Our Previous Samples

The economic prosperity of 1920s America cannot be explained by one single argument. No doubt the dramatic growth of the motor manufacturing industry was a major contributor to the US economic boom, but it was by no means the only one. Other factors such as technological advancements, new business methods and government policies, as well as varying historical interpretations, must also be taken into consideration in order to decide which contributed most to the growth of the American economy during the 1920s.

Arguably one of the largest industries at the time, motor manufacturing became a significant source of wealth in post-First World War America. Perhaps the most dominant company during this period, the Ford Motor Company revolutionised American industrial production. Ford’s ‘Model T’, for example, was relatively inexpensive and was the first car most working-class people could afford. The company mass produced its cars using assembly lines and specialisation, meaning that supply was quick and efficient, and by the end of the 1920s there were 23 million cars on American roads. Likewise, the company employed over 60,000 workers and by 1929, the motor industry as a whole employed 7% of all American workers and paid 9% of all wages. This made the overall population wealthier, thus boosting the US economy. The industry also created many social benefits, as people could easily travel long distances, therefore encouraging consumer spending in restaurants, cinemas, shops etc. According to Robert and Helen Lynd, “the readily available leisure-time options of even the working-class have been multiplied many-fold.” Published in 1929, this demonstrates the social or ‘leisurely’ benefits of car-ownership, in addition to its economic advantages.

However, it can be argued that this increase in consumer expenditure, which can, to an extent, be attributed to the growth of the motor manufacturing industry, encouraged consumer confidence and therefore risk-taking, potentially worsening the impact of the 1929 Crash. Despite this, however, the motor sector also aided other industries, providing the largest market for steal, rubber, petrol, plate glass, nickel, tin, hardwood, copper and road construction (under the Federal Highway Act of 1921, highways were built at a rate of 10,000 miles per year), benefitting the long-term economy. In turn, this also encouraged the growth of new service industries such as garages, motels, petrol stations and used car salerooms. Transport of goods between factories and markets was also made easier by the development of the motor manufacturing industry, as demonstrated by the increase in truck registrations from approximately 1 million in 1919 to 3.5 million by 1929. Thus, motor manufacturing did have significant impacts on other industries, perhaps suggesting that it was the major contributor to the US economic boom of the 1920s. It may, however, have also influenced the downfall of this prosperous period by the end of the decade.

Conversely, it may be said that other industries and the development of new technology had the most influence on American prosperity in the 1920s. Charles Lindbergh brought significant progress in aviation for instance, flying from New York to Paris in just 33.5 hours without stopping. This promoted the development of transcontinental air services, where the Post Office fleet began flying 2.5 million miles and delivering 14 million letters annually, thus improving business communication, consumer confidence and social ties. However, it may be perceived that this later advancement was influenced by the motor manufacturing business, as the 1925 Contract Air Mail Act meant that “Henry Ford’s airline was the first airline to transport US mail.” Furthermore, there was also large-scale development of labour-saving devices such as vacuum cleaners and washing machines, and by 1929 160 million electrical goods had been sold in comparison to just 2.4 million in 1912. However, many parts of rural America were still without electricity in the 1920s, suggesting that the impact of this industry was not as substantial as that of the motor companies.

In contrast, new business methods were being developed at the time, arguably influencing the US economy independently from the motor industry. The concept of easy credit was particularly impactful, as it encouraged consumers to spend more and take greater economic risks. By 1929, approximately $7 billion worth of goods were sold on credit, along with 75% of cars and 50% of household appliances. This could indicate the impact this method had on the motor manufacturing industry, as without it people would not have felt so inclined to buy cars and other vehicles. Companies such as Ford, Chrysler and General Motors also used credit facilities to finance their operations, further supporting the idea that the motor industry was dependent on this new economic phenomenon. In addition, business corporations also bought oil concessions in Canada, Venezuela, Iraq and the Dutch East Indies, whilst dominating Canadian car and electrical markets. American companies also invested in the development of public health and the construction of schools in developing countries, highlighting how the USA was determined to expand and maintain its global workforce. Management science and Taylorism also contributed to the growth of American businesses and specialist schools, in order to boost the US economy in the long-term. In 1928 there were 89 management science schools in America with a total of 67,000 students, demonstrating the nation’s desire to constantly improve the efficiency of businesses and thus the structure of the economy. Moreover, advertising methods improved with the growth of cinemas and radio-ownership (in 1928 there were 17,000 cinemas in the country), accentuating how these factors may have facilitated the consumer boom and impacted all industries, including that of motor manufacturing.

Finally, it may be perceived that government policies also aided the motor sector and thus were of greater significance concerning the growth of the American economy. Under the Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922, tariffs were raised to cover the difference between domestic and foreign production costs. As a result, tariffs increased during the 1920s whilst the level of foreign trade fell, thus maintaining the high demand for goods. The government also reduced federal taxes in 1924, 1926 and 1928, giving the American populace more confidence regarding their daily expenditure. During his inaugural address in March 1925, President Coolidge stated that “the policy that stands out with the greatest clearness is that of economy in public expenditure with reduction and reform of taxation…every dollar…we prudently save means that [the people’s lives] will be so much more abundant…” Whilst the tax reductions did contribute to economic growth, they mainly benefitted the wealthy. Thus, the claim that the lives of individuals would become “so much more abundant” following these reductions was perhaps less true for the lower working-classes, as it was for the very rich. Nonetheless, consumer confidence would have risen in all ranks of society to an extent, and so these government policies potentially increased the popularity of the motor manufacturing business. This was also aided by the lack of regulation, which allowed big businesses to flourish and contribute more to the economy. However, without consumer confidence a considerably smaller amount of vehicles would have been sold, meaning the motor industry would not have had such a powerful image regarding its economic influence. Similarly, President Coolidge avoided intervention in foreign affairs wherever possible and embarked on a policy of protectionism, meaning that little money was spent or invested abroad and thus maintaining America’s new-found domestic wealth.

It is evident that the US economic boom of the 1920s comprised of many different factors, and that to an extent the motor manufacturing industry provided the largest contribution to the American economy. The sector provided better transport methods for commodities and freight, whilst also improving the socio-economic prosperity of the American people. However, the motor manufacturing business did not achieve such successes alone. Whilst improvements in technology and business methods played a lesser role in the growth of the US economy, greater consumer confidence, encouraged by easy credit and government policies undoubtedly fuelled the success of the industry. As a result, it was these factors which were most responsible for the US economic boom of the 1920s.

After the World War I, the growth of international trade displayed American desire to build, innovate and explore new markets, this, along with global competition for control of weak territories resulted in the change of American foreign policy from an isolationist view to an imperialist view.

Imperialism is defined as the policy of extending control over foreign entities either through direct or indirect political or economic intervention. Imperialism involves the practice of expanding power or sovereignty, usually by direct acquisition of territory or by obtaining political and economic control of other areas. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the role of American Presidents - Roosevelt, McKinley, and Wilson - in the development of American imperialism.

A reason as to President Roosevelt being an important factor to American imperialism is due to his influence with the Panama Canal and his Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Panama Canal was Roosevelt’s most significant achievement as it fully embodied American imperialism. In other words, it was necessary to intervene the affairs in weaker nations for Roosevelt to have a stable and orderly economy and presence in the world. When the Columbian government proved difficult to negotiate with, Roosevelt sponsored a national uprising of Panamanian separatists and forced Columbia to accept the creation of an independent republic of Panama. This was virtually a ‘puppet state’ under American direction and allowed the canal to e dominated by American regulation. Roosevelt set out the Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that the USA has the right to ‘exercise international police power’ in Latin America if there were ‘flagrant cases of wrongdoing or impotence’. This was done to show the world that the USA was a power to be reckoned. This was an important shift in American policy as Roosevelt virtually amended the Monroe Doctrine to justify his interventionalist policy in forcing through the independence of Panama in order to secure American control over the Panama Canal. It also shows America’s influence as they were able to control a state.

Another reason as to the importance of Roosevelt’s imperialism was because of his collaborations with Alfred Thayer Mahan on USA naval bases. Mahan was a close friend of Roosevelt’s, and therefore Roosevelt accepted Mahan’s arguments that by investing in China, USA could build naval bases and therefore America would have a more ‘forward’ foreign policy based on modern sea power. By enlarging the US Navy, America would look more powerful to other countries with a large sea power that would be able to defend against attacks from other powers, especially European powers, and would be able to join the list of world powers.

Along with President Roosevelt, President McKinley was imperialist with his influence over Cuba. When Cuban nationalists began a revolt against Spanish rule in 1895, they received significant backing from American sympathisers. The US government did not want to get involved in Cuba, however, when the Spanish Ambassador criticised McKinley, he felt he had no choice but to go to war. The Teller Amendment was passed in Congress which ensured that Cuba would not become a US colony. American forces invaded Cuba and emerged victorious. After this, however, the Platt Amendment of 1901 replaced the Teller Amendment and allowed the USA to intervene in Cuba to maintain its stability and independence if there was considered to be a ‘threat’. This meant America would decide what did and did not constitute a threat to Cuban ‘independence’. Because of his use of force in Cuba, President McKinley developed American imperialism as this was the defining point of America losing their isolationist title and showing their imperialism.

President Wilson could be said to have been imperialist as shown with Mexico. In 1914 after the Mexican Revolution, Wilson sent American marines to occupy Vera Cruz and restore order, however this actually helped to strengthen the military dictator Victoriano Huerta’s position instead of overthrowing his regime. Wilson was criticised by Roosevelt form to being tough enough yet also criticised by anti-imperialist forced for intervening in the first place. In 1916, Wilson intervened again, sending in a large military force. However, American intervention was unsuccessful and the military force was pulled out in 1917. Although he showed imperialist intentions with sending American marines into Mexico, Wilson was not naturally an imperialist and after the events of Mexico, he returned to his traditional isolationist views.

To sum up, President Roosevelt was a very important factor contributing to the development of American imperialism in 1900-1914 as he amended the Monroe Doctrine to pursue his imperialist ideologies, taking control of the Panama Canal and developing USA naval bases. Although, President McKinley also had an important part in developing American imperialism in this time period as by using force in Cuba, he was the first President to do this, showing how imperialist his motives were. Even though President Wilson used imperialist tactics to try and intervene in Mexico, he was shown to not be important to American imperialism as this failed and he returned back to his beliefs in American isolationism.

As our most recent election showed us, most Americans are displeased with the country they live in. This is probably related to the fact that fewer and fewer Americans can consider themselves “middle class.” And with the decline of America’s once-prized middle class has come a decline in once-prized democracy. The American middle class has been falling, in all aspects, since the late 1960’s, and continues to fall today. The decline of the American middle class has led to not only economic struggle, but has constrained the presence of true democracy in America.

In his essay “Terra Firma,” Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa describes his journey from a migrant farm worker to a respected neurosurgeon. Somewhere during that transition, Quiñones-Hinojosa worked as “a welder and pressure valve specialist for a railroad company” (Quiñones-Hinojosa). If this essay was written say 60 years ago, Quiñones-Hinojosa probably would’ve stopped his journey to success at that railroad company. During the first half of the 20th century, industry and production jobs were far more desired than they are today. Positions such as welders or valve specialists once involved respectable incomes. But as of today, people holding these positions are often just scraping by. Quiñones-Hinojosa didn’t stop at the railroad position; in fact he writes about fearing for access to proper healthcare while working that job. The descent of the American middle class can be attributed to a long list of factors, but the most important of these is a disconnection between average incomes amongst classes. As highlighted by workers such as welders, positions once considered “adequate” are barely that. Since the 1960’s, America as a whole has experienced a general income raise. Viewing only that statement, one would think that all types of American families would benefit. Unfortunately, as Marilyn Geewax of NPR puts it in her article “The Tipping Point: Most Americans No Longer Are Middle Class,” “Upper-class Americans have seen their incomes rise 47 percent, while middle and lower-class families have gained only 28 percent” (Geewax). Combined with inflation, this median income is simply not adequate to sustain the lifestyle it once did. And the death of the middle class is occurring rapidly- while 61% of Americans considered themselves middle class in 1971, only 50% can as of 2015 (Byrne). As such, middle-class workers and families have been slowly but surely disproportionately forced into less comfortable and generally harder lives.

The causes of this median decline are notable, and so are its effects. Most wouldn’t expect one effect of America’s lost middle class- the decline of democracy. Since the inception of democracy, dating back to Aristotle, a middle class has been the core of democratic success. Democracy is dependant on various opinions, formed as a result of various backgrounds. Although the presence of both upper and lower classes is important, the middle class holds the most weight. A democratic middle class is generally representative of cultural medians- average exposure to education, global cultures, and political workings. Without this middle class, the educated upper class and uneducated lower classes fight over power within the democratic government. As more and more Americans consider themselves low income, this vital American center is lost. Our most basic, and publicized, form of political participation is voting in the presidential election. Even for citizens who do not vote in local or state elections, there is a social expectation to vote in the quadrennial national election. In 1964, a moderately successful 61% of the voting age population- American citizens over the age of 18- voted in the presidential election. Since, then voter turnout in elections of all forms has been generally decreased. Voter turnout even fell as low as 49% in 1994- that’s 12% lost in 30 years (Peters and Woolley). As Americans become economically polarized, more people are pushed into either notable wealth or into notable economic struggle, leaving less average citizens to participate in America’s government.

Unfortunately, the death of America’s middle class is much more than just an economic issue. Edward Luce puts it succinctly in his book “Time to Start Thinking - America in the age of Descent”- “There was a time, until relatively recently, when belonging to the American middle class brought with it a basic level of security. Many of those have gone or continue to erode” (Luce). Unfortunately, along with those times of economic stability has gone the cultural median required for a successful democracy. If our middle class does not regain its size and power, America as we know it may never be the same.

The representation of the exterior landscape is a projection of an individual’s interior psyche, in which one’s identity can be understood through their diverse experiences within their surroundings. As such, the nature of an individual’s relationship with the landscape, whether real, remembered or imagined, can transform one’s identity and reflect one’s inner state. Colm Toibin’s novel, Brooklyn (2009) explores the shaping of identity as moulded by experiences and memories in mutually exclusive landscapes through the centralised character development of Eilis. Woody Allen’s film, Midnight in Paris (2011), provides insights into the Golden-age thinking that forces Gil Pender to inhabit conflicting landscapes of an idealised past and inadequate present. Hence, both texts present a unique experience of the profound influence landscapes have on an individual’s identity and psyche.

Brooklyn’s insightful portrayal of the migrant experience reveals the dynamic power of new and unfamiliar landscapes in reshaping an individual’s identity. The Brooklyn setting reinforces a strong absence of home and emotional rift in familial relations that plagues Eilis’ fragmented identity; her room is likened to a physical and emotional “tomb”, serving as a reminder of her isolation from the security and warmth of a home she may never recover. As Eilis accumulates experiences in the real Brooklyn landscape, she demonstrates her newfound independence through the high modal language of being “answerable to no one”, highlighting the diasporic bildungsroman nature of the novel in which Toibin portrays Eilis’ change in identity and personal growth. This is reiterated through the contrasting characterisation of Eilis as a reserved, passive character forced into a world of emotional turmoil to an empowered individual who develops independence and confidence. Eilis’ acknowledgement of personal transformation is exemplified through the limited third person perspective to indicate her underlying detachment from the remembered landscape of Enniscorthy, demonstrating the impact of meaningful reflection on one’s sense of self. Thus, an individual’s identity is a product of the multi-faceted experiences and memories forged within unique landscapes.

In Midnight in Paris, Gil undergoes a shift in identity through his surreal journeys between the expatriate Paris of the Roaring Twenties to the Paris of today. The real landscape is a world of a more objective, contemporary reality that contrasts the imaginary landscape of the 1920’s, a fabricated utopia existing only in Gil’s fragmented mind. Gil initially conforms to the mainstream, inartistic scriptwriting industry, as demonstrated through his self-deprecating soliloquy, “I'm a Hollywood hack who never gave real literature a shot,” and only finds his identity as a writer through his interactions with luminaries of the past such as Ernest Hemingway. Through his escapist desire to withdraw from the present to take shelter in a utopian past, Gil realises the objective realities of imagined landscapes, glorying in prosaic vulgarities that lose their quotidian character through the passing of time, “If I ever want to write something worthwhile I have to get rid of my illusions that I’d be happier in the past”. Thus, the motif of the Golden-Age thinking that “a different time period is better than the one one's living in” proves incomplete and ultimately unfulfilling, such that Gil discovers its limitations and liberates himself from its grasp. Hence, a nostalgia for an abstract past can stimulate renewed perceptions of oneself and the ostensibly unfulfilling realities of the world around them.

Brooklyn explores how an individual’s perception of and attitude towards the landscape varies according to their emotional state of mind. The representation of Brooklyn fluctuates between Eilis’ difficulty in assimilating to the uncertainty of a new environment and her contemplative tone of feeling a “stronger sense of home than she has ever imagined”. The tactile imagery of “their expression seemed alarmed by the cold, made desperate by the wind and freezing temperatures” draws on pathetic fallacy to emulate Eilis’ initial displacement and detachment, representing the environment as hostile from which her lingering feelings of alienation are underscored. Eilis’ shifted perception of Brooklyn is portrayed through the vibrant visual imagery of “she observed how beautiful everything was, the trees in leaf, the children playing,” where she adopts an enlightened state of mind and re-evaluates her attitude towards unfamiliar landscapes. This accumulation of the familiar aspects of an idyllic “home” emphasises Eilis’ stream of consciousness and evokes optimism, which cohesively reflects her overcoming the overwhelming inertia elicited by an unfamiliar landscape. Moreover, Eilis’ perception of “home” becomes ambiguous once she returns to Ireland, as if she were metaphorically “two people” - her divided loyalties reflective of her growth and adaptation to Brooklyn whilst being pervaded by a sense of nostalgia and loss from Enniscorthy. Thus, the reader realises that one’s perception of and attitude towards the landscape is contingent upon their personal development and psychological disposition within.

Similarly, Midnight in Paris depicts a multi-faceted Paris that fluctuates with Gil’s appreciation of cultural authenticity and Inez’s conflicting hedonistic values. The opening montage of extreme long shots of Paris establishes the clichéd tourist view of the real landscape through the cumulative transitions of monuments and cafés, and panoramic views narrated by repetitive non-diegetic saxophone pieces. This glamourised version of Paris aligns with Inez’s values, who superficially appreciates the aesthetic and materialistic value of new landscapes through the high modal language of “Oh God no! I could never live out of the United States”. Whereas previous depictions of the rain were in the fictionalised 1920’s, the rain reappears in present-day after Gil breaks up with Inez, symbolising his embracement of the cultural authenticity offered by remembered landscapes and reinforcing his detachment from the past. This reinforces Gil’s appreciation of the intrinsic beauty of landscapes, as the rain’s status as an irritant to the layman is to him a display of the metaphorically “drop-dead gorgeous” Paris. Hence, there exists no one true landscape that every character objectively shares, existing only in the phenomenology of the observer’s perception.

“The devil can cite scripture for his purposes” said William Shakespeare in The Merchant Of Venice. Much like the devil in this quote illustrates, the Scopes Trial was a battle for control of American society and American culture with fundamentalism as the weapon of choice. At the time, many people were anxious about where they stood in terms of morality and religion. The prime movers and figures involved in the religious-backed persecution of Scopes were not uneducated or overzealous about attacking the theory of evolution, instead they were opportunistic to take advantage of this cultural chaos. Today, politicians use geo cultural, socioeconomic and other societal dichotomies to align themselves with particular progressive or fundamentalist causes in order to accumulate support. American society has and always will be an amalgamous, and thus a highly volatile culture. It is dynamic and is ever facing changes in political, societal, and economic fronts which are dependent on installations from the tug-of-war between tradition and progression. The societal boundaries that exist as a result of this tug-of-war further section parts of American past and present as people struggle to find the right answer to particular issue, even if they know where they stand in the spectrum of fundamentalism versus modernism.

The Butler Act and the Scopes Trial were both ploys for personal benefit or biased agenda and were merely the culmination of a power struggle over control of American values and thus the American people. The Butler Act is seen by some as a direct attack on science for it denounced “[the teaching of] any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals” (Butler). However, the author of the Butler Act, Johns Washington Butler, was a prosperous tobacco farmer who claimed to have read the Origin of Species and was open to sharing the information with his own children (Bradbury). He opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools as a ploy to maintain the favor with the overwhelming majority that elected him into office. The Scopes Trial was itself a test case the media used for a showdown between the fundamentalists and the modernists. William Jennings Bryan represented the State against John Scopes. Bryan was a fundamentalist who led a systematic crusade against evolution education in American classrooms. This was most likely because he wanted to maintain the traditional values he had long supported and because he wanted to stay at the center of public attention for the sake of his political career (“An Introduction”). Thus Bryan had both fundamentalist and opportunistic reasons for participating in the trial. The ACLU who recruited John Scopes as the offered up guilty party for the modernist cause, did not originally want Clarence Darrow on the defense, fearing that his overzealous agnosticism would turn into an unnecessary attack on religion that the ACLU hoped to avoid (“An Introduction”). The ACLU wanted to avoid the offensive argument Darrow could provoke because the trial was not about attacking religion or attacking science, it was about attempting to regain control of American attention and keeping sympathy on the modernist side against the otherwise ruling power of the fundamentalists.

Much like the ACLU and Bryan, Flannery O’Connor, a born and raised Catholic, created the story of Hazel Motes in order to warn those who believed they could escape the traditions and values that are fundamental to America as a Christian-borne nation. In her novel, O’Connor at first builds Hazel up as if he was in control and could get away with rejecting the light of God before she slowly destroys him as punishment for his crusade against Christian teachings. Hazel Motes, even in his namesake, is made imperceivable as well as unable to perceive. O’Connor described Hazel as someone with an “expression [that] seemed to open onto a deeper blankness” (162) and as a nearly invisible figure for whom “The porter didn’t stop” (11). O’Connor created Hazel to be erroneously obsessed with materialism and as part of his punishment, she takes away his essex, the symbol of his power and emerging religion. With this she instills the sense of inevitability that even Hazel, one of the more despicable Christians is unable to face anything other than redemption. The novel is yet another example of attempting to control the American population that is close to or already has strayed from the traditions of the Christian faith.

We can see much of the same cunning phenomena from the passing of the Butler Act and the Scopes Trial in today’s political realm. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, his campaign included little to no support for gay rights. In fact in a pre-election interview he expressed his personal definition of marriage as “the union between a man and a woman” and that “for [him] as a Christian it is also a sacred union [and] God’s in the mix.” Once elected and two years into his first term, Obama showed half-hearted sentiment attempting to placate both conservatives and progressives stating that “[he] [has] been unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of [his] understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage” while meekly acknowledging “that attitudes evolve, including [his].” However, when running for a second term in 2012, Obama seemed to have a complete reversal in his views five months before the election, stating that “[He] just concluded that for [him] personally it is important for [him] to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married” (Weinger).

Optimistically, critics would say that Obama had a personal change of heart as his opinion evolved in office. However, realistically, we are faced with the more likely scenario that Obama, like many presidents before him and most likely many to come, used the gay rights agenda as leverage in both of his elections. He took wildly different stances to follow the push and pull of the majority vote tide. In the first election, he angled to grab support of conservatives on the Republican side and in the second election, he focused on maintaining a strong democratic vote with his Hail Mary of jumping onto the progressive platform. Obama is one example of many politicians and influential figures who actively obscure their personal values in order to appeal to the majority of voters and supporters. Instead they align themselves on the spectrum between conservative and liberal, hoping they land in the perfect balance for victory. In the end it is unlikely that there is concern for morality among the politicians, rather what becomes important is office election.

A major and continuous division the Scopes trial represents is the long established cultural regionalism between rural and urban, and to some degree North versus South. In the 1920s, urban America was changing. Most of this development was also occurring in the the Northern parts of the United States as opposed to the south. Huge numbers of immigrants flooded to American cities, rapidly changing demographics as a result. Technology further accentuated the rural and urban division. City dwellers had electricity, running water, radios, and movie theaters. As lifestyle changed, so did values. Urban America became the center of innovation, cultural festivity, and intellectual experimentation with a place for jazz and flappers. It moved away from the traditional values that still dominated the countryside. The Scopes Trial however, took place in a rural part of Tennessee. The Butler Act that banned the teaching of evolution was meant to uphold traditional religious ideas against the spreading influence of the modernist ideals of science above religion. This law was one aspect of the fundamentalist attempt to maintain the supremacy of their beliefs and a resurgence for control over American values.

The Scopes Trial itself also played up the differences between rural and urban America. Urban newspaper and radio reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the trial. Many of them, especially H.L. Mencken portrayed the prosecution and the people of Dayton as backwards and narrow-minded. Mencken described Bryan who was leading the persecution as a “pathetic man” which “a cruel mouth shut tightly” (Mencken). The media conspicuously sided with the modernists and thereby helped to propagate the idea that there was a fundamental cultural differences between rural and urban communities (“Introduction”). The Scopes Trial was the turning point in the struggle between rural fundamentalist values and those of scientifically-inclined urban dwellers. It could have been responsible for inhibiting the passage of laws similar to Tennessee’s in other states that did not want to endure the ridicule that had been heaped on Dayton (“The Scopes Trial”).

The divisions that exist within America, even the political and social separations of the young and the old, stem from a weak sense of national identity, something most other nations hold in high regard. Often this American characteristics is seen as a benefit that it is an amalgamation of many cultures and philosophies. However despite the sentiment, this quality also serves to fester a form of cultural and societal chaos. Following World War I, this aspect of American society heightened the morally anxious and restless youth. In the wake of these two factors erupted a mass cultural revolution and a complete shift away from Victorian era values. They were instead exchanged for the pursuit of intellectual experimentation and stimulation (“An Introduction”). As a result, many of the older generation saw their values and traditions becoming a barren wasteland laid to rest by the youthful recklessness and moral ambiguity of the younger generation who were becoming young and politically conspicuous in the ‘20s. Jazz music, flapper culture, birth control for women, and anti prohibition were embraced by the younger generation as the older generation looked on in horror of the slowly crumbling institutions they had built (“An Introduction”).

The divisions between old and young, often with a religious argument in the mix, are still seen today in the the form of many issues including gay marriage rights and abortion. On the front against gay marriage, one of the pivotal arguments remains that in Leviticus 20, the Bible states that “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”. Many of those who reference scripture against gay marriage are of the older generation who often attended church and had grown up pious. Meanwhile the members of the younger generation take a strong stance for gay marriage because their exposure to religious influence was much lesser than that of their predecessors. They instead look outside religious teachings and intellectually consider the concept of restricting marriage from a biological and emotional standpoint. However the pro gay marriage and anti gay marriage sentiments are sometimes muddled and can instead be rooted in political agendas for cultural control of people rather than the morality of the issue at hand.

Abortion rights are also debated using religious ideas of life’s sacredness, that destruction of conceived human life is an attack on God’s work and that doing so is murder which breaks a main commandment of “Thou Shalt Not kill” (Exodus 20:13). On the other hand the younger generation of adults argue scientifically that up to a certain point fetuses are not human and are merely a mass of cells so abortion in any case should be up to the woman. Both of these issues are only scratching the surface of the different distinctions between the old and young, the Christian raised and the scientifically curious, the creationists and the evolutionists. The oscillating eras of peace and war combined with the weak sense of national identity has created a deep decisiveness between the ages.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

The Monkey Scopes Trial was about making the fight between fundamentalism and modernism the spectacle of a lifetime and utilizing it for control. For the most part it was successful, as the modernists gained much support from reports and news castors while making the fundamentalists of the rural south appear backwards thinking and ridiculous. In the end the Scopes Trial and the Butler Act were hardly isolated events. Politicians use alignment and views as ploys, the division between rural vs urban is hardly different. Many of the same issues that stood then, still stand now. The Monkey Scopes was run by three wise monkeys which were the press, the persecution, and the defense. Together these monkeys vied for control of American sentiment amidst the chaos and carnivalesque culture of the 20’s.

A CPU has two primary tasks: processing data and executing instructions. The processor contains a quartz clock that sends out tiny pulses of electricity at regular intervals. Each time the clock ticks, the CPU can process one piece of data or execute one instruction.

While it might appear that the processor can do many tasks at once, it can really process only one instruction at a time. However, it processes the instructions so quickly that it appears to be multitasking. A CPU with a clock speed of 3 GHz, for example, can process three thousand million instructions per second.

When you insert a DVD into an optical drive, the program you’re running might pause for a moment. While the CPU is busy processing instructions for the program, devices such as a DVD drive, printer or camera might need CPU resources to complete an operation. To let the processor know it needs attention, a device signals an interrupt. When the processor is interrupted, it stores its current state in memory, executes instructions for the device, and then restores its prior state and continues running the program where it left off.

The difference between a slow computer and a fast computer is the power and speed of the processor, which are driven by the number of transistors on the processor’s chip and its clock cycle. Advances in technology have enabled processor manufacturers to place an increasing number of transistors on a single processor chip to create powerful processors that fit in small devices such as mobile phones and tablets. A typical smartphone has about 193,000 percent more transistors on its processor chip than a personal computer from the early 1990s, and its clock runs about 16,600 percent faster.

A computer with two processors runs almost twice as fast as a computer with a single processor. Placing multiple processors on a single chip is another common method of manufacturing faster computers. Displaying computer graphics requires a substantial number of processor cycles, which can slow down the other tasks that a computer performs. To relieve the CPU, manufacturers developed the graphics processing unit, or GPU. A CPU often has a built-in GPU on the same chip. The two processors work in tandem to provide the resources demanded by the device, with the CPU offloading much of the graphics work to the GPU.

Life is littered with a variety of obstacles that present a challenge to daily life. Thomas Paine once said, “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” The quote can be understood as, the bigger the obstacle one overcomes, the more satisfied and accomplished one will feel after overcoming it, because of the strength and effort necessary to overcome the roadblock. I believe Paine’s argument to be true, seeing it proved in literature like “The General History of Virginia”, in history, during the Revolutionary War, and in my own experience taking my first AP test.

Early British colonists that made landfall in the U.S. faced a series of unimaginable hardships. Settlers like John Smith were some of the first Europeans to explore the vastly uninhabited land, they were unprepared for the hardships that lied ahead. John Smith and his settling group were not aware of how long the journey across the pond would take, and this presented various challenges for them, “we were at sea five months where we both spend our victual and lost the opportunity of time and season to plant.” (Smith, PG 14) Missing the planting season would present a multitude of challenges for the settlers, most importantly was the lack of food. The colonists would have to rely on their problem solving and unity to be able to survive with the shortage of food.

The colonists intelligently turned to the natives for help (of course after a minor conflict) forming a bond with the natives. The natives lived off of the land and had an abundance of food and grain, and they weren’t reluctant to share, “ Pocahontas with her attendants brought him so much provision that saved many of their lives.” (Smith, PG 17) The colonists forged alliances necessary to aid in their survival during a harvest less season. Through this, the colonists were able to survive the unthinkable, prevailing through the adversity. The magnitude of the challenge that they faced makes the victory that much more enjoyable. Being able to come back from being close to losing it all to a position of strength and stability makes the colonists triumph that much more satisfying.

The British crown oppressed the American colonists, forcing their administrative power upon them in taxation and colonial oversight. Patrick Henry, spoke before the Virginia Convention in an attempt to rally support to push back against the British. Henry cites the hardships that the colonists have had to endure in his speech, “ we have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne; and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament.” (Henry, Pg 37) The British levied taxes and royal decrees upon the colonists from across the Atlantic for the benefit of the crown and the citizens of the British mainland, this upset the colonists because they were being ruled by leaders who did not even inhabit the US mainland. This united the colonists against a common enemy, but there was a huge obstacle that lie before them, they were simply outnumbered. The colonists were extremely united, most were bound together by a common cause, assuring their independence from the tyrannical rule of the

British crown who had ruled over them for so long. Henry echoed the beliefs of many Americans at the time, he said in his famous speech before the Virginia Convention, “give me liberty or give me death!” (Henry, pg 16) Despite the immense difference in the military capabilities of Britain and the colonies, the colonists were able to prevail, liberating themselves from the hands of the British. The colonists had a huge challenge in the Revolutionary war, but they prevailed despite the adversity, and it is this victory, overcoming this huge roadblock that makes the win so special. A hard fought victory makes it that much more enjoyable because you are throwing everything you have into the battle.

School can often times present students with various difficult challenges that push them to their limits, but overcoming these barriers can reap huge sensations of satisfaction. When I got pushed to my limit was when I took AP European History, preparing for the AP test was a huge challenge. A whole year's worth of content would have to be fresh in my mind for the test date, I thought it would be impossible. I studied for weeks, spending hours on content review and practice tests. The test day came and went, and when I received my test score I found out that I passed! This immense challenge was difficult, but because of how much effort I invested into it, the victory was so much sweeter. All my hard work was reflected in my score, Paine’s quote of “the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph” stands true.

Hard fought battles present you with the greatest sense of accomplishment. Enduring life's most difficult conflicts may seem extremely difficult at times, but overcoming the difficulty increases the sense of accomplishment. In The General History of Virginia, the Revolutionary War, and my personal AP test experience, huge challenges are presented before the protagonists, but they tough it out and make it through the hurdles, and this victory is much more memorable and noteworthy because of the challenges we had to overcome.

Have you ever thought that the color of the light can affect the plant growth? I believe that color will affect the plant growth. Light is essential during plant growth and photosynthesis. Light powers and gives energy to the plant. In my project, I will use these following materials: Blue light bulb, red light bulb, white light bulb, three planting pots, soil, and water. I chose this topic because I have wondered if plants can grow without light or if plants can grow with a different color light. Does the color of light affect the plant growth?

What color is the most effective? There are many color that can affect plant growth. Green light is the least effective. Plants are green due to the green pigment in the cells of the plant. Green also has a shorter wavelength. Different colors of light changes what will occur in the plant. Blue light has a shorter wavelength, causing the light to have more energy.

Blue light has a shorter wavelength than green. Blue light is needed at the beginning of plants growth. Blue light ensures healthy roots, strong stems, and healthy leafs. Without blue light, the plant would not be able to come up out of the ground. White and red light are different from blue light.

Some people believe by removing yellow or white light, plants can produce healthier indoor plants than plants grown outdoors. White light has a medium wavelength, so it is in between blue and red light.

Red light is at the very end of the wavelength spectrum. Red has the longest wavelength, causing it not to have a lot of energy. Red light is used during the flowering or blooming process. Vegetables aren’t affected by red lights. It’s best to use red light toward the end of the plant cycle.

How are plants affected by light? All living things need energy to grow. We get energy from food. Plants get energy from light through photosynthesis. Without light, the plant would not have any energy to grow. If plants don’t get enough energy, or light, many things can occur. Stems can become saggy or stretched out, the leafs may turn yellow, the leafs can become small, the leafs or stem can become spiraled, the leafs can also start to get brown at the tips of the lead, and lastly, the lower leafs can dry up and shrink. When plants get enough energy, none of those things will occur and you would get a healthy plant.What is photosynthesis?

Photosynthesis is a process by which plants, algae, and certain bacteria collect sunlight to then become food for the plant to use. During photosynthesis, light energy is absorbed into chlorophyll. The energy allows the creation of sugar by the reaction of water and carbon dioxide. The equation is: 6CO2+6H2O—>C6H12O6 + 6O2, or Carbon dioxide + water —> sugar and oxygen. Sugar, or glucose is made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

How do plants grow? Plant growth start with a seed. The seed needs food, enough water, and sunlight. When the seeds are planted into the soil, they will first grow roots. The roots will collect water and nutrients from the soil. The nutrients will help the plant grow. The sunlight will provide energy for photosynthesis. Water lets the plants roots grow and stretch out to find more water. The growth is continuous until the plant is fully grown.

What do plants need to grow? Plants need many things to grow. Plants need food, which is sugar or glucose, water, and sunlight. Food gives the plant nutrients and energy to grow. Water also help plant growth. Water moves the nutrients in the plants roots to different parts of the plant. Plants get their energy from sunlight. Without sunlight, a plant would not be able to get energy to grow or produce food. Plants need all these things to survive.

Does the color of light affect the plant growth? Yes, it does. My hypothesis is that blue light will be the most effective. I believe this because plants won’t come up out of the ground if the plant didn’t have blue light, and blue light has shorter wavelengths , than red and white, so blue light will have more energy to give to the plant.

AP English Literature and Composition

Introduction to Poetry Explication

Billy Collin’s poem, Introduction to Poetry, dramatizes conflict of poets’ frustration when their work is overanalyzed instead of being enjoyed. More specifically, this poem’s narrator stresses the author’s intent of providing open-ended messages when writing poetry while audiences fail to appreciate poetry properly, instead seeing them as intellectual burdens. This struggle is shown by the shocking personifications and imagery in the final two stanzas of “[tying] the poem to a chair with rope/and [torturing] a confession out of it… and [torturing] a confession out of it.” These highly charged descriptions show how disappointed poets become when they realize that their poetry stresses student readers in understanding the poems rather than taking time to enjoy the poems.

The first and second stanzas provide sensory imagery to reflect the variety of poetry there is in the world. By using visual imagery to note that students “hold [poems] up to the light/like a color slide” or auditory imagery like “[pressing] an ear against its hive,” the poem’s persona illustrates how subjective poems can be. Similar to how there are millions of colors, there are millions of interpretations for poems and one should be excited by all these possibilities instead of draining oneself to find the “one true meaning.” This painful but pointless search for the supposed one true meaning that literary persons prescribe is further outlined by comparing readers’ analyses to “[dropping a mouse] and watching him probe his way out.” This metaphor effectively explains how lost readers are when examining poetry. Currently, poetry is a labyrinth to many readers, which can be great for rereading and trying new options to discover new interpretations like “[feeling] the walls for a light switch” but should also be avoided because of the confusion audiences dislike. The particular usage of “switch” emphasizes how poems can change meaning and expose new details the more times one reads it.

The poem’s persona directly states their purpose for poetry by “[wanting] them [the readers] to waterski across the surface of a poem.” The diction of “waterski” demonstrates how audiences should enjoy the poem for what it is, on-the-surface like a wave, and under-the-surface like the ocean but not systemically dive deep into the ocean right away. Readers should wade through the waves for a while first and fully absorb the poem’s beauty first and then take on the fun of individualistic analysis, as highlighted by the comparison to the exciting sport of waterskiing.

The poem finally features unique structural features such as multiple short stanzas and free verse. The lack of rigid organization or adherence to a rhyme scheme may imply the freeness that poets want to express in their works, that each poem can have multiple meanings and should not be boiled down into one particular analysis, unlike how some teachers or professors would force students to “dig deeper” for meaning that was never really there. The narrator, who probably reflects Collins himself, wants to reveal that their poems are not meant to trick readers but to provide a sense of enjoyment. It is even simply feels free to skip lines so often rather than keeping the long complete sentences required by proper English grammar. All in all, this poem conveys that making effortful unnecessary reaches as to what each line means can disrespect the purpose of a poem, which is to find one’s own meaning for leisure.

The Parthenon, constructed in 447 and 438 BCE, is one of the most famous monuments of ancient Greek civilization. It shows the greatest works of Greek architecture, history, and ancient Greek religious beliefs. Although now it lay mostly in ruins, it stands towering above Athens, continuing its legacy as one of the greatest examples of the country’s power and wealth.

Work began on the Parthenon in 447 BC, built on the Acropolis, to replace a temple that was destroyed by the Greek’s rivals the Persians in 480 BC. The building of the Parthenon cost Greece 469 silver talents, and the work began under the order of Pericles who wanted to show the wealth and exuberance of the Athenian power to rivaling nations. The name “Parthenon” derived from a cult statue titled “Athena Parthenos” that was to be housed in the east room of the building. The Parthenon, built with ivory and gold, was sculpted by the renowned sculptor of that time; Phidias. Following the reason behind most of the buildings constructed on the Acropolis, the Parthenon is dedicated to the goddess Athena.

To truly make the Parthenon an outstanding architectural monument, many people were involved in the construction of the building including Pericles, Phidias, Kalamis, Ictinus, and Calibrates. As stated earlier, Pericles was the leading statesman of the time. Phidias and Kalamis were both in charge of the design of the sculptures and decorations. Ictinus and Calibrates were the chief architects for the whole project. Most of the funds that were used to build the Parthenon went towards transporting the materials needed, such as the stone from Mount Pantelakos, which was 16 kilometers from Athens to the Acropolis.

The architecture holds many resemblances to Doric design with many iconic architectural features. The architects, Ictinus and Calibrates, used ingenious visual effects in their models of the Parthenon making the building more symmetrical looking then it is. It was so popular that it was used in later century architecture, in particular through the Roman era. The Parthenon held many different architectural elements such as the colonnade of fluted, baseless columns with square capital stands on a base that supports the roof, consisting of bands of stone. The colonnade also contains eight columns on both the east and west sides of the building and 17 on the north and south sides. All these columns were made to enclose a rectangular chamber called the cella. Behind the Cella, was another small room, that wasn't connected to the cella but individually placed on the west side. It also consists of a frieze (an artistic mosaic) of vertically grooved blocks and plain blocks to help relieve the decoration on the wall. The only light that entered the Parthenon was from the east doorway, except for some that sneaked in through the marble tiles in the roof and ceiling.

As one can see, the Parthenon is a prime example of an extraordinary number of architectural refinements, which combined give a look of plastic, sculptural appearance to the building. The sculpture decorations on and inside the Parthenon gave the building a sweeter look from its large and overpowering exterior. Many different images were portrayed on the building such as a battle between gods and giants; and on the south side of the Parthenon, Greeks, and centaurs; on the west, more Greeks and Amazons were portrayed. Unfortunately, all the decorations on the north side lay in ruins. The decorations continue in a frieze around the top of the cella wall, representing the annual Panathenaic procession of citizens honoring the goddess Athena. On the east end with a priest and priestess of Athena flanked by two groups of gods seated before them. The pediment groups, carved in the round, shown on the east end, the birth of Athena. On the west end, her contest with the god of the sea Poseidon for dominion of the region around Athens is portrayed. The entire work is a fantastic composition; that later was enhanced with bronze accessories.

The Parthenon remained intact until about the 5th century CE; this was when Phidias’s colossal statues were removed, and the temple was turned into a Christian church. By the 7th century, the interior of the Parthenon was changed as well. In 1456 the Turks seized the Acropolis and took the Parthenon for themselves, transforming it into a mosque, without having to change too many of the architectural elements that made it so great other than and except for raising the minaret at the southwest corner. It wasn’t long after that the center of the building was blown up and destroyed in 1687 by Venetians fighting the Turks. In 1801 to 1803 a large part of the sculpture that was left after the battle was removed by a British nobleman named Thomas Bruce and was sold in 1816 to the British Museum located in London where it remains today. Other pieces and ruins are on display in the Louvre museum in Paris and Copenhagen and many other famous museums throughout the world, but the Parthenon still stands in Athens today on display for tourists to adventure and explore.

Now that we know the history and architectural elements that went into making this marveled temple referred to as the Parthenon, I want to discuss some other fun facts about this historic monument. Though many consider the Parthenon to be a temple to the Goddess Athena, the Greeks made it be a treasury for all of Athens wealth. Because it was seen as a bank for the Greeks, this is the reason they placed one of the greatest pieces of art they had, the gigantic sculpture of Athena dressed in chryselephantine (elephant ivory) and gold, one of the most priceless artifacts of that time. For the Parthenon to fit such an array of treasures, it measured at 111 feet by 228 feet or also known as 30.9 meters by 69.5 meters.

The Parthenon survived many battles, though damaged it remains one of the proudest most exquisite pieces of architecture in Athens. Today tourists journey far and wide to walk up the steps of the Parthenon and see all of its beauty for details. Though it lay in ruins, it still towers over Athens reminding everyone of the great power and wealth that once was the great city.