Theodore Isaac Ruben, former president of the American Institute of Psychoanalysis, asserts in his 1980 essay “Competition and Happiness” from the book “Reconciliation: Inner Peace in an Age of Anxiety,” that competition serves as an unnecessary barrier on people’s ability to live happy and meaningful lives and that it “brings out the worst” in people. Because of this, he argues, competition leads to issues with identity, stress, emotional stability, feelings of self-worth and what he describes as a “cycle” of a self-defeating state of mind that compels people to compete. He provides an example by describing a previously noncompetitive university in Switzerland. Each student was graded individually without any quizzes or exams and only needed to learn and understand the material being taught. According to Ruben, Americans were not very motivated by this and responded by forming competitive groups.
Get original essayWhile Ruben demonstrates some very excellent points I personally disagree. Ruben tends to focus more on the negative aspects of competition and neglects to consider the more positive features. While competition does have the potential to lead to an unbalanced life and possible physical/mental harm, there also benefits such as perseverance, determination, skills to cope with failure and the mindset for success. For example, every sport has competition in some way or some form. In basketball, there’s usually a team you become a part of. You use your mental abilities to formulate a goal for the game and opposing team along with incorporating physical features of yourself to achieve that goal. The experience alone is beneficial because you become physically strengthened, able to access more parts of the brain or be able to access them faster.
Other benefits Ruben neglects to mention are the friendships you would form with some of your competition's opponents. This fact contradicts the dark picture of competition that he describes. As is common knowledge, friendships have a positive impact on a person's life. Since competitions can provide opportunities to meet new people, competitions therefore can make a person's life easier. Creativity can also come from competition, as you would make an effort to devise new plans with a team or with yourself on how to overcome the obstacles presented or how to get to point A to B the quickest. As it gets the mind going with fresh new ideas, one may think of or achieve this state of mind when working on a particular project and make more progress on it than one might have had this person not been in a competition at all.
In short, I believe that competition is not a danger nor complete harm to a person's life as Ruben states. It would improve you mentally and physically, and while there is always potential for negative effects such as the ones mentioned I imagine that the benefits would far outweigh the cons if someone were to enter a competition. There is far more motivation to compete than for the incentives provided, and this serves as a platform on which a better life could be built on because of the many valuable experiences that could emerge from it.
Ted Hughes is a poet laureate lived from 1984 to 1998. He was a British poet, well renowned in his time and referred as the poet of 20th century. He also won a lot of awards for his extraordinary works i.e. The Whitbread Book of the Year two years running, for Tales from Ovid in 1997 and Birthday Letters in 1998, and was awarded an OBE in 1977, and the Order of Merit in 1998. He was extremely concentrated, symbolic writer well known for his direct, authoritative and depiction of ideas with animal symbolism. His work was highly influenced from his hometown, family, lifestyle, mythology and a lot more.
Get original essayThe things that are not to be taken literally are then stated using a technique in literature i.e. symbolism. The things that have in depth meaning in them can be used as symbolism. Symbolism is often used by writers to give a deeper insight to readers and also to make their writing fancy. Symbolism has the ability to give writing a rich look and meaning to the writing.
There are certain levels of symbolism which are incorporated in writing. First is literal which is the sentence meaning according to dictionary. Then is the symbolic meaning which is far meaningful in a holistic way. Symbolism is a creative way of putting words in writing and therefore gives a reader a lead to find interest in writer’s words and mind equally and see what the writer really wants to convey. The writer who uses symbolism is basically depicting a broader perspective of meaning related to the things he is talking about.
There are many writers in the contemporary poetry and one of them is Ted Hughes has a huge name in the genre. He is also known as animal poet because he talks a lot about animals in his poetry but the important point to discuss is that he uses animals as an imagery in order to talk about humans. Use of animals in his poems is a spiritual way of him writing poems. Ted uses an exceptionally extraordinary way to write his poems and almost all of them have symbolism. In his poems he uses animals to reveal humans emotions such as anger, sorrow, grief, betrayal etc. Image, myth and symbol are the ways through which his themes are explored. He has a great command over imagery. There are countless imageries in his poems and some of them have a particular meaning in all his works while the other changes from time to time. Ted Hughes uses animal images mostly in perspective of animal hunting in poems and prose and there is a repetitive order in the use of the images.
The first poem in this poetry analysis is titled ‘Thought-Fox’, which is one of the best examples of symbol.
“I imagine the midnight moments’ forest:
Something else is alive
Beside the clock’s loneliness”
The Thought-Fox describes in an understated and indistinct way of how the poem is written. What poets pit in writing is always an inspiration as they well thought and well stated ideas. From so many things in mind only what’s written on the paper is something most important. The fox exactly discusses the thoughts going on in poet’s mind. The fox here acts as a symbolism. Ted is greatly influenced by mythology and therefore it derives him to use it in his poetry. He uses those mythical symbols and stories for his own purpose and this likeness if him doesn’t stop him from using modern day symbolism. In half of the poem the poet gives references of the fox which is a symbol used for his thoughts going on in the mind quietly appearing. In other words, instinct takes over intellect.
Another key motif in The Thought-Fox is darkness. As fox is depicted as the deep thoughts of the poet’s mind who has the capability to distinguish and record the thoughts as mind wants to, darkness on the other hand refers to the poet being lost in his thoughts and desperately wants to get rid of them but there is no inspiration. Also, darkness is also in contrast with the idea of light of creativity and productivity. The poem depicts how fox is struggling in the darkness which gives the deeper meaning of staying consistent and losing oneself to darkness as greatest ideas are developed when the mind is empty and darkened with not lots of ideas but the less of them. The line, 'Something more near / Though deeper within darkness / Is entering the loneliness,' tells that fox is playing as an isolated animal.
Hughes is renowned for his nature based poetry and usage of animal symbolism. In both “The Jaguar” and “Hawk Roosting”, the animals symbolizes different human characteristics while remaining on the surface, and in depth. “The Jaguar” is written on a literal level about a trip to the zoo. The point of view is third person, seemingly from the eyes of a visitor at the zoo. However, on a deeper level, the poem is a statement on man’s modern state of existence, where the cages at the zoo are like our compartmentalized lives and the trapped animals are representing humankind. The Jaguar is introduced as an animal whose “stride is wildernesses of freedom.” He is the anomaly, the rebel, the revolutionary. “There’s no cage to him”: this statement is ironic because the jaguar, similar to all the other animals, is in a zoo cage. However, he has not let the bars trap him and dim down his true magnificence. His“eye satisfied to be blind in fire” because what he sees is beyond, is greater than anything that can be presented to him in the cage. His world is inside his head; and no matter how many physical constraints are put on him, he can not be caged. The jaguar is a symbol of rebellion: signifying all those individuals in society who do not conform to the invisible iron cage put around them. He signifies all the artists and poets and thinkers possibly even being a symbol for the poet himself. Even though the jaguar and other animals are in the same depressing situation, they’ve reacted in very different ways; and only the jaguar has managed to survive the imprisonment and not let the lack of physical freedom constrain his mind and his vision.
Similar to the character of the jaguar, in “Hawk Roosting”, the hawk has been portrayed as completely free, individualistic and powerful. However, the difference is that just as the jaguar was seen to positively make use of his mental freedom, using it to protect his dignity from degradation by those around him, the hawk shows the readers the negative side of this complete lack of regard for anyone else and/or social constraints. The Hawk embodies the characteristics of arrogance and pride. This poem, through the symbolic dramatic monologue of the hawk, gives us an insight into the mindset of a human driven by vanity to the point of a state of insanity, tyranny, aggression and evil. It is an animal poem, and yet comments on the violence, brutality and self-centeredness of humankind. Such as the hawk proudly claims “My manners are tearing off heads” and describes his flight path “through the bones of the living”, it can be a reference towards war and genocide where individuals are reduced to “heads” and “bones” as dehumanization is a requirement to be able to commit such large-scale atrocities.
The cow seems a strange animal to pick as a motif, but it is a symbol presented throughout many of Hughes' poems, becoming a motif in itself. In 'The Harvest Moon,' it speaks of, 'all the moonlit cows,' and in 'Full Moon and Little Frieda,' the reader sees the, 'cows are going home in the lane there,' and actually feels their breath as they pass the hedgerows. This would indicate an association of the cow with normality, with a tranquility of night, and with a reflection on the comfort and steady nature of the moon. “Full Moon and Little Frieda” also contains two main symbolic animal imageries. One of them is dog and second one is cow. Animals do not serve only the purpose of symbolism but also naturally adores the poem. In order to understand animal imagery in Hughes’s poems, a good intelligence is always required because it always symbolically explains something. A cow is an everyday animal, mundane and irrelevant in the lives of most, as they pass by fields full of them However, this is symbolic in Hughes' poems, giving a universal or generic outlook in these particular poems. It is normal life being described, not fantasy of mythical proportions, but reality. In 'Pied Beauty' the 'skies are of couple-colour as a brinded cow,' which presents the wonders of the sky in parallel with the mundane image of a cow. This actually puts the cow in a different lens, making it appear more beautiful then before, being intricately designed and painted. Therefore, as seen from this poem analysis, the symbol of the cow also highlights the great beauty and special aspects of nature that God has presented on earth.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayThus, as seen fom this poetry analysis essay, Ted Hughes’ symbols and images are spontaneously drawn from a wide variety of sources; yet the subtlety of his sole purport of self-analysis and self expiation through suffering unites them all. There is an inevitability about his obsessive squaring up to the problem of modern man’s self-alienation from nature and the consequent spiritual torpor.
Should children of color have to spend the most vulnerable years of their life in foster care or orphanages simply because a family of their race is unavailable? What if a family of a different race could adopt these children? Should they be put into a stable, loving home, or should they be kept in foster homes hoping that a family of the same-race is found? This process of finding same-race families can take years. Why put the children through such hard times when a loving family is available? It is unfair to the children! Interracial adoption benefits the families and children involved and needs acceptance by all Americans.
Get original essayOpponents of interracial adoption are concerned with identity development and psychological adjustment in children in interracial adoption, because they believe that people cannot raise children of a different race correctly. Therefore, they have referred to it as "cultural genocide." The National Association of Black Social Workers, the main organization against interracial adoption, believes that their environment and their families influence the children's values, attitudes, and self-image. Therefore, this organization believes that interracial adoption will diminish their culture.
Though some people believe that children in interracial adoptions will not identify with their own culture, actually exposure to both cultures allows them to bridge the culture gap. The most controversial adoptions are between white and black families; nevertheless, the interracial adoption allows the adopted children to function in both black and white cultures. Children in an interracial family tend not to show any racial preference, unlike children in same-race families who prefer their own race. Children in interracial families have the unique experience of living in a white and black world, and using this experience, they are able to understand and relate with their race and their adoptive parents' race. Because they are exposed to both ways of life, transracially adopted children are more likely to engage in interracial dating, friendships, and have a general acceptance for those of a different race when they are older rather than children who were adopted by same-race families. Obviously, the evidence proves that contact with both cultures allows the children to connect with their own culture and their parents' culture, giving them unique experiences, making them well-rounded people.
The child's feeling of belonging and of having a secure home with a loving family is of more importance than racial matching. Interracial adoption is usually successful in a home that provides love, security, and gives the child a positive sense of his/her racial identity. Interracial adoption is considered a success if the child adjusts well in adolescence and adulthood, has a positive sense of racial identity, has a good self-esteem, and is involved in social relationships with people of different races. Interracial adoptive parents look past the child's skin color to see a person that deserves to have a secure, loving family regardless of his/her race; furthermore, Americans should stop using skin color as a determinant for what is in the best interest of the child. As a result, interracial adoption would be less controversial and would allow children to have a more stable lifestyle. The quality of parenting is more important than whether the child is adopted interracially or by the same-race. Most people would agree with this statement, because the amount of love, support, and stability a family gives is more important to a child than race matching. In the movie Losing Isaiah, the adoptive mother Maggie is in court fighting to keep her African American adopted son, because his biological mother is trying to reclaim her rights. While being cross-examined, she asks the prosecuting lawyer:
What is your point, Mr. Lewis? That our skin isn't the right color? That we're incapable of teaching this child what he needs to learn? That I can't raise Isaiah to be an honorable man because I'm white? What about love? You haven't spoken that word here... How does Isaiah fit into all of this? Or is it more important to be politically correct?
Maggie raises important issues in this quote. All of the answers to her questions are no! This interracial family and all interracial families are capable of raising children who are honorable and aware of their racial identity!
An example confirming that interracially adopted children understand their identity is that the majority of children in interracial adoptions in the 1980s and 1990s have grown up to be smart, emotionally stable people with a strong sense of identity. Also, research by experts Silverman and Feigelman indicate that children in interracial adoptions usually identify with both the ethnicity of their parents and their own ethnicity. This is similar to racially mixed children who are not adopted. These conclusions validate that interracially adopted children know who they are and understand their identity; therefore, it should not be an issue against interracial adoption.
In contradiction with opponents, children can feel successfully adjusted in interracial homes if the children receive love and understanding. Experts concluded from data on adoption in 1988 that racial differences between parent and child is not a factor in adolescent development. This conclusion proves that children can adjust well in interracial adoptions. Many studies have concluded that no significant difference in self-esteem levels can be detected between interracial and same-race adoptions. These studies eliminate the claim from the opposition that children will not adjust well in interracial homes. Out of one hundred twenty-five case studies of children in interracial adoptions, at least three fourths of them had fully adjusted by the age of nine.
Interracial adoption is a better alternative than long-term foster care. It improves the lives of the children by getting them out of foster care and orphanages and giving them a stable home. Statistics show that about 440,000 children are in foster care in America, out of which 44 percent are white and 43 percent are black. Approximately 67 percent of people seeking to adopt are white. Since an enormous majority of white adults are seeking to adopt, white children cannot supply the demand; therefore, the white adults adopt the hundreds of ethnic children waiting to be placed in homes. This is why approximately eight percent of all adoptions are interracial. If children were not interracially adopted, thousands of children would be stuck in foster care for most of their adolescence. When children live in foster care or orphanages for a long time, they feel insecure and usually have psychological problems. This is a terrible way to grow up. Being a part of a family and belonging is important to the child's life. Supporters of interracial adoption realize that interracial adoption is far more desirable than long-term foster care.
A possible solution for this controversial issue is to have families who want to adopt interracially be carefully screened to verify that they are prepared to handle identity and adjustment issues that will arise with the children. This would assure that the children in interracial adoptions would understand their ethnicity and identity, because the adoptive parents would be willing and prepared to teach the children about it. Another solution is to have all interracial adoptive families attend counseling with their adoptive child. Counseling would help the adjustment and assure the child is learning about his/her identity and culture. Therefore, it can be agreed that children should be placed in a loving home that is prepared to deal with the issues no matter what the ethnicity of the child or parent.
Interracial adoption is a topic that I have been interested in for about three years. In high school, my best friend's family adopted a child of a different race; this is when I was first exposed to this issue. Through her family I learned about how long the adoption process takes, what needs to be done to be able to adopt a child of a different race, and the controversy around interracial adoption. Immediately, I was interested in the argument opponents and supporters hold; as a result, while in college I researched interracial adoption. In the process of doing this task, I have decided to interracially adopt when I am older. I believe strongly that the only argument opponents of interracial adoption have is racism. And this is wrong. Many children need homes, regardless of their race. I have decided to do my part and adopt a child of a different race because I believe that I can make a difference in the child's life. This is why I strongly support interracial adoption.
It is necessary to support interracial adoption and understand that it benefits the children and families involved. Interracial adoption does have a positive effect on America and needs to be supported!
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essay
Violence against family members is something women do at least as often as men. There are dozens of solid scientific studies that reveal in a startlingly different picture of family violence than what we usually see in the media. For instance, Murray Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire gave some statistics that blew my mind away. He concluded saying that women were three times more likely than men to use weapons in spousal violence. He also said that women hit their male children more than they hit their female children and women commit 52 percent of spousal killings and are convicted of 41 percent of spousal murders. There are also some misleading statistics about family violence. One, men do not usually report their violent wives to police, because they have too much pride. Two is that children do not usually report their violent mothers to the police.
Get original essayA reason why we do not see many women get reported is because the media does not encourage men to report the crime. Women are the ones who are encouraged to report the spousal violence by countless media reminders. The media always portray the woman to be the victim and the male to be the perpetrator. Men and children may not report when a woman injures them, but the dead bodies of the men and children who are the victims of violent women are usually reported.
There is much confusion about whom to believe in the debate about spousal violence. On one side we have the women's feminist groups whom rely on law enforcement statistics. On the other side we have social scientist who rely on scientifically structured studies, which do not get any media attention. America's press is more concerned with the political correctness than scientific accuracy. That is why our society is so screwed up now, because of the media.
It is important to note that there have been the same kind of studies done in many countries. There is cross-cultural verification that women are more violent than men in family settings. When behavior has cross-cultural verification it means that it is part of human nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most often the perpetrators in spousal violence in all cultures that have been studied to date. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations. Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the planet, we human will ignore size difference when we experience conflict in our own territory. World wide, women are more violent than men in family settings.
Women usually initiate spousal abuse. That means they hit first, and women hit more frequently, as well as using weapons three times more often than men. This combination of violent acts means that efforts to find solutions to the family violence problem need to include appropriate focus on female perpetrators. We need to recognize that women are violent, and we need nationwide educational programs that portray women are perpetrators. Other studies show that men are becoming less violent at the same time that women are becoming more violent. Educating men seems to be working. Educating men seems to be working. Educating women to be less violent should now be the main thrust of public education programs.
Just as bad cases make bad laws, so can celebrity cases reinforce old myths. The biggest myth the O.J. Simpson case is likely to reinforce is the myth that domestic violence is a one way street (male-to-female), and its corollary, that male violence against women in an outgrowth of masculinity. I felt violence was an out growth of masculinity. But, men are responsible for most of the violence, which occurs outside the home. However, when 54 percent of women in lesbian relationships acknowledge violence in their current relationship, vs. only 11 percent of heterosexual couples reporting violence, I realize that domestic violence is not an outgrowth of male biology.
There are some good men out there that will not hit back no matter what the woman does. This is an article that appeared in the April 20, 1997 edition of the Detroit News: He never hit back -- and he never filed charges. But more shocking to Gillhepsy are the reactions she encountered telling her story. They told me I was the victim, said Gillhespy, 34, of Marquette. Here's no way any of this was his fault. ... I knew the difference between being the victim and being the perpetrator. I am ashamed for what I did. Gillhespy believes most people don't believe men can be victims. She knows they are wrong. I think it is just as serious as (violence against women) -- you just don't hear about it, Gillhespy says. Maybe more men would come forward if you did. Gillhespy, who wed at 16, says she began beating her husband early in their 16-year marriage. Her former husband, reached by phone, declined to comment but confirmed that abuse took place.
At the time, Gillhespy was a crack user, heroin addict and alcoholic. She says she beat her husband in fits of rage, usually when she wanted money or the car. I told him he was no good, and that he was loser. I kicked him and threw things at him, she says. I used him and used him and used him. The turning point came in February 1993, when Gillhespy struck two pregnant women in Grand Rapids while driving drunk. Gillhespy received 45 days in jail and was sent to a drug treatment program in Marquette. She has gotten a divorce, finished high school and stayed sober. In a year, she will receive a degree from Northern Michigan University. And although Gillhespy now understands the issues that led her to violence, she says she accepts full responsibility for her actions. Her strength, she says, comes from admitting that she had a problem -- and from trying to help others accept that domestic violence goes both ways. I'm the other side of the coin, she says simply. If you're abused, you're abused.
Strange as it sounds, some people fear that publishing a study about battered men might shift much-needed attention away from the abuse of women, the scope of which researchers agree is underestimated. But at least there have been attempts to document the battered woman problem. For instance, a new Johns Hopkins University survey of 3,400 women published in this week's JAMA finds that nearly four in 10 women surveyed in emergency rooms say they've been physically or emotionally abused in their lifetimes. Numbers like that are rare when it comes to abused men. In fact, many people believe that battered husbands are practically nonexistent. Or they believe that they're such a minute fraction, compared to the numbers of battered women, that they don't represent a trend that needs attention. But family violence expert Murray Straus says that abused men do exist, in higher numbers than we care to acknowledge.
Fukuzawa renders to us the notion of independence and self-respect by not only exemplifying the two qualities within his own actions but also by extensively insisting that his students follow in almost perfect alignment. As a family man, however, Fukuzawa took a more lenient temper towards his children. In favoring good health before anything else and concentrating on ensuring strong immediate family ties, he expresses great partisanship toward his family. Although his main emphases were from different angles, his target was the same, focusing on independence and self-respect. In both institutions (family, students) however, he highly emphasized a sense of equality amongst both his children and his students not excluding himself. Everything he taught them was to uplift them to another level that ancient Japan would not. He wanted his children and students to think on their own omitting teachings of the Confucian beliefs. To him Confucianism was an oppressor, for it discouraged people from thinking individually or from being independent. He knew that Japan could not stay out of international affairs forever so he thought it best to at least teach those in his school along with his children, the things that would make them more aware of what is going on around them and keep their eyes abroad rather than domestically in ones ranking in society.
Get original essayDuring the establishment of Keio-gijuku (the first school with modern organization) 1868 (the first year of the Meiji) there was a very, in our terms, conservative Japan. People were in an upheaval upon the oncoming changes of government being implicated. There was constant struggle between the Shogun and imperial court concerning Japans noninvolvement into international relations. The Shoguns, according to the imperial court, were not moving fast enough in removing the Western ideology out of Japan. The imperial court then assumed the Shogun to be both disloyal and slow to respond to domestic Western influence. By this time a number of clans had apprised to assist the imperial court by taking a violent but rigid stand toward anyone who was pro-foreign or showed any sympathy toward Western ideas or persons. As a result to all this Fukuzawa had to maintain his own perspective while trying to be nonchalant in the eyes of those opposing the West. His school was the only school of primarily Western ideas and in the future would become the only school specializing in English as it primary language when conventional Japanese still sought the Chinese language and was considered prestigious.
In the walls behind Keio Gikuju, Fukuzawa wanted everyones main focus to be on education instead of people ranks being respected, as the Shoguns emphasized. He had preferred that unlike everywhere else in Japan, his school would not submit to the respect of ranks and classes associated with prejudice attitudes toward other. According to Fukuzawa this was part of the reason why Japan was not moving forward. He said that the old traditional ways of Japan held it back from progress. The Japanese people had lived under oppressive social restrictions for centuries and had acquired the habit of passive obedience. In directing these people into a more active life, the injunction against bowing was the first step. Implying that bowing is the first step to submission, and a submissive person cannot be independent but is instead dependant upon the status or attitude of others. Also to have self-respect, one must not see him/herself as inferior to others. There is yet another incident where after the law has changed allowing all to ride horses no matter what the rank of someone they might have passed on the street. A farmer runs into Fukuzawa as he is riding a horse. Because he is a farmer he was unable to do so according to the old law, but at the time of the event it was legal. He did not know this, as he was uneducated and he immediately with great fear jumped off the horse. Fukuzawa was devastated by this and told him to get back on, for there was no reason why he should not be permitted to ride his own horse. From this incident Fukuzawa realized the importance of being educated, for the poor man did not even know the law. He personally preferred to treat all men equally, as this was the way of his parents during his youth.
Fukuzawa strongly believed that Japans education should be independent of Chinese influence. His reasoning was of this, I reasoned that Chinese philosophy as the root of education was responsible for our obvious shortcomings, he reasoned within himself that Confucianism discouraged independent thought and studies in number and reason in the material culture. This he believed was another set back Japan faced. Because Confucianism did not allow room for individuals creative philosophy, in fact it oppressed it and of course Fukuzawa was against anything of the oppressive ideology.
Though very well disciplined, Fukuzawas students never really got too out of line. In one instance it was against the schools rules to scribble on anything. On time a young mans lamp had scribbling on it. When Fukuzawa noticed this he asked the man what was the reasoning behind the scribbles and the young man insisted that this was not his work. Fukuzawa then punished the young man by making him do away with the old lamp and getting a new one because he (young man) had played the fool and allowed someone else to scribble on his lamp. Fukuzawa had great control over his youth and he did not have to be of higher status or induce cruel punishment to get the results, as where the imperial court erred (allowing the clans violent actions).
When it came to the immediate family he was a lot more liberal in that he was not fanatically fixed on only educated his children as some conventional Japanese was. He never rushed them to read and instead waited until they were of some age 5 or 6 before he began to teach them reading and writing. He never gave rewards for things that were suppose to be done. For example he said he never gave praise to his children because they read a book. As for other things suck as doing well in gymnastics and things of that sort, he would give honorable attention to. This was because of his feelings on independence. Learning is something you have to seek on your own. If you wait to be rewarded are you then independent or dependant?
Within his large family he found it essential to maintain close family ties. He encouraged equality within his household, beginning with himself. He did not care for superior titles or special treatments from his family because he was the man of the house. On the contrary he requested that there be no secrets amongst the family members within the house. He also had a strong sense of love for his family. Here we see once again education is not the only focus Fukuzawa had, here he would care a tremendous amount on the physical health of his children, as he would make sure they had food before anything else. He mentions that they never worried about not feeding the children, as he would feed them before buying them fancy clothes to wear, They may have wore some shabby clothes but never lacked proper nourishments.
His students and his children both benefited similarly from his teachings both as a teacher and as a student. He was a strong advocate of equality. He did not make distinctions among his students based on anything more than levels of educations as he notes that, heaven did not make us higher or lower at birth, but instead we make ourselves higher or lowing depending on the education we receive.
Fukuzawa proved to be a dynamic advocate in the modernization of Japan. His philosophy was, as long as Japan continued to hold fast the ancient customs, which were unfit for the time at present, they would forever be behind. In his teachings to his students and his children he implemented qualities that would not only keep a family and a unity of students but in a greater sense it would bring the country of Japan together and help it to become stronger and able to hold its own against aggression from other countries. His strong enthusiasm towards learning and teaching the ways of the West were only to get Japan on a at least competitive scale, because Fukuzawa knew that the closed system would not prevail, as the Europeans were continually aggravating Japan.
The last time I was in school was more than twenty years ago, when I decided to drop out of college. I decided to go back to school because I woke up one morning and I had a revelation that there is no future for a "getting old" old worker like me in a small town like Jamestown. This is the reason why, at the age of forty eight, I decided to sit in a class room to do what is needed to pursue a decent career. My first semester in class, not only did I learn what kind of student I am, but I also had learned that there are good and "bad" teachers and I just do not know which one I am going to get.
Get original essayMost times, good teachers are define by students as either "cool", "easy", or "helpful" and my personal definition of a good teacher is someone that has a positive contribution towards my educational journey. A good teacher is an individual who will teach me what I need to learn, in order for me not look like a fool when I enter that "real" world of being employed.
In my first semester at Columbia College, I had experienced teachers that were good. They were good because they gave emotional support, when overwhelmed students felt that the work load was too much to handle. I had a teacher not only give me a hug during one of my "stress test" moments but she also made sure to give me all the support I needed to not get discouraged. Basically, a good teacher will go above and beyond their calling to help a student to achieve his goal.
Unfortunately, as much as there are good teacher there are also bad teachers. I had witnessed and had experienced such atrocity. I had a teacher that would deplete the student attendance in school by blurting out "you do not learn in class, you only learn from doing homework" and all I can do as a reaction is to give her that look asking her without saying it out loud "what are we doing in school?" and "what do we need teachers for?"
I took English 151 prior to this semester, as excited as I was to entertain the thought that I might learn how to write in a decent manner, that excitement had turned into a nightmare instead. My excitement came from my passion for writing, and having an outlook that writing can be such a powerful tool; it can be either used as weapon that can destroy a person, a place, or an organization. Writing can also be used as a positive tool to open doors, minds and change a life, build a civilization, make a country and even the world. Not only did I not learn how to write in a correct manner, but I also had built a severe "fear" towards it from all the homework writings I did, which the grades confirmed that my writing did not improve. Months had passed, still waiting for that light bulb to come on, but instead I watched my self-confidence slowly dissipated and developed paranoia that "I am not good enough nor the wit to write". I stopped writing my journal; I go into a sweaty panic attack writing a short note to an employer.
I did not quit because I was failing the class, in fact I was getting a "B" before the class was dropped. Deep inside me something just did not feel right. My grade did not reflect what was inside me, which was a big bungling confusion that made me realize that "I simply do not get it". I had decided that I will not have a grade dictate what I know and do not know, which gave me the courage to walk out of that class. Confiding with my counselor, in tears, shaking in frustration, and then she suggested taking the class with Mr. Riviera. She described him as good and strict: "three absences in his class, you will be dropped". All I heard was "he is good" and my attitude at that point was, "we will see".
I still went back retook the class, discourage and doubtful that this short- haired, pony- tailed man, with glasses, wearing his summer casual "professional" look, dressed in shorts and short sleeve semi- formal shirt, can teach me how to write. He presented himself as a published writer which it did not really get my attention nor did I fill myself with hope and excitement. Surprisingly, this teacher, oozing with aura of "coolness", who I am so tempted to address as Mr. Dude, did what no other teacher had done before. The first week, I was getting restless. I compared all the handouts that I already got from the last English 151 class, and figuratively, the handout was so thick that incorporating all those paper work will result to two more course book, this was also the reason why as a student, I did not even bother reading the assigned book. Even if I had read the assigned reading, it was useless; because when question comes up, it will not be answered, explained nor discussed in class. We would be required to write four papers by the end of the week and not knowing how to write what was required does not seemed to matter.
Here I was blaming this guy for being slow in his teaching, but aghast, Mr. Riviera actually doing it the right way all along. I saw the process of how he prepares me to write my first paper the right way. He brought that excitement of wanting to learn again, and I read the required assigned homework now, for I know if I get confuse there will be answers. Thank you, Mr. Dude, Sir.
Every mans life is a fairy tale written by Gods finger (Anderson). Competing in track and succeeding is my fairy tale come true. Working hard towards reducing my track times changed my life for the better. I see my track goals, of being the very best in the region and in the state, as being only seconds within my reach.
Get original essayThe spring of 2000 was my first season of high school track, starting at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning with the team warm-up jog and stretches. Both Coach Owens and Coach Summerville were amazed by my speed, questioning why I did not run my freshman year. Practices continued, with our first track meet just around the corner I pushed hard to attain the speed the coaches felt I had within me. My coaches knew I was fast in the 200 meter run, with times averaging 26.16 seconds. This was good, but they said I could be better. They were right! My times improved and at the State Track meet I ran the third leg of the 800 sprint medley, running my 200 meters in well under the 26.16 seconds I averaged earlier in the season. I contributed to our relay team earning the State title of being fourth in the entire state.
As my sophomore year quickly came to an end my coaches confronted me about running the 400 meter race. They saw more potential than I did. I was afraid, afraid of the length, the competition and most of all the idea of failing. Even though the coaches knew my fear they still encouraged me to run the 400. I reflected on how true their previous belief in me, then so I reached deeper down inside myself and said ok. We were off and running as the training began at the beginning of my junior year. Workouts became longer and harder. The coaches belief proved true; I had stronger abilities. Through their encouragement I learned a great lesson; If you pull from deeper down within yourself you can succeed. Someone once said Failure teaches success (author unknown). However, my mothers saying You can overcome your fears of failure and attain success by trusting God more accurately reflects my success. With Gods finger writing my life, anything is possible. My success in track makes me grateful for the awesome coaches God used to push me forward, past my fears. The rewards of overcoming my fears through their encouragement came at the Regional Track Meet when I took first in the 400 meter race. An expression of joy ran through me!
My self esteem came alive as I earned the titled of 4A Regional Champ in the 400 meter race. Soon the time would come to prove I was better than most girls outside of my region. As State competition arrived it was my time to prove hard work pays off. Not only did I compete in the 400 meter, but also in the 800 sprint medley and the 4x1 relay. When preliminaries ended for our medley and 4x1 relays we unfortunately did not qualify for finals. Ashley Owens and I were the only two sprinters left to prove the quality of the girls track program at Liberty High School. Ashley, a freshman, competed and placed first in the 100 and 200 meter race; leaving me to earn the 400 meter title.
When the 400 meter race began I was focused yet nervous, scared, and so afraid of failing. This is how I am before every race, only this time I felt more stress as my lane assignment, lane one, is the lane that I absolutely hate. The gun man said sweats off ladies then he proceeded with on your marks and the seconds crept by before the gun finally sounded. Eight girls were off and running for the title of State Champ. I took off running filled with will power and excitement! As I crossed the finish line so did three other girls. It was to close to call; it was a photo finish as we were all within one-hundredths of a second of each other. With a time of 59.65 seconds I earned the title of being sixth in the whole state of Colorado for the 4A 400 meter race. I must say, I am proud of what I accomplished and the titles I earned. My awesome coaches taught me hard work pays off and you can never set your goals to high.
Starting in on my Senior year I have again set high track goals for myself. I believe I can pull even deeper from within and earn the title of State Champ. I am striving to attain my dream of being State Champion in the 400 meter race. With three other girls, I visualize coming together at State to run and win three relays, 4x1, 4x2 and the 800 Sprint Medley. If we all reach down within ourselves I believe we can earn the title of State Champions in these relays. As a team captain, I visualize winning the girls all around State Championship, coming back to an assembly at Liberty to celebrate our success and hanging a banner in the gym proclaiming Girls State Track Champions 2002. This year, I again hope to prove that hard work pays off and that you can never set your dreams or goals to high. If God be willing I will help earn and hang the banner.
A Separate Peace: Responsibility
Get original essayA responsibility is something for which one is held accountable. Often people say that one is responsible for one’s own words and actions; if something happens as a result of something one does one is responsible for it. But is it possible that something could be the result of various actions from different people who are therefore equally responsible, or is there always one person who is most responsible for the incident at hand? Such a situation where this question is relevant is present in the novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles. In the novel, the main character, Gene, ponders his responsibility for the death of his best friend, Phineas or Finny. After reading Gene’s account of the events that led to Finny’s death the reader may observe that there are three people who are all partially at fault for Finny’s death. Gene, a classmate named Brinker, and Phineas all had something to do with the incident, but who was most responsible for it?
Gene is probably the most obvious to blame for part of Phineas’ death. Gene clearly feels guilty, that is why he returns to the tree fifteen years after the fact, for some sort of closure. As Gene and Finny were about to jump from a tree branch into the river together, Gene shook the branch causing Phineas to fall into the river unexpectedly and hurt his leg. Later on, when Phineas re-injured his leg and was having it set in a routine operation, he passed away. The doctor said that it was probably because some marrow entered his blood stream and caused his heart to stop. But if Finny had never fallen in the first place he would have not been on that operating table. Therefore, indirectly an action of Genes eventually resulted in Finny’s death. But was this action done consciously? The author does not specify. “My knees were bent and I jounced the limb”(Knowles p.52) says Gene in his account of the incident. “I jounced” is an active verb but “were bent” is passive meaning that some unknown force bent Gene’s knees and as a result of that he jounced the limb. Since this action was not totally Gene’s he is not thus totally responsible for the fall or the events that occurred as a result of it.
Brinker, Gene and Finny’s classmate was responsible for the circumstances that lead to Phineas’ second fall. Brinker suspected that Gene was responsible for Finny’s first fall and begrudged him somewhat for not enlisting in the army with him when he had wanted to. It was Brinker who called together the trial in which Gene was prosecuted for purposely causing Finny to fall off the tree. But even if Gene was to blame for Finny’s first fall, it was not necessary to drag Finny out of bed in the middle of the night and put him through such emotional turmoil when he was still physically vulnerable from the accident. If Brinker had not organized the trial Finny would have never rushed out in such an upset manner causing him to fall and hurt himself again. The doctor was not sure why Phineas died. “In the middle of it [the surgery] his heart just stopped. I can’t explain it.”(Knowles p.185) He said. Later on the doctor conjectured that Phineas probably died when marrow entered his blood circulation and clogged his heart but Gene meant the world to Finny. The idea Brinker introduced to Phineas that his best friend would betray him hurt Phineas severely and maybe even caused him to loose the will to live. Brinker’s actions were crucial to Finny’s death and since they were done with cruel intentions Brinker is largely responsible for the death of his classmate.
Surprisingly enough Finny is partly responsible for his own death. He knew that jumping off the tree into the river was dangerous hence the name of the club “Super Suicide Society of the Summer Session”(Knowles p.24) whose membership requirement was one jump from the tree. Also, if not for Finny Gene wouldn’t even have come to the meeting the night of the accident, Gene wanted to stay in the dorm and study but Finny used reverse psychology in order to convince him to come. Lastly, it was also Finny’s idea that they jump together rather then alone, risking the possibility that the movement of one could cause the other to loose his balance. If not for any of these incidents Finny would never have fallen to begin with, Gene’s trial would never have taken place, and he would not have found himself on that operating table. This makes Finny largely responsible for his first fall and partly responsible for his death.
In conclusion although none of them were conscious that their actions would eventually lead to Finny’s death, Gene, Brinker, and Finny were all partly responsible for it. The one most to blame however was Finny himself, starting a club in which jumping off the tree into the river was a membership requirement was the first in the series of events that eventually lead to his death. If Finny had not done this none of the incidents which Gene and Brinker were at fault for would have ever had reason to take place. Consequently, the person most to blame for the death of Phineas was Phineas himself. As the song goes: “It is of no surprise to me, I am my own worst enemy.”(Lit Place in the Sun)
“Stray Dog” is a terrific detective story—a sort of Japanese film noir—from director Akira Kurosawa, and one of the earliest films he made with legendary actor Toshiro Mifune. Kurosawa himself said he doesn’t like the film, but audiences love it, and more people are discovering it all the time.
Get original essayThis paper discusses three sequences that I feel capture the essence of the film.
“Stray Dog” was made in 1949, and has a great complexity about it; it works on many levels. There is the basic detective story; there is also the story of the young man and his older mentor, which can also be seen (though I wouldn’t push the metaphor too far) as the struggle between modern Japan and its traditional culture; there is the struggle of Japan itself trying to find its place in the world; and there is the relationship between the young detective and the killer who is almost a mirror image.
The story is simple: a young detective named Murakami (Toshiro Mifune) has his pocket picked and his pistol stolen on a crowded bus; a woman leans against him and distracts him while her accomplice steals the weapon. There is a black market in guns (which tells us a lot about Japan in 1948) and he is determined to get it back, and sets off on a hunt through Tokyo. As he and his section chief, Sato (Takashi Shimura) follow up leads, Murakami becomes concerned, then obsessed with the idea that it is his pistol being used to commit crimes, and that he is somehow responsible for those crimes.
Eventually, Murakami and Sato discover the murderer’s girlfriend, and while Murakami stays and questions her, Sato goes to the hotel where she was supposed to meet the murderer, a young man named Yusa. Although Sato’s in plain clothes, he gives himself away, and Yusa shoots him while he (Sato) is on the phone with Murakami. Murakami hears this with horror, and rushes to the hospital to be with Sato, who is in serious condition; Yusa gets away. Finally, though, Murakami learns that Yusa will be at the station the following morning, goes there, finds him and, after a chase and a fight, captures him.
This brief outline doesn’t really do justice to this wonderful film; it’s a treasure that should be seen again and again. The three sequences that I’d like to discuss are all pursuits: Murakami’s pursuit of the woman who distracted him in the bus; his long walk through the city searching for his gun; and the final chase and fight.
I should also point out that the city is baking in the heat: everyone is drenched in sweat, their clothes stick to them, perspiration drips down their faces, etc. The heat itself becomes a character applying relentless pressure on Murakami to find the gun. It also makes people short-tempered and irritable. As he does in many of his films, Kurosawa uses what I would call a “weather cue” to indicate a major turning point in the movie. When Murakami questions Yusa’s girlfriend, she lies to him at first, but he persists. When she finally tells the truth, the storm breaks—literally. It begins to rain heavily. The heat wave is broken, the tension lessens, and the film moves toward its resolution. “However, the storm also signals that there is a price to be paid, the result being Sato's falling foul of the killer and Murakami having to go after him alone.” (Smith, PG).
The woman Murakami is after is the pickpocket’s accomplice, a prostitute who leaned against him in the bus. He finds her “mug shot” among thousands of others, and Sato identifies her; apparently he’s arrested her numerous times. In fact, the two appear chummy: the wise old cop and the prostitute with the heart of gold are an interesting combination, and it doesn’t fail here. But she won’t talk, so Murakami follows her. She dodges into stores; he waits outside. She runs through an alley; he’s on the street waiting for her. She takes a streetcar; he jumps on at the last second. He follows her for an entire afternoon and on into the night, until she gives up in sheer exasperation. They’re both worn out, hot and cross, but they seem to have made a connection. She finally takes him a cold drink and sits down on a bridge next to him, where they both look up and admire the stars. But the eager young detective has learned something, and instead of immediately questioning her, he simply sits and waits until she begins to talk. There is a companionship about the two of them that suggests he, too, might learn the value of having informants. He is beginning to get some of the “street smarts” that Sato obviously has.
After he learns that his gun will be sold on the black market, Murakami tries to make contact with the ring. He learns that they sometimes approach men who look desperate enough to commit a crime, and sell them weapons. Murakami puts on his old Army uniform, and then wanders throughout Tokyo, trying to blend in, trying to make himself look like someone who needs a pistol.
Kurosawa’s montage is almost entirely silent, except for the natural city noises. There is no music underneath, and very little dialogue, just a long (almost ten minute) montage of Murakami’s walk through the city. He stops to talk to people, but we don’t hear the words; he looks around; he sits down and takes a break; and all around is a teeming mass of people who are as hot, tired and sweaty as he. And yet, and this I think is Kurosawa’s point, Murakami never manages to blend in. It’s true he’s wearing his old Army uniform to appear as a veteran down on his luck, but there’s something about him that makes him stand out from the crowd. The people he meets don’t seem to trust him, and he makes little headway in his search. It’s not that his appearance screams “undercover cop” so much as the fact that his intensity is frightening in some degree. He is becoming obsessed with regaining the pistol, and that urgency is delineated in the tension of his body and the purposeful way he moves. He doesn’t ramble or laze along; he moves fairly quickly, despite the heat. He is in the crowd, but not part of it.
In that sense, I think he stands for post-War Japan itself, searching for its place in the world, and aware that the world is perhaps not ready to accept it.
The single most compelling sequence in the film for me is the final chase, fight and capture. Throughout the movie Kurosawa has presented us with clearly drawn parallels between Murakami and Yusa. In fact, the two men are very much alike: they are both veterans of the Army; both had to face the fact of Japan’s defeat; they are both young and attractive; and both had to try to make a living in a country that had been smashed by the war. Yusa turned to crime, but Murakami chose the police.
In this he echoes Sato, who also felt that he had to make a choice. His possessions, like Yusa’s, were stolen:
“’Look, my knapsack and money were stolen too. I felt outraged. I too could have stolen. I knew that this was a dangerous point in my life. But what did I do? I chose this work?’ Shimura, then, is like the pyromaniac who becomes fire-chief. He retains the original impulse but directs it.” (Richie, p. 61).
Shimura urges Murakami not to empathize with the killer, which he is prone to do, seeing a sort of dark reflection of himself in the other man. The entire movie turns on a bit of dialogue between Murakami and Sato, who are discussing Yusa. Murakami says that in a way he feels sorry for Yusa.
Sato: “You cannot afford to feel sorry for him. We all tend to feel that way because we’re always chasing them. But we mustn’t forget how many sheep get hurt by just one wolf. After all, we are the guardians. Let the writers analyze the criminal mind. For me—I have to hate it. Evil is always evil.”
Murakami: “I can’t think that way yet. During the war I saw how easily good men turned bad. Perhaps it is the difference in our ages, yours and mind—or perhaps the times have changed, but…”
Sato: “You understand him too well.” (Richie, pp. 59-60).
This is exactly the point: that Murakami understands the murderer so well he is beginning to empathize with him, because he has seen good men go bad. And Kurosawa invites this comparison by drawing the parallels between them so clearly. The final chase is a perfect illustration of this.
Murakami goes to the station at 6 a.m. He’s never seen the killer, but thinks to himself that the man would have gotten muddy in the rain. Everyone in the waiting room has clean clothes on, except for one man. When Murakami sees him, he knows he’s found Yusa. But the killer spots the detective for what he is at the same instant. Murakami doesn’t have to move, show ID, or say anything: it’s the reaction of an animal to the presence of the hunter. Yusa runs. Murakami races after him, out into the woods. Yusa pulls out the pistol and shoots Murakami with his own gun. This is the ultimate horror, turning his own weapon against him. The shot hits the detective in the arm; Yusa fires again but misses, and the gun is empty. Even with his wound, Murakami is able to capture Yusa, but in the struggle they fall into a stream and wind up covered with mud. Murakami manages to put handcuffs on Yusa, and then they both lie back, panting, black with muck and completely indistinguishable from each other. It’s impossible to tell which is which. And then Yusa puts his head back and howls in misery, then begins to cry like a child. He will go to prison, perhaps be executed, and he knows it. It’s a powerful and compelling scene, a fitting end to a riveting film.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essay“Stray Dog” is great cinema, and it’s also a glimpse of what life was like for the Japanese at the end of the war, faced with difficult choices and sometimes finding that good and bad are closer than we’d like to think. At the end of the film, Murakami is reluctant to take Sato’s advice to forget Yusa. He can’t; he’s still too close to the whole thing. “It is by concluding the film with Murakami’s hesitation that Kurosawa urges us to remember the past and use memory as a moment of intervening in the present social condition.” (“Stray Dog,” PG).
Humans likely migrated from the Indus Valley to modern day Bangladesh around the year 700 B.C. This year marks the earliest known pottery from the Ganges delta. This culture grew and evolved into a state called Anga Mahajanpada, one of 16 such Mahajanpada, or kingdoms, in the Indian subcontinent. Anga had trade relations with Java, Sumatra and Siam. Anga also conquered Sri Lanka, giving it the name Sinhala.
Get original essayAnga, however, did not last very long. It was conquered and absorbed into the Magadha Empire, which would change hands and grow until under the Maurya Dynasty it had control over all of India. The empire eventually fractured into four states, one of which was the Sunga state of Bengal. The region governed by the Sunga state continued to change hands until the Mughal Empire conquered them in the 16th century.
The Mughal Empire was an Islamic state that descended from the Mongols. The founder, Babur, was descended from the second son of Genghis Khan. They attempted to convert their Hindu and Buddhist subjects to Islam, and their efforts succeeded in Bengal. in 1717, Murshid Quli Khan declared independence from the collapsing Mughal Empire, forming an independent Islamic Bengal state.
The first Europeans to reach Bengal were the Portuguese, in the 15th century. The Mughal Kasim Khan Mashadi did not want the Europeans to challenge his rule, and destroyed a Portuguese fleet, killing 10,000. The Mughal ruler Aruangzeb, however, was more accommodating to foreign traders and sold three Bengali villages to the British.
After the fall of the Mughals, the British took advantage of the disarray of the subcontinent. The British East India company declared war on Bengal, annexing it after the decisive Battle of Plassey, despite France’s aid of the Bengals. The Company used the territory’s fertile land to produce bamboo, tea, sugar cane, spices, cotton, muslin and jute to be shipped back to Europe.
Harsh treatment by the Company eventually sparked violent revolutions, causing the British government to intervene. They beat back the rebels and in 1858 ownership of Bengal was transferred to the crown. (The Viceroy of the British Raj, mind you, was probably even more harsh than the Company. The British were likely just looking for an excuse to directly control Bengal.)
As the independence movement throughout British-controlled India began in the late 19th century gained momentum during the 20th century, Bengali politicians played an active role in protests, exposing the opposing forces of ethnic and religious nationalism. The British wrote a Parition of Bengal in 1905, splitting the Bengal Presidency into an overwhelmingly Hindu west (including present-day Bihar and Odisha) and a predominantly Muslim east (including Assam). Dhaka was made the capital of the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam. But the split only lasted for seven years. Protests caused a reunification in 1911.
During the dissolution of British India, there was much debate over where the boundaries of the Muslim and Hindu states should lie. It was decided that the muslim state should control Pakistan along with Bengal. Despite the peaceful agreement of the states, there was much violence on the borders with near 50-50 populations, where Muslims wanted to be Pakistani and Hindus wanted to be Indian. The dust eventually settled with West Bengal being absorbed into India and East Bengal being absorbed into Pakistan.
Beginning in the late 1940s, there was a rise of Bengali nationalism and friction with West Pakistan, what is modern day Pakistan. An East Pakistani man named Sheik Mujibur Rahman formed a political party, called the Awami League. This party seeked independence from West Pakistan, and a restoration of an independent Bengali state.
The government of West Pakistan launched an attack on the Awami League after a cyclone disorganised their forces, imprisoning Mujibur Rahman and killing many civilians. The Awami League fled to India and garnered their support for their war of independence. They began fighting Pakistan using guerrilla warfare, while Pakistan proceeded to enforce severe martial law on Bengali citizens.
Pakistan started randomly killing Bengali citizens to quell dissent. This was a really stupid idea, because for obvious reasons the Bengali citizens joined the rebellion. They even got India on their side and proceeded to retake many cities. Pakistan ultimately surrendered on December 16, 1971.
The newly independent state of Bangladesh (meaning the nation of Bengal) passed their constitution on November 4, 1972. The first part details that the state religion is Islam (though other religions are tolerated), that there must be a three-branch system (the same branches as the US), and what the capital, flag etc. will be.
The second part of the constitution details the rights Bangladeshi (no longer Bengali, difference between ethnic and national groups) citizens have. These rights include things such as:
Apparently the Bangladeshis were pretty damn liberal at the time. Neat. Too bad it didn’t last.
Bangladesh’s ideals of citizen’s rights did not last very long. The citizens were very trusting of the Awami League (and not for any poor reason, they were the ones who won them independence) and in the 1973 election they gained an absolute majority in their parliament led by Mujibur Rahman. Bangladesh experienced a famine in 1974, and Mujibur, with his newly found power, reformed Bangladesh into a one-party socialist state.
Mujibur was very Hobbesian in his thought (look at me I’m so clever), believing that the war of independence had left the nation unorganised and weak; so a controlling government was necessary to reconstruct from the debris. All other parties were outlawed, making the socialist party (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League or BAKSAL) the only party. All independent press was abolished, leaving only four state-run papers. The citizens were understandably quite angry at the government for this.
The army was not free from dissent either. A group of army officers stole a tank and storme Mujibur’s residency, killing him and his family. The only relatives who survived were his two daughters, Wehana and Hasina Wajed (interestingly enough the latter is actually the current Prime Minister), who were in West Germany at the time. While his Vice President briefly held the Presidency, he was essentially forced to resign and the state was put under an intermediary government.
The intermediary government was dissolved when General Ziaur Rahman took over the presidency in 1977. President Ziaur reinstated multi-party politics, introduced free markets, and founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Apparentally these people hate freedom or something, so they just shot him in 1981. Bangladesh's next major ruler was Lieutenant General Hossain Mohammad Ershad, who gained power in a coup on 24 March 1982, and ruled until 6 December 1990. He was forced to resign after a revolt of all major political parties and the public, along with pressure from Western donors who started caring after the Soviet Union started to dissolve.
After the revolt, Bangladesh reverted to a parliamentary democracy. Zia's widow, Khaleda Zia, led the Bangladesh Nationalist Party to parliamentary victory at the general election in 1991 and became the first female Prime Minister in Bangladeshi history. Power has been passed from the BNP and the Awami League ever since.
On 11 January 2007, the military intervened on extreme political unrest to support a continuing but neutral government under a newly appointed Chief Advisor, who was not a politician. The country had suffered for decades from extensive corruption, disorder, and political violence. The neutral government worked to clean the government of corruption It arrested on corruption charges more than 160 people, including politicians, civil servants, and businessmen, among whom were both major party leaders, some of their senior staff, and two sons of Khaleda Zia.
After working to clean up the system, the caretaker government held what was described by observers as a largely free and fair election on 29 December 2008.The Awami League's Sheikh Hasina won with a two-thirds landslide in the elections; she took the oath of Prime Minister on 6 January 2009 and is still the PM.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayBangladesh has been described as one of the “Next Eleven” economy, meaning that economists predict they will be much more important in coming years. It has achieved significant strides in human and social development since independence, including progress in gender equality, universal primary education, food production, health and population control. It has a booming textile industry and rising industrialisation. Its population is quite poor right now, and the population density is one of the highest in the world; but it’s possible Bangladesh could become a South Asian power to rival India.