Did Attitude Shape Catharine Parr Traill and Susanna Moodie Success as

Back in the 1830’s when it was unimaginable to journey for months to a foreign country so uncultivated; two naà ¯ve sisters did just that. The Backwoods of Canada is a straightforward, realistic account complied of letters written back home of Catharine Parr Traill’s first years in Canada. Roughing It in the Bush is a witty, autobiographical memoir written by her younger sister, Susanna Moodie. Their attitude to becoming pioneers was shaped by their temperaments and circumstance. Catharine’s attitude is one quiet acceptance and is reflected in her no-nonsense writing, whereas Susanna’s attitude first appears to have an edgier, less optimistic outlook on her new homeland, but she covers it up with a dry sense of humour in style and dialogue when reflecting on her Canadian experience. Upon examination, we first must look at the sisters’ temperament and attitude towards life. Their attitude on life comes out in their writing and we can sense how they would perceive their new homeland, Canada in the 1832. Catharine, the elder by 23 months was considered to be the â€Å"sweet-tempered and placid, was her father’s favourite child,† and Susanna, the youngest, â€Å"was the impulsive and defiant [one], with a wicked sense of humour† (Gray, 17, 18). Both sisters’ traits are clearly exposed in their approach to starting a new life in Canada. Even before moving to Canada, it was Susanna’s passion for life and her new baby that energized Catharine and Thomas to ‘get involved’, get married and to emigrate with Susanna and her family, but it was Catharine’s methodical calmness that got Susanna through the valleys and peaks in actually moving to Canada ( 48). Catharine and her husband were at an advantage over her sister when they first arrived in Canad... ...arine wrote with a no-nonsense positive style to assist women embarking on immigrating to Canada. Susanna wrote with humour and frankness to cover up her disgust and disappointment and to warn genteel women of the hardships of becoming pioneers. After researching these two sisters’ biographies, I realize that they both had fortitude beyond what I would be able to endure if I were in either of their shoes. Works Cited Parr Traill, Catharine. â€Å"The Backwoods of Canada.† An Anthology of Canadian Literature in English. 3rd ed. Ed.Donna Bennett, and Russell Brown. Don Mills, ON:Oxford, 2010, 102-108, Print. Moodie, Susanna. â€Å"Roughing It in the Bush.† An Anthology of Canadian Literature in English. 3rd ed. Ed.Donna Bennett, and Russell Brown. Don Mills, ON:Oxford, 2010, 102-108, Print. Gray, Charlotte. Sisters In The Wilderness. Toronto: Penguin, 1999. Print

Tripmaster Monkey Essay -- essays research papers

Tripmaster Monkey   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Wittman uses theatre throughout the book 'Tripmaster Monkey'; to get back to his cultural roots and Asian culture. He is trying to find himself through theatre and to open up a new avenue for his people. There are numerous examples of this throughout the book as he is writing his play and incorporating the old (legends and myths) with the new (contemporary times).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first significant reference to legend occurs when Wittman is putting his entire night's worth of writing into the incinerator (42). As he does so, he reflects on the arrival of Monkey, Tripitaka and friends at the Western Paradise. They secure the sacred scriptures, and are on their way home to china when curious Monkey takes a peek at the books, only to find that the pages are blank. They return to Paradise to complain, and because their spiritual incapacity makes hem unable to absorb the truths of a blank text, are given pages with writing on them. But it turns out that the Heart Sutra's wisdom concerns the emptiness of inherent existence, and the blank text was the right way to express that truth after all. Kingston is illustrating the frustration Wittman feels at having to put into words the truths that are obvious to him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At another point in the book, Wittman recalls when the Monkey learns his position in Heaven (61). Monkey is ecstatic to have a place in Heaven, an important role to play, but once...

American Involvement in Ww1

World War I (WWI), which was predominantly called the World War or the Great War from its occurrence until 1939, and the First World War or World War I thereafter, was a major war centered in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. It involved all the world's great powers, which were assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies (centered on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and Russia) and the Central Powers (originally centered on the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy).These alliances both reorganized (Italy fought for the Allies), and expanded as more nations entered the war. Ultimately more than 70  million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilized in one of the largest wars in history. More than 9  million combatants were killed, largely because of great technological advances in firepower without corresponding advances in mobility. It was the sixth deadliest conflict in world history, subsequently paving the way for various political changes such as revolutions in the nations involved.Long-term causes of the war included the imperialistic foreign policies of the great powers of Europe, including the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, France, and Italy. The assassination on 28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by a Yugoslav nationalist was the proximate trigger of the war. It resulted in a Habsburg ultimatum against the Kingdom of Serbia.Several alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked, so within weeks the major powers were at war; via their colonies, the conflict soon spread around the world. On 28 July, the conflict opened with the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia, followed by the German invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France; and a Russian attack against Germany. After the German march on Paris was brought to a h alt, the Western Front settled into a static battle of attrition with a trench line that changed little until 1917.In the East, the Russian army successfully fought against the Austro-Hungarian forces but was forced back by the German army. Additional fronts opened after the Ottoman Empire joined the war in 1914, Italy and Bulgaria in 1915 and Romania in 1916. The Russian Empire collapsed in 1917, and Russia left the war after the October Revolution later that year. After a 1918 German offensive along the western front, United States forces entered the trenches and the Allies drove back the German armies in a series of successful offensives.Germany, which had its own trouble with revolutionaries at this point, agreed to a cease-fire on 11 November 1918, later known as Armistice Day. The war had ended in victory of the Allies. By the war's end, four major imperial powers—the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires—had been militarily and politically defeat ed and ceased to exist. The successor states of the former two lost a great amount of territory, while the latter two were dismantled entirely. The map of central Europe was redrawn into several smaller states.The League of Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The European nationalism spawned by the war and the breakup of empires, the repercussions of Germany's defeat and problems with the Treaty of Versailles are generally agreed to be factors contributing to World War II. The strategy of the Central Powers suffered from miscommunication. Germany had promised to support Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia, but interpretations of what this meant differed. Previously-tested deployment plans had been replaced early in 1914, but the replacements had never been tested in exercises.Austro-Hungarian leaders believed Germany would cover its northern flank against Russia. Germany, however, envisioned Austria-Hungary directing most of its troops against Russia , while Germany dealt with France. This confusion forced the Austro-Hungarian Army to divide its forces between the Russian and Serbian fronts. On 9 September 1914, the September program, a possible plan which detailed Germany's specific war aims and the conditions that Germany sought to force on the Allied Powers, was outlined by German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg.It was never officially adopted. Military tactics before World War I had failed to keep pace with advances in technology. These advances allowed for impressive defense systems, which out-of-date military tactics could not break through for most of the war. Barbed wire was a significant hindrance to massed infantry advances. Artillery, vastly more lethal than in the 1870s, coupled with machine guns, made crossing open ground extremely difficult. The Germans introduced poison gas; it soon became used by both sides, though it never proved decisive in winning a battle.Its effects were brutal, causing slow and pai nful death, and poison g as became one of the most-feared and best-remembered horrors of the war. Commanders on both sides failed to develop tactics for breaching entrenched positions without heavy casualties. In time, however, technology began to produce new offensive weapons, such as the tank. Britain and France were its primary users; the Germans employed captured Allied tanks and small numbers of their own design. After the First Battle of the Marne, both Entente and German forces began a series of outflanking maneuvers, in the so-called â€Å"Race to the Sea†.Britain and France soon found themselves facing entrenched German forces from Lorraine to Belgium's coast. Britain and France sought to take the offensive, while Germany defended the occupied territories; consequently, German trenches were much better constructed than those of their enemy. Anglo-French trenches were only intended to be â€Å"temporary† before their forces broke through German defenses. Both s ides tried to break the stalemate using scientific and technological advances.On 22 April 1915 at the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans (violating the Hague Convention) used chlorine gas for the first time on the Western Front. Algerian troops retreated when gassed and a six-kilometer (four-mile) hole opened in the Allied lines that the Germans quickly exploited, taking Kitchener’s' Wood. Canadian soldiers closed the breach at the Second Battle of Ypres. At the Third Battle of Ypres, Canadian and ANZAC troops took the village of Passchendaele. At the start of the war, the German Empire had cruisers scattered across the globe, some of which were subsequently used to attack Allied merchant shipping.The British Royal Navy systematically hunted them down, though not without some embarrassment from its inability to protect Allied shipping. For example, the German detached light cruiser SMS Emden, part of the East-Asia squadron stationed at Tsingtao, seized or destroyed 15 mercha ntmen, as well as sinking a Russian cruiser and a French destroyer. However, most of the German East-Asia squadron—consisting of the armored cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, light cruisers Nurnberg and Leipzig and two transport ships—did not have orders to raid shipping and was instead underway to Germany when it met British warships.The German flotilla and Dresden sank two armored cruisers at the Battle of Coronel, but was almost destroyed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, with only Dresden and a few auxiliaries escaping, but at the Battle of Mas a Tierra these too were destroyed or interned. Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Britain began a naval blockade of Germany. The strategy proved effective, cutting off vital military and civilian supplies, although this blockade violated accepted international law codified by several international agreements of the past two centuries.Britain mined international waters to prevent any ships from en tering entire sections of ocean, causing danger to even neutral ships. Since there was limited response to this tactic, Germany expected a similar response to its unrestricted submarine warfare. The 1916 Battle of Jutland (German: Skagerrakschlacht, or â€Å"Battle of the Skagerrak†) developed into the largest naval battle of the war, the only full-scale clash of battleships during the war, and one of the largest in history. It took place on 31 May  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 1 June 1916, in the North Sea off Jutland.The Kaiserliche Marine's High Seas Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer, squared off against the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet, led by Admiral Sir John Jellicoe. The engagement was a stand off, as the Germans, outmaneuvered by the larger British fleet, managed to escape and inflicted more damage to the British fleet than they received. Strategically, however, the British asserted their control of the sea, and the bulk of the German surface fleet remained confined to port for the duration of the war. German U-boats attempted to cut the supply lines between North America and Britain.The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival. The United States launched a protest, and Germany changed its rules of engagement. After the notorious sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships, placing them beyond the protection of the â€Å"cruiser rules† which demanded warning and placing crews in â€Å"a place of safety†. Finally, in early 1917 Germany adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, realizing the Americans would eventually enter the war.Germany sought to strangle Allied sea lanes before the U. S. could transport a large army overseas, but could maintain only five long-range U-boats on station, to limited effect. The U-boat threat lessened in 191 7, when merchant ships began travelling in convoys, escorted by destroyers. This tactic made it difficult for U-boats to find targets, which significantly lessened losses; after the hydrophone and depth charges were introduced, accompanying destroyers might attack a submerged submarine with some hope of success.Convoys slowed the flow of supplies, since ships had to wait as convoys were assembled. The solution to the delays was an extensive program to build new freighters. Troopships were too fast for the submarines and did not travel the North Atlantic in convoys. The U-boats had sunk more than 5,000 Allied ships, at a cost of 199 submarines. World War I also saw the first use of aircraft carriers in combat, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a successful raid against the Zeppelin hangars at Tondern in July 1918, as well as blimps for antisubmarine patrol.In December 1916, after ten brutal months of the Battle of Verdun and a successful offensive against Romania, the Germ ans attempted to negotiate a peace with the Allies. Soon after, U. S. President Woodrow Wilson attempted to intervene as a peacemaker, asking in a note for both sides to state their demands. Lloyd George's War Cabinet considered the German offer to be a ploy to create divisions amongst the Allies. After initial outrage and much deliberation, they took Wilson's note as a separate effort, signaling that the U. S. was on the verge of entering the war against Germany following the â€Å"submarine outrages†.While the Allies debated a response to Wilson's offer, the Germans chose to rebuff it in favor of â€Å"a direct exchange of views†. Learning of the German response, the Allied governments were free to make clear demands in their response of 14 January. They sought restoration of damages, the evacuation of occupied territories, reparations for France, Russia and Romania, and recognition of the principle of nationalities. This included the liberation of Italians, Slavs, R omanians, Czecho-Slovaks, and the creation of a â€Å"free and united Poland†.On the question of security, the Allies sought guarantees that would prevent or limit future wars, complete with sanctions, as a condition of any peace settlement. The negotiations failed and the Entente powers rejected the German offer, because Germany did not state any specific proposals. To Wilson, the Entente powers stated that they would not start peace negotiations until the Central powers evacuated all occupied Allied territories and provided indemnities for all damage which had been done. At the outbreak of the war the United States pursued a policy of non-intervention, avoiding conflict while trying to broker a peace.When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, U. S. President Woodrow Wilson claimed that â€Å"America is too proud to fight† but demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson unsuccessfully tried to mediate a settlement. However, he also repeatedly warned that the U. S. A. would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, in violation of international law and U. S. ideas of human rights. Wilson was under pressure from former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced German acts as â€Å"piracy†.Wilson's desire to have a seat at negotiations at war's end to advance the League of Nations also played a role in the eventual decision to join the war. Wilson's Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, whose opinions had been ignored, resigned in 1915, as he could no longer support the president's policy. Public opinion was angered at suspected German sabotage of Black Tom in Jersey City, New Jersey, and the Kingsland Explosion. In January 1917, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare. The German Foreign Minister, in the Zimmermann Telegram, told Mexico that U. S. ntry was likely once unrestricted submarine warfare began, and invited Mexico to join the war as German y's ally against the United States. In return, the Germans would send Mexico money and help it recover the territories of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona that Mexico had lost during the Mexican-American War 70  years earlier. Wilson released the Zimmerman note to the public, and Americans saw it as casus belli— a cause for war. After the sinking of seven U. S. merchant ships by submarines and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U. S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917.The United States was never formally a member of the Allies but became a self-styled â€Å"Associated Power†. The United States had a small army, but, after the passage of the Selective Service Act, it drafted 2. 8 million men, and by summer 1918 was sending 10,000 fresh soldiers to France every day. In 1917, the U. S. Congress gave U. S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans when they were drafted to participate in World War I, as part of the Jones Act. Germany h ad miscalculated, believing it would be many more months before American soldiers would arrive and that their arrival could be stopped by U-boats.The United States Navy sent a battleship group to Scapa Flow to join with the British Grand Fleet, destroyers to Queenstown, Ireland, and submarines to help guard convoys. Several regiments of U. S. Marines were also dispatched to France. The British and French wanted U. S. units used to reinforce their troops already on the battle lines and not waste scarce shipping on bringing over supplies. The U. S. rejected the first proposition and accepted the second. General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) commander, refused to break up U. S. units to be used as reinforcements for British Empire and French units.As an exception, he did allow African-American combat regiments to be used in French divisions. The Harlem Hellfighters fought as part of the French 16th Division, earning a unit Croix de Guerre for their actions at Ch ateau-Thierry, Belleau Wood, and Sechault. AEF doctrine called for the use of frontal assaults, which had long since been discarded by British Empire and French commanders because of the large loss of life. After the war, the Paris Peace Conference imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles officially ended the war.Building on Wilson's 14th point, the Treaty of Versailles also brought into being the League of Nations on 28 June 1919. In signing the treaty, Germany acknowledged responsibility for the war, and agreed to pay enormous war reparations and award territory to the victors. The â€Å"Guilt Thesis† became a controversial explanation of later events among analysts in Britain and the United States. The Treaty of Versailles caused enormous bitterness in Germany, which nationalist movements, especially the Nazis, exploited with a conspiracy theory they called the Dolchstosslegende (Stab-in-the-back legend).The Weimar Republic lo st the former colonial possessions and was saddled with accepting blame for the war, as well as paying punitive reparations for it. Unable to pay them with exports (as a result of territorial losses and postwar recession), Germany did so by borrowing from the United States. Runaway inflation in the 1920s contributed to the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the payment of reparations was suspended in 1931 following the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the beginnings of the Great Depression worldwide. U. S. intervention in the war, as well as the Wilson administration itself, became deeply unpopular.This was reflected in the U. S. Senate's rejection of the Versailles Treaty and membership in the League of Nations. In the interwar era, a consensus arose that U. S. intervention had been a mistake, and the Congress passed laws in an attempt to preserve U. S. neutrality in any future conflict. Polls taken in 1937 and the opening months of World War II established that nearly 60% regarded intervention in WWI as a mistake, with only 28% opposing that view. But, in the period between the fall of France and the attack on Pearl Harbor, public opinion changed dramatically and, for

Cohabitation Before Marriage

Topic 1: The practice of cohabitating before marriage is becoming increasingly common in our society, especially among the youth. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages for young people who decide to do this. Many people wonder whether or not they should live together before getting married. There are many different views when it comes to this question and some of them lie in religion, ethics or realism. Nonetheless, like everything in this life, there are two sides of a problem.Hence, the advantages and disadvantages of cohabitation will be discussed in depth as follows: The first and foremost reason is that living together before marriage is a good way for people to find out whether they would be compatible marriage partners. Knowing the partner is not the same as living with him or her. Dating just from time to time, partners are on their best behaviour, they avoid confrontation because they are eager to have someone love them and insecure in the temporary relationship.Moreover, this super nice behaviour may partly account for the radical changes in behaviour, personality and attitudes (almost always for worse) that sometimes occurs shortly after marriage. In addition, shacking up with somebody is a total different experience. People can get the full picture about who they are. If both partners are not ready yet for marriage but want a steady partner, living together offers obvious advantages. It can be real life learning experience of loving and adjusting on equal terms with another person.It is just one of many possible â€Å"tests† for a potential partner. The best predictor of good marriage is a long, relatively smooth relationship, in which wide variety of problems and successes are experienced. Living together measures the couple’s strengths and weaknesses in such areas as; communication, personality, expectations, leisure activities, conflict resolutions, financial management, parenting etc†¦ Cohabitation provides a great opportun ity for couples to get to know each other better, learn communication, decision-making, prepare for marriage and prevent future problems.On the other hand, cohabitation are often criticized by the old generation. Many times, a couple who lives together before becoming married can upset their families or friends who have strict religious beliefs. If these families or friends are the soon-to-be bride or groom's parents, this can create a rift in the family which can be difficult to repair. However, some families are fine with a situation like this. Think of how your family or your partner's family would feel about the situation before doing anything and decide how it will affect the family relationship.Another disadvantage of living together before marriage is that you lose the excitement and thrill the ‘honeymoon' will bring. When you have already lived with someone and gotten to know their actions and habits, the time after the wedding will not be as exciting. However, this is not always a bad thing. If losing the excitement before you're even married frightens you, you may not want to live together before marriage. No one can insure that it is better or not to live with someone before getting married him or her. Do what is good for you and be responsible for everything you made.

How Significant Was the Presence of Foreign Powers as an Influence on the Nature and Growth of Arab Nationalism in the Years 1900-2001

How significant was the presence of foreign powers as an influence on the nature and growth of Arab nationalism in the years 1900-2001? During the years 1900-2001 a number of significant interventions occurred which affected the growth and nature of Arab nationalism. Several key pressures considerably influenced a change in the nature of nationalism; including, economic levers, agreements and military presenses in the Middle East. Arab nationalism arose out of the fear of the possibility and later the certainty of European or American dominance. The emerging ideology believed all Arabs to be united by both a shared language and history.Foreign intervention in the Middle East long predated the First World War, dating back to during the 19th century. However, the time in which it had most effect on Arab nationalism in the area stretched from 1914 onwards. During this period many Arabs were resentful of being dominated by outside powers. Therefore, the link between foreign intervention between 1900 and 2001 and the consequent changes to Arab nationalism were very strong. In the years before 1900, nationalism had always been an underlying movement in the Middle East. Martin Kramer demonstrates this view of Arab nationalism; ‘Awake, O Arabs, and arise’.By selecting this phrase from an Arab poem Kramer shows that the Arab desire for an uprising is trying to be stirred. However, he goes on to voice the opinion of, ‘†¦ many Arabs have suspended their belief in the Arab nation, and now openly doubt whether there is a collective Arab mission’. This has led to a triumph of the nation states, whereby Arabs prefer to be seen as Syrian, Egyptian etc. This was the result of the retreat of Arab nationalism. In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire tried to combat the growth of European power and influence.Borrowing money to develop their infrastructure, and modernise industry. However, modernisation saw them fall even more under the control of the Europeans, who provided loans for the process. Academics like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Qasim Amin encouraged the reinterpretation of Islamic principles in response to the modern world as a way to break free from the foreign power’s colonialism, especially Europe’s. Nationalist movements, like the Young Turks of Anatolia, also arose. Secular nationalism was especially strong among non-Muslim communities, which could not fully articipate in Islamic nationalist movements. Arab nationalism within individual states was beginning to challenge the authority of the Ottoman Empire. Greece won independence from the Ottomans in 1832, and other Balkan nations began to follow suit. The British decided to enter the region following a public speech by Asquith, he declared, â€Å"It is the Ottoman government, and not we, who have rung the death knell of Ottoman dominion not only in Europe but in Asia†. The following month an ‘attack’ was launched against the Ot tomans. This was the beginning of British intervention in the Middle East.After WW1 Europe still regarded the Arabs as a ‘subject’ race that were ruled by the British. It was also felt that the Arabs should be grateful that they’d been liberated from the Ottoman rule. The sole key figure to believe that Arab self-determination was underestimated was Woodrow Wilson of America. When Britain was to move into Egypt and discover the wealth of the cotton industry, however, the Egyptian Arabs were still in famine, poverty and were denied the right to take any part in Egyptian legislature. As a result nationalism fermented even further.Agreements including the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, Sykes-Picot and the San Remo resolution provoked and increased Arab distrust of the Europeans. This view is supported by William L. Cleveland in his book detailing the Middle East . He believed the Hussein-McMahon correspondence showed Hussein as initially having limited or no Arab n ationalist qualities. â€Å"He was not an Arab nationalist and did not think in terms of the ideology of Arabism. He was instead an ambitious dynast who used his Islamic status as Sharif†¦ † Hussein wanted to claim his family’s kingdom and gain sole power.This was also true of the Arab fighters in the 1916 Arab revolt aided by the British; they wanted gold and weapons much more than Arab independence. Cleveland highlights these points and the fact that the promises made in the correspondence prompted contentment on both sides, as the British wanted to see the fall of the Ottomans and Hussein wanted leadership. However, â€Å"McMahon’s language was so ambiguous and so vague.. [that it has] given rise to conflicting interpretations over whether Palestine was included as part of the future independent Arab state†.It is for this reason that the Arabs began to distrust Britain. The correspondence was between the British high commissioner, Sir Henry McMaho n and descendant of the prophet and Arab leader, Sharif Hussein. For the British it was a useful agreement as they already saw the Ottomans as a threat. However in the long term it caused unrest in the Middle East and widespread distrust of Britain. The agreement is useful in showing the unclear language used by the British to avoid either having to give land to the Arabs or create an argument. Deborah J.Gerner agrees with Cleveland in that secret agreements , caused Britain especially to be viewed negatively by the Arabs; â€Å"It is clear from this agreement [Sykes-Picot] that Britain had no intention of fulfilling its commitment to support Arab independence in the Levant at the end of the war, whatever might have been promised in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. † This was the view many Arab nationalists would have taken. This secondary source offers a late 20th century vantage point of the deal which gives it an extra degree of credibility. From 1900 to 2001, the Unite d States has had global interests in the Middle East, the U. S. as made itself a key foreign power by using its strong diplomatic, economic, and military power in support of its national interests. This was demonstrated in 1919 where under President Woodrow Wilson the League of Nations was formed; it was quick to hand out a series of mandates laying out the colonial boundaries of the Middle East according to the U. S. These boundaries were not ideal for the Middle Eastern inhabitants however, the U. S. managed to maintain a positive reputation throughout World War One. I believe this to be a result of the British-French mistrust created as a result of previous agreements that were not stuck to.Therefore the US seemed more trustworthy and was viewed as a valuable ally. In the years between the wars Arab nationalist opposition towards foreign intervention continued to grow. By 1952, Gamal Abdal Nasser had led a coup against the Egyptian king and was named president of Egypt. He ended official British influence and became a truly symbolic leader for all Arabs. He tried to unite Egypt and Syria into a single United Arab Republic, but this attempt lasted for only a few years. It was clear Nasser saw foreign powers such as Britain as intervening trouble makers this is demonstrated by his clear dis-like of the Baghdad pact of 1955. Nasser saw the Baghdad Pact†¦ as an instrument of Western intervention and he feared that Jordan, Lebanon and Syria might also be convinced to join’ . In order to conquer this threat from the west Nasser utilised the power of radio to broadcast to millions of Arabs all over the world. This was perhaps the start of a worldwide effort for Arabs to unite, therefore, Egypt’s opposition to the western intervention in the Middle East was a main contributor to the growth of Arab Nationalism in the 1950s.Nasser’s personal international prestige grew immensely and by the end of 1955 he was seen as the leader of the Arab wo rld. This was important as the Arabs now had a firm identity and leader to follow, incomparable to the ‘Are we Arabs one big lie? ’ question voiced in Kramer’s book. Between 1955 and 1958 key events occurred which furthered the growth of Arab nationalism. Firstly, the Czech arms deal of September 1955; Nasser had agreed to buy arms from the Czech government, including Soviet aircraft and tanks.Once again Nasser was showing his independent power and this created a worry for the West, however, the worry was not without cause as on hearing the military news Arabs all over the world began to rejoice in their Arab-ness and the conquering of the foreign powers. Similar joy followed in 1956 with the Suez crisis, Britain and France were severely humiliated at having failed to regain control of the Suez Canal. Even though the canal had been withdrawn from as a result of the U. S. withdrawing their support, the Arab world saw this as a victory against Western powers.As a r esult of long years of Western dominance, a small victory such maintaining the Suez Canal led to widespread Arab nationalism. In the 1940s the U. S. began to involve itself more thoroughly in Middle Eastern politics. This was in order to protect its national interests, the most important being the fight against communism, namely the Soviets during the Cold War. Guaranteeing a secure supply of oil, and ensuring that no single power dominated the region were big priorities for the U. S. More recently, fighting terrorism was made a priority especially after 9/11 in 2001. The U.S. has supported leaders and governments it considered to be stable allies, like the Saudi royal family, Israel, and Egyptian governments, since Anwar Sadat was elected in 1970. A good example of the U. S. hindering the growth of Arab Nationalism whilst protecting self interests was in 1953 when anxious about growing Soviet influence in Iran during the Cold War, the U. S. toppled the regime of Iran's elected prim e minister Mossadeq, who intended to nationalise the Iranian oil industry. The U. S. backed a coup against Mossadeq and forced the election of the young Reza, Shah of Iran.America had demonstrated its control over the region and whilst this could have created anger and a sense of nationalism, it was not to fully rise until 1979. The new prime minister enforced many western policies throughout his reign and was head of a very oppressive government. 1979 led to an Islamic revolution against the Shah's regime and put a new kind of Islamic state into power governed by Islamic jurists and scholars. The popular hatred of the Shah also created hatred of his American supporters, and the revolution's anti-American passion led to the raid of the U. S.Embassy in Tehran, where 53 hostages were held for more than a year. This is a prime example of how a foreign power created a violent change in the nature of Arab Nationalism, an earlier example of this can also be shown from the Palestinian refu gee problem up until 1949, this was the result of an energetic Zionist effort that began before the turn of the century. Such historians as Ben Gurion supported this†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Israel was intended to be a national home for Jews, both spiritually, historically and physically. Nearly 75,000 Jews fleeing persecution from Nazi Germany, found refuge there.But its creation came at a heavy price. In addition to the many Jews who died struggling to create the new state, many Arabs were killed and hundreds of thousands of Arabs were either displaced by Jewish settlers or became unwilling citizens of Israel and voluntarily left the region. The U. S. under President Truman were firmly in support of the new Jewish homeland and this was confirmed when American airplanes were seen as essential to the Israeli victory in the 1967 Six-Day War that placed Israel against Arab powers.And when the Yom Kippur War in 1973 again threatened the Jewish state, a massive U. S. airlift of war material was cr ucial to Israel's survival in the conflict. Up until this event the U. S. had been seen to be extremely forward in trying to gain peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours, key achievements included the 1978 Camp David meeting that negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel and the 1993 Oslo peace agreements that established a framework for negotiating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians started the process for achieving a Palestinian state peacefully.However some Arab critics claim the superpower had not done all that it can to bring about peace in the region. Especially as much of the U. S. support to Israel was in the form of military equipment and the U. S. economy and jobs were devoted to continually upgrading the Israeli army. Some Palestinians argue that the U. S. was too committed in its support for Israel to make unbiased decisions and was unwilling to pressure the Israelis to negotiate peace, interested only in fuelling the rivals.

Japanese course for teachers in Elementary Schools Essay

What are the minimal Japanese language competencies for our team teachers working in Japanese Elementary schools? Through this question I hope to make explicit and test methods of data collection, diagnostic testing, and needs analysis; and determine if these methods transfer to another language. This data will be used as a basis for collecting authentic materials to prepare a Japanese for Specific Purposes language course. Setting We have 12 British Council teachers team teaching in 24 Japanese junior high schools and one elementary school This is a completely Japanese environment (e.g. dress, code of conduct, meetings are all done in Japanese). Primarily our teachers rely on our team teachers to translate important information such as scheduling, written messages, problems with the photocopier, dealing with disruptive students, etc. In the future we would like to expand into Tokyo elementary schools, however, the board of education has expressed reservations about our Japanese ability and that our British Council teachers need to be linguistically self reliant in the schools Objective. I would like to look at creating a series of Japanese language competencies similar to the CEF guidelines for our British Council teachers teaching in elementary schools such as: â€Å"I can read instructions on a photocopier† or â€Å"I can interact in a simple way dealing with a change of school schedule†. By collecting feedback, writing competency guidelines and finally creating a diagnostic test, I hope to examine the methods of data collection and analysis that I have read about studying for this module. I would like to compare my journey from data collection to course objectives to similar cases of TESOL course design such as Johan Uvin when he designed workplace ESOL (Graves ed. , 1996). Furthermore I believe that by using native English speakers as the students, I can examine more closely what our needs are (without interference from the native language). Then I can compare it to data collection methods and needs analyses that we use for our TESOL students. I am considering this as a sub-aim (the differences and similarities of data collection from L1 to L2 informants). To determine the competencies I must resolve these questions: 1. What situations our teachers find themselves in an Elementary school context where written or spoken Japanese is needed or used? 2. What expectations the Japanese team teachers or schools have in regards to what their needs are regarding communication with our staff? 3. What expectations our teachers have and what they would like to know how to say, write or read? Data collection I propose three ways for data collection, which would be done concurrently 1. Diaries: British Council teachers in both elementary schools and JHS will note down situations and times when they needed Japanese or would have liked to know how to say something in Japanese. (Long, 2005) 2. Interviews with our team teachers and elementary teachers on what they would expect our teachers to be able to do or say. These interviews/ questionnaires might have to be done in Japanese. (Anderson, 1998) 3. Questionnaire or survey of what BC teachers would like to learn in a course (Hinkel, 2005) I believe that using three ways of data collection will bring me a fuller and more varied sample of information. This will also give me more access to the differing stakeholders. Research Plan 1. I propose first to identify current and leading ideas of needs analysis and data collection. 2. Then I will test and verify these methods using both native speakers and Japanese team teachers to create the diaries and questionairres. 3. From this data collection, I will write minimum guidelines for Japanese linguistic competency in Elementary schools. 4. With this, I will write and send out a diagnostic test based on these results. 5. Finally, I will collect authentic materials to use in a Japanese language course. Issues I realise that developing a Japanese language course falls outside of the TESOL area. However, I believe integration in the country or work atmosphere is an overlooked area of our work. I would also say that it falls under the area of Educational Management in TESOL and therefore I believe it is a valid area of study. Furthermore, data collection and analysis methods that I have covered in my reading for this module should be universal and apply to any language. I believe that by using native speakers for some of the actual needs analysis allows me to communicate with the students (in this case the BC teachers) in a way that can test or validate certain presumptions of language learning and needs analysis. Background Reading Anderson, G. and Arsenault, N. 1998. Fundamentals of Educational Research. London: Routledge Farmer. Graves, K. (Ed. ) 1996. Teachers as Course Developers. Cambridge: CUP. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. 1987. English for Specific Purposes: a learning centred approach. Cambridge CUP: Chapter 8. Nunan, D. 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP. Nunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design, OUP. Skilbeck, M. 1982 â€Å"Three educational ideologies† in T. Horton & P. Raggat (eds) Challenge and Change in the Curriculum, Hodder & Stoughton. Long, M. 2005. Second Language Needs Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallace, M. 1998. Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinkel, Eli. (Ed. ) 2005. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

COM Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

COM - Essay Example d allows for the viewer to further integrate with the action that is taking place on the screen, the theme of the movie itself, and whether or not the actors were ultimately believable in their roles. Firstly, with regards the music which was utilized in the film, this is perhaps the strongest element that helps to tie the plot in with the ultimate sense of frustration, suspense, and drama that is represented on the screen. All too often, films simply seek to fill a musical score with something so that this potential element will be fulfilled. However, with regards to the film in question, the music was expertly presented so that the drama, suspense, and anguish that were represented within the scenes could be evoked to a more full and complete degree. Another definitive element that helps to set this film apart from many others is with respect to the way in which the actors which were chosen were perfectly suited and believable in the roles that they reflected. Although it is of course possible that a number of different actors could of been chosen facilities role in just as satisfactory a manner, the way in which Franka Potente was able to represent a steelish determination alongside a fragile an almost childlike sense of never giving up hope, denotes the fact that this actor was perfectly cast and fully believable with regards to the role which she was required to portray. Similarly, the theme of the movie itself is ultimately a suspense/thriller. In such a way, the previous two elements that have been discussed, both work favorably in helping to promote a further level of enjoyment on the part of the viewer with respect to this particular genre film. Although there are a number of best practices that can be engaged in any film, in order to effectively represent the thriller/suspense genre, is of course necessary to have a set of actors that are fully believable within the role, able to represent key emotions, angst, anger, frustration, fear, sadness, and an