band on June 8. Just a few weeks later, Jones drowned in his swimming pool on July 2, 1969. By the late 1960s, the Rolling Stones had become the bad boys they had once promoted themselves to be. Their concerts from this period, filled with teenagers from the growing counterculture movement (young people experimenting with communal living, music, and drugs), were raucous enough to lead to a number of citations against the Rolling Stones for causing concert violence. Jagger’s Nazi goose-stepping onstage didn’t help. Rolling Stones Gather No Moss in the 70s, 80s, and 90s By the early 1970s, the Rolling Stones were a controversial group, banned from many countries and exiled from Britain in 1971 for not paying their taxes. The Stones fired their manager Allen Klein (who had taken over from Oldham in 1966) and started their own record label, Rolling Stones Records. The Rolling Stones continued to write and record music, mixing in punk and disco genres inspired by new band member Ron Woods. Richards was arrested in Toronto for heroin trafficking, resulting in legal limbo for 18 months; he was subsequently sentenced to perform a benefit concert for the blind. Richards then quit heroin. During the early 1980s, the band experimented with the new-wave genre, but members began to pursue solo careers due to creative differences. Jagger wanted to continue experimenting with contemporary sounds, and Richards wanted to stay rooted in blues. Ian Stewart suffered a fatal heart attack in 1985. In the late 80s, The Rolling Stones realized they were stronger together. They chose to reunite and announced a new album. By the end of the decade, the Rolling Stones were inducted into the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989. In 1993, Bill Wyman announced his retirement. The Stones’ Voodoo Lounge album won the Grammy Award for Best Rock Album in 1995 and prompted a world tour. Jagger and Richards agreed that their drifting in the 80s attributed to their success in the 90s. They believe that had they stayed together, they would have broken up. The Stones Keep On Rollin into the New Millennium The Rolling Stones have endured waxing and waning popularity over the decades. While band members are now in their sixties and seventies in the new millennium, they still perform, tour, and record. In 2003, Jagger was knighted to Sir Michael Jagger, causing another riff between himself and Richards, especially, according to Richards, because the band’s message had always been anti-establishment. There was also a public outcry that questioned the appropriateness of knighting a former British tax exile. Documentaries regarding the band’s exceptionally long and controversial career capture the counterculture movement, perfecting the technology of recording records, and flamboyantly performing to live audiences. The band’s lips and tongue logo, designed by John Pasche in the 70s (a symbol of their anti-establishment message), is one of the most identifiable band icons in the world.

Should Athletes be role models Annotated Bibliography

Should Athletes be role models - Annotated Bibliography Example Dr. Connor asks that are the millions spent on the quest for Olympic gold really value for money. The investment is meant to buy success, create role models and encourage engagement, but it does not. The Olympics was founded on participation and the "spirit" of sport. We have now moved so far into ugly nationalism and crass commercialism. The role-model argument is an obvious furphy. Nary has a week gone by without yet another scandal involving an elite athlete - be it drugs, alcohol or violence. As role models, they certainly are poor choices. Athletes, by definition, are obsessive often to the point of being clinically compulsive in their behavior. The author of this article has presented two contradicting views of people about athletes and their conduct as role model. He elucidates that there are two groups of people having varied opinion about it. One group believes that athletes are just similar to other professionals who are being hired and paid by their employers to exhibit best possible performance in their respective sports and, by no means, they are liable to act as role models. While the other group believes that, sportsmen have assumed the status of public figures and they are sometimes blindly being followed by people specially the youth, so it is their social and moral obligation to present themselves as role models. The author of this book is a female athlete and presents women athletes as cultural icons.

Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations - Essay Example Include your personal definition of inclusion and diversity.  Describe what diversity encompasses, and explain the intersections of multiple forms of diversity in organizations. Diversity and inclusion is many things. In its most superficial definition, D&I is a legal mandate, a requirement for organizations to comply with, and which may open a firm to sanctions and penalties if found in violation of its provisions. However, diversity and inclusion should be more than mere compliance with a requirement. It should entail a change of heart and perspective. The core to D&I’s goals and aspirations is social reform, the eradication of barriers between perceived majority and minority groups which creates unjustified advantages for some and disadvantages for others on the basis of their affiliations. Diversity encompasses the treatment of people as people. Inclusion does not mean the elimination of difference so that all people are the same; it means treating people in the same man ner despite their differences, and even with the acknowledgement and celebration of these differences. Several of the readings in this course described diversity as a source of competitive advantage for organizations, where multifaceted skills and perspectives can be brought to the workplace in support of the company goals. While that is perfectly true, and companies should look to this advantage, it is not the essence of diversity and inclusion. Had it been, then D&I would have just been a means of taking advantage of people’s differences. In an organization, the application of diversity and inclusion may be so diffuse and ambiguous that it is difficult to notice at times whether an issue has D&I implications or not. For instance, assigning people to subsidiaries in certain geographical areas (specially for a multinational organization) on the basis of their ethnicity may be a sensible thing to do from the viewpoint of the organization, but it may be judgmental from the view point of the individual who may not want to be designated there. The very fact that makes people subjects of D&I also in a way reinforces differences among groups and works against their full inclusion. Discuss the impact of diversity on individual and organizational effectiveness.   Discuss some of the tools necessary to lead, direct, and build inclusive organizations. Diversity and inclusion is a source of strategic advantage for an organization; this has been mentioned in all the readings and finds no strong opposition in any of the opinions and reactions discussed in this forum. As to whether or not the advantage is properly optimized or explored is another matter. The inclusion of diverse people in an organization does not automatically ensure individual and organizational effectiveness. As has been voiced in this forum, some organizations merely pay lip service to D&I without imbibing the essence of it. As is true for all individuals, if the organization capably harmonizes p ersonal goals with organizational goals, then the creativity and industry possessed by the individuals in the workforce shall be engaged, and the benefits of diversity realized. Diversity in this case, however, need not be along racial, gender, cultural, or any category identified as being D&I. It may be the skills and knowledge possessed by individuals because of their education, personal interests,