Computers and Computer Peripherals in Mandarin

Similarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli - 1803 Words

Machiavelli and Socrates were beings of their time. The world around them shaped their views, and their views have in turn shaped ours. While both lived through turbulent times, they do not share the same ideology. Socrates would dislike Machiavelli’s description of the ideal prince, regardless of how the prince actually ruled. Socrates would oppose both how the prince got to power and keeps it, as well as the society over which he rules. Socrates assigned certain responsibilities to both the ruler and the subjects, and some of them are incongruent with the expectations and suggestions proposed by Machiavelli in The Prince. As a result, even if Socrates liked the ruler he would see it as a result of the individual (the ruler) and not the†¦show more content†¦The city had a monopoly on the use of violence, and resorted to it when it could not find a way to stop Socrates from doing what he was doing. Socrates knew that the city was wrong in executing him, but felt he wa s obligated to accept his faith because of the â€Å"agreement† he had with Athens. This agreement refers to the dynamic between subject and ruler, and would be the same under Machiavelli’s Prince. By virtue of birth or where one lives, the person owes loyalty to the state and must obey the decisions made by that state. According to Machiavelli, this means that if the Prince is as unwilling to compromise as Athens, then not only is he justified in using force against dissenters but the recipients of the violence, by virtue of where they live, must, without resistance, accept their fate. Why would any Prince compromise under those circumstances? If the Prince acts as Machiavelli suggests, then it is inevitable for situations such as that of Socrates with Athens to arise. Given that Socrates thought it was wrong when it happened to him, then it is reasonable to conclude that it would be wrong if it happened to others as well. Death at the hands of an unjust and biased ju ry is no more wrong than death at the hands of an unjust and biased Prince. Furthermore, the Prince would seek to establish a dynamic of which Socrates would be critical. The Prince would aim to prevent the masses, and hopefully theShow MoreRelatedSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1197 Words   |  5 Pages Socrates and Machiavelli both grew up in times of political instability which formed and shaped their political beliefs. Machiavelli primarily discussed his view of how a leader should behave in the book: The Prince. A prince is an individual who is the leader of a state or group of people. Machiavelli’s version of a prince is very accurate but, Socrates would not support Machiavelli’s version of a prince. Machiavelli believed a prince must be domineering and aggressive, while Socrates viewedRead MoreSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1905 Words   |  8 PagesEssay 1 While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s â€Å"The Prince†, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in â€Å"The Prince† on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s â€Å"ideal†Read MoreSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1084 Words   |  5 Pagesamong them were Socrates and Machiavelli, whose ideas regarding violence and its ideal usage to us inspired countless other prominent figures after their respective times. Socrates believed humans are imperfect and fallible, and should therefore avoid using violence. Machiavelli on the on the other hand considered violence a useful tool in achieving one’s goals . Considering both thinkers’ impacts on history, a question arises: whose concept of violence is more corrupting, Socrates’ or Machiavelli’sRead MoreSimilarities Between Machiavelli And Socrates1534 Words   |  7 PagesGovernment 241: Political Philosophy Professor Ives October 13, 2017 The morality which guided Socrates were an end all, be all for him. He did not wish to live without his search for truth. Socrates would see a Machiavellian Prince as self-centered, and void of morals. A Machiavellian prince would not appreciate the way Socrates carried himself and would see him as a challenge to his authority. Socrates would not support a Machiavellian society because most likely he would not be free to philosophizeRead MoreSimilarities Between Machiavelli And Socrates1250 Words   |  5 PagesMachiavelli and Socrates are two of the most influential figures in modern day political philosophy. These two individuals established the bases for our interpretation of the world and human political interaction. While they were separated by centuries and a significant geographic distance, it is fascinating nonetheless to ponder what they would think of each other. Sadly it is impossible to ask themselves and so we must instead turn to their writings in order to glean an ide a of what their opinionsRead MoreSimilarities Between Socrates And Machiavelli1649 Words   |  7 PagesSocrates and Machiavelli both existed during times of political unrest. Both men sought different means of political leadership, and could be seen as activists of their times. During times of war and unrest, it was a bold choice that both men made to stand up for their beliefs and speak out against the system. However, Socrates wouldn’t have agreed with Machiavelli’s means and concepts of the Prince and his ideas for how a political establishment should function. Machiavelli’s means may have beenRead MoreSimilarities Between Machiavelli And Socrates1544 Words   |  7 PagesMachiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’sRead MoreSimilarities Of Socrates And Machiavelli1669 Words   |  7 PagesBoth Socrates and Machiavelli emerged as renowned thinkers of their time because of their approaches to government that moved away from idealism and towards a rational and real approach. To understand why Socrates would be critical of Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince we must understand the similarities and differences between the two philosophers, and then analyze if Socrates would find his ruling system to be efficient. Socrates and Machiavelli value the qualities of a strong and fair ruler, howeverRead MoreMachiavelli And Socrates1579 Words   |  7 PagesMachiavelli and Socrates Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during turbulent, political times. Machiavelli in Florence, Italy and Socrates in Athens. Machiavelli’s The Prince outlines the necessary features and traits of a sovereign, primarily, a Prince. It served as a handbook to effective rulership in the 16th century. By analyzing Machiavelli’s belief that a prince should be strategically feared, the role of free will , and the role of the people , I will argue that Machiavelli hasRead MoreThe Ideas Of Machiavelli And Socrates1988 Words   |  8 PagesThe ideas of Machiavelli and Socrates have influenced the leadership styles and approaches of leaders around the world. From Stalin to the founding fathers of the United States, Machiavellian influenced motives and ideals can be seen throughout modern history. Socrates is often referred to as the founder of Western philosophy, and his teachings have been passed on to leaders over the centuries. This paper will state both the Machiavel li’s concept of a ‘Prince’, and present Socrates’ perspective on

Indian Removal Act Essay Example For Students

Indian Removal Act Essay Indian Removal (Zinn Chapter 7) Once the white men decided that they wanted lands belonging to the Native Americans (Indians), the United States Government did everything in its power to help the white men acquire Indian land. The US Government did everything from turning a blind eye to passing legislature requiring the Indians to give up their land (see Indian Removal Bill of 1828). Aided by his bias against the Indians, General Jackson set the Indian removal into effect in the war of 1812 when he battled the great Tecumseh and conquered him. Then General, later to become President, Jackson began the later Indian Removal movement when he conquered Tecumsehs allied Indian nation and began distributing their lands (of which he invested heavily in). Jackson became the leader of the distribution of Indian lands and distributed them in unequal ways. In 1828 when Jackson was running for President his platform was based upon Indian Removal, a popular issue which was working its way through Congress in the form of a Bill. Jackson won a sweeping victory and began to formulate his strategies which he would use in an Indian Removal campaign. In 1829, upon seeing that his beloved Bill was not being enforced Jackson began dealing with the Indian tribes and offering them untouchable tracts of lands west of the Mississippi River if they would only cede their lands to the US and move themselves there. Jackson was a large fan of states rights-ism, hence he vetoed the charter for the Bank of the United States, and when faced with two issues concerning states rights (one with South Carolina regarding succession, one with Georgia regarding the Indians) he went with the suppression of South Carolina and gave Georgia all out support. When faced with the decision of Union or Indians he went with the Union and oppressed the Indians. The Executive branch wasnt the only part of government which suppressed the Indians, the Legislative branch also suppressed them. In 1828 Congress passed the Indian Removal Bill which forced the Indians in the south to relocate or be subjected to state laws. This Bill was strongly opposed by the north while it was supported by the south. The Bill, which barely passed it both House and Senate, was a support for the popular distribution of fertile Indian lands. The United States government was lured into the relocating of the Indians because it offered more farmland for southern farmers. As far as the actual relocation went, the task of relocating the Indians fell into the hands of the Army, who then mostly signed the task off to contractors. Indian attempts at conforming were futile and quickly crushed. When the Cherokees Americanized their tribe and converted to the American Way the state of Georgia quickly went in with militias and forced them along their way. Various tribes of Indians fought on the side of the United States against their Indian brothers in return for promised protection against removal, government promises proved to be false. The government (behind the lead of Jackson) sent a sign that it wanted the Indians to leave, and not conform. The US government was quick, behind its powerful Executive, to turn an eye. In 1832 militia regiments from Georgia went onto Cherokee lands and imprisoned 4 missionaries whom they later released upon them swearing oath to the state of Georgia. Later, the same militia imprisoned 10 missionaries and sentenced them to four years hard labor. Their case (based on a treaty with the Cherokee years prior) was appealed to the US Supreme Court where John Marshall upheld their case (see Worcester v. Georgia). The state of Georgia never released them from imprisonment and Jackson never intervened. .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .postImageUrl , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:hover , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:visited , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:active { border:0!important; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:active , .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ufdf152443b388bad0f22ee42c2433dde:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Causes Of The Revolutionary War Essay The government also turned a blind eye when dealing with treaties that were previously agreed to with the Indians. In 1791 the Cherokee nation acknowledged themselves to be under the protection of the United States and no other sovereign, also an agreement was made that white men could not be on their lands without passports. Jackson himself offered false promises to the Indians that they would have the lands west of the Mississippi as long as Grass grows or water runs. These lands were taken away barely 50 years after they were assessed. The United States government played a cruel game when it relocated its Indian population (some could argue this as survival of the fittest, evolution). They turned a blind and mostly bias eye when it came to Indian politics and treaties they had made twenty years prior. They made promised that were going to be broken, and which there were no way of avoiding. In short, the government in a way did the same thing to the Indians that Jackson did to the Bank: extirpation.

The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. Essay Example

The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. Paper Barn Burning, The New Social Order of the South Although many political and economic changes took place following the Civil War, it was very evident in William Faulkner’s Barn Burning that the impact on the social lives of the people living in the South were the most difficult to overcome. He utilizes the new tension between the social classes to create a compelling short story of a boy and his father, but more important, using the family to represent the change in society, the change between good and evil. The new social order after the civil war was a cause of tension between Abner Snopes and his surrounding communities. In William Faulkner’s Barn Burning Abner is portrayed as a man with much insecurity, which causes him to lash out at the people that were better off than he. His lack of prosperity and wealth leads him to be hostile towards the people wealthier than his family â€Å"‘I aim to. I don’t figure to stay in a country among people who†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ He said something unprintable and vile. † (Faulkner 2) While Abner was not found guilty of arson the family is forced to leave on account of their own safety because of how the public viewed their family, â€Å"’Barn burner! † (3) shouts one of the other citizens, showing the reader how much Abner and his family are un-liked. However, his choices do not change how his son sees him, yet. Abner and his way of dealing with issues begin to take a toll on the family, and most of all his son Sardy. His excessive anger and violence begin to change how Sardy feels about him, and he starts to question if his fath er is a good role model. Sensing this, Abner decides to intervene before Sardy sees what kind of a man he really is and he begins to question whether following his father is the right thing to do â€Å"’You’re going to be a man. We will write a custom essay sample on The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The New Social Order of the South, Barn Burning. specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer You got to learn. You got to learn to stick to your own blood or you ain’t going to have any blood to stick to you. ’† (5) Despite Abner’s efforts Sardy has already began to wonder about his dad’s character. At this point, Sardy realizes what kind of a man his father is and he decides to take his own path, even if that involves ratting out his own father â€Å"’Barn! ’ He cried ‘Barn! ’† Realizing that Abner is about to burn down another barn Sardy warns Major DeSpain. Thus breaking away from his father’s ways of life and choosing his own path, making sure he himself won’t venture down the same path Abner did. And hopefully be able to stay in one area for a prolonged period of time, making it possible for Sardy to better provide for his family. Abner is easily frustrated at the fact that his family must live in worse living conditions because he cannot provide for his family. He believes in the old ways of slavery, but now that he is beneath an African American in the DeSpain household he despises Major DeSpain and how he treats him and his family as if they are slaves. Abner feels as if he is beneath the African American population after the war, referring to his own family as slaves â€Å"’That’s sweat. Nigger sweat†¦ Maybe he wants to mix some white sweat with it’† (8). The Snopes’ quality of life is far worse than that of the African American butler in the DeSpain’s home. Because of Abners up-bringing in a racist time-period the thought of being below an African American angers him, especially when he is supposed to listen to what a black man tells him to do, â€Å"’Get out of the way, nigger. (7) Despite the new laws regarding slavery the overall attitude of Abner Snopes did not change towards blacks. It certainly did not help that the aristocracy found new ways to get their work done by victimizing poor families, and treating them almost as if they were slaves. Mr. Snopes despised Major DeSpain for treating him and his family un fairly, causing him to once again, attempt to burn down a bar n to get revenge for DeSpains wrongdoings to his family. Abner Snopes is contemptuous of the new ways of this country, refusing to accept the new order of doing things he decides to express his hatred through destroying of other people’s property. In William Faulkner’s Barn Burning he tells the reader of the devastating effects of the new social order of the South. Although many political and economic problems arouse resulting from the civil war the social effects on those living in the southern United States were the most evident in Faulkner’s short story Barn Burning.

Woodrow Wilsons 14 Points Speech

Woodrow Wilsons 14 Points Speech On Jan. 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson stood in front of a joint session of Congress and gave a speech known as The Fourteen Points. At the time, the world was embroiled in the First World War and Wilson was hoping to find a way to not only end the war peacefully but to ensure it never would  happen again. A Policy of Self-Determination Today and then, Woodrow Wilson is viewed as both a highly intelligent president and a hopeless idealist. The Fourteen Points speech was in part based on Wilsons own diplomatic leanings, but also written with the research assistance of his secret panel of experts known as The Inquiry. These men included the likes of crusading journalist Walter Lippman and several distinguished historians, geographers, and political scientists. The Inquiry was led by presidential advisor Edward House and assembled in 1917 to help Wilson prepare to start negotiations to end World War I. Much of the intent of Wilsons Fourteen Points speech was to oversee the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire, set out the overarching rules of behavior, and ensure that the United States would only play a minor role in the reconstruction. Wilson considered self-determination a crucial part of the successful establishment of the disparate states in the aftermath of the war. At the same time, Wilson himself recognized the inherent danger in creating states whose populations were ethnically divided. Returning Alsace-Lorraine to France, and restoring Belgium were relatively straightforward. But what to do about Serbia, with a major percentage of the non-Serbian population? How could Poland have access to the sea without including territories owned by ethnic Germans? How can Czechoslovakia include three million ethnic Germans in Bohemia? The decisions that were made by Wilson and The Inquiry did not resolve those conflicts, although it is likely that Wilsons 14th point creating a League of Nations, was proffered in an attempt to build infrastructure to resolve those conflicts going forward. But the same dilemma exists unresolved today: How to safely balance self-determination and ethnic disparity? Summary of the Fourteen Points Since many of the countries involved in WWI had been drawn into it to honor long-standing, private alliances, Wilson asked that there be no more secret alliances (Point 1). And since the United States had specifically entered the war because of Germanys announcement of unlimited submarine warfare, Wilson advocated for the open use of the seas (Point 2). Wilson also proposed open trade between countries (Point 3) and the reduction of armaments (Point 4). Point 5 addressed the needs of colonial peoples and Points 6 through 13 discussed specific land claims per country. Point 14 was the most important on Woodrow Wilsons list; it advocated for an international organization to be established that would be responsible for helping to keep peace among the nations. This organization was later established and called the League of Nations. Reception Wilsons speech was well received in the United States, with some notable exceptions, including former president Theodore Roosevelt, who described it as both high-sounding and meaningless. The Fourteen Points were accepted by the Allied Powers, as well as by Germany and Austria as the basis for peace negotiations. The only covenant of the League of Nations that was totally rejected by the allies was a provision pledging the members of the league to ensure religious freedom. However, Wilson became physically ill at the start of the Paris Peace Conference, and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau was able to advance his own countrys demands beyond what was laid out in the 14 Points speech. The differences between the Fourteen Points and the resulting Treaty of Versailles raised great anger in Germany, leading to the rise of National Socialism, and ultimately the Second World War. The Full Text of Woodrow Wilsons 14 Points Speech Gentlemen of the Congress: Once more, as repeatedly before, the spokesmen of the Central Empires have indicated their desire to discuss the objects of the war and the possible basis of a general peace. Parleys have been in progress at Brest-Litovsk between Russsian representatives and representatives of the Central Powers to which the attention of all the belligerents have been invited for the purpose of ascertaining whether it may be possible to extend these parleys into a general conference with regard to terms of peace and settlement. The Russian representatives presented not only a perfectly definite statement of the principles upon which they would be willing to conclude peace but also an equally definite program of the concrete application of those principles. The representatives of the Central Powers, on their part, presented an outline of settlement which, if much less definite, seemed susceptible of liberal interpretation until their specific program of practical terms was added. That program proposed no concessions at all either to the sovereignty of Russia or to the preferences of the populations with whose fortunes it dealt, but meant, in a word, that the Central Empires were to keep every foot of territory their armed forces had occupied- every province, every city, every point of vantage- as a permanent addition to their territories and their power. Russian-Led Negotiations It is a reasonable conjecture that the general principles of settlement which they at first suggested originated with the more liberal statesmen of Germany and Austria, the men who have begun to feel the force of their own peoples thought and purpose, while the concrete terms of actual settlement came from the military leaders who have no thought but to keep what they have got. The negotiations have been broken off. The Russian representatives were sincere and in earnest. They cannot entertain such proposals of conquest and domination. The whole incident is full of significances. It is also full of perplexity. With whom are the Russian representatives dealing? For whom are the representatives of the Central Empires speaking? Are they speaking for the majorities of their respective parliaments or for the minority parties, that military and imperialistic minority which has so far dominated their whole policy and controlled the affairs of Turkey and of the Balkan states which have felt obliged to become their associates in this war? The Russian representatives have insisted, very justly, very wisely, and in the true spirit of modern democracy, that the conferences they have been holding with the Teutonic and Turkish statesmen should be held within open, not closed, doors, and all the world has been the audience, as was desired. To whom have we been listening, then? To those who speak the spirit and intention of the resolutions of the German Reichstag of the 9th of July last, the spirit and intention of the Liberal leaders and parties of Germany, or to those who resist and defy that spirit and intention and insist upon conquest and subjugation? Or are we listening, in fact, to both, unreconciled and in open and hopeless contradiction? These are very serious and pregnant questions. Upon the answer to them depends the peace of the world. The Challenge of Brest-Litovsk But, whatever the results of the parleys at Brest-Litovsk, whatever the confusions of counsel and of purpose in the utterances of the spokesmen of the Central Empires, they have again attempted to acquaint the world with their objects in the war and have again challenged their adversaries to say what their objects are and what sort of settlement they would deem just and satisfactory. There is no good reason why that challenge should not be responded to and responded to with the utmost candor. We did not wait for it. Not once, but again and again, we have laid our whole thought and purpose before the world, not in general terms only, but each time with sufficient definition to make it clear what sort of definite terms of settlement must necessarily spring out of them. Within the last week, Mr. Lloyd George has spoken with admirable candor and in admirable spirit for the people and Government of Great Britain. There is no confusion of counsel among the adversaries of the Central Powers, no uncertainty of principle, no vagueness of detail. The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make a definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her allies. The issues of life and death hang upon these definitions. No statesman who has the least conception of his responsibility ought for a moment to permit himself to continue this tragical and appalling outpouring of blood and treasure unless he is sure beyond a peradventure that the objects of the vital sacrifice are part and parcel of the very life of Society and that the people for whom he speaks think them right and imperative as he does. Defining Principles of Self-Determination There is, moreover, a voice calling for these definitions of principle and of purpose which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the many moving voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. They are prostrate and all but hopeless, it would seem, before the grim power of Germany, which has hitherto known no relenting and no pity. Their power, apparently, is shattered. And yet their soul is not subservient. They will not yield either in principle or in action. Their conception of what is right, of what is humane and honorable for them to accept, has been stated with a frankness, a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind; and they have refused to compound their ideals or desert others that they themselves may be safe. They call to us to say what it is that we desire, in what, if in anything, our purpose and our spirit differ from theirs; and I believe that the people of the United States would wish me to respond, with utter simplicity and frankness. Whether their present leaders, believe it or not, it is our heartfelt desire and hopes that some way may be opened whereby we may be privileged to assist the people of Russia to attain their utmost hope of liberty and ordered peace. The Processes of Peace It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow nor or at any other time the objects it has in view. We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part, we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program of the worlds peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this: The Fourteen Points I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants. III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance. IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined. VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy. VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act, the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired. VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all. IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality. X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development. XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into. XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees. XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant. XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. Righting Wrongs In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right, we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end. For such arrangements and covenants, we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does remove. We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if sh e is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world,- the new world in which we now live,- instead of a place of mastery. Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination. Justice to All People and Nationalities We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak. Unless this principle be made its foundation no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle; and to the vindication of this principle, they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything they possess. The moral climax of this the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test. Sources: Chace, James. The Wilsonian Moment? The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 25.4 (2001): 34-41. Print. Jacobson, Harold K. Structuring the Global System: American Contributions to International Organization. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 428 (1976): 77-90. Print. Lynch, Allen. Woodrow Wilson and the Principle of National Self-Determination: A Reconsideration. Review of International Studies 28.2 (2002): 419-36. Print. Tucker, Robert W. Woodrow Wilsons New Diplomacy. World Policy Journal 21.2 (2004): 92-107. Print.

Pastoralism and the Development of Civilization

Pastoralism and the Development of Civilization Pastoralism refers to a stage in the development of civilization between hunting and agriculture and also to a way of life dependent on the herding of livestock, specifically, ungulates. The Steppes and the Near and Middle East are particularly associated with pastoralism, although mountainous regions and areas too cold for farming can also support pastoralism.  In the Steppes near Kiev, where the wild horse roamed, pastoralists used their knowledge of cattle herding to domesticate the horse. Lifestyle Pastoralists focus on raising livestock and tend to the care and use of animals such as camels, goats, cattle, yaks, llamas and sheep.  Animal species vary depending on where pastoralists live in the world; typically they are domesticated herbivores that eat plant foods. The two main lifestyles of pastoralism include nomadism and transhumance. The nomads practice a seasonal migratory pattern that changes annually, while transhumance pastoralists use a pattern to cool highland valleys in summer and warmer ones during the cold wintertime. Nomadism This form of subsistence agriculture, also known as farming to eat, is based on herding domesticated animals. Instead of depending on crops to survive, pastoral nomads primarily depend on animals that provide milk, clothing and tents.   Some key characteristics of pastoral nomads include: Pastoral nomads typically do not slaughter their animals but already dead ones may be used for food.Power and prestige are often symbolized by this cultures herd size.The type and number of animals are chosen in relation to local characteristics, such as climate and vegetation. Transhumance The movement of livestock for water and food encompasses transhumance. The core differentiator in regards to nomadism is that herders who are leading the flock must leave their family behind.  Their lifestyle is in harmony with nature, developing groups of people with the worlds ecosystem, embedding themselves in their environment and biodiversity. The main places you can find transhumance include Mediterranean locations such as Greece, Lebanon, and Turkey. Modern Pastoralism Today, most pastoralists live in Mongolia, parts of Central Asia and East African locations. Pastoral societies include groups of pastoralists who center their daily life around pastoralism through the tending of herds or flocks.  The benefits of pastoralism include flexibility, low costs and freedom of movement. Pastoralism has survived due to additional features including light regulatory environment and their work in regions that are not suited for agriculture. Quick Facts Over 22 million Africans depend on pastoralists for their livelihood today, in communities such as the Bedouins, Berbers, Somali and Turkana.There are over 300,000 cattle herders in Southern Kenya and 150,000 in Tanzania.Pastoralism societies can be drawn back to the time period 8500-6500 BC.Literary work involving shepherds and rustic life is known as pastoral which comes from the term pastor, Latin for a shepherd. SourceAndrew Sherratt Pastoralism The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Brian M. Fagan, ed., Oxford University Press 1996. Oxford University Press.

Googles Organisation Culture, Power and Control Essay

Googles Organisation Culture, Power and Control - Essay Example According to the report  Google Inc. is a US based company headquartered at Mountain View, California. It was founded in the year 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They were students at Stanford University then. Google is specialised in online advertising and internet searching. It became a public company in 2004. The mission statement of Google is: â€Å"Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful†.From this discussion it is clear that  Google is well known for its unconventional, informal, and distinct organisational culture. Organisational culture can actually be thought of or analysed at three different levels, namely Artefacts, Espoused Values, and Beliefs and the Basic Assumptions. The main belief of Google is that its organisational structure and its associated values are the representatives of spirits, assumptions, beliefs, performances, and attitudes followed by the employees of the company. Integrity of the values of the Google’s employees, which include commitment and loyalty, is an important aspect of the Google’s culture. This results in Google trying to create an organisational culture which is innovative in nature so as to provide motivational incentives for its employees to achieve the goals and objectives of the company.  For Google’s employees, money is not as important as their passion to work for the company. Everyone enjoys and feels happy about working for Google.