In A Man’s Search for Meaning Dr. Frankl demonstrates the way the “meaning of life” affects a person’s drive and will. Frankl’s main argument is a prisoner’s struggle to find a purpose for his suffering within a concentration camp. However, this idea can be applied to everyday situations the average person experiences. A man may endure any level of suffering, if only he has a reason to do so.
Get original essayThe author defines the "meaning of life" as a "'why' for his existence". If a man discovers a reason for accepting his sufferings, he will be much more successful in doing so. A person who is aware of "why" he should endure it will be much better equipped to continue on and succeed. Pointless suffering of any sort is nearly unbearable to anyone.
Long after Dr. Frankl is released from the concentration camps, and has returned to practicing, an elderly gentleman was admitted to his care. The man had lost his wife, and could not overcome the grief he held. This man could not comprehend why he should attempt to deal with this tragedy. He didn't understand what the worth was in enduring it. The doctor began to discuss with him. He guided the conversation towards the idea that, had he died first, the man's wife would have been struck with a similar depression. Upon coming to this, Dr. Frankl offer the man a conclusion; "such a suffering has been spared her, and it was you who spared her this... At the price that now you have to survive and mourn her". The realization gave the gentleman a reason for having to suffer this. He was saving his wife's happiness, so to speak. Without a purpose for his struggles, he was hopeless. He saw no upside to his predicament, no silver lining. Once he found his reason, he gained a comfort in that fact. The idea that his struggling now seemed noble as opposed to pitiful was enough reason for him to accept his task.
Dr. Frankl himself found a purpose for his sufferings, even within Auschwitz and other camps. He recollects one moment where the act of walking bright so much pain that he was in tears, and his thoughts were only centered around concentrating on surviving through the rest of the week. He became appalled with his current difficulties, which followed him day after day. In an attempt to distract himself, he imagined giving a lecture about the psychology of the concentration camps. He imagined a future beyond the camp. This method worked for him – his pain became a device for which to use in the future. When he imagined a future for himself, and therefore a goal to achieve, Dr. Frankl was able to feel hope for what was beyond his "provisional existence". For, as he states, "the prisoner who had lost faith in the future ... was doomed". This person would begin to rapidly succumb to both physical and mental decay.
"Man's Search for Meaning" provides many examples for the effects of purpose on an individual's personal drive. Without a meaning, life becomes futile and unimportant. Whether it be within a life – or – death scenario, or feeling the, more commonly felt, loss of a loved one, meaning provides the necessary drive for perseverance. A man may endure any level of suffering, so long as he has a reason to continue on.
American media is an important part of everyone’s daily lives. In Nancy Mair’s “Disability”, she takes up a serious tone on explaining about people with disabilities. She is dissatisfied with the way the media portray disabled people. She uses herself as an example and explains what it is like to disabled. In the passage, she narrates on some of her personal experiences, adding direct remarks and personal ideas to it. She goes on explaining how they are being treated poorly because they are disabled. It is very important that all groups of people, even the minority, should equally be represented in American media because of equality, rights, and many other reasons.
Get original essayEveryone has their own rights and equality in the United States. As Nancy Mair’s mentioned the story about some woman with multiple sclerosis, who wanted to plan a trip to Kenya but was not able to. She also mentions that “one of those medical dramas that offer an illness-of-the-week like daily special at your local diner”. (Mairs) She is very disappointed with the media for representing a sensitive topic in a funny manner. She then mentions that when some television shows actually do portray someone with multiple sclerosis, it’s focused almost entirely on the disability. When it should focus on the person’s character and the experiences they could have in spite of their illness. The media should represent someone’s experiences that has a disease, but still lives like a normal human being.
Mairs also uses ethos to connect to her audience and show how media should represent everyone equally. She also writes as if she is talking directly to the reader, “So when I tell you I haven’t noticed any woman like me on television, you can believe me”. (Mairs) However, it is assumed that she is writing for someone that would actually understand her. She uses her personal experiences to portray that this topic is very sensible and not funny. She wants the media to show the world that even the people with disable can do things as normal people do. The media should show that even kids with disable still can perform at the same level as normal kids.
Size and age does not matter when it comes to experiences. Everyone has different kind of experiences. Even though their lives are different, everyone still act, talk, walk, and etc the same way as another person. Nancy Maris mentions “To depict disabled people in the ordinary activities of daily life is to admit that there is something ordinary about disability itself, that it may enter anybody’s life.” (Maris) It’s not the disease that is an issue, it’s the people. People in this world tend to thing others are different because of an illness, they are suffering from. The media has a big role to play in this issues, because media overdoes a topic way too much, that people start believing in it. It never tells the exact truth about what is right and what is not.
If the media starts brining out the truth about all ages of experiences and their disability, then people can start adapting it in their ordinary lives. Maris says “Achieving this integration, for disabled and able-bodies people alike, requires that we insert disability daily into our field of vision: quietly, naturally in the small and common scenes of our ordinary lives.” (Maris) If the world start seeing the disabled people as normal human being than the world would be a better place.
Overall, the media plays a huge on everyone’s minds. The media should equally represent everyone in their television shows. It should show everyone’s experiences, whether it is 45-year-old lady with multiple sclerosis or a kid with cancer. They should have a equally represented experiences in the media world.
I grew up in a small, rural town in North Carolina. I was 9 years old before I saw a person who wasn’t white, let alone had an opportunity to interact with a person of color. As I grew up, I really was subjected to bias indoctrination by virtually everyone around me. However, I have always been open minded and pride myself in being a critical thinker; so, I really didn’t subscribe to the concepts being pushed on me regarding people of other races. In my adult life, I have worked to become more cultured, and educated about diversity and the people I share my world with. In my late teens I came to some very deep, or so they seemed at the time, revelations. I had never met a person of a different race that embodied any of the stereotypes that I had been exposed to growing up; and I was pretty sure that no one I knew had either. Then in my twenties I began to form the opinion that our media was responsible for the perpetuation of these ideas. During the course of my studies I believe that I have gained far more knowledge that not only supports this theory, but also asserts that our media is responsible for perpetuating all stereotypes, not just those regarding race.
Get original essayStereotypes regarding race are often the most apparent. This is because they are generalization about an entire racial group; and are used to essentially define that race’s culture in regard to a variety of topics such as fashion, music, societal norms, and general behavior. For example, one stereotype regarding Latinos is that they are all hard workers and prefer labor intensive occupations as these jobs are less likely to be picky about immigration status. This is not a representative generalization. As with any stereotype, it is a detrimental error to lump all people of one race into one category because people are by nature diverse.
Stereotypes based upon sexual orientation are also fairly obvious. The standard ideas regarding how homosexuals (either gay or lesbian) behave are as equally incorrect as racial stereotypes. Portrayal of lesbians as being “butch” or gays as being effeminate only applies to a portion of the total population; and asserting that a homosexual falls explicitly into a specific description again is not representative of the entire demographic.
Gender stereotyping is somewhat more covert. The most common gender stereotyping we see in media today is regarding gender roles in the home and the work place. Essentially this presents that men are the more dominant gender, strong and/or powerful; while women are nurturers, homemakers, and more fragile. Although gender equality received a huge push during the sexual revolution, this type of stereotype is exceptionally hard to move away from due to being deeply embedded in our cultural norms and is linked to nature itself.
Sexual stereotypes are, like gender stereotypes, somewhat more difficult to spot(Ethical Issues in Mass Media). This is due to the fact that the presentation of this type of stereotype is not as overt as any of the others, and because it is often tied into biological nature. For example, stating the all teenagers are overly eager for sex because of hormones may sound like a valid point due to biological science. However, using this to make a broad generalization about one particular group without more substantial evidence is a stereotype. Additionally, sexual stereotypes tend to hint towards a normalization of sexual activity, such as “everyone needs it sometimes…” and generalizations regarding fashion or actions.
Media has evolved tremendously over the last 50 years. Movies, television, radio, and social media all present stereotypes to society regularly; and many times, we don’t even realize it. This is because the way that these concepts are presented imply that this is the normal behavior for this group (Tyree, 2011). For example, presenting a group of homosexual men as effeminate, loud, and displaying a certain attitude implies that this is how gay men behave. Similarly, racial stereotypes are presented through choice of fashion, behavior, character backstories, and a list of other points. The presentation of stereotypes as social norms asserts that “this is how a person of this race, gender, orientation should act, dress, behave, etc.” This is a critical part of stereotype perpetuation because it has set an expectation of social behavior to which people inevitably subscribe to.
A separate component of stereotype perpetuation is the lack of appropriate representation of minorities in the media. The ‘majority’ is Caucasian; this means that the single largest group in our population is white. Historically, media coverage, scripts, and presentation has been geared towards the majority, and is written and produced by white people (Ethical Issues in Mass Media). This inherently contributes to stereotypes in our media because their own biases get filtered through. Additionally, the concept that the majority is the authority perpetuates stereotypes regarding minority inferiority simply due to the fact that minority authorities are not equally represented in journalism (Owens, 2008). In fact, minorities are often represented as criminals, victims, or as uneducated bystanders; while Caucasians are more likely to bee represented as experts, heroes, and victims of minority crime. This directly leads to irrational fear and stereotyping.
Since completing this lesson, I have observed media more critically regarding stereotyping. I am more aware of various biases and generalizations. I am also more aware of them in my everyday life. I cannot help but think how dramatically media has influenced our perceptions of other people in our world. I have little doubt, now especially, that the responsibility for the continuation of stereotyping in our culture lays directly on our media. As a society we must be more aware of this and commit to enhanced critical thinking regarding even subtle generalization to ensure we do not aid this continuation any further.
The 17th and 18th centuries have traditionally been regarded as the eras of decline in the Ottoman Empire. During this period the Ottomans underwent major changes with traditional historians pushing the rhetoric of decline, while modern historians regarding it as a “transformation” or “reform era”.
Get original essayFor previous centuries and until the early 1920’s, the Ottoman Empire was one of dynastic rule. The Sultan was not only the ruler of the Ottoman Empire, but also the figurehead and center of the empire. Ottoman Sultans succeeded to the throne through fratricide. Sultans did not have wives or got married, but rather fathered children with their concubines from the palace’s harem. This method led to an abundant amount of heirs, but caused numerous civil wars. Since there could be only one sultan, heirs battled each other till the death. Brothers killed brothers in order to gain the sultanate. Ahmed I seeking to find a solution to the problem, implemented a new succession method. Sultan’s sons were no longer governors within the empire until their father died, but now resided in the palace and often not allowed to leave the palace. Although Ahmed I viewed his new policy favorable, the effects of his policy generated more bad than good. Unlike predecessors before, sultans after Ahmed’s reign were inexperience in governing and military tactics. With this new incompetence, the empire went through long stretches of instability leading to the rise of incompetence in the central Ottoman government. “ For a century thereafter, sultans were unfitted, unwilling or unable to take full responsibility for their theoretically awesome powers ” . Local governments gained more power, losing less respect and loyalty for the Sultan.
As stated before in the previous paragraphs during the start of the 17th century, the Empire began to suffer economically.The Ottoman Empire was no longer the gateway to Asia. With the change in trade routes, the Ottoman Empire took a major blow, losing their main source of income. European conquests to the Americas, brought substantial amounts of gold which weaken the value of silver. With the price of silver greatly less, the Ottomans faced a steep rise in inflation. Prices for goods more than tripled, while the value of the coin sank. Ottoman exports became way cheaper for European traders, and were brought in large quantities. Turkish artisans were unable to provide quality goods and cheap prices in comparison to European manufactured goods. While European nations like England were advancing technologically with the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, the Turks remain primitive. “ In 1598, the Janissaries revolted when they found out that they were to be paid in new debased currency” . Even though this event took place during the late parts of the 16th century, it would continue again through the 17th and 18th centuries. Those depending on salaries such as the Janissaries were underpaid, resulting in over taxation and corruption.
With local principalities gaining more power, the central government was receiving less tax revenue which meant a weaker empire, especially in terms of military. The Ottoman Empire had been known for their military superiority especially in their conquest against Byzantine Empire, but with the discovery of the New World , huge of amounts wealth flooded Europe. European nations such as England and France advanced rapidly in the fields of science, arts and military weapons. Due to the lack of strong military savvy Sultans, the Ottomans were defeated in crucial battles on a consistent pace. First was their defeat in Ottoman-Habsburg wars in the late 1600’s that ended the Ottoman dominance in central and south Eastern Europe. “The three wars against Russia deprived the Ottomans of the northern Black Sea, and its price paid for the neglect became clear in defeats in the ensuing wars” .Then followed the Ottoman-Russian wars which resulted with the Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca in 1774. With this treaty the Ottomans loss their monopoly over the Black Sea.
The view that the Ottoman empire was in decline during the 17th and 18th centuries was heavily pushed and spread by traditional western historians or orientalists. To them the decline of the empire started when it stopped expanding. Due to their already strained financial circumstances Turkish conquests came to a halt. Accordingly, guarding their already captured lands became a hassle, and furthermore the empire had to deal with the rise of major European states. With their power, Europeans monopolize trade routes crucial to the Ottomans, but that still was not the end of their economic problems. The timar system which had been one of the many strong points for the empire for so long, had now become another source of problems. “the numbers of timars in the empire had declined, and that as a result , fewer fighting men were available for combat duty in the military.” In all, traditional historians believe the Empire could just not keep up. Europe was moving ahead rapidly with new technologies and political reforms while the Ottoman Empire could not make the jump to modern times.
As stated before for a while, the 17th and 18th centuries was generally regarded by historians as a period of decline for the Ottoman Empire. In recent years modern Historians have to come to disagree. To historians the 17th and 18th centuries were not a time of decline, but rather a “transformation” period for the empire. “ If a process of decline did in fact begin...its prolongation was primarily due to the fact the Ottomans analyzed it… and constantly applied themselves in developing policies of reform” . To them, the empire did not display a uniform pattern of decline, and as much as the empire seem to suffering it was at the same time adjusting and shifting to the changing times. Modern Ottoman historians counter themes traditional historians addressed as failures. For example, on the topic of little advancements on the empire’s agriculture system Roger Owen argues “ Peasants in the Middle East, as elsewhere, showed themselves remarkably adaptable when it came to the introduction of more profitable crops which could be grown with roughly the same tools and which did not require a large amount of working capital” . In addition, modern historians believe that growing needs of the military in the European warfront, did not actually weaken the Turks, but brought along a set of reforms and agendas meant to help the empire. “ The military and fiscal needs of state prompted a radical change in the relation of government and subjects and eventually brought about state-wide decentralization policy” .
To conclude, the 17th and 18th centuries were crucial time periods for Europe as a whole, especially for the Ottoman Empire. Although the Ottoman decline cannot be pinpointed to a specific date, it’s gradual decline in the 17th and 18th century is pretty evident. From their economical and social problems to their dwindling military superiority, the empire was declining in a steady pace. Modern historians might say the two centuries was a time reform and transformation for the Turks, but the reforms were useless and further emphasize their habitual problems.
The world’s oceans are the most diverse, largest and most abundant commons on the entire planet. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident in April of 2011, the public concern surrounding radiological contamination has turned towards the oceans once again.
Get original essayThe nuclear age can be characterized by seven decades of conflict between stakeholders, scientists and politicians. The construction and operation of either a marine or terrestrial permanent nuclear repository is truly a global challenge that must be addressed on an international level. However, in the case of marine repositories there has been much contention in the international arena. Places such as the Marshall Islands, Bikini Atoll and the Farallon Islands in the late 1940’s housed some of the first attempts at disposing of both high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) and low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) by a single country. These sites are essentially cement-capped holes, slightly above sea level and are considered semi-permanent repositories for both political and scientific reasons. The above sea-level, capped containment has been heavily critiqued, especially in the light of new climatological and oceanic data that predicts sea-levels to rise several feet within the next one hundred years, submerging the cement-capped crater and exposing it to the harsh chemical and physical weathering processes of the corrosive Pacific Ocean.
The Pacific Ocean has a rich radiogenic history. Although these sites were the first of many ill-informed radioactive waste sites, by 1956 it was evident that more scientific knowledge was needed to begin to comprehend the physical, biological, chemical and geological effect that the voluminous amounts of radioactive waste were having on marine ecosystems. Thus, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Review Council established the Committee on Oceanography. Their initial findings were inconclusive, since most of the physical and biological processes in the oceans “were too poorly understood to permit precise predictions of the results of the introduction of a given quantity of radioactive materials at a particular location in the sea.” However only two years later, the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Atomic Energy Commision and the Office of Naval Research requested that the Committee on Oceanography continue their research into the disposal of solid and liquid LLRW in the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. The Committee’s primary research goal was to establish the maximum amount of radioactive waste that a marine ecosystem could bear before the contaminants measurably affect human enterprise or health. The Committee released three separate reports between 1959 and 1962; the Pritchard, Carritt and Isaac Reports. In short, the Pritchard study determined what type of container should be used in certain marine environments, the Carritt study determined the maximum allowable annual rate of disposing radioactive materials to be 250 curies of strontium-90 per two mile radius and the Isaac report delineated the locations and maximum number of waste sites along the coasts.
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, or the London Convention for short, is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities and has been in force since 1975. From the beginning of the Manhattan project until the enforcement of the London Convention, the idea of the oceans as a universal sewer, dumping ground or rather the great kitchen sink was a commonly held ideology amongst the nuclear nations. However this ethos was not limited to solely radioactive waste. Between June 1968 and October 1969 a total of 61.9 million tons of waste was dumped along all of the major United States coastlines. 9.3 million tons of this waste was dumped of the Pacific coast across fifty-four sites. These wastes consisted of dredge spoil, industrial waste, refuse, demolition debris, explosives, chemical warfare agents and radioactive waste.
Since the London Convention the ideological relationship between humankind and the oceans has shifted for many reasons. Throughout the 1970’s and into the 1990’s international agreements concerning the prohibition of transportation and disposal of wastes continued to be ratified in almost all of the world’s major oceans and seaways. However scientific findings often took a backseat to strongly politicized vernacular and public outcry. Cataclysmic meltdowns, protests, and activist groups in the seventies and eighties brought an onslaught of media coverage to the homes of many Americans. For example, in 1978 the environmental activist group Greenpeace showed films shot from their ship the Rainbow Warrior, featuring their attempt to stop the Nuclear Energy Agency’s annual ocean dumping. On one occasion in 1983, two 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste were thrown onto the Greenpeace inflatable from a Dutch ship. This resulted in the ratifying members of the London Convention to enact a voluntary moratorium on dumping for that year. By the early 1990’s further changes to the London Convention allowed governments to take preventative measures by shifting pollutants from a regulated gray list to a prohibited black list without any conclusive scientific research or consensus.
By the 1980’s the disposal of the United States’ radioactive waste was becoming a well-known problem. Political, environmental and geologic constraints limited the chances of a permanent repository on land. Thus, the EPA reconsidered the possibility of deep oceanic LLRW and HLRW disposal, continuing the research they began in the mid seventies. One EPA official went on record saying “With increasing public concern for waste management practices on land and the need to find permanent disposal sites, the United States is again looking towards the oceans as a possible alternative to land disposal for both low-level and high-level radioactive waste.” Of course, this information set a whole new fire beneath the seats of environmentalists groups and non-nuclear nations. Conservationists groups, commercial fishermen, local leaders, and activist groups like Greenpeace brought their campaigns to Capital Hill where they gained traction with the Reagan administration. Despite the amassed scientific evidence conducted by the EPA showing that the radiological effects of oceanic dumping had no observable impact on human health, in December of 1982 Congress passed a two-year moratorium on oceanic dumping due to the Reagan administration’s proposal four months earlier. The U.S. administrations were in great dismay because, since they still had HLRW and LLRW to dispose of.
In 1983 the U.S. Administration’s foreign policy approach was to oppose a transnational attack from nineteen developing countries demanding a unilateral ban on oceanic dumping of all radioactively contaminated waste. The vote was proposed by the Spanish government in article (LDC 1983a, Annex 3: Resolution LDC.14(7) Disposal of Radio-Active Wastes and Other Radio-Active Matter at Sea) under the London Convention. The six countries opposed were Britain, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa, Switzerland, United States. Controversies between nation-states continued until the Fourteenth consultive regime met in 1993 to address amendments to the London Convention.
Domestically in the U.S. by 1984, the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, in tandem with the NOAA “indirectly recommended that Congress and the administration revise the policy of excluding the use of the ocean for low-level radioactive waste disposal.” Although the individual states did not support the pro-dumping approach, the executive branch continued to vote against amendments to the London Convention concerning bans on oceanic dumping.
In 1991 at the thirteenth consultive regime meeting, new language was agreed upon, shifting an emphasis from “dispose and dilute” to “isolate and contain”. Environmental advocacy groups, stakeholders and opponents to oceanic dumping around the world, considered this a great victory. However the political and media firestorms reached their climax two years later in October of 1993, when Greenpeace exposed a Russian nuclear submarine dumping hundreds of metric tones of liquid LLRW into the Sea of Japan without any notice. In the fall 1993 when the consultive regime met for the fourteenth time, both Japan and the Clinton Administration reversed the foreign policy stance in support for a global ban of dumping LLRW at sea. Britain, France, Belgium, the Russian Federation, and China abstained from the vote under the rationale that there was a lack of scientific information on the subject of radioactive waste contaminating marine environments. However, all abstaining countries besides Russia claimed their support for the ban after the vote by contacting the Convention’s secretariat.
The ideological approach concerning the human relationship with the ocean and the anthropogenic impact of human activities has changed since the beginning of the nuclear age. There was a lack of scientific universalism and consensus on an international scale. The lack of understanding of the biochemical, geophysical and ecological relationships of the ocean led many arguments on both sides making value judgments that are outside the realm of scientific data. In fact the final decision to ban the dumping of LLRW at deep sea was not based on scientific evidence at all. It was the result of international political pressure in tandem the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace. Greenpeace informed the public, marshaled stakeholders and large commercial interest groups to effectively change the international ideological understanding of the human relationship with the ocean.
Currently, there is only one viable location sited to store the world’s nuclear waste at the Onkalo site in Finland and it will only be taking waste between the years 2020 and 2112. Needless to say this is not a permanent solution for the world’s spent nuclear fuel, not to mention other radioactively contaminated wastes. With political stalemates blocking terrestrial depositories on U.S. soil and little promise of adequate, permanent, repositories. In fact many scientists still consider deep-seabed permanent repositories as a viable option. 600 miles northeast of the Hawaiian islands, along the central Pacific basin lies an area four times the size of Texas that has been indentified as geologically and practically biologically inert for the last 650 million years . In 1973, Charles Hollister, a senior scientist and geologist, postulated the viability of nuclear sequestration in these inert sediments. By 1974, the DOE allocated funds for a sub-seabed research program was initiated with the help of Sandia National Laboratories. After years of research at the Sandia National Laboratory Hollister and his teams proposed the feasibility of sub-seabed nuclear waste disposal in illitic red-clays to be highly probable in the near future. The radionuclide absorbing, physical and thermal properties of the Pacific illitic-red clay showed great promise. The laboratory tests suggested “that if waste canisters were deposited just ten meters below the ocean floor, any toxic substances that leaked out would be bound up by the clays for millions of years. “
So why hasn’t the public heard of this amazing alternative to nuclear waste storage when there is no other proposed alternative? First, the environmental movement in the 1970’s strongly shifted the ideology surrounding the human relationship with the ocean from the great kitchen sink to a fragile ecosystem that is in our best interest to protect. Second, the London Convention proceedings between 1973 and 1993 have profoundly changed the international ideology of oceanic dumping and transport of radioactive wastes. Third, the DOE, in a 1986 decision cut funding to the sub-seabed research and other repository alternatives to focus its funds on the Yucca Mountain proposal, which ahs currently run aground.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayIt has been demonstrated that past decisions concerning the final resting place for the world’s nuclear waste have not relied on scientific information to inform their policy decisions. Atomic energy and the waste it produces still remain shrouded in subjective value judgments. An objective, transnational advocate is needed to lift this veil of passive political and scientific stalemate. Scientific inquiry and evidence have taken a backseat in one of the most important discussions surrounding the future of the human race. It is time for scientific objectivity and internationalism to take control of the debate once again.
Like most nations in both the present and in the past, there is a country or empire that always seems to be at war with each other. In the case of the Roman Republic, that empire turns out to be the Carthaginians. These wars became labeled as the Punic Wars, and in total there were three Punic Wars all spanning over a timeframe of 100+ years. Many historians agree that these wars were probably the largest wars to have ever taken place in that time period, much like the two World Wars in our modern times. The Punic Wars prove to be important in the transformation of Rome, both physically and economically because it allowed the Romans to conquer the Western Carthage Empire, which as a result gave Rome control of the whole Western Mediterranean Sea. Thus giving room room to expand their already growing empire with new territory, but also through the many different trade routes open to them with surrounding countries.
Get original essayThe Punic Wars took place in the years 264 B.C. and 146 B.C., spanning a time period of over 118 years. In total there were three Punic Wars, which were all fought between the Empires of Carthage and Rome for the role reasoning of gaining more territory, whether it be for military or economic reasons. The first Punic war began with a dispute of the ownership of the strategic islands of Sicily and Corsica and ended with Rome being victories. The second war began after an invasion of Italy and ended with Rome owning the whole Western Empire of Carthage. Lastly, the third war ended with Rome taking full control of Carthage and making it one of many nations Rome has conquered. These Punic Wars helped transform Rome economically because it opened up trade in the Mediterranean. The Carthaginians were expert merchants and very knowledgeable, however after their defeat by Rome, the whole Western Mediterranean Sea was left open for the Romans to buy/trade/sell. This allowed for the Roman Republic to dominate the trade market and also allowed for the Roman takeover of Greece, because the Greeks were too busy trying to overtake each other that they did not notice Rome’s attempts to assert its dominance power.
The Punic Wars have one main reason for being fought, and that is the power hungry leaders that once ruled Rome under its ever expanding Empire. The Romans have planned and were interested in the expansion of their Empire though Sicily, which was also a strategic military advantage point. However, there was one problem, and that is that Sicily was under the control of the Carthaginians, so naturally the two empires went to war. In the end, Rome had come out victorious and had conquered Carthage’s Empire, and is well on its way of becoming the most powerful Empire of the Western Mediterranean. After Rome had gained supremacy in the Western Mediterranean, they kept on invading other countries such as Greece and other African states at the time. Thus starting a chain-reaction until the eventual collapse of Rome when they couldn’t afford to keep their authority figure on any one country but their own. Lastly, this also caused a rupture in Roman Society. Where the rich only got richer and the poor only got poorer. Thus creating a time of turmoil and political instability which lead to Rome being plagued with riots and civil wars between the politicians and the citizens or even the politicians vs the politicians.
In today’s terms, an empire is several countries or nations who were once lead by their own leader, but have now been grouped together into one large country and is lead by only one political leader. In other words, an empire is the country or nation who is the strongest and most influential nation at any given time. So, yes the United States is an empire and fits into the categories of being the strongest and most influential in both economic and military terms. The United States is an empire in economic terms through business because many multinational businesses and foreign currencies rely on the U.S. dollar to keep their value up. In other words, the US Dollar can be said to be the “gold standard” of modern business. On the other hand, the United States is an Empire through military because it’s military stretches in all four directions, North, South, East, and West with over 700 military installations all around the world. The United States has been an empire since its inception and its thirst for the gaining of power and territory. Meaning that that United States has been and will always be an empire, that is until its eventual decline/fall when it can no longer financially support itself.
The Punic Wars were important to the militaristic and economic transformation of Rome because it gave them access to the whole Western Mediterranean Sea, which in turn gave them the opportunity to expand, conquer, and trade with surrounding countries.
Americans wanted to improve the character of ordinary citizens and make them more upright, god-fearing, and literate. As the young Republic grew, increasing numbers of Americans poured their energies into religious revivals and reform movements. Some Americans were disappointed by the realities of democratic politics. Reformers promoted better public schools and rights for women. Societies were formed against slavery and alcohol. Religion became more liberal, as religious reforms transformed the place of religion in American life and sent believers out to perfect the world. The Second Great Awakening sparked innovative reform movements that expanded democratic ideals socially and politically.
Get original essayThe education reform, led by Horace Mann, was an attempt to create public education available to all children so they would have the same chance at knowledge and success. Horace Mann (1796-1859) was the leading advocate of the common (public) school movement for tax-supported school. Horace in 1846 put forth effort to make sure that all children can be educated without cost. And, it was the “duty of the every government that the means of education is provided for all” (doc 3). This is because in the 19th century majority of children who could attend school were white middle class boys. Girls were often perceived as not bright enough to need schooling and slave children were needed on the plantation. Some poor boys attended school. Often they would have to leave class and rush home to help their parents, or sometimes go with their fathers to work and not even attend school at all. Due to the efforts of Horace and other reformers free public schools for Children of all classes were established payed for by the state taxes. Similar to the educational reform, rehabilitation reform, a movement lead by Dorothea Dix, fought for the improved treatment and care for the mentally handicapped in asylums and for better rehabilitation programs for those who spent time in the federal penitentiaries. This is because people in mental hospital tended to be restrained in “strait-waist coat...fastened with chains to the upper parts of the bedstead...and feet fastened with iron leg locks and chains” (doc 5). This deplorable conditions that the mentally ill were forced to live under is very inhumane and unconstitutional. Followers of Dix fought for more humane action in the care for the mentally disabled and because of their movements, new and improved asylums were built across the country that allowed for better treatment of the patients. Prisons and rehabilitation programs were also forms to help convicts transition back into society because of the rehabilitation movement.
The suffrage movement was aided by the abolition movement because slavery gave women a reason to unite for a separate cause. However they began to experience oppression from male abolitionists even though they both fought for the same cause. This prompted women to fight for their own democratic ideals leading to the rise of many prominent suffragists such as Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The second blow to the suffrage movement came in 1840 with the World Anti-Slavery Convention which the female abolitionists were barred from attending. This paved the way for the Seneca Falls Convention, a women’s rights convention held in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848 to raise awareness for women’s rights. It was at this convention Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the Declaration of Sentiments, which called for the establishment of democratic rights for women like the Declaration of Independence did for Americans. In this declaration she directed “we hold these truth to be self evident that all men and women are created equally” (doc 6) towards the United States Government. This is because it was the responsibility of the government to protect people's rights instead of watching women getting denied of their natural rights. Women during this time period were denied of many of the natural rights because during this time period society had this perception that “women could not work as much as a man” (doc 7). Therefore, girl women during the 19th century were treated differently than men as men were expected to live a public life, whether it was working in a factory or socializing with like-minded men in public places, like clubs, meetings, or bars. While women were usually expected to live their lives largely homebound, taking care of the cooking, cleaning, and child rearing. Free time for women was not supposed to be spent socializing but doing other things related to the maintenance of the family, from sewing socks to laundry.
Largely due to these traditional expectations for women prior to the 19th century, very few women had the same opportunities for education as men. Indeed, educating women was often seen as subversive, a possible perversion of the correct social order. Women were also entirely shut out of political activity as they weren't allowed to vote. The women’s rights movement had a great success overall, though it was not achieved until 1920 when the 19th amendment was passed. The 19th amendment prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18th, 1920. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were not alive to see the amendment they had first drafted be ratified, but that did not change the fact that the decades of dedication they put into the movement had been rewarded. The effect of the Women’s Rights Movement was that women were no longer viewed as an “inferior race” but instead as a equal to males politically and socially. The women’s rights movement, was closely intertwined to the Temperance movement in the 19th century because as women started to gain more rights they fought closely together with organizations, such as The American Society for the Promotion of Temperance to help abolish alcoholism. As they believed alcohol caused poverty, crime, and death among other things (doc 4). Eventually this group and others came to the government asking it to prevent the sale of alcohol. Alcoholism was also believed to be connected to destruction of family structure as drunkenness led to increasing amounts of household abuses. These people therefore wanted to push across a sweeping law prohibiting alcohol in all parts of society, although many did not want this.
Primarily due to the Second Great Awakening, many people led a powerful movement against slavery called the abolitionist movement. This movement, one of the most widely supported of the era, had many influential leaders such as William Garrison, editor of the abolition paper ‘The Liberator’ and Fredrick Douglass. These men, among others lead a passionate fight for the immediate and unconditional emancipation of all slaves in the United States and the banning of slavery in the new American territories. William Lloyd Garrison for instance is a very religious man who believed that he was obligated to abolish slavery as it is inhumane. In the Declaration of the National Anti-Slavery Convention of 1833 Garrison pointed out many important issues such as the fact that African Americans are treated like “marketable commodities” (doc 1). This treatment of slavery is inhumane as slaves who worked and lived on plantations were the most frequently punished. Punishment could be administered by the plantation owner or master, his wife, children (white males) or (most often) the overseer or driver. Slave overseers were authorized to whip and punish slaves. Though abolition was not achieved, the issue of slavery and the views presented by the abolition movement would stay prominent through the Civil War. Thus, many of the reform movements that gained popularity from 1825 to 1850 championed the idea of spreading America’s democratic principles.
The Second Great Awakening led to an era of change for America and its minority groups. Women, children, slaves, and criminals were given an opportunity to have their opinions publicly announced. Support for different movements was provided through social and political involvement, which offered the minority group's representation and democratic rights. Americans began to see equality as a human characteristic that had to be strived for. With the help of prominent individuals, society began to demand change and equality for the minority groups in America, thus expanding the democratic ideals. One similar reform to the ones above is child labor reform of the 20th century. The National Child Labor Committee coordinated a movement to address the exploitation of children. By 1910, many states had enacted legislation establishing the minimum legal age when children could work (between 12 and 16) and the maximum length of a workday or week.
Six distinct ranges of abilities make up the human system. These dimensions include: thought, feeling, will (spirit, heart), body, social context, and soul. Luke10:25-28 states, “On one occasion, an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the law?” He replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself.” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”” (NIV)
Get original essayThis project will show the relation between the six dimensions of the human system and the commandment given in Luke 10. “The Christian must take seriously the whole of Christ's command;” it is not a suggestion but an order. Whether we believe it or not, we cannot have substantial relations with people apart from a relation with God and vice versa. One flows out of the other. “Our ties to one another cannot be isolated from our shared relationship to Him, nor our relationship to Him from our ties to one another. Our relations to others cannot be right unless we see those others in their relation to God. Through others He comes to us, and we only really find others when we see them in Him.” For God so loved the whole world. This is why He offered His only Son as a sacrifice for our sins, not just for a handful of people but for each and every one of us. He does not see us through our faults, failures, and shortcomings, but He sees us through the blood of the perfect Lamb that was slain and with eyes of love. He sets the example of how we are to see others – with His love. “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13 NIV).
All human nature is made up of the six previously mentioned factors. No human being is without them; they are essential to our make-up. For believers, these aspects are just as important for our spiritual lives in ensuring we make our focal point God alone. When our systems align with God, we demonstrate our love for Him in every area of our lives. Our thoughts are of those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, excellent, and praiseworthy
(Philip. 4:8 KJV); our feelings bring about gratitude causing us to enter His gates with thanksgiving and His courts with praise (Ps. 100:4 NIV); with our hearts, we trust in the Lord and lean not on our own understanding (Prov. 3:5 NIV); we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God in true worship (Rom. 12:1 NIV); we seek the Lord with all our soul; and socially, we are kind, compassionate, and forgiving to others (Eph. 4:32 NIV). When God is the center of our attention, there is a desire to lavish Him with all the love we can muster. We may not and will not always get it right, but the desire to please Him and show our appreciation will be present.
In the natural sense, when people show us love, it is typically natural to reciprocate that love. So, as God pours out His great, unfailing love on us, it should also be natural to return that love to Him. One way we do that is by loving what and who He loves, even if the love is not reciprocated. His command is to love – with no stipulations. The command is not, “love as long as they love you too.” It is simply to love! As we learn more about who God is and what His very essence entails, we come to understand the amazing love He has for His people. As His children, not only are we to show forth our love for Him, but we are to demonstrate love toward His children – not minimally, but with all aspects of our human systems, with total involvement and commitment. “One should place no limitations upon the love for the neighbor, but instead a person should love to do an abundance of good for his fellow being as he does for himself.” By doing so, we demonstrate an outpouring of love for God. The good Samaritan is a prime example of loving your neighbor as yourself. He could have passed by the wounded man just as the priest and Levite had. Instead, he stopped to help the one who was oppressed, not thinking of himself but others. “The Samaritan was inconvenienced not only in his schedule, but also in his finances.” He totally involved and committed himself to care for a man he did not know by putting into practice Luke 6:31, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you” (AMP).
Our soul, “which is the deepest level of unity (or disunity) in a person’s life” is the factor that helps us engage in personal relationships with others. In the book of Psalm, we constantly find David commanding his soul to bless the Lord (103:1 KJV), praise the Lord (146:1 NIV), rejoice in the Lord (35:9 NIV), yearn for the Lord (84:2 NIV), sing to the Lord (108:1 NIV), pant for the Lord (42:1 NIV); and to thirst for the Lord (42:2 NIV). Perhaps David understood the importance of having his soul be in submission to God in order to ensure his personal relationships with God and others remained intact. Each dimension can work for us or against us “depending upon the condition it is in,” which is contingent upon the heart. “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (Prov. 4:23 NIV). If the heart is in order, the whole person will be in order. However, if the heart is not in order, the person will not be either.
These two commandments, to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbor, are sometimes easier said than done. It takes the entire human system to accomplish these tasks, and even still we cannot do it of our own effort. We have but one hope to achieve it and that is to trust and depend on our Savior, Jesus Christ, to cause our thoughts, feelings, wills, bodies, social contexts, and souls to align with God and be led by the Holy Spirit in demonstrating expressions of love to our Heavenly Father and His creation. God knows our hearts and He sees when we strive to obey His commandments even when we fail. Failure leads us to the Cross to seek forgiveness and grace and to realign our systems with God.
Mention the Cold War to young adults, people much like me, and you will typically get reactions of feigned interest at best and indifference at worst. Compare this reaction to what you find when asking someone who actually lived through the crisis and the difference is striking. For those who lived through the Cold War a viewpoint of hatred and derision toward the Soviet Union and even modern Russia is much more common. This outlook is not one that looks at the citizens of the former Soviet Union as regular people simply living in another country. Instead, the Soviet Union is viewed as a demonic entity hell-bent on causing the destruction and evil wherever they may go.
Get original essayTo understand how pervasive this vilification of the Soviet Union was, take for example, a speech given by President of the United States Ronald Reagan to the National Association of Evangelicals at the University of Virginia on March 3, 1983. In this speech President Reagan addressed the crowd, urging them,
Beware the temptation of pride–the temptation of blithely...uh...declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
The fact that the American president never hesitated to speak of the Soviet Union, as an “evil empire” speaks multitudes about the demonization of the USSR by the United States. In that very same speech, President Reagan compared the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union as not simply a war between militaries, but instead a war of spiritual ideals, stating,
I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.By likening the Cold War struggle between the United States to a spiritual battle and calling the enemy evil, President Reagan opened the door for further demonization of the Soviet Union.
That is not to say that President Reagan was the first to demonize the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The attitude of fear and hatred that emerged during the Cold War era was not one that simply appeared out of nowhere. In fact, for the previous thirty odd years prior to his speech in Charlottesville, Virginia, the demonization of the Communist USSR had already been in full swing. Rooted in the paradigm of the territoriality that has been seen throughout history (i.e., the ancient struggle between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for holy spots at the Temple Mount of Jerusalem and the modern competition between Israel and Palestine for the Gaza Strip), the Cold War led the United States to denigrate the Soviet Union as a personification of evil, instead of viewing them as people in their own right.
Unlike other examples of the paradigm of territoriality, the competition between the United States was not isolated to one specific location. Instead, the goal of the United States and other Western powers was to limit the expansion of Communist powers into any other parts of the world. Gaining popular support for efforts to counteract the spread of the Soviet Union and their system of Communism was not a difficult task for the United States, as they effectively utilized propaganda and inflammatory speech in film, literature, and everyday life to mark the Soviets as a diabolical enemy who could not be allowed to succeed at any costs.
While an indisputable amount of anti-Communist Russia propaganda was released in the United States during the Cold War, an undeniable fear of war with USSR was the driving force which fed the propaganda (which in turn, fed greater fear of the Soviet Union). The tension between the United States and the USSR was not created in a vacuum. In order to understand the source of this fear, it is necessary to look at the history of Communism in the Soviet Union and the closely linked history of Communism in the United States.
In what was officially known as the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government which had been established after the overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy in 1912, was itself overthrown by Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party leading to civil war and the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922. These events were the source of a great deal of panic regarding worker revolution and political radicalism in the United States, prompting the First Red Scare. Political scientist Murray B. Levin described the Red Scare as,
A nation-wide anti-radical hysteria provoked by a mounting fear and anxiety that a Bolshevik revolution in America was imminent—a revolution that would change Church, home, marriage, civility, and the American way of Life. Increasingly, labor strikes in the US were viewed with fear and derision. Strike support from foreign left-leaning organizations such as the International Workers of the World did little to abate the fears held about the working class. In response to a series of bombings by political anarchists, the Palmer Raids were initiated resulting in the deportation of leftist immigrants, including members of the Communist Labor Party of America.
The advent of the Great Depression led many Communists, both foreign and domestic, to believe that Karl Marx’s prediction of the collapse of Capitalism was coming true. The Communist Party of America reached new heights of popularity during the early 1930s, marked by the organization of the working poor and supporting African Americans against prejudice. 1932 saw the election of Franklin Roosevelt, followed swiftly by union organization.
While the Communist Party of America continued to put forward their own candidates during elections in this era, they typically tolerated Democrats as the lesser of two evils. American Communism saw a brief rise of popularity at the beginning of the 2nd World War, but numbers quickly fell after Stalin signed a nonaggression pact with fascist Nazi Germany and did not recover after the Soviet Union joined the Allies against Hitler. In the aftermath of World War II, President Truman’s loyalty oath program legitimized the reputation of Communists as subversives that needed to be exposed. This attitude would persist throughout the Cold War.
With the advent of the nuclear arms race between the two super powers in the 1950s, the paradigm of territoriality was utilized even more effectively because Soviet encroachment into countries near the United States and its anti-Communist allies was viewed as an explicit nuclear threat. The conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union was just one example of America’s response to this threat.
Indeed, fear of a nuclear Armageddon with the Soviet Union was one of the most powerful agents in the demonization of their people, as the United States government and its citizens began to worry about the escalation of nuclear arsenals. One of the results of this worry, was the doctrine of mutually assured destruction also known as mutual deterrence, which was outlined in a speech by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on September 18, 1967,
It is important to understand that assured destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an attack is in fact unwavering. The conclusion, then, is clear: if the United States is to deter a nuclear attack in itself or its allies, it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.
This line of thought led to further escalation of the arms race and greater tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. By portraying the Soviet Union as the antithesis of the United States and a threat to its very existence, the Soviet Union was dehumanized and vilified at all levels of American society.
During the 1960s the Cold War reached new levels with the building of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis in the fall of 1962, and the increasing competition of the Space Race following the Soviet Yuri Gagarin’s successful trip into space and President Kennedy’s Moon Race announcement. More and more during this time, the Cold War struggle between the United States and the USSR was viewed as a battle of ideologies. American Capitalism clashed with Soviet Communism.
The consumerism which was praised as the crown jewel of American society was pitted against the utilitarianism of the USSR. Perhaps an even bigger issue, were the religious dichotomy between the two superpowers. In the Billy Graham Evangelical Association’s Hour of Decision, Billy Graham used his influence to crusade against the Soviet Union, intertwining Christian teachings with anti-Communist sentiment. A staunch supporter of Joseph McCarthy and other “Cold Warriors”, Graham condemned those who would allow Communism to take root in America, stating,
The mysterious pull of this satanic religion is so strong that it has caused some citizens of America to become traitors, betraying a benevolent land which had showered them with blessings innumerable. It has attracted some of our famous entertainers, some of our finest politicians, and some of our outstanding educators.
By making use of Christian rhetoric to denounce the Communist Soviet Union, Billy Graham and other Christian leaders contributed a great deal to the vilification of the USSR. They effectively made the Cold War a holy war and condemned those who would not defend so-called Christian lands such as the United States and other democratic nations.
“Pictures give an idea of America which is difficult to portray in any other way, and the reason, the main reason, we think, is because our pictures are not obvious propaganda.” This statement was made by Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, during his testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in June 1953. However, just because the propaganda in Cold War era cinema was not obvious, does not mean that it was ineffective.
In fact, the subtlety of American cinema in promoting Capitalist values and demonizing Communism was perhaps its greatest asset. Hollywood executives have prided themselves on producing benign, unbiased entertainment since the beginning of the movie industry, but in truth, American film has been political since its inception.
In particular, the American movie industry has been historically biased against extremism in many forms. Long before the Cold War, Hollywood lashed out against Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In what has become known as the first Red Scare of 1918-1920, the film industry portrayed Russian Bolsheviks as murderers, rapists, and anarchists in silent movies such as Dangerous Hours (1920) and Starvation (1920). While the most violent images of Russians depicted in Hollywood largely subsided during the 1920s and 1930s, the subtle jabs at Communist Russians as humorless, unfashionable, and uncaring in movies made during that time were arguably more effective due to their believability.
Hollywood films featuring propaganda prior to World War II were different from their successors in that the United States government had no direct involvement in their production. However, by the time of World War II, the Hollywood film industry was being effectively used at the request of the Office of War Information (OWI) in the United States as an agent of propaganda: extolling the evils of fascism, requesting support for the allied nations, and asking citizens to do their part by buying bonds, going to work, or conserving resources.
At the request of the OWI the American film industry produced films portraying Allied Communist Russia in a positive light in movies such as Mission to Moscow (1943) and Tender Comrade (1943) during the Second World War. In these movies, and others like them, the Soviet Union was depicted as gallantly defending the Eastern Front against Japan, although in reality Soviet effectiveness as a buffer was largely due to the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact signed in 1941.
Unfortunately, by the late 1940s, Hollywood had a new enemy to demonize, and changing directions led to a number of problems that would come back to bite them, including, but not limited to the praise given Russian allies in movies made during World War II. Nevertheless, the ties established between Hollywood and the OWI would be useful in producing propaganda against the Soviet Union in the years to come.
Under the watchful eyes of the conservative groups in Hollywood such as the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals and federal agencies such as the FBI and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the film industry was quick to jump onto demonizing the Soviet Union if it meant taking the heat off their pro-communist films in the past. Some members of Hollywood did not even need the pressure of the government; big names such as Walt Disney and John Wayne were staunch conservatives and gladly helped create films with anti-Soviet agendas.
The “Hollywood Blacklist” was an effort by HUAC to reveal whether Communist sympathizers had been planting propaganda in American films. Drawing from allegations made by Hollywood elite such as then-Screen Actors Guild president Ronald Reagan, screenwriters, directors, and other entertainers were drawn before Congress to testify as to whether they had ever had an y involvement in the Communist Party. Ten of those subpoenaed refused to testify, citing first amendment right, and were held in contempt of Congress. These “Hollywood Ten” were barred from employment until they were cleared of charges, and swore that they had no Communist affiliation. The list of names added to this “Hollywood blacklist” would continue to grow until the early 1960s when blacklist member John Henry Faulk won his lawsuit against CBS Radio. Opposition to the blacklist became much stronger after Faulk’s victory.
Utilizing the paradigm of territoriality, Hollywood portrayed a proposed Soviet invasion of the United States in numerous ways, They were sabotaging military installations, controlling labor unions, twisting the minds of university students, and masquerading (though not very successfully) as Christians on church pews.
No less dangerous were Soviet activities in other parts of the world. Movies such as Target Hong Kong (1953) and Assignment Paris (1952) depicted Soviets throughout the world engaging in plots to extend the reaches of communism even further than before. While the American heroes in these movies were portrayed as courageous and god-fearing, their communist enemies were, Evil-doing, cowardly, mentally unstable, automatons… who did not stand for anything in these films, only against sacred American principles: God, motherhood, and the love for one’s family and country.
Indeed, the extent of the demonization was so great, that what was actually known about the Soviet enemy can be summed up by a line from R. G. Springsteen’s The Red Menace (1949) as cited in Shaw and Youngblood which states, “I don’t know what communism is, but it must be bad if it makes you do the things you do.”
During the 1960s, American cinema shifted to portraying the Communist Russia as the enemy within. The Manchurian Candidate (1962), which featured an international Communist conspiracy to establish a pro-Communist President of the United States, was just one of many spy films released during the era that added to Cold War tensions and demonized the Communist threat. Films depicting nuclear war with the Soviet Union were also very prominent from the 1950s through the end of the Cold War. These films, ranging from the obviously fantastical Planet of the Apes (1968) to the more realistic Red Dawn (1984), showed dire consequences of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The United States film industry was not the only source of propaganda which demonized the Soviet Union. During the 1950s and 1960s, books such as Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative were the main mode of gathering support for anti-communist causes by so-called conservative “Cold Warriors”. Anti-communists sought to spread their influence by offering discounts for purchasing anti-communist paperbacks in bulk and by forming book clubs and other groups in an effort to spread awareness about the nature of the Soviet threat and how best to fight it.
Another form of literature that was used to vilify the Soviet Union was oddly enough, the newspaper comic strip. The adventure comic strip Steve Canyon was produced in the late 1940s and early 1950s and depicted the Soviet Union as a manipulative enemy and portrayed the United States as a country constantly under siege. The notion of territoriality was also touched upon in the Steve Canyon comic strip. In the comic, Steve Canyon supports involvement in the Korean War by persuading the reader that if the Soviet Union is allowed to encroach further eastward they may soon wind up on the shores of Alaska, Hawaii, or even California.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayIn a time of increasing concern regarding Russian activity, while their actions should not be overlooked or even condoned, it is important to look to the past and remember how quickly propaganda and the demonization of the Soviet Union led to increasing aggression between the USSR and the United States. There is no question that the paradigm of territoriality and the use of propaganda within the United States were used to shape the Soviet Union as the personification of evil in the past. Therefore, awareness of the dangers of simplifying an enemy to a manifestation of evil should be spread so that it does not occur once again.
The 2010 year marks half a century since man first stepped foot on the moon; an interstellar operation that changed the world and sent fashion into a new orbit. Ever since NASA astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins completed their Apollo mission on July 10 1969, there has been an undeniable shift in the future of the fashion universe. This small step for man, and giant leap for mankind, sparked a fashion“space race”, boosting a new crop of young, emerging designers to face the next fashion frontier.
Get original essayWhen doing some trend time travelling, we can see the complete evolution of space age fashion trends from 1969 to today. Designers like Pierre Cardin, André Courréges and Paco Rabbane powered ahead of the pack to sartorially predict what they thought to be the future of fashion.
There was a growing global fascination with space travel that captured the hearts and minds of earthlings in the late 1960s, giving way for the innovative young minds of these designers to define a decade of extraterrestrial beings.
Whether is was perspex head gear, glossy vinyl or even fibre optics, there was always a plethora of possibilities for women to feel powerful and free to take on the world. But, the evolution of space age fashion did not end in the late 60s or early 70s. Even though the 1980s saw the trend trickle through various spreads in Vogue, space age fashion went ‘back to the future’ in the 90s and early 00s. Reappearing with a fresh and funky street style reimagining, ultraviolet, white and silver were once again prominent on the runways.
The space race has continued to transcend through the decades and pinball through literature, film and of course, the fashion world. With space age holographics, silver spandex, patent and perspex pervading the 2018 runways of designers like Chanel, Balmain and Phillip Plein; it is clear that space age fashion is not yet extinct. Designers are still drawing on the endless possibilities of this intergalactic inspiration to produce countless collections that are spreading to the streets.
Fashion prides itself on looking forward and taking us into the future. So, what will the future hold for space age fashion? Although futuristic fashion has been an emerging trend for a number of decades, with the growing convergence of fashion and technology, will we see the future of fashion really take off? In another fifty years, will we be printing on our own pants? Viewing Vogue in virtual reality? Is this the future that the fashion world wants? Or are we simply not prepared to launch into unfamiliar territory.