War in the modern world Essay Example

War in the modern world Essay War in the modern world includes terrorism and the threat of nuclear war. Explain how the Bible, the church and the teachings of Jesus may guide Christians in these matters.Christians may be guided by these things in different ways. What I mean is, all Christians have slightly different forms of authority. For example, an evangelical Christian will take the authority of the Bible a lot more than the tradition of the church. To expand on this point I have listed the mainstream denominations sources of authority.So these different sources of authority give a Christian slightly different viewpoints on war. So depending on what denomination you are a member of, you will be guided differently.The BibleThe Bible does seem very clear in its teachings about war. All through the Bible it talks about not fighting and being at peace with your neighbour.In Romans 12:17-21 the teaching is simple. The first verse, Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of eve rybody This is very clear. The next verse If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Live at peace it is all very anti-war. The emphasis is always on peace. It also says that we should not take revenge, but leave it to God, It is mine to avenge; I will re-payIn Micah 4:1-4, it talks about the coming of peace on the Earth, In the last days the mountain of the lords temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream into it. I says that warriors Will beat their swords into ploughs meaning that the soldiers of Earth will become as peaceful as the farmers. Nation will not take up sword against nation. Obviously saying that nations should be and will be at peace with one another. no-one will make them afraid (speaking about every man on Earth). This is very significant. It says that when God brings peace, there will be nothing for men to scare people with. This is important because it is sa ying that all means of war will be taken away, therefore saying that they are bad.The teachings of JesusThe teachings of Jesus are very similar, in the fact that they teach no to use violence. However, Jesus himself did use violence, in the temple. This does not mean that Christians should not take his teachings seriously, but that because he was God, he was justified in using necessary force.In Matthew 26:52, Jesus states,Put your sword back in its place, for those who live by the sword, die bye the swordThis teaching is one of Jesus simplest teaching. It is obvious what he is saying. But he is not necessarily talking about dying physically, but more of dying spiritually. If you take arms up against an enemy, he is saying that you are turning away from God(not doing his will) and polluting your sprit.In Matthew 5:9, in the famous Beatitudes, Jesus gives the teachingBlessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.Again Jesus is teaching that if you keep peace, a nd do not fight, you will be rewarded in heaven.Jesus also teaches in Matthew5:44. And I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. This also ties into his famous parable The good Samaritan. One of Jesus most profound teachings, and definitely one to look at when talking about Jesus teaching toward war, is in Mark 12:29-31, The greatest Commandment Here he clearly states that it is a great commandment, which should be obeyed, to love you neighbour. By neighbour he meant everybody in the world. There is no other teaching by Jesus which is clearer than this.The churchBecause there are so many different churches, each with its own teaching on war and peace, I am going to concentrate on three.The Church of EnglandThe C of E is involved in two on gong debates. The first one is about the just war theory. St Thomas Aquinas developed this theory in the 13 century. In it he laid down 3 conditions for which it is right to engage in a war. In the 16 Century, a forth prin ciple was added. These principles are:1 It must be on the authority of the sovereign-King or Queen, or the government2 The cause must be just3 The participant should have the right intentions.4 It should be waged by proper means.The second debate the C of E has been involved in is that of consistent Pacifism. The church itself is not consistently pacifist so it usually takes the stand of the just War and the use of force only as a last resort.The Methodist ChurchThe Methodist church teaches that war is country to the sprit, teaching and purpose of Jesus Christ. These are some extracts from a public statement made by the Methodist church:The Christian pacifist does not necessarily condemn the use of every kind of force, but refuses to employ force unaccountably or to destroy others, for example in either personal or state violence. The Christian non-pacifist does not justify every war, but reluctantly recognises that violence (force) may be used when authorised to defend against aggression, to rectify a breach or boundary, or to restrain or replace a notorious and tyrannical despot. The church upholds the right of individual members conscientiously to choose between these positions, and offers pastoral support to those on both sides of the debate.The Salvation ArmyConscientious objectorsThe salvation army respects the right of individuals to arrive at their own decisions on the question of bearing arms in military service, based on personal Christian conviction, without seeking to influence any individual in either direction. The army offers a full spiritual ministry to those arriving at either decision, with all-possible help and guidance.Based on scriptural teaching concerning respect for properly constituted civil authority, the Army consuls those who object to military service to accept the legal means provided for alternative service, where such exist.In no circumstances does the Army regard a sincere conscientious objector with any sense of stigma. It sees any such attitude as being a negation of the love of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose power alone can enable people to learn to live together in peace.Taken from the Salvation Army United Kingdom Territory Positional Statement on Conscientious objection (PS4) issued 1 November 1992.R2) Explain the arguments put forward by Christian Pacifists and demonstrate how Christian non-pacifists might support their position.Christian pacifists would say that if you believe in God how is it possible for you to contribute to the destruction of mankind? When one becomes committed to God, through any religion, that person should become improved in a substantial manner. Otherwise, why change at all if there is no benefit. Also, when the individual changes for the good, such change should also affect their community as well.Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute youin order that you may be sons of you Father in heaven. Matthew 5:44-45The word patience (patientia), is a word that during the early years of the church meant The stead fast endurance to resist evil without doing violence to the evil doer. The firm and enduring resistance to evil and violent pressures of injustice and prejudice. Pacifists would say that this old meaning of the word patience has been forgotten and should be used as such rather than it being used as a liberal term with the definition Waiting without complaintBlessed are the peacemakers for they will inherit the kingdom of God Matthew 5:3But I say to youlove your enemies and pray for those that persecute youin order that you may be the children of your father who is n heaven Matthew 5:44-45Christian Pacifists would reject all wars on the grounds that war is the ultimate example of human depravity, and any attempt to justify it through the teachings of Jesus Christ is a perversion of scripture. When one accepts the offer of salvation through God, he begins the process of becoming a new creation. Old habits will die away and be replaced wit h a new view on life. Whereas we once used violence as a means to secure what was ours and what we believed we need for the future.The whole idea of holiness is to be different. The word holy comes from the word hadios which means to be set apart for God. Where there was hatred, there is now understanding, where there was a strife there is now peace. The teachings of the New Testament show that a Christian is different to unbelievers. They are a light set up upon a hill and an example worthy to emulate. But, if we continue to hate, strive against others, kill, and cause great suffering upon others, then wherein are we different? What is the new life in Christ if we retain the old ways? When the church uses the ways of the world it gets the results of the world.Christian Pacifists reject all institutionalised violence and war because it violates the clear teachings of Jesus. War, at best may only be considered a social responsibility and not a biblical mandate. As a social responsibi lity, it is so only for a degenerate society, one that a Christian cannot be apart of. The Christian cannot share in any action, corporate or individual, that is a known contradiction to the requirement to discipleship.Christian non-pacifists support their position by using the Just War Theory. They would also say that they would defend themselves or their family if attacked. They would also say that they would support Christian Pacifism ideas and promote pacifism. St Thomas Aquinas developed the Just War Theory in the 13 century. In it he laid down 3 conditions for which it is right to engage in a war. In the 16 Century, a forth principal was added. These principles are:1 It must be on the authority of the sovereign-King or Queen, or the government2 The cause must be just3 The participant should have the right intentions.4 It should be waged by proper means.The Christians that use this idea would not say that war is a good thing, but if it has to happen then at least people sho uld follow the Just War Theory. This theory is popular among young Christians who want to serve for their country in the army, but are afraid to do so by the teachings of their church. These Christians would say that Jesus was not absolutely clear about war and violence and that the bibles meaning can be interpreted to say that war is justified when using something similar to the just war theory.R3) It takes more courage to be a conscientious objector than to fight so Christians should always support the cause of peace than war.Some Christians like the Iraenic Fellowship, (a Christian Pacifist organisation), would agree. They would say that we have to all be pacifists to set a good form o witness. They would say that if 50% of all Christians became Pacifists, then over 1 billion people would refuse to go to war, and this would force the governments to seek new ways of combating offensive countries and enemies.Christian pacifists would say that if you believe in God how is it possibl e for you to contribute to the destruction of mankind? When one becomes committed to God, through any religion, that person should become improved in a substantial manner. Otherwise, why change at all if there is no benefit. Also, when the individual changes for the good, such change should also affect their community as well.Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute youin order that you may be sons of you Father in heaven. Matthew 5:44-45The word patience (patientia), is a word that during the early years of the church meant The stead fast endurance to resist evil without doing violence to the evil doer. The firm and enduring resistance to evil and violent pressures of injustice and prejudice. Pacifists would say that this old meaning of the word patience has been forgotten and should be used as such rather than it being used as a liberal term with the definition Waiting without complaintBlessed are the peacemakers for they will inherit the kingdom of God Matthew 5:3But I say to youlove your enemies and pray for those that persecute youin order that you may be the children of your father who is n heaven Matthew 5:44-45Christian Pacifists would reject all wars on the grounds that war is the ultimate example of human depravity, and any attempt to justify it through the teachings of Jesus Christ is a perversion of scripture. When one accepts the offer of salvation through God, he begins the process of becoming a new creation. Old habits will die away and be replaced with a new view on life. Whereas we once used violence as a means to secure what was ours and what we believed we need for the future.The whole idea of holiness is to be different. The word holy comes from the word hadios which means to be set apart for God. Where there was hatred, there is now understanding, where there was a strife there is now peace. The teachings of the New Testament show that a Christian is different to unbelievers. They are a light set up upon a hill and an example wor thy to emulate. But, if we continue to hate, strive against others, kill, and cause great suffering upon others, then wherein are we different? What is the new life in Christ if we retain the old ways? When the church uses the ways of the world it gets the results of the world.Christian Pacifists reject all institutionalised violence and war because it violates the clear teachings of Jesus. War, at best may only be considered a social responsibility and not a biblical mandate. As a social responsibility, it is so only for a degenerate society, one that a Christian cannot be apart of. The Christian cannot share in any action, corporate or individual, that is a known contradiction to the requirement to discipleship.Christian non-pacifists support their position by using the Just War Theory. They would also say that they would defend themselves or their family if attacked. They would also say that they would support Christian Pacifism ideas and promote pacifism. St Thomas Aquinas devel oped the Just War Theory in the 13 century. In it he laid down 3 conditions for which it is right to engage in a war. In the 16 Century, a forth principal was added. These principles are:1 It must be on the authority of the sovereign-King or Queen, or the government2 The cause must be just3 The participant should have the right intentions.4 It should be waged by proper means.The Christians that use this idea would not say that war is a good thing, but if it has to happen then at least people should follow the Just War Theory. This theory is popular among young Christians who want to serve for their country in the army, but are afraid to do so by the teachings of their church. These Christians would say that Jesus was not absolutely clear about war and violence and that the bibles meaning can be interpreted to say that war is justified when using something similar to the just war theory.Most Christians would say that it is good to be a pacifist because it means that you are showi ng a good example to other non-Christians, and it will show them what it means to be a Christian in the modern world.

Battle of Flamborough Head in the American Revolution

Battle of Flamborough Head in the American Revolution The Battle of Flamborough Head was fought September 23, 1779, between Bonhomme Richard and HMS Serapis and was part of the American Revolution (1775-1783). Sailing from France in August 1779 with a small squadron, noted American naval commander Commodore John Paul Jones sought to circle the British Isles with the goal of wreaking havoc on British merchant shipping. In late September, Jones ships encountered a British convoy in the vicinity of Flamborough Head off the east coast of England. Attacking, the Americans succeeded in capturing two British warships, the frigate HMS Serapis (44 guns) and the sloop-of-war HMS Countess of Scarborough (22), after a protracted and bitter fight. Though the battle ultimately cost Jones his flagship, Bonhomme Richard (42), the victory cemented his place as one of the preeminent American naval commanders of the war and greatly embarrassed the Royal Navy. John Paul Jones A native of Scotland, John Paul Jones served a merchant captain in the years before the American Revolution. Accepting a commission in the Continental Navy in 1775, he was appointed as first lieutenant aboard USS Alfred (30).  Serving in this role during the expedition to New Providence (Nassau) in March 1776, he later assumed command of the sloop USS Providence (12). Proving an able commerce raider, Jones received command of the new sloop-of-war USS Ranger (18) in 1777.  Directed to sail for European waters, he had orders to assist the American cause in any way possible. Arriving in France, Jones elected to raid British waters in 1778 and embarked on campaign that saw the capture of several merchant vessels, an attack on the port of Whitehaven, and the capture of the sloop-of-war HMS Drake (14). Returning to France, Jones was celebrated as as hero for his capture of the British warship. Promised a new, larger ship, Jones soon encountered problems with the American commissioners as well as the French admiralty. A New Ship On February 4, 1779, he received a converted East Indiaman named Duc de Duras from the French government.  Though less than ideal, Jones commenced adapting the vessel into a 42-gun warship which he dubbed Bonhomme Richard in honor of American Minister to France Benjamin Franklins Poor Richards Almanac. On August 14, 1779, Jones departed Lorient, France with a small squadron of American and French warships. Flying his commodores pennant from Bonhomme Richard, he intended to circle the British Isles in a clockwise fashion with the goal of attacking British commerce and diverting attention from French operations in the Channel. Commodore John Paul Jones. Hulton Archive / Stringer/ Hulton Archive/ Getty Images A Troubled Cruise During the early days of the cruise, the squadron captured several merchantmen, but issues arose with Captain Pierre Landais, commander of Jones second largest ship, the 36-gun frigate Alliance. A Frenchman, Landais had traveled to America hoping to be a naval version of the Marquis de Lafayette. He was rewarded with a captains commission in the Continental Navy, but now resented serving under Jones. Following an argument on August 24, Landais announced he would no longer follow orders. As a result, Alliance frequently departed and returned to the squadron at its commanders whim. After an absence of two weeks, Landais rejoined Jones near Flamborough Head at dawn on September 23. The return of Alliance raised Jones strength to four ships as he also had the frigate Pallas (32) and the small brigantine Vengeance (12). Fleets Commanders Americans French Commodore John Paul JonesCaptain Pierre LandaisBonhomme Richard (42 guns), Alliance (36), Pallas (32), Vengeance (12) Royal Navy Captain Richard PearsonHMS Serapis (44), HMS Countess of Scarborough (22) The Squadrons Approach Around 3:00 PM, lookouts reported sighting a large group of ships to the north. Based on intelligence reports, Jones correctly believed this to be a large convoy of over 40 ships returning from the Baltic guarded by the frigate HMS Serapis (44) and the sloop-of-war HMS Countess of Scarborough (22). Piling on sail, Jones ships turned to chase.  Spotting the threat to the south, Captain Richard Pearson of Serapis, ordered the convoy to make for the safety of Scarborough and placed his vessel in a position to block the approaching Americans.  After  Countess of Scarborough had successfully guided the convoy some distance away, Pearson recalled his consort and maintained his position between the convoy and approaching enemy.  Ã‚   First Shots Due to light winds, Jones squadron did not near the enemy until after 6:00 PM.  Though Jones had ordered his ships to form a line of battle, Landais veered Alliance from the formation and pulled Countess of Scarborough away from Serapis.  Around 7:00 PM, Bonhomme Richard rounded Serapis port quarter and after an exchange of questions with Pearson, Jones opened fire with his starboard guns. This was followed by Landais attacking  Countess of Scarborough.  This engagement proved brief as the French captain quickly disengaged from the smaller ship.  This allowed  Countess of Scarboroughs commander, Captain Thomas Piercy, to move to Serapis aid.   A Bold Maneuver Alert to this danger, Captain Denis Cottineau of Pallas intercepted Piercy allowing  Bonhomme Richard to continue engaging Serapis. Alliance did not enter the fray and remained apart from the action. Aboard Bonhomme Richard, the situation quickly deteriorated when two of the ships heavy 18-pdr guns burst in the opening salvo. In addition to damaging the ship and killing many of the guns crew, this led to the other 18-pdrs being taken out of service for fear that they were unsafe. Using its greater maneuverability and heavier guns, Serapis raked and pounded Jones ship. With Bonhomme Richard becoming increasingly unresponsive to its helm, Jones realized his only hope was to board Serapis. Maneuvering closer to the British ship, he found his moment when Serapis jib-boom became entangled the rigging of Bonhomme Richards mizzen mast. As the two ships came together, the crew of Bonhomme Richard quickly bound the vessels together with grappling hooks. The Tide Turns They were further secured when Serapis spare anchor became caught on American ships stern. The ships continued firing into each other as both sides marines sniped at opposing crew and officers. An American attempt to board Serapis was repulsed, as was a British attempt to take Bonhomme Richard. After two hours of fighting, Alliance appeared on the scene. Believing the frigates arrival would turn the tide, Jones was shocked when Landais began indiscriminately firing into both ships. Aloft, Midshipman Nathaniel Fanning and his party in the main fighting top succeeded in eliminating their counterparts on Serapis. Moving along the two ships yardarms, Fanning and his men were able to cross over to Serapis. From their new position aboard the British ship, they were able to drive Serapis crew from their stations using hand grenades and musket fire. With his men falling back, Pearson was forced to finally surrender his ship to Jones. Across the water, Pallas succeeded in taking Countess of Scarborough after a prolonged fight. During the battle, Jones was famously reputed to have exclaimed I have not yet begun to fight! in response to Pearsons demand that he surrender his ship. Aftermath Impact Following the battle, Jones re-concentrated his squadron and began efforts to save the badly damaged Bonhomme Richard. By September 25, it was clear that the flagship could not be saved and Jones transferred to Serapis. After several days of repairs, the newly taken prize was able to get underway and Jones sailed for Texel Roads in the Netherlands. Evading the British, his squadron arrived on October 3. Landais was relieved of his command shortly thereafter. One of the greatest prizes taken by the Continental Navy, Serapis was soon transferred to the French for political reasons. The battle proved a major embarrassment for the Royal Navy and cemented Jones place in American naval history.

Slavery in Post-Civil War America Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Slavery in Post-Civil War America - Essay Example Authorities would arrest Blacks for minor crimes, and since most of them were unemployed, they had no money to pay court fees their sentences would be extended. The authorities would then sell the slaves to white firms for a small fee and here they were subject to deplorable conditions. After being sold to the white firms, the manager5s of these firms had the authority to make the black men work as they wished. The black slaves would be given huge amounts of jobs to do and failure to complete the assigned tasks would mean being punished by being beaten up. The poor working conditions, poverty and lack of reimbursement meant that the Blacks would not afford taking care of the health. Diseases such as pneumonia and tuberculosis were abundant in the population, and they were not given treatment or taken care of in any way. Many African Americans died because of slavery implicated on them by the Whites, and they were buried in crude graveyards that came to be discovered many years later. Most of the Whites saw nothing wrong with slavery, and argued that it was good for the economy and only a few disregarded it. Many Whites saw slavery as important, but did not see it as white racism since it boosted the economy. Blacks on the other hand saw slavery as racism, and most of them expressed fears of why there were many black slaves. However, it is evident that Blacks were oppressed by the Whites and authorities played a big role in advancing racism by passing laws to intimidate Blacks. Mapping Human History Steve Olson describes how genetics have contributed to the understanding of humans in terms of race, ethnicity and nationality. He explains that people can discover their past using biological explanations and uses genes to elaborate how people can be able to trace back their ancestral origins. Human beings share the same ancestors, which are in regards to genes, and this shows that all human beings are related in one way or another. The book Mapping Human History by Olson elaborates that every individual has relatives such as parents, grandparents, great grand parents and many more, and in trying to pin down the common ancestor, it relates that more lived thousands of years ago hence implying a universal ancestry background. Despite the fact that these people may have never met, it is evident that there is a universal origin of the human race. Genetics links the human race to the original ancestors, and this brings out the argument that the human race has similar origins, but has changed over time to produce the various races that are in the world today. The genetic explanation of this is that when the sperm meets with the female egg, their pair up their DNA’s and this way people are able to detect their maternal associations because they will have the similarities in their DNA makeup (Olson 20). The Y-chromosomes can found in males can also be used to explain the common ancestry background because males inherit this from their fathers, and biological analysis proves that the modern DNA is from many individuals living in Africa, but got extinct and only the Adam and Eve lineage survived (Olson 23). Olson explains that all

Business Law Coursework Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Business Law Coursework - Essay Example (or "Divies") under the principle of vicarious liability. Crates may likewise have a claim for consequential economic loss. For Abraham and Crates to successfully claim under the law of tort, it must be shown that the elements making up a successful claim of negligence exist: duty, breach, causation, and damage. In the case of Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co. v M'Mullan (1934), it was stated that the tort of negligence 'properly connotes the complex of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing'. It was likewise stated in Burton v Islington (1992) that 'it is now elementary that the tort of negligence involves three factors: a duty of care, a breach of that duty and consequent damage.' Based on the foregoing decisions, the tort of negligence to be actionable must have the following elements: (1) there is a legal duty of care owed by defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that legal duty of care consisting of an act or omission by the defendant; and (3) consequent damage on the part of the plaintiff as a result such act or omission by the defendant. [see also Markesi nis, p. 69 (1999)] In the recent case of Jones v BBC, 2007 WL 2187023 (QBD), Jones, a freelance sound recordist for defendant BBC, claimed that he suffered personal injury caused by the negligence of the defendants. During a recording of the lowering of a windmill mast, and while Jones was walking under the inclined mast, the windmill rotor fell onto his back causing severe spinal injury rendering him paraplegic. In ruling for the claimant, the court stated that the BBC, as employer, had assumed responsibility for the health and safety of freelancers when they work on BBC productions. Since the safety crew had identified a risk of the falling mast, a discussion before filming should have been made to warn the crew not to go beneath it. But the safety crew did not give the warning. Such failure of BBC, through the safety crew, is considered negligent which caused Jones' accident. It had been held that it was incumbent upon BBC, its safety crew and the owners of the farm as occupiers of the site to take steps further to those they had taken to ensure that the BBC crew did not pass under the mast during its lowering. In the instant case, the shop manager breached the legal duty of care required of him under the circumstances when he failed to give a safety warning or danger warning after opening the windows onto the pavement because it is reasonably foreseeable that such window obstructs the path of the pedestrian and is most likely to cause an accident. Thus, in the case of Crowther v Kirklees Metropolitan Council (2006), the claimant ambulance driver claimed damages for personal injuries she sustained when she went to the house of a patient where the street was a narrow cul-de-sac with no footpaths. When plaintiff got out of the ambulance and placed her right foot on the step, as it was a high drop to the road, and her left foot on the ground, it entered a large defect centred around a circular utility cover measuring 5cm in depth, 40cm in width and 46 cm in length. When her foot entered the defect, she went over on her left ankle, which she strained. In ruling for the plaintiff, the court stated that it was reasonably foreseeable that the defect could result in injury to pedestrians. The

Genetically modified organism Essay Example for Free

Genetically modified organism Essay You are what you eat, and eating genetically modified food can harm your body. We are now living in an era where we tend to change everything to make it â€Å"better†, but eating genetically mutated food is not always the best option for everyone. Injecting hormones to the food that you eat everyday is bad for you because it affects 3 main aspects; health, environmental and economic. First of all I’ll start by informing you what genetically modified food really is. Genetically modified foods are those that come from an animal or vegetable origin that its genetic and chemical composition has been manipulated to increase its nutritional power or by making them more resistant to plagues. â€Å"GM foods are the ones that have been artificially changed by scientists in a laboratory. † The first GM for humans to eat was created on May 18, 1994, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of The United States authorized the commercialization of the first food with a strange gene, the modified food, created by a Californian company had the characteristic of having a retarded cycle of blossom. With this new technique of genetically modified food, scientists have achieved food to have certain characteristics. For example: plagues, herbicides and high temperature resistant, change in color and seedless food. â€Å"The first GM for humans to eat was created on May 18, 1994†, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of The United States authorized the commercialization of the first food with a strange gene, the modified food, created by a Californian company had the characteristic of having a retarded cycle of blossom. At the moment, the most common mutated foods are vegetables and fruits, and the most consumed by the people. Some examples of these can be: corn, tomatoes, potatoes, lemons, lettuce and more. Some reasons of why scientists think that mutated food is good for you may be Like almost everything, GM has its advantages and disadvantages, but in this case the side that is supposed to be the advantages, are really not that accurate or efficient like they say they are. This food that is modified at a genetic level, are better and have a greater quality that any other food of this type, but, at the same time by trying to make them resistant to plagues, the poison that has been implanted in his genes to kill the plagues, so the plants are going to have poison running inside them, poison that if it kills insects, it may affect our health in some way. This poison, related with the natural selection that does every species more and more strong. So, if an insect does not resist the poison that has certain plant anymore, this insect was evolving up to such a point of becoming immune to this poison. And if to the plant poison gets more, the insect every time will return mas and mas resistant to this one; and as immediate consequence of this, it might cause the total destruction of the plants that do not have this type of poison in his interior, stopping unprotected totally to the normal plants, of any assault of these new super plagues. Now that you know why scientists do this, I? ll tell you the mayor disadvantages of this process. Some of the risks that develop from the usage and consuming of GM affect our health, the environment, and the economic aspect. One of the health problems that can cause is to create a high allergic reaction of the substances that this kind of food has inside. Also, as more substances are inside the food the we eat, the more we are to become immune to the kind of substances or â€Å"antibiotics that they contain. It affects the environment because the high usage of herbicides in food affects the soil. And it also affects the economic aspect because it take more money to invest in GM food, rather than in normal food. In summary Genetically Modified food is food that has injected substances to make it better or to have some specific outcome that scientists wanted it to have. But in my opinion this substances inside the genes of the food is bad for people to consume. It can affect you in aspects like health, environmental and economic. To sum up, now that you know about transgenic products and their risks I hope that you consider all of what I just said In conclusion, genetically modified food is bad for your health, we should always be aware of the thing we eat everyday and try no eat more fresh food rather than prepared ones. Start by taking care of yourselves and others; stay healthy. Bibliography -Consumers with Allergic Reaction to Food: Perception of and Response to Food Risk in General and Genetically Modified Food in Particular, Galina Gaivoronskaia and Bjorn Hvinden, Science, Technology, Human Values , Vol. 31, No. 6 (Nov. , 2006), pp. 702-730 -Goodrich Schneider, R. (2007). Genetically modified food. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Florida, Tampa, Florida. Retrieved from http://edis. ifas. ufl. edu/fs084 -Collins, Ted. GM Foods. CBBC News round (2010): n. pag. Web. 18 Nov 2011.

A Whale Hunt :: essays research papers

Envision the Makah nation before white men came to reduce their lands, diminished their way of life, and contaminate them with new diseases. The Makah tribe was once free to roam along the dark sandy beaches of the Olympic Peninsula and experience the fiery glow of the sinking sun creep into the depths of the vast Pacific Ocean. They are no longer able to undergo this majestic cycle in the same tranquility that their ancestors once did. After dealing with the inequities that were brought upon them by the European settlers, such as being forced to speak a new language and being confined to a minute area of land, that cannot compare to the greatness of the territory where they once lived. On top of that their traditional whale hunt was abstracted from their community. Now with the chance to hunt again, the Makah faced a difficult decision against the opposition. The Makah tribe decided to return to hunting the whale in attempt to restore their culture and traditions. They agreed not t o use the hunt for commercial purposes and to hunt the whale in the same way their ancestors did. I think the Makah nation should be able to hunt the whale as means of renewing their culture and pride. The whale hunt provides the Makah with the ability to restore their culture and traditions, provide reparations for America's mistreatment, all while following strict guidelines for the crew and the process of taking the whale. The Makah’s decision to hunt the whale produced hostile reactions among the many supporters of the whale. Protestors from around the world arrived in mass. They were very unsympathetic, rude, and even aggressive toward the Makahs. An example of this is shown by their behavior toward the Makahs: Very soon, a woman shouted at the crew, ‘Real men don’t kill animals! Only a coward kills whales! You are a coward and a sissy!’ Another woman shouted that the Makah shouldn’t have special rights just because they were Indians. Another woman said her soul was connected to the soul of the gray whale. (Sullivan 136) This shows the emotion that the protestors brought to the controversy against the hunt. Their argument is that the whale is sacred to them too, and that slaughtering the whale is a criminal act. Everybody involved in the hunt is not perfect, but everybody deserves a chance.

Literary and Critical Analysis of the Yellow Wallpaper Essay

Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote the Yellow Wallpaper in 1892, the theme of which was feminism and individuality and how one woman dealt with the neurosis of her mind created largely by the expectations of society. The spiral to her breakdown began from her baby’s birth and in today’s time it would be seen as postpartum depression but at the time when the book was written the woman was seen as being highly strung. Gilman creates the plot around the yellow wallpaper in the protagonist’s room and how her obsessive mind personifies the wallpaper. The deterioration of the woman’s mind is signified through the disintegration of the state of the wallpaper. The story was written at a time when the main role of the woman in society was creating a home for her family. Her sense of worth and her values were all gauged against the way her home functioned. In this strive for perfection of the home the women of the time usually lost their own sense of self and it is this struggle to maintain a sense of self that usually caused the most stress. This build-up of stress is what is signified in the book. When the book begins, Gilman immediately makes it clear that the protagonist, as the woman, is inferior to her husband, John, the physician. When she feels ill the solution for John is telling her to stay in bad, not to use her imagination and stop writing. To him her writing anything is something useless and unnecessary. However, to her, writing is her one release. It is with her being able to write that she is able to let go of her pent up feelings. She writes, â€Å"Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good. But what is one to do? † (160). This last phrase underlines the state of mind and the actual state of mind of the women on the era. The woman is resigned to her inability to go against the societal norms no matter how unhappy it makes her. She has given birth to a baby and instead of feeling good she is feeling down. Her Husband and everyone around her thinks rest is the best answer and they confine her to her room. She knows that this confinement is not making her happy and she needs something to distract her, â€Å"Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good† (1279), yet she is helpless to counteract her husband’s orders. It is through this repression of her true self that her mind starts to break. The stress of hiding her true feelings and maintaining the semblance of normality, going against her true nature, while all the time believing that she was in the wrong in wanting more. The instances of this sort of conflict are shown throughout the book, â€Å"I meant to be such a help to John, such a real rest and comfort, and her I am a comparative burden already† (162). The yellow wallpaper is the only thing she has to break the normality. Initially she dislikes it, â€Å"I’m really quite fond of this big room, all but the horrid paper† (1281). But as time passes and the wallpaper is the only thing of interest in the room she starts looking at it with interest. What initially started as a game in seeing the different patterns of the wallpaper changes into a real psychosis, and her state of mind is defined through her thoughts, â€Å"There is a recurrent spot where the pattern lolls like a broken neck and two bulbous eyes stare at you upside down† (1281). The most integral part of the story comes from the fact that the identity of the woman is never revealed. It is as if her name has no value and she herself is of no consequence and it is the people around her that define her. The story of the Yellow Wallpaper shows the role of woman in society in America in the past. It shows how a woman did not have control of her destiny and how a man could only see her as a possession not as an individual. The callous attitude of the husband who sees her state of mind as the weakness of women is the defining factor of the whole situation. By refusing to accept the woman’s mind as an individual and independent factor of her body and confining his wife to solitude, John the husband aggravates her situation. Her need to talk and write is belittled, her need to expose her emotions repelled by everyone around her. This causes her to get depressed. She does not know how to control herself, she becomes hysterical and needs help but the only help comes from her husband, and comes in a condescending manner that does not help matters. Many critics have given their own point of view and Gilman(1898) wrote in Women and Economics, ‘[regarding women]the same human energies and human desires and ambitions within. But all that she may wish to have, all that she may wish to do, must come through a single channel and a single choice. Wealth, power, social distinction, fame, -not only these, but home and happiness, reputation, ease and pleasure, her bread and butter,-all, must come to her through a small gold ring (Gilman, 57). The fact of the time was that men were considered the patriarchs and they were the ones in control. There was no concept of partnership. The woman in Gilman’s book seems to be conflicted in her concept of her role as a wife. she understands the expectations of societal norms but due to her own character she cannot in her mind accept them as norm. As she writes, â€Å"John laughs at me, but one expects that in marriage† (Gilman, 1973 pp. 9). It is as if women have no value and are mere objects. The woman seems to accept that but unconsciously is rebelling to this â€Å"ridicule† of women. The objectification of women and the judgment passed upon by men causes the woman in Gilman’s book to be constantly projecting an image of herself that is not real. She is reacting to what people expect rather than being what she really is and this is creating a conflict in her own self that she is struggling to overcome and yet cannot. I can feel myself under the gaze of someone whose eyes I do not even see, not even discern†¦ From the moment this gaze exists, I am already something other, in that I feel myself becoming an object for the gaze of others. (Gilman 1973 pp. 215). The struggle to maintain her identity while keeping her ideas hidden and in lieu with the norms is something she is unable to maintain and the disintegration of her mind shows the pressures she is under. The final deterioration of her mind is shown through her referring to herself in as somebody else. â€Å"‘I’ve got out at last,’ said I, ‘in spite of you and Jane’†(Gilman, 436). Critics suggest the woman has created an alter ego where the conventional self, the â€Å"rational self,† and the second is â€Å"the raging and uncontrolled madwoman† (Owens 77). Greg Johnson says that when the anger gets out of control the patriarchal influence is triumphed over (522). Realizing that the suppression of self is creating a regression of the mind the narration ends with the woman sleeping and creeping around the nursery like an infant (King and Morris 30). Victorian women did not have any control over themselves and it was this lack of control that is depicted in the Yellow Paper making it a distinctively feminist novel. Through the ripping of the wallpaper the woman destroys her conventional self and survives through the survival of her new identity or rather rebirth of her new self. References †¢ Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, The Yellow Wallpaper, The Feminist Press, 1973. †¢ Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution Small, Maynard & Co. , 1898 †¢ O wens, E. Suzanne. â€Å"The Ghostly Double behind the Wallpaper in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s ‘The Yellow Wallpaper. ’† †¢ King, Jeannette and Pam Morris. â€Å"On Not Reading between the Lines: Models of Reading in ‘The Yellow Wallpaper. ’† Studies in Short Fiction 26. 1 (1989): 23-32. †¢ Johnson, Greg. â€Å"Gilman’s Gothic Allegory: Rage and Redemption in ‘The Yellow Wallpaper. ’† Studies in Short Fiction 26. 4 (1989):521-30.