Geoffrey Chaucer’s the Wife of Bath Essay Example for Free

Geoffrey Chaucer’s the Wife of Bath Essay â€Å"The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale explore many aspects of patriarchy – and sometimes reveal surprising attitudes within the tale and prologue.† Discuss. Geoffrey Chaucer’s the Wife of Bath is a text which is interwoven with references to Patriarchy and unanticipated attitudes towards the social backdrop in which it was created. Written in a period where males dominated the hierarchy, Chaucer through the Wife portrays the reversal of traditional roles, and a sense of rebellion and feministic instincts which at the time appeared extraordinary: â€Å"His poetic sensibility, combined with an immense understanding about men and women, enabled him to survey the life about him with such imaginative insight and power. † (Bennet 74) Throughout the Canterbury Tales, Chaucer speaks with remarkable authority on a huge range of subjects. This is perhaps made possible by the assortment of characters from all areas of society which travel on the pilgrimage. Alisoun’s character is perhaps best encapsulated in the manner of her entrance to the Tales. Clothed in the finest garments, her â€Å"hosen weven of fyn scarlet need†, well-travelled and â€Å"carteyn so wroth†, the Wife: â€Å"Strides into the Canterbury Tales on a large horse, spurs jangling, and ready to assert herself in a company made up almost entirely of men†¦ She is a medieval housewife who is not just going to star in a story, she is going to tell it.† (Reading the Wife’s Prologue and Tale) A far cry from the meek and submissive maidens so often portrayed in classic literature and fables prior to this; the Wife is independent, liberated and outspoken. The Wifes’ relationship to the men in her life is often one of total domination and manipulation. She enjoys â€Å"maistyre† over her male counterparts: Unne the mught they the statut holde In which that they were bounden un to me Ye woot wel what I mean of this, pardee! As help me God, I laughe whan I thynke How piteously a- nyght I made hem swynke. The Wife governs many aspects of her husbands’ lives, and rules with special sovereignty in the bedroom. Her sexual powers are and obvious source of seduction and control over her lovers. Very much a humanistic text, the Canterbury Tales constantly remind the reader of the complexity of the human character. One example of this could be the Knight, the embodiment of â€Å"chivalrye, Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisye† in the hierarchy of society at the time. At first he appears to fit the specification perfectly. The however subtle passing motion which slightly removes the Knight from this brave and righteous tradition is left with us when he is described as â€Å"meke as a mayde†. Chaucer understood the depth of personality in each individual, and that a stereotype is never applicable. His characters almost always only very nearly fit the stereotype, and leave us scope to remain unconvinced about the rest. This refusal to comply with what many would describe as the one dimensional and traditional Fairytale characters allows for the issues of patriarchy to be discusses liberally. Interestingly, even at points of text which reflect a relaxed and conversational tone, the Wife constantly feels the requirement to reemphasise and argue her point with references to astrology and biblical references. These biblical references however are often contorted to suit the Wife’s requirement in the argument. For example the term from Genesis 1:22,28 â€Å"Go forth and multiply† is used as an excuse for the remarriage of the wife. This control and knowledge of the Church’s text represent a disregard to Patriarchal structures at many levels. The male governed Church, with its male oriented texts and belief systems for the Wife especially represent the oppression of men. For Alisoun the structures of literature, religion and authority are connected in that they represent male dominance. The Wife of Bath however cannot be totally classified as a pro feminist character. At many levels her dishonest, manipulative nature reinforces the common negative conceptions of anti- feminism at the time. Hansen (cited in Beidler) claims that this anti-feminist discourse mentioned above is less of a product of archness towards patriarchal literature. â€Å"Instead she is trapped in a ‘prison house’ of anti-feminist discourse. She is unable to see that her tactics simply reinforce all the stereotypical Medival ideas about women as cruel, emotional, and sexually voracious. Chaucer therefore is seen as reinforcing antifeminist views rather than undermining them.† Alisoun provides a vessal through which thousands of years of antifeminist literature are regurgitated with a revised purpose and tone of archness. One example of this method comes in Alisoun’s first words to the group, a repeat of earlier rhetoric (Awkroyd): Expeience, though no autoritee, Were in this world, is right ynogh for me To speak of woe that is in marriage. Peter Awkroyd (2005) believes that Chaucer â€Å"uses much of the antifeminist literature of the period but, by placing it in the Wife’s capacious mouth, he lends it a new and ironic lease of life.† The Wife’s five marriages on the outset portray a sense of calculated systematic marrying for the advancement of wealth and power. However, it could be argued that Alison was more than simply a ruthless professional. There are arguments that the fourth, and especially the fifth husband Jenkin, captured her love and stood in more than equal stead with their spouse: â€Å"That al myn herte I yaf unto his hold/ He was, I trowe, a twenty winter oold, and I was fourty.† Although the true love described by Chaucer at first appears conformal to the description of traditional literature, as often the case in the Tales, there is a cause for disease. In this case the context in which the romance begins, the burial ceremony of husband number four, Alisoun covets the younger page boy and her future husband. In Jankin, Alisoun finds a man to which she is willing to submit. Cruel, abusive, manipulative this husband domineers the relationship, physically, emotionally and sexually. At this stage the once immovable opposition to patriarchy admits that he partner â€Å"so well koude he me glose†. Furthermore the Wife admits that it is this form of denial and subornation in a relationship which causes women to crave what they cannot have: â€Å"wait what†¦crave† The dictatorship of Jenkin is further developed by Minnis, who claims Jenkin: â€Å"read aloud to her (translating from his anthology of antifeminist texts – It could be said then that she has learned at home, from her husband – how acquiescent and submissive can one get?† (Minnis 249) The Wife of Bath’s Tale and Prologue, as a text which attempts to examine Patriarchy, the attitudes portrayed are purposely less definable. Often categorised as either a feminist or anti- feminist text, The Wife of Bath is a complex mixture between the two. Chaucer, as always does not provide specific or obvious attitudes to these hierarchies and relationships. Instead, like his characters he provides us with an insightful cross- section of the Patriarchal society in which he existed. Reference List Awkroyd, Peter. ‘The Tales of Canterbury.’ Chaucer. London: Vintage, 2005. 150 – 53. Beidler, Peter G. Geoffrey Chaucer: The Wife of Bath. New York: Bedford Books, 1996. Bennet, H.S. ‘Chaucer.’ Oxford History of English Literature: Chaucer and the Fifteenth Century. Ed. F.P Wilson and Bonamy Dobrà ©e. London: Oxford, 1947. 74 – 75. Minnis, Alastair. ‘Chapter 4 Gender as Fallibility.’ Fallible Authors: Chaucer’s Pardonerand Wife of Bath. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. 249. ‘Reading the Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.’ York Notes Advanced: The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale. London: Longman, 1998. 3 – 10.

How Ralph and Jack Change :: William Golding Lord of the Flies Essays

How Ralph and Jack Change William Golding wrote the story "Lord of the flies". It is about a large group of schoolboys whose plane has crashed. They get stranded on a desert island. The story is about their survival and how they run their everyday lives. The two main characters Jack and Ralph are both from upper class and they both start off as the leaders. Later on the boys have a vote for leader and Ralph is selected. The first impression we get about Ralph is that he is active and doesn't like authority. When he found out that there were no grown ups on the island he "stood on his head and grinned" Piggy is the first of the other survivors that Ralph meets. Piggy is lower class. Later on in the book it shows that Piggy is really bullied by the upper class boys. Ralph at first seems very unaware of the seriousness of being on a deserted island, but later on he shows his maturity by suggesting a vote for leader. Overall, Ralph is friendly and active. He is not fat or skinny and is easy to get on with. The first impression of Jack that we get is that he is arrogant and dangerous, because the book brings him in as a shadow. He is very different compared to Ralph. He is skinny and has red hair. He is also wearing a black cap. He has freckles, a crumpled up face and his eyes are light blue. Jack does not seem pleasant, but like Ralph he seems to have the role of a leader. From the start Ralph and Jack get on very well. There are very few signs of anger between them. Immediately after Ralph is elected as leader, "Jack and Ralph smiled at each other with shy liking" This shows that they can still be friends even though one of them failed at being elected leader. As they explore later in the chapter, they can agree with each other without any signs of awkwardness. The first sign of conflict between Jack and Ralph started on page 37. Jack took the attention off of Ralph, "Come on. Follow me." It made everyone lose concentration and run from the meeting. Ralph was calling for silence but no one listened to him, and this was the first threat against his authority, and it became an irritation. Even though they argue, there is still agreement between Jack and Ralph. On page 38, they both help each other by moving a large branch. The real disagreement is in chapter 3, when they disagree on priorities.

Why Do Students Cheat?

Professor Anderman’s research shows that eighty-five percent of students have cheated in high school; this drastic number exists due to the fact that students want to attend excellent colleges. The competitive high school environment has constant pressure to succeed; therefore, thus, many students depend on cheating in order to receive the grades that he or she desires. Because cheating has become an ordinary resolution for many students, more and more students do so every day, mimicking the action of their peers.Unfortunately, the eighty-five percent of students who cheat would prefer a higher score than the chance to grow as a learner. All of the cheating boils down to one simple concept: college acceptances. To begin, students cheat in order to get accepted to the college of their choice. As Kolker explains, students believe that, â€Å"College, more than ever, determines success. † As a high school student in 2013, one will constantly hear other students saying, â⠂¬Å"I need to get into a top college, my whole future depends on it! † and â€Å"Oh man, I didn’t do well on that test, now I am not going to get into college.†In this day and age, teenagers have a mind-set that they only attend high school in order to be accepted into a prestigious college, rather than learning and developing as a student. These students only think about what they must do in order for top colleges to choose them; thus, if cheating is the answer, they will cheat to receive the better grade. Anderman’s research discovered that, â€Å"The most impulsive cheaters cheated less often when they believed the point of the test was to help them master the material, not just get a score.†This concept is seen in an AP Calculus class of high school juniors and seniors. The teacher has a policy that quizzes are not factored into the student’s grade; however, tests are a very important factor for the student’s grade. The quizzes are designed to help the students learn, while the tests are designed to test the student’s abilities by receiving a score. In this situation, when there is an upcoming quiz, many students are very lackadaisical and rarely study for the assessment.Conversely, on a test day, the calculus students run around frantically trying to receive questions and answers from students who have already taken the same test, a prime example of cheating. Thus, this proves that students cheat in order to receive a high grade, as they don’t cheat for a quiz that does not determine their final grade. The next criminal in this cheating era is the SAT. Eshagoff, a student who participated in the Long Island SAT scandal, stated, â€Å"By giving him an amazing score, I totally give him †¦Ã‚  a new lease on life,† proving that students view the SAT as determining their future.Evidentially, something in this system is corrupt when one test is what determines whether or not a boy receive s a â€Å"new lease on life. † It is this idea that causes drastic cheating rings. Students believe that their entire life is predestined to failure if they do not succeed on major tests; therefore, they resort to cheating. This relates to Anderman’s theory that, â€Å"If everything is always high-stakes, you’re going to create an environment conducive to cheating.†It is very tempting for a student with awful grades to cheat because he or she knows that he or she has an opportunity to receive an exemplary score on the SAT. This student would consider the fact that without cheating, he or she would most likely go to a below average college which some students view as unacceptable in this college dominating culture, where everyone links the rest of their life to the college they attend. This is why the vast cheating rings occur, such as the Long Island SAT scandal: to enhance ones chances of going to a better college.Unfortunately, cheating will continue as long as it is the social norm. Dan Airley, a Duke social scientist, explains that students are more likely to cheat if everyone else is cheating as well. He explains, â€Å"There is right and wrong, and there is what people around us tell us is right and wrong. The people around us are often more powerful. † If many students are clearly cheating while taking a test, the chances that other students will cheat too increase greatly.This is demonstrated through the Carnegie Mellon experiment, where actors were hired to portray cheating students to see how the actual students would respond. The variable was that in one room, the actor was wearing University of Pittsburgh apparel. However, in the other room, the actor was wearing Carnegie Mellon apparel. The study resulted in more students cheating in the room with the University of Pittsburgh actor than in the room with the Carnegie Mellon actor. This is due to Airley’s idea that, â€Å"The people around us are often more powerful.  Ã¢â‚¬ The Carnegie Mellon students are apart of a community with the Carnegie Mellon â€Å"student† who cheated; consequently, they viewed it as acceptable to cheat because their fellow classmate was cheating. Yet, the University of Pittsburgh â€Å"student† is an outsider and as a result, the other students do not associate themselves with him; thus, fewer students follow his academic dishonest actions. Airley used an excellent analogy to relate this scenario with speeding on the road. He states, â€Å"There’s a speed limit, but you see people around you driving at a certain speed, and you get used to it pretty quickly.†As Airley explains, it is significantly easier to do something that is obviously immoral when everyone else is participating too. The pressure to succeed in high school in order to attend a prestigious university produces an environment where cheating is somewhat acceptable, enough that eighty-five percent of students have admitted to cheating before. This is a never-ending chain, as cheating becomes tolerable to students once everyone else is participating in this unjust act.The preconceived notion that all that matters in a teenager’s life is the colleges they are accepted to has developed a culture in which being academically dishonest has become the standard. Whether it is creating a texting group to distribute test questions and answers, asking friends for help on a test that they already took, or having someone else take the SAT for you, cheating has become an everyday part of high school life. In American culture, a college acceptance letter is far more important to a student than his or her dignity and honesty, something that must change within our society.

Rosalind Franklin Research on the X-ray Diffraction Techniques

Rosalind Franklin lived during an exciting and turbulent era both socially and scientifically. Upon passing the admission examination for Cambridge University in 1938, at fifteen, Franklin was was informed by her affluent family that she would not recieve financial support. Franklins father disapproved of women receiving college educations, however, both Franklins aunt and mother supported her quest for education. Eventually, her father gave in and agreed to pay her tuition. Franklin would later prove to be worth her education. As Rosalind Franklin was pursuing her degree World War II raged. She focused her research on coal, the most efficient use of energy resources. Five papers on the subject were published before Franklins 26th birthday. Further, Franklin had given up her fellowship to become a physical chemist at the British Coal Utilization Research Association at age 22. She was indeed an efficient and driven researcher. Franklin utilized the X-ray diffraction techniques (that she has become most famous for) while working in a Paris laboratory between 1947 and 1950, with crystallographer Jacques Mering. X-ray crystallography helped determined the three dimensional structure of DNA when Franklin returned to England. She became the first person to find the molecules sugar-phosphate backbone while working with a team of scientists at Kings College in London. Unfortunately, leadership misunderstandings and personality conflicts depreciated Franklins effectivness in the laboratory. Maurice Wilkins, the laboratorys second in command, returned from a vacation expecting Franklin to work under him. Franklin came to the laboratory with the understanding that she would be researching alone. While Franklin was direct and decisive, Wilkins tended to be alluding and passive-aggressive. As Franklin made further advances in DNA research, Wilkins secretly shared her findings with the famous duo of Watson and Crick, who were then working at Cambridge. Franklins discoveries fueled their research machine, allowing them to advance beyond others in the field. They would eventually publish on DNA structure in 1953. Due to discriminatory procedures at Kings College, Franklin eventually left to become the lead researcher at Londons Birbeck College–upon agreeing not to work on DNA. She furthered her studies in coal and made significant advances in virology. Franklin died in 1958 of ovarian cancer. She lived 37 monumentally significant years. After researching Rosalind Franklins scientific career, I truly believe that she was a pioneer rather than a follower. Her early coal work is still referred to today; she helped launch the fields of high-strength carbon fibers; and was an integral part of early structural virology. Had it not been for a cruel twist of fate, I believe that Franklin would have published first on DNA structure. She was the best in her field when it came to DNA analysis through X-ray diffraction. Franklin innovatively found a way to isolate an extremely fine X-ray beam and arrange her superfine DNA fibers into parallel bundles. She took her research to a higher level by analyzing molecular properties in adverse conditions such as humidity. Rosalind Franklins individualistic, self-dependent nature made it impossible for her to find satisfaction in following the scientific accomplishments of others.

Brexit and the Fantods

Brexit and the Fantods Brexit and the Fantods Brexit and the Fantods By Maeve Maddox My mistake with the portmanteau word Brexit brought me so many kind corrections that I feel a need to thank the readers who sent them and to apologize for making such a big gaffe. I got my information directly from the Oxford site, so there’s no excuse for such a mistake. Along with my carelessness, my vision was at fault. I took my information from this decorative panel: Never having seen Brexit written in ordinary type, I read the t as an l. The post has been amended to explain that Brexit is a combination of British+exit. Another word in that post that drew emails from readers is fantods. One reader, having pointed out the Brexil/Brexit error, asked me to explain fantods. Fantods is a word I learned from reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Spelled fan-tods by Twain, it’s one of Huck’s words. It occurs in one of the funniest scenes in the book. Huck is looking at pictures in the home of the Grangerford family. Most of the pictures are the work of Emmeline Grangerford, a daughter who has died. They are typical of the morbid mourning portraits favored by Victorian society. Here is an extract that illustrates Twain’s descriptive powers as well as the use of the word fantods: There was some that they called crayons, which one of the daughters which was dead made her own self when she was only fifteen years old. They was different from any pictures I ever see before- blacker, mostly, than is common. One was a woman in a slim black dress, belted small under the armpits, with bulges like a cabbage in the middle of the sleeves, and a large black scoop-shovel bonnet with a black veil, and white slim ankles crossed about with black tape, and very wee black slippers, like a chisel, and she was leaning pensive on a tombstone on her right elbow, under a weeping willow, and her other hand hanging down her side holding a white handkerchief and a reticule, and underneath the picture it said â€Å"Shall I Never See Thee More Alas.† [] These was all nice pictures, I reckon, but I didn’t somehow seem to take to them, because if ever I was down a little they always give me the fan-tods. Everybody was sorry she died, because she had laid out a lot more of th ese pictures to do, and a body could see by what she had done what they had lost. But I reckoned that with her disposition she was having a better time in the graveyard. The OED gives this definition of fantod: fantod noun: A crotchety way of acting; a fad. Merriam-Webster gives a bit more: fantod noun: 1. usually fantods plural: a. a state of irritability, fidget, and tension; sometimes a state of acute worry and distress. b. a state of bodily or mental disorder especially when ill-defined and more or less chronic. 2. sometimes fantods plural a. an instance or occurrence of the fantods. b. a violent or irrational outburst. 3. a fidgety fussy officer of a ship. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Wether, Weather, Whether40 Synonyms for â€Å"Different†English Grammar 101: Prepositions

A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison

A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison The following summarizes one of the best-known  examples of the Indian Captivity Narrative.  It was written in 1823 by James E. Seaver from interviews with Mary Jemison, a Scots-Irish woman who was taken by the Seneca during a raid when she was twelve and adopted by a Native family.  Its important to remember, when reading it, that such narratives were often exaggerated and sensational, but, paradoxically, also depicted Native Americans in more human and humane ways than other documents of the time tended to. The original narrative is available in whole at several other sources: A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary JemisonA Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison - Google BooksA Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison - Project Gutenberg Note: in this summary, words from the original which are now considered disrespectful  are used, to preserve historical accuracy of the book. From the front material: An Account of the Murder of her Father and his Family; her sufferings; her marriage to two Indians; her troubles with her Children; barbarities of the Indians in the French and Revolutionary Wars; the life of her last Husband, c.; and many Historical Facts never before published.Carefully taken from her own words, Nov. 29th, 1823. Preface: The author describes what is for him the importance of biography, then details his sources: mostly interviews with the then-80-year-old Mrs. Jemison. Introduction: Seaver describes some of the history which his audience may or may not have known, including the Peace of 1783, the wars with the French and Indians, the American Revolutionary War, and more. He describes the Mary Jemison as she came to the interviews. Chapter 1: Tells of the ancestry of Mary Jemison, how her parents came to America and settled in Pennsylvania, and an omen foreshadowing her captivity. Chapter 2: Discusses her education, then a description of the raid where she was taken captive and her early days of captivity. It narrates her memories of her mothers parting words, the murder of her family after she was separated from them, her encounter of the scalps of her family members, how the Indians evaded their pursuers, and the arrival of Jemison, a young white man, and a white boy with the Indians at Fort Pitt. Chapter 3: After the young man and boy are given to the French, Mary is given to two squaws. She journeys down the Ohio River, and arrives at a Seneca town where she is officially adopted and receives a new name.  She describes her work and how she learns the Seneca language while preserving knowledge of her own. She goes to Sciota on a hunting tour, returns, and is taken back to Fort Pitt, but returned to the Indians, and feels her hopes of Liberty destroyed.  In time, Mary returns to Sciota then to Wishto, where she marries a Delaware, develops an affection for him, gives birth to her first child who dies, recovers from her own illness, then gives birth to a son she names Thomas Jemison. Chapter 4: Mary and her husband go from Wishto to Fort Pitt. In this section, she contrasts the lives of white and Indian women. She describes interactions with the Shawnees and her travel up the Sandusky. She sets out for Genishau  while her husband goes to Wishto. She describes her relationships with her Indian brothers and sisters and her Indian mother. Chapter 5: The Indians go to fight the British at Niagara, and return with prisoners who are sacrificed. Her husband dies. John Van Cise tries to ransom her.  She narrowly escapes several times, and her brother first threatens her, then brings her home. She marries again, and the chapter ends with her naming her children. Chapter 6: Finding twelve or fifteen years of peace, she describes the life of the Indians, including their celebrations, form of worship, their business and their morality.  She describes a treaty made with the Americans (who are still British citizens), and the promises made by the British commissioners and the reward from the British.  Indians break the treaty by killing a man at Cautega, then take prisoners at Cherry Valley and ransom them at Beards Town.  After a battle at Fort Stanwix [sic], the Indians mourn their losses.  During the American Revolution, she describes how Col. Butler and Col. Brandt used her home as a base for their military operations. Chapter 7: She describes Gen. Sullivans march on the Indians and how it affects the Indians. She goes to Gardow for a time. She describes a severe winter and the suffering of the Indians, then the taking of some prisoners, including an old man, John OBail, married to and Indian woman. Chapter 8: Ebenezer Allen, a Tory, is the subject of this chapter. Ebenezer Allen comes to Gardow after the Revolutionary War, and her husband responds with jealousy and cruelty. Allens further interactions include bringing goods from Philadelphia to Genesee.  Allens several wives and business affairs, and finally his death. Chapter 9: Mary is offered her freedom by her brother, and permitted to go to her friends, but her son Thomas is not permitted to go with him. So she chooses to stay with the Indians for the remainder of my days. Her brother travels, then dies, and she mourns his loss. Her title to her land is clarified, subject to restrictions as Indian land. She describes her land, and how she leased it out to white people, to better support herself. Chapter 10: Mary describes her mostly happy life with her family, and then the sad enmity that develops between her sons John and Thomas, with Thomas considering John a witch for marrying two wives. While drunk, Thomas  often fought with  John  and threatened him, though their mother tried to counsel them, and John finally killed his brother during a fight. She describes the Chiefs trial of John, finding Thomas the first transgressor. Then she reviews his life, including telling how his second son by his fourth and last wife attended Dartmouth College in 1816, planning to study medicine. Chapter 11: Mary Jemisons husband Hiokatoo died in 1811 after four years of illness, estimating him at 103 years of age. She tells of his life and the battles and wars in which he fought.   Chapter 12: Now an elderly widow, Mary Jemison is saddened that her son John begins fighting with his brother Jesse, Marys youngest child and the main support of his mother, and she describes how John comes to murder Jesse.   Chapter 13: Mary Jemison describes her interactions with a cousin, George Jemison, who came to live with his family on her land in 1810, while her husband was still alive. Georges father, had emigrated to America after his brother, Marys father, was killed and Mary taken captive. She paid his debts and gave him a cow and some pigs, and also some tools. She also loaned him one of her son Thomas cows. For eight years, she supported the Jemison family. He convinced her to write a deed for what she thought was forty acres, but she later found out that it actually specified 400, including land that didnt belong to Mary but to a friend. When he refused to return Thomas cow to one of Thomas sons, Mary decided to evict him. Chapter 14: She described how her son John, a doctor among the Indians, went to Buffalo and returned. He saw what he thought was an omen of his death, and, on a visit to Squawky Hill, quarreled with two Indians, starting a brutal fight, ending with the two of them killing John. Mary Jemison had a funeral after the manner of the white people for him. She then describes more of Johns life. She offered to forgive the two who killed him if they would leave, but they would not.  One killed himself, and the other lived in the Squawky Hill community until his death. Chapter 15: In 1816, Micah Brooks, Esq, helps her confirm the title of her land.  A petition for Mary Jemisons naturalization was submitted to the state legislature, and then a petition to Congress. She details further attempts to transfer her title and lease her land, and her wishes for disposal of waht remains in her possession, at her death. Chapter 16: Mary Jemison reflect on her life, including what the loss of liberty meant, how she took care of her health, how other Indians cared for themselves. She describes a time when it was suspected she was a witch.   I have been the mother of eight children; three of whom are now living, and I have at this time thirty-nine grand children, and fourteen great-grand children, all living in the neighborhood of Genesee River, and at Buffalo. Appendix: Sections in the appendix deal with: Devils Hole battle in 1763General Sullivans Expedition in 1779Seneca traditions about their origins and languageIndian religion, feasts, the great sacrificeIndian dances: the war dance and the peace danceIndian governmentthe Six Nationscourtship, marriage, divorcefamily governmentfuneralscredulity: belief in spirits, witches, etc.farming by Indian womenIndian ways of computing time and keeping recordsanecdotesdescription of the Genesee river and its banksa hunting anecdote

Jewish Ghettos Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Jewish Ghettos - Essay Example The Nazis were particularly skilled in manipulating the Jews, who believed that they were merely being transported to other concentration camps or ghettos for work.4 This paper aims to describe the Jewish ghettos during the Holocaust and begins with an overview of its purposes and characteristics. It also describes the transportation to the ghettos, the everyday conditions in it, and its effects on the Jews. The ghettos served to deceive the Jews, as it became the first step of dehumanizing and exterminating the Jewish race, but not all Jews succumbed to despair. Instead, Jewish survivors used hope, faith, ingenuity, and creativity to survive inhumane conditions in the ghettos. The ghettoization of the Jews The ghettos are different from concentration camps in several respects: they were used as temporary Jewish settlements that were prepared for work or death in concentration camps; they served to break the spirits of the Jews, so that they could no longer mount a strong resistance against the Germans; they provided free labor for Germans who needed the workforce to sustain the war; and they supported German plan for the dehumanization and extermination of the Jews.5 The ghettos forced Jews to work in squalid conditions, including the middle class and upper-class, who were professionals, thereby defeating their spirit and ensuring better control over them.6 Though the Nazis ordered self-regulation in the form of Jewish councils, the former still controlled details of everyday life in the ghettos, including forcing the Jews to wear six-pointed stars in their clothing, reducing access to food and other essentials, and controlling their mobility, as well as their access to news outside the ghettos.7 Not every ghetto is the same, however, and conditions varied greatly, depending on the nature and efforts of the ghetto leaders and several economic and social factors. Other ghettos lacked access to basic commodities, such as food and clothing, and services, such as hospitals, schools, and churches. Some examples are the Minsk and Lubcz ghettos.8 Other ghettos fared better, in terms of the Jews having opportunities to continue education and the practice of their religion in varying extents. Several examples are the Warsaw ghetto9 and Jewish ghetto in East Upper Silesia.10 Despite some advantages provided in a number of ghettos, the Jews remained slaves to their German captors. Because of their cramped houses and appalling work conditions, many Jews yielded to hopelessness too, especially after witnessing massive deaths, rapes, and plunder of their homes and communities.11 Transportation to the ghettos The Jews were mostly transported to the ghettos by train.12 When transferred to nearby ghettos, they walked on foot.13 The transportation stage triggered the process of dehumanizing the Jews. In Night, Elie Weisel was only fifteen years old, when he experienced several ghettos and concentration camps. He remembers the cramped conditions of the tra ins that signaled their loss of human rights and liberties. Moreover, the train was a place of violence and despondency: â€Å"Anti-Semitic acts take place every day in the streets, on the trains.†14 Even affluent Jews did not escape the hardships of transportation. As they were forced to leave their homes, they were stripped of their properties. Their relocation to the slums held symbolic meaning: they were no longer human