The Native American Essay Example for Free

The Native American Essay Native Americans are an indigenous people throughout the world, simply misunderstood and ill-treated for centuries (Scheafer, 2012). History tells us, Native Americans were subject to land theft, controlled by others, and resistance to governance. This discrimination goes back to Christopher Columbus. He and his followers showed true hatred toward the Indian Nation. Europeans moved to extermination or genocide trying to distinguish this culture of people. The United States joined in that mission as time moved forward. Indian land would be taken, the people would be made to conform to the law of the white man causing them to build a defense mechanism of avenging their losses. During the nineteenth century the white man government made policy to give fairness to the tribes. This may have worked if it did not interfere with the needs of the non-Indian people. The American government of the white man used the politics and social differences to interfere in the business of the Native American to govern the Indian culture and beliefs. It has taken centuries for the Native American to trust the policy makers because of broken treaties of the past. Native Americans today, live on Indian reservations in 33 states across the country. Just as in the beginning the American Indian is forced to live their lives in a way determined and controlled by the federal government. The Indian Removal Act developed by Andrew Jackson, was intended to remove Indians from their land to make way for cotton crops and other ways of prosperity. The Termination Act of 1953, like many policies the government had control of, was written to benefit the Native American people. Through this act, many social services were available to the American Indian. These services were a direct obligation to be fulfilled by the treaties, not just a special favor. The Termination Act was developed to gradually do away with these services, when the act passed, all services were cut off immediately. The Indian people worked collectively by creating a tribal or reservation government action to politically protest unfair legislation. The Native Americans fought this legislation by forming civil rights groups to take the issues to the Supreme Court in order to be treated fairly and just. The first national organization was organized in 1944 called the NCAI, National Congress of American Indians (Schaefer, 2012). This National organization is one of the most respected civil rights groups in our nation today. NAGPR Act of 1990, Native American Graves and Protection Act was developed to provide protection to the Native American gravesites and cultural issues. The American Indian worked to lobby the government to find a way to protect their sacred ceremonial ground, ancestral gravesites and artifacts. The government enacted this law in 1990. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 was written to give the American Indian the right to believe, express, and exercise the traditions of their tribal spirituality. Peyote is part of the religious rituals used by the Indian Nation. From the 1920s through the 1980s Peyote was a prohibited hallucinogenic outlawed by the government. People were prosecuted for the use of peyote. In 1994 Native Americans won the right to possess, transport and use peyote for religious reasons by amending the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. It is hard to believe that despite the work of the past and present generations of the Naive Americans, they still struggle with economic development, employment levels, quality healthcare, and equal education. The needs of others seem to stand in the way of what is right and fair. References University of Phoenix. (2012). Racial and Ethnic Groups, Thirteenth Edition. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, ETH125 website. (n. d. ). Retrieved from https://cr. nps. gov/local-law/fhpl.

What Is Petroleum Engineering Biology Essay

What Is Petroleum Engineering Biology Essay Petroleum engineering is an engineering discipline concerned with the activities related to the production of hydrocarbons which can be either crude oil or natural gas and there is subsurface activities that presume to fall within the upstream sector of oil and gas industry which are activities of finding and producing hydrocarbons(refining and distribution to a marked are referred to as the downstream sector)explored by earth scientists and petroleum engineering are the oil and gas industrys two main subsurface disciplines in which focus on maximizing economic recovery of hydrocarbons from petroleum of engineering focuses on estimation of the recoverable volume of the recourses using a detailed understanding of the physical behavior of oil , water and gas within a porous rock within a very high pressure and The combined efforts of geologists and petroleum engineers throughout the life of a hydrocarbon accumulation determine the way in which a reservoir is developed and depleted, and usually they have the highest impact on field economics. Petroleum engineering requires a good knowledge of many other related disciplines, such as geophysics, petroleum geology( drilling, economics, reservoir simulation,well engineering, artificial lift systems) The Drill is a machine which creates holes (usually called boreholes) and shafts in the ground. Drilling rigs can be massive structures housing equipment used to drill water wells, oil wells, or natural gas extraction wells, or they can be small enough to be moved manually by one person.[citation needed] They sample sub-surface mineral deposits, test rock, soil and groundwater physical properties. Drilling fluid: A drilling fluid is any fluid which circulates through a well in order to remove cuttings from a wellbore. This section will discuss fluids which have water or oil as their continuous phase. Air, mist and foam, which can be used as drilling fluids, will not be discussed at this time and drilling fluid must fulfill many functions in order to drill a well successfully, safely, and economically. The most important functions are: 1. Remove drilled cuttings from under the bit. (2) Carry those cuttings out of the hole. (3) Suspend cuttings in the fluid when circulation is stopped. (4) Release cuttings when processed by surface equipment . (5) Allow cuttings to settle out at the surface. 6. Provide enough hydrostatic pressure to balance formation pore pressures. 7. Prevent the bore hole from collapsing or caving in. 8. Protect producing formations from damage which could impair production. 9. Clean, cool, and lubricate the drill bit Occasionally, these functions require the drilling fluid to act in conflicting ways. You can see that items #1-3 are best served if the drilling fluid has a high viscosity, whereas items #4-5 are best accomplished with a low viscosity. In its most basic form a drilling fluid is composed of a liquid (either water or oil). If nothing else is added, whenever the hydrostatic pressure is greater than the formation pore pressure (and the formation is porous and permeable) a portion of the fluid will be flushed into the formation. Since excessive filtrate can cause borehole problems, some sort of filtration control additive is generally added. In order to provide enough hydrostatic pressure to balance abnormal pore pressures, the density of the drilling fluid is increased by adding a weight material (generally barite). Preparation: The oil drilling process starts with finding the land to drill on. After selection, there are normally environmental studies to ensure no damage is done. The mineral rights will need to be acquired as well. A water source will have to be established, if one isnt nearby, and the site will need to be cleared of debris, trees and other objects. A hole is then dug where the main drilling will be. The Base Liquid: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Water fresh or saline à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Oil diesel or crude à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Mineral Oil or other synthetic fluids Dispersed Solids: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Colloidal particles, which are suspended particles of various sizes. Dissolved Solids: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Usually salts, and their effects on colloids most is important and all drilling fluids have essentially the same properties, only the magnitude varies. These properties include density, viscosity, gel strength, filter cake, water loss, and electrical resistance. Though this type of drilling fluid is easy to describe, it is hard to define and even more difficult to find. In the field, a normal fluid generally means that there is a little effort expended to control the range of properties. General rules include: 1. It is used where no unexpected conditions occur. 2. The mud will stabilize, so its properties are in the range required to control the hole conditions. 3. The chief problem is viscosity control Formations usually drilled with this type of mud mainly sands. Since viscosity is the major problem, the amount and condition of the colloidal clay is important. To do this, two general types of treatment are used: 1. Water soluble polyphosphates: (a) They reduce viscosity (b) You should use it alone or with tannins 2. Caustic Soda and Tannins: (a) They also reduce viscosity. (b) You have to use it under more severe conditions than phosphate treatment. The drilling fluids are made to combat particular abnormal hole conditions or to accomplish specific objectives. These are: 1. Special Objectives: (a) Faster penetration rates. (b) Greater protection to producing zones. 2. Abnormal Hole Conditions: (a) Long salt sections. (b) High formation pressures. Lime Base Muds: 1. Water base mud. 2. Treated with large amounts of caustic soda, que-bracho, and lime. 3. Ratio of 2 lb caustic soda, 1.5 lb quebracho and 5 lb lime per 1 barrel of mud. 4. Will go through a highly viscous stage, but will become stable at a low viscosity. 5. Good points: (a) Can tolerate large amounts of contaminating salts. (b) Remains fluid when solids content gets high. 6. Weakness it has a tendency to solidify when subjected to high bottom-hole temperatures. Lime-Treated Muds: 1. Similar to lime based mud differ only in degree. 2. A compromise attempt at overcoming the high temperature gelation problem. (a) Use less lime than lime-base mud. (b) Not nearly so resistant to salt contamination. Emulsion Muds Oil in Water: 1. Oil can be added to any of the normal or special mud with good results 2. No special properties necessary 3. Natural or special emulsifying agents hold oil in tight suspension after mixing. 4. Oils used are: (a) Crude oils. (b) Diesel. (c) Any oil with API gravity between 25 and 50. 5. Oil content in mud may be 1% to 40%. 6. Advantages are: (a) Very stable properties. (b) Easily maintained. (c) Low filtration and thin filter cake. (d) Faster penetration rates. (e) Reduces down-hole friction. 7. Major objection is that the oil in the mud may mask any oil from the formation. Includes muds: 1. Mud with inhibited filtrates. 2. Large amounts of dissolved salts added to the mud. 3. High pH usually necessary for best results. 4. Designed to reduce the amount of formation swelling caused by filtrate inhibit clay hydration. 5. Disadvantages: (A) Needs specialized electric logs. (B) Requires much special attention. (C) Low mud weights cannot be maintained without oil. (D) Hard to increase viscosity. (E) Salt destroys natural filter cake building properties of clays. Gypsum Base Muds: 1. A specialized inhibited mud: (a) Contains large amounts of calcium sulfate. (b) Add 2 lb/bbl gypsum to mud system. (c) Filtration controlled by organic colloids. 2. Advantages: (a) Mud is stable. (b) Economical to maintain. (c) Filtrate does not hydrate clays. (d) High gel strength. 3. Disadvantages: (a) fine abrasives remain in mud. (b) Retains gas in mud. Oil Based Muds: 1. Oil instead of water used as the dispersant. 2. Additives must be oil soluble. 3. Generally pre-mixed and taken to the well-site. 4. To increase aniline value, blown asphalt and un-slaked lime may be added. 5. Advantages: (a) Will not hydrate clays. (b) Good lubricating properties . (c) Normally higher drill rate. 6. Disadvantages: (a) Expensive. (b) Dirty to work with. (c) Requires special electric logs. (d) Viscosity varies with temperature. Inverted Emulsions: 1. Water in oil emulsion. Oil largest component, then water added. Order of addition is important 2. Have some of the advantages of oil muds, but cheaper. Oil-Based Mud Systems: There are two types of systems: 1) invert emulsion, where water is the dispersed phase and oil the continuous phase (water-in-oil mud), and 2) emulsion mud, where oil is the dispersed phase and water is the continuous phase (oil-in-water mud). Emulsifiers are added to control the rheological properties (water increases viscosity, oil decreases viscosity). Air, Mist, Foam-Based Mud Systems: These lower than hydrostatic pressure systems are of four types: dry air or gas is injected into the borehole to remove cuttings and can be used until appreciable amounts of water are encountered, mist drilling is then used, which involves injecting a foaming agent into the air stream, foam drilling is used when large amounts of water is encountered, which uses chemical detergents and polymers to form the foam, and aerated fluids is a mud system injected with air to reduce the hydrostatic pressure. Workover Mud Systems: Also called completion fluids, these are specialized systems designed to minimize the damage formation, be compatible with acidizing and fracturing fluids and reduce clay/shale hydration and They are usually highly treated brines and blended salt fluid. Set Up and Drilling: The main hole is dug wide at the top and is drilled down with just a basic small drill. Two other holes are also dug to store equipment and dirt. Next the main rig is brought in and set up over the main drilling hole. The basic rig is made up of a drill bit and piping that sends the drill further and further down, scaffolding with cable and pulley to bring the drill up and an engine to turn the drill. The drill is sent down, where it chews up the earth. The mud is moved up the piping into a hole built for storage. As the drill goes down, more piping is added, and when a drill wears out, it is pulled up and replaced. Finding Oil: Once mud, being pulled up from the drill site, shows signs of oil residue, the drill is removed and testing is done. Core samples are taken as well as pressure and gas tests. When it is confirmed that the oil has been found, an explosive charge is sent down in the form of a perforating gun. This will crack the rock so that oil can flow into the drill area. After the rock is cracked, a pipe is lowered down for the oil to be collected. The hole is then capped off to avoid spillage and a pump is set up to pull the oil out of the ground.

Social Security and Corporate Welfare Essays -- Papers Clinton Medicar

Social Security and Corporate Welfare 'Social Security—the nation's largest, costliest, and most successful domestic program has reached a critical juncture in its development. As its creators anticipated, nearly every wage earner now pays taxes into the system. In principle, all citizens may be eligible for "entitlements" at some point in their lives. Yet...senior citizens worry that their benefits will be cut; younger Americans are skeptical—if not cynical—about their own benefits upon retirement.' — W. Andrew Achenbaum This summation of the state of Social Security was written more than a twenty years ago. Looking back, it seems as though the Social Security system frequently reaches a state of crisis in which predictions of its end arise. Since it was enacted in 1935, Social Security has been amended often, most recently in 1983, when Congress imposed a tax on the benefits of high-income retirees, raised the retirement age, and revised the tax-rate schedule. Today, the future of Social Security is in the news again. The reason Social Security is of such concern is that the extremely large group of citizens born in the post-World War II period—the much-discussed baby-boom generation—is retiring. The generation that will take its place in the workforce is far smaller in proportion to the number of retirees, raising fears about the sustainability of Social Security. In the past, proposed solutions to the various problems facing Social Security aroused great debate. Each time, however, the arguments were stilled, repairs were made, and the system continued to fulfill its mandate. That uncertainty about the future has resulted in suggestions for change that range from minor adjustments to complete privatization of the ... ...6. Fisher Center for Information Technology & Management, University of California in Berkeley. June 1995 3. Mark E. Nissen. Commerce Model & the Intelligent Hub. CommerceNet CALS Working Group Presentation. November 1995 4. Michael Bloch, Yves Pigneur. The extended enterprise, a descriptive framework, some enabling technologies and case studies in the Lotus Notes environment. Ecole des HEC INFORGE, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. 1995. Jun. Report No.: TR-YP-91. 5.Don Tapscott. The digital economy. McGraw Hill, 1995 6.Brian A. Johnson, John H. Ott, Jack M. Stephenson, Paal K. Weberg. Banking on multimedia. The McKinsey Quarterly 1995. 7.Gregory Wester, Stephen Franco. The Internet Shakeout 1996. Interactive Commerce Research Bulletin. the Yankee Group, Boston, MA. December 1995 8. http://www.emarketer.com/eStats/welcome.html

Symbols and Symbolism in Sir Gawain and Green Knight Essay -- Sir Gawa

Symbolism in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight    Symbolism is a literary technique used in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight to liven up the story and give a deeper significance to the plot.   Almost anything in the poem can be interpreted as a symbol in one way or another.   The Green Knight, the green sash, and Sir Gawain's shield are three of the most prominent symbols presented to us in this author's tale.         Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Green Knight, this poem's antagonist, serves as a symbol himself.   He is not only portrayed as evil, but a mixture of the familiar and foreign, nature and synthetic, and divine and damned origin.   His large stature can be interpreted as threatening or powerful.   His green glow could be nature-associated or alien-associated.   The first time he appears in the poem, he is even carrying a holly-branch (signifying peace) in one hand and a battle axe (signifying conflict) in the other.   It's hard to say exactly for what the Green Knight stands, because f...

Is it valid to make distinctions between ‘high’ and’ low’ or ‘popular art? Essay

What purposes do these categories serve? At one time most people would have understood , when looking at apiece of art, whether to fit it into the category of high or low art. You looked at such things as the quality of the brushwork, the exactness of the representation. Then paint in tubes was invented the mid 19th century and the Impressionists were in the vanguard of almost instant art. They were rejected at first of course, but now seem to be highly acceptable when one considers the prices that might be paid for works by Renoir or Degas – however blurry the outlines. Is abstract art high art? It is a newer form of course and many are still making up their minds about such artists as Jackson Pollack. And where do you fit the works of modern artists such as Tracy Emin. Few would consider graffiti as art, but cities such as Philadelphia are legitimising the work of graffiti artists by spending public money to promote it. Emin’s unmade bed won the Turner prize. Whatever else it did it certainly did what the artist intended – it shocked. Contemporary art such as this draws huge crowds Perhaps the distinction should rather be between good and bad art, good being art that clearly displays whatever it was the artist intended and the bad that which does not. This division would not depend upon techniques used or the insurance value of a piece, but whether it achieves what it was meant to achieve i. e. whether or no the viewer sees what they were intended to see. Art will always provoke reaction. To judge it on grounds of being either ’high’ or low’ smacks somewhat of elitism – an attitude of ‘What we like is better than what you like’. Meanwhile many would just say ‘I know what I like ’ whether that be Gainsborough or Andy Warhol. Electronic Sources Art and the power to shock, Northern Echo, 25th February 2004 http://archive. thisisthenortheast. co. uk/2004/2/25/60621. html retrieved 28th October 2007 Philadelphia Mural Arts Program found at http://www. muralarts. org/about/ retrieved 28th October 2007/.

Non-Violence

With the simultaneous proliferation of technology and global-poltical danger in the modern world, strategies for countering both political oppression, and the outbreak of political violence and war are urgently needed.   Although the century which has recently slipped away — the Twentieth Century — may be remembered as â€Å"the bloodiest in history† (Martin 625), with hundreds of millions of people killed in wars and with weapons of mass destruction being â€Å"invented, built, deployed and further refined† (Martin 625) during the same century when state-sponsored genocide and terrorism became commonly known quantities.Against this backdrop of chaos, war, and an increasingly dangerous technological landscape, the philosophy of non-violence, or passive resistance, gained   an historical currency which is still unmatched. The activities of important leaders like Gandhi, King, and Mandela revealed the truly earth-changing, paradigm shifting   potential of non-violence resistance as a method for seizing social initiative and political power.Because of the actions of these three important leaders. plus a host of other lesser-known figures, and the action of millions of ordinary activists, â€Å"it can be argued that the rise of nonviolent action was one of the most important developments of the century†Ã‚   (Martin 625), and one which has tremendous potential for application in today's difficult and complex political world.While it is true enough that Gandhi, King, and Mandela over similar models of non-violent leadership and that key tenants of what might be termed a â€Å"universal† sense of non-violence pervade each leaders' philosophies, distinct differences are also recognizable   when a comparison of the three leaders' ideas, activities, and accomplishments is carried out. Such a study of similarities and differences in the philosophies and actions of these important leaders is crucial to understanding how the philosophy of non-violence may be applied in modern times as an antidote to the dangerous and oppressive climate that threatens much of the world.As noted, â€Å"Nonviolent action — including methods such as rallies, strikes, boycotts and sit-ins — has become increasingly important in the past century as a method for waging conflict and promoting social change† (Martin 625) and due to the urgent pressure caused by modern political and social challenges such as terrorism, global warming, the protection of human rights and religious freedom, adapting past approaches of non-violent action to present-day challenges may be beneficial.Non-violent activism may, in fact, help bring about important social changes: â€Å"Some areas for future expansion of the role of nonviolent action include replacing military defence, technological design, challenging capitalism, bureaucratic politics, information struggles and interpersonal behaviour† (Martin 625); the suggesti on of non-violence as an all-pervading philosophy applicable throughout the full strata of political and social issues may sound grandiose, but as we will see, this idea is actually a core-concept for the three leaders in our study.In this regard, non-violent philosophy takes it roots not in social, political or philosophical idea, but in spiritual convictions or even, spiritual revelation. An abstraction of  Ã‚   â€Å"nonviolence principles, building on the core dynamic of political jiu-jitsu in contexts where the opponent does not use physical force† (Martin 625) may be the best way to intuitively understand that non-violence does not indicate non-action of total passivity in the face of aggression. Such a distinction is difficult to pin down, but it is a crucial part of activism, manifest in the breaking of â€Å"unjust† laws, and passive resistant behaviors which, if not violent, certainly imply action by the participants.In order to shed light on some of the mo re challenging aspects of non-violent activism, such as the spiritual aspect, as well as investigate the potential application of non-violent philosophy in modern times, the following brief examination of non-violent philosophy according to each leader: Gandhi, King, and Mandela, will attempt to sketch a general idea of the similarities and differences of each leader's approach and attempt to discover if any type of universal vision of non-violent philosophy can be discovered.GANDHIFor Gandhi, non-violence arises out of an organic human impulse or † basic law of our being† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); such a conviction, foe Gandhi, is based not in genetic or biological assumptions or evidence or in logistical philosophical reasoning, but in spiritual ideas. For Gandhi, â€Å"Ahimsa (non-violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23) is the opposite of   â€Å"himsa (violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23), and the attributes of each energy are just as distinct. While Ahimsa â€Å"can be used as the most effective principle for social action, since it is in deep accord with the truth of man's nature and corresponds to his innate desire for peace, justice, order, freedom, and personal dignity† (Gandhi, and Merton 23), its opposite energy, himsa, â€Å"degrades and corrupts man† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); therefore to bring himsa energy against himsa energy would be to fight fire with fire.By contrast, the application of ahimsa or non-violent energy to the problem of himsa energy â€Å"heals and restores man's nature, while giving him a means to restore social order and justice† (Gandhi, and Merton 23). The important thing to remember here is that, for Gandhi, ahimsa and himsa energies are not metaphorical reflections or abstract concepts, they are living, spiritual realities.   Although the capacity for ahimsa resides in each person, modern society has left humanity with a much more desperate and disordered reliance on himsa e nergy.For Gandhi such an alienation of man's true capacities has resulted in a culture where â€Å"violence seems to be the very foundation of social order and is â€Å"enthroned as if it were an eternal law,† so that man is called upon by society to reject love† (Gandhi, and Merton 43) and instead embrace a social reality which is enforced by violence or by the threat of violence.To meet this himsa-driven society with ahimsa energy adn non-violence requires supreme courage on behalf of the activist. This extraordinary courage, according to Gandhi, is derived from God:This courage demands nothing short of the ability to face death with complete   Ã‚   fearlessness and to suffer without retaliation. Such a program is meaningless and   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   impossible, Gandhi thinks, without belief in God.  (Gandhi, and Merton 43)The implication in Gandhi's ideas is that the activist or the â€Å"Satyagrahi† is enabled, in fact: bound, by God to break the laws of man when they are unjust. The decision as to how it is determined that a law is unjust is murky and unclear, as we will see: this same ambiguity marks both King and Mandela's own approach to non-violent activism. The historical truth is that Gandhi made clear that each â€Å"Satyagrahi was bound to resist all those laws which he considered to be unjust and which were not of a criminal character, in order to bend the Government to the will of the people† (Gandhi 21) and it is this kind of â€Å"twisting† which comprises the active aspect of non-violent activism.KINGThe expression of non-violent activism by King relied as much on spiritual conviction as that of Gandhi. This conviction brought about a similar adherence to   the concept of breaking â€Å"unjust† laws as a method of civil disobedience. King, like Gandhi, found justification for the breaking of social laws by the invocation of Divine Power. The result was that King experienced some difficulty in ma king his racial and social activism truly universal, although such a desire to do so formed an underlying precept of his overall strategy for social and political change.In a rather unique twist of philosophy, King opted to not only resist unjust laws non-violently, but tor each out to his so-called opponents: white racists with language of reconciliation, good-will, and fellowship. King's invocations of â€Å"the good to be achieved† (Wolf, and Rosen) were powerful   counterparts to his criticisms of the social conditions he sought to transform.Since King's goal was to â€Å"to bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible† (Wolf, and Rosen) his reliance on civil disobedience and the breaking of unjust laws by Divine justification, like Gandhi's, requires a deeper examination. Such revelation is possible due to King's extensive writings; in particular his â€Å"Letter From a Birmingham Jail† a famous document where he addresses t he concern of his fellow clergymen regarding the breaking of laws by civil activists.The letter repeatedly appeals to a shared sense of religion; King also cites Biblical examples to bolster his argument.  Ã‚   Responding to the criticism that his actions and the actions of his followers, even though non-violent in practice, ultimately resulted in violence on the behalf of the white Southerners who beat and jailed the protestor (and sometimes lynched or otherwise killed African Americans), King compared the fight for civil rights with the fight of Jesus to spread the gospel.King's appeal via religion and spirituality was based in a desire for unity and understanding. While he denied accusations of extremity or of inciting violence, he admitted that the impulse for civil rights was, by his reckoning, the will   of God.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   King advises that the will of all people is toward freedom and equality.   â€Å"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro.† (King)By forwarding the notion that civil rights are an inevitable outgrowth of both God's will and the flow of history, King is, in effect, offering a justification for his tactics and philosophies regarding civil rights.The justification for the elements of passive resistance which had led to violent confrontation is also based in King's ideas of justice. King's idea is that God's law is the highest law and that man's laws may be broken when they obviously disagree with or even insult God's law.With the belief that God's Law is the highest law and that history shows that all people will struggle for freedom and liberty, and by appealing to the rational sense of justice and the emotional and spiritual senses of brotherhood and love, King attains justification for his actions but does not seek to evade or subvert laws outright.MANDELAUnlike King, Mandela called for delib erate confrontation with the forces of apartheid which apposed his view of liberation and freedom. Although he repeatedly expressed his opinion that he was not, in fact, a racist himself, Mandela's rhetoric unlike King and Gandhi's, â€Å"was more polarizing† (Wolf, and Rosen); for example, Mandela never attempted â€Å"to appeal to whites† and he sought by confrontational rhetoric coupled with non-violent activism to † through greater polarization to galvanize the situation to crisis levels, thereby compelling action by the international community† (Wolf, and Rosen) which in itself presents a divergence in thought from Gandhi and King both of whom sough reconciliation with their enemies.However, rhetoric was simply another tool in Mandela's non-violent philosophical approach. When, at key moments, he might have called for violence, in actuality, he strove for non-violent change. he might have â€Å"easily have called for a violent overthrow of the South A frican government upon his release after 27 years in prison† (Pierce 1) but rather than do so, he advocated non-violent resistance.The idea of appealing to the world community adds another dimension to the non-violent approach of activism. For Mandela, â€Å"In this scenario, â€Å"the international community† becomes subrogated to the role of â€Å"broader constituency† that Mandela evoked indirectly†Ã‚   (Wolf, and Rosen) but whose support and intervention proved crucial to his success. Because of his sometimes volatile rhetoric, Mandela took special care to â€Å"emphasize his desire for reconciliation across the divide of colour† and repeatedly â€Å"pledged himself anew to work for a multiracial society in which all would have a secure place† (Pierce 175).Contemporary Impact of Non-Violent StrategiesDespite the contributions of great thinkers and activists like those examined in the preceding, brief discussion, the fact is contemporary s ociety seems no less preoccupied with violence than ever before. By examining the media one has the distinct impression that in the world of media and media-related technology, a great deal of concern has been expressed by both everyday observers and specialists in social-psychology over the possible negative impacts that media, and in particular media portrayals of violence, may have upon small children and adolescent children.One of the most complex facets of the issue is the still-unknown impact that new technologies such as 24 hour a day cable programming, widespread Internet access, and the â€Å"digital age† in general will have on the generation of young people who are presently the first to be so overwhelmed by such widespread media and media technologies.An immersive and nearly all-pervading sense of media exists in modern homes that, in fact, the presence of media can be said to form a basis of â€Å"reality† for many people. It is this exact kind of blurred distinction between perceived reality (based on media models and information) and reality (those aspects of life which stand apart from media and media-based models).The distinction between media-reality and reality is not always clear, particularly to small children and adolescent children: â€Å"The boundaries between reality and unreality are especially permeable for small children. They are unable, through at least the age of three or four, to distinguish fact from fantasy. Even older children rarely manage to keep â€Å"real life† and vicarious experience in watertight compartments† (Bok 1999, 38) as we will see in the following discussion.The main impact repeated viewings of media violence seems to exert over small children and adolescents is the conflation of media-violence with organic psychological processes, many of which exist at such a deep, primitive psychological level in humans that manipulation of these emotions, and psychological dispositions remains, for the most part, beyond the conscious perception of the viewer. In conclusion, although the idea of media-responsibility regarding the impact of violent programming on children and young adults is often cited by critics as a form of censorship, ample scientific evidence and research exists to establish media-violence as a certain source of negative influence on young people.The fact of the matter remains despite the right of free speech that media-reality and actual reality are non-distinct at some deep, organic level in human psychology: † weeks earlier the Los Angeles police officers whose roadside beating of motorist Rodney King had been shown on TV screens the world over had been acquitted by an all-white jury[†¦]In that crisis, the boundaries between movies and reality blurred, not only for the public but also for Hollywood producers, directors, and actors who were seeing smoke rising beneath their hillside residences and hearing sirens echo up and down the canyons ,† (Bok 1999, 36); with such a confusing and agitating impact of adult professionals, what can we expect when we expose our children to the same cultural ambiguities through media?If non-violent philosophy according to Gandhi, king, and Mandela is correct then violence is not   a norm in human society, but a constructed evil. If, as the proponents of non-violent philosophy suggest, â€Å"non-violent settlement of conflict is the human norm as we well know from daily experience. We are not programmed in some genetic way to violence† (Kent) than a radical re-visioning of our self-identity and self-image as human beings must take place not only in our media and in our educational facilities, but in our individual psyches as well.The applications of non-violent strategies in contemporary culture can be thought of as being as unknown as the implications of deep-space travel because even though the contributions of such historical leaders as Gandhi, King, and Mandela reveal s the tremendous power of non-violent activism, the full impact of the philosophy as articulated by these men has far-reaching cultural, global-poltical, and spiritual implications which surpass anything which has yet occurred in history.In other words, the â€Å"pioneers† of the â€Å"modern† incarnation of non-violent strategy which we have examined: Gandhi, King, and Mandela represent not the totality of what the non-violent philosophy can or wants to attain, but the mere beginning of a global transformation which is rooted not inly in the basic moral nature of humanity, but in humanity's spiritual destiny and responsibility.Certainly individual leaders and activists continue to utilize the non-violent approach to attain important results in their areas of influence. Modern technology can also help individual activists to promote change by spreading honest information regarding the repercussions of violence and the militarization of political issues. One recent exam ple is when â€Å"a 1991 massacre in the East Timorese capital Dill was recorded on videotape and subsequently broadcast worldwide, this generated enormous support for the resistance† (Martin 625); such applications of technology by individuals represent one small but important aspect of the many avenues of potential non-violent methods of change.Other methods include educational strategies based in the ideas forwarded by Gandhi, King, and Mandela. The recognition of the historical impact of the immensely influential strategies of non-violent change and civil disobedience will also help to inform and empower individuals who, in turn, may adopt some of the strategies and ideas reflected upon in the above discussion to help bring about social and political change through non-violent means.ConclusionThe examination of three important world-leaders who based their activism in non-violent philosophy reveals certain universal traits among the different incarnations of non-violent a ctivism. Among these universal traits is a belief in the breaking of â€Å"unjust† laws for the purpose of bringing about social and political change. This belief is often, if not always, accompanied by an ambiguous but firmly articulated that such a braking of laws is based in Divine Will. Another core belief seems to be that non-violence rather than violence is, in fact, more in keeping with humanity's organic nature. This idea often results in a corresponding belief that the violence evident in human society is the result of a kind of perversion of humanity's natural attributes into an unnatural and unhealthy state.Against this backdrop, it is very difficult if not impossible to envision the philosophies of non-violent activism as we know them today as anything short of a religious and spiritual philosophy with extremely pragmatic roots in social and political activism. Not only is the spiritual aspect of non-violent philosophy seemingly universal in the three historical f igures studied in this short discussion, but the attributes of spirituality embraced by non-violent activists are, in themselves, of great and abiding interest to any observer. A discussion of this aspect alone would probably reveal that the philosophy of non-violence has existed as a spiritual conviction at various times in various cultures throughout the entire history of humanity.Works CitedBarker, Martin and Julian Petley, eds. 2001. Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate. New York:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Routledge.Bok, Sissela. 1999. Mayhem Violence as Public Entertainment. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Schocken Books, 1961.Gandhi, Mahatma, and Thomas Merton. Gandhi on Non-Violence. New York: New Directions   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pub, 1965.Kent, Bruce. â€Å"Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea.† History Today Feb. 2007: 62+.Mandela, Tambo, and the African National Congress The Struggle against Apartheid, 1948-  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   1990. Ed. Sheridan Johns and R. Hunt Davis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Martin, Brian. â€Å"Nonviolent Futures.† Futures 33.7 (2001): 625.Pierce, Victoria. â€Å"A Tribute to Dr. King Civil Rights Leader's Legacy of Non- Violence Is Alive   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   around the World.† Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL) 29 Sept. 2006: 1.Wolf, Charles, and Brian Rosen. â€Å"Public Diplomacy: Lessons from King and Mandela.† Policy Review (2005): 63+. Non-Violence With the simultaneous proliferation of technology and global-poltical danger in the modern world, strategies for countering both political oppression, and the outbreak of political violence and war are urgently needed.   Although the century which has recently slipped away — the Twentieth Century — may be remembered as â€Å"the bloodiest in history† (Martin 625), with hundreds of millions of people killed in wars and with weapons of mass destruction being â€Å"invented, built, deployed and further refined† (Martin 625) during the same century when state-sponsored genocide and terrorism became commonly known quantities.Against this backdrop of chaos, war, and an increasingly dangerous technological landscape, the philosophy of non-violence, or passive resistance, gained   an historical currency which is still unmatched. The activities of important leaders like Gandhi, King, and Mandela revealed the truly earth-changing, paradigm shifting   potential of non-violence resistance as a method for seizing social initiative and political power. Because of the actions of these three important leaders. plus a host of other lesser-known figures, and the action of millions of ordinary activists, â€Å"it can be argued that the rise of nonviolent action was one of the most important developments of the century†Ã‚   (Martin 625), and one which has tremendous potential for application in today's difficult and complex political world.While it is true enough that Gandhi, King, and Mandela over similar models of non-violent leadership and that key tenants of what might be termed a â€Å"universal† sense of non-violence pervade each leaders' philosophies, distinct differences are also recognizable   when a comparison of the three leaders' ideas, activities, and accomplishments is carried out. Such a study of similarities and differences in the philosophies and actions of these important leaders is crucial to understanding how th e philosophy of non-violence may be applied in modern times as an antidote to the dangerous and oppressive climate that threatens much of the world. As noted, â€Å"Nonviolent action — including methods such as rallies, strikes, boycotts and sit-ins — has become increasingly important in the past century as a method for waging conflict and promoting social change† (Martin 625) and due to the urgent pressure caused by modern political and social challenges such as terrorism, global warming, the protection of human rights and religious freedom, adapting past approaches of non-violent action to present-day challenges may be beneficial.Non-violent activism may, in fact, help bring about important social changes: â€Å"Some areas for future expansion of the role of nonviolent action include replacing military defence, technological design, challenging capitalism, bureaucratic politics, information struggles and interpersonal behaviour† (Martin 625); the sugges tion of non-violence as an all-pervading philosophy applicable throughout the full strata of political and social issues may sound grandiose, but as we will see, this idea is actually a core-concept for the three leaders in our study.In this regard, non-violent philosophy takes it roots not in social, political or philosophical idea, but in spiritual convictions or even, spiritual revelation. An abstraction of  Ã‚   â€Å"nonviolence principles, building on the core dynamic of political jiu-jitsu in contexts where the opponent does not use physical force† (Martin 625) may be the best way to intuitively understand that non-violence does not indicate non-action of total passivity in the face of aggression. Such a distinction is difficult to pin down, but it is a crucial part of activism, manifest in the breaking of â€Å"unjust† laws, and passive resistant behaviors which, if not violent, certainly imply action by the participants.In order to shed light on some of the more challenging aspects of non-violent activism, such as the spiritual aspect, as well as investigate the potential application of non-violent philosophy in modern times, the following brief examination of non-violent philosophy according to each leader: Gandhi, King, and Mandela, will attempt to sketch a general idea of the similarities and differences of each leader's approach and attempt to discover if any type of universal vision of non-violent philosophy can be discovered.For Gandhi, non-violence arises out of an organic human impulse or † basic law of our being† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); such a conviction, foe Gandhi, is based not in genetic or biological assumptions or evidence or in logistical philosophical reasoning, but in spiritual ideas. For Gandhi, â€Å"Ahimsa (non-violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23) is the opposite of   â€Å"himsa (violence)†Ã‚   (Gandhi, and Merton 23), and the attributes of each energy are just as distinct. While Ahim sa â€Å"can be used as the most effective principle for social action, since it is in deep accord with the truth of man's nature and corresponds to his innate desire for peace, justice, order, freedom, and personal dignity† (Gandhi, and Merton 23), its opposite energy, himsa, â€Å"degrades and corrupts man† (Gandhi, and Merton 23); therefore to bring himsa energy against himsa energy would be to fight fire with fire.By contrast, the application of ahimsa or non-violent energy to the problem of himsa energy â€Å"heals and restores man's nature, while giving him a means to restore social order and justice† (Gandhi, and Merton 23). The important thing to remember here is that, for Gandhi, ahimsa and himsa energies are not metaphorical reflections or abstract concepts, they are living, spiritual realities.   Although the capacity for ahimsa resides in each person, modern society has left humanity with a much more desperate and disordered reliance on himsa energ y. For Gandhi such an alienation of man's true capacities has resulted in a culture where â€Å"violence seems to be the very foundation of social order and is â€Å"enthroned as if it were an eternal law,† so that man is called upon by society to reject love† (Gandhi, and Merton 43) and instead embrace a social reality which is enforced by violence or by the threat of violence.To meet this himsa-driven society with ahimsa energy adn non-violence requires supreme courage on behalf of the activist. This extraordinary courage, according to Gandhi, is derived from God:This courage demands nothing short of the ability to face death with complete fearlessness and to suffer without retaliation. Such a program is meaningless and impossible, Gandhi thinks, without belief in God.The implication in Gandhi's ideas is that the activist or the â€Å"Satyagrahi† is enabled, in fact: bound, by God to break the laws of man when they are unjust. The decision as to how it is dete rmined that a law is unjust is murky and unclear, as we will see: this same ambiguity marks both King and Mandela's own approach to non-violent activism. The historical truth is that Gandhi made clear that each â€Å"Satyagrahi was bound to resist all those laws which he considered to be unjust and which were not of a criminal character, in order to bend the Government to the will of the people† (Gandhi 21) and it is this kind of â€Å"twisting† which comprises the active aspect of non-violent activism.The expression of non-violent activism by King relied as much on spiritual conviction as that of Gandhi. This conviction brought about a similar adherence to   the concept of breaking â€Å"unjust† laws as a method of civil disobedience. King, like Gandhi, found justification for the breaking of social laws by the invocation of Divine Power. The result was that King experienced some difficulty in making his racial and social activism truly universal, although su ch a desire to do so formed an underlying precept of his overall strategy for social and political change. In a rather unique twist of philosophy, King opted to not only resist unjust laws non-violently, but tor each out to his so-called opponents: white racists with language of reconciliation, good-will, and fellowship. King's invocations of â€Å"the good to be achieved† (Wolf, and Rosen) were powerful   counterparts to his criticisms of the social conditions he sought to transform.Since King's goal was to â€Å"to bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible† (Wolf, and Rosen) his reliance on civil disobedience and the breaking of unjust laws by Divine justification, like Gandhi's, requires a deeper examination. Such revelation is possible due to King's extensive writings; in particular his â€Å"Letter From a Birmingham Jail† a famous document where he addresses the concern of his fellow clergymen regarding the breaking of la ws by civil activists. The letter repeatedly appeals to a shared sense of religion; King also cites Biblical examples to bolster his argument.  Ã‚   Responding to the criticism that his actions and the actions of his followers, even though non-violent in practice, ultimately resulted in violence on the behalf of the white Southerners who beat and jailed the protestor (and sometimes lynched or otherwise killed African Americans), King compared the fight for civil rights with the fight of Jesus to spread the gospel.King's appeal via religion and spirituality was based in a desire for unity and understanding. While he denied accusations of extremity or of inciting violence, he admitted that the impulse for civil rights was, by his reckoning, the will   of God.   Ã‚   King advises that the will of all people is toward freedom and equality.   â€Å"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happene d to the American Negro.† (King) By forwarding the notion that civil rights are an inevitable outgrowth of both God's will and the flow of history, King is, in effect, offering a justification for his tactics and philosophies regarding civil rights.The justification for the elements of passive resistance which had led to violent confrontation is also based in King's ideas of justice. King's idea is that God's law is the highest law and that man's laws may be broken when they obviously disagree with or even insult God's law.With the belief that God's Law is the highest law and that history shows that all people will struggle for freedom and liberty, and by appealing to the rational sense of justice and the emotional and spiritual senses of brotherhood and love, King attains justification for his actions but does not seek to evade or subvert laws outright.Unlike King, Mandela called for deliberate confrontation with the forces of apartheid which apposed his view of liberation an d freedom. Although he repeatedly expressed his opinion that he was not, in fact, a racist himself, Mandela's rhetoric unlike King and Gandhi's, â€Å"was more polarizing† (Wolf, and Rosen); for example, Mandela never attempted â€Å"to appeal to whites† and he sought by confrontational rhetoric coupled with non-violent activism to † through greater polarization to galvanize the situation to crisis levels, thereby compelling action by the international community† (Wolf, and Rosen) which in itself presents a divergence in thought from Gandhi and King both of whom sough reconciliation with their enemies.However, rhetoric was simply another tool in Mandela's non-violent philosophical approach. When, at key moments, he might have called for violence, in actuality, he strove for non-violent change. he might have â€Å"easily have called for a violent overthrow of the South African government upon his release after 27 years in prison† (Pierce 1) but rather than do so, he advocated non-violent resistance. The idea of appealing to the world community adds another dimension to the non-violent approach of activism. For Mandela, â€Å"In this scenario, â€Å"the international community† becomes subrogated to the role of â€Å"broader constituency† that Mandela evoked indirectly†Ã‚   (Wolf, and Rosen) but whose support and intervention proved crucial to his success. Because of his sometimes volatile rhetoric, Mandela took special care to â€Å"emphasize his desire for reconciliation across the divide of colour† and repeatedly â€Å"pledged himself anew to work for a multiracial society in which all would have a secure place† (Pierce 175).Contemporary Impact of Non-Violent StrategiesDespite the contributions of great thinkers and activists like those examined in the preceding, brief discussion, the fact is contemporary society seems no less preoccupied with violence than ever before. By examining the media one has the distinct impression that in the world of media and media-related technology, a great deal of concern has been expressed by both everyday observers and specialists in social-psychology over the possible negative impacts that media, and in particular media portrayals of violence, may have upon small children and adolescent children. One of the most complex facets of the issue is the still-unknown impact that new technologies such as 24 hour a day cable programming, widespread Internet access, and the â€Å"digital age† in general will have on the generation of young people who are presently the first to be so overwhelmed by such widespread media and media technologies.An immersive and nearly all-pervading sense of media exists in modern homes that, in fact, the presence of media can be said to form a basis of â€Å"reality† for many people. It is this exact kind of blurred distinction between perceived reality (based on media models and information) and real ity (those aspects of life which stand apart from media and media-based models).   The distinction between media-reality and reality is not always clear, particularly to small children and adolescent children: â€Å"The boundaries between reality and unreality are especially permeable for small children. They are unable, through at least the age of three or four, to distinguish fact from fantasy. Even older children rarely manage to keep â€Å"real life† and vicarious experience in watertight compartments† (Bok 1999, 38) as we will see in the following discussion.The main impact repeated viewings of media violence seems to exert over small children and adolescents is the conflation of media-violence with organic psychological processes, many of which exist at such a deep, primitive psychological level in humans that manipulation of these emotions, and psychological dispositions remains, for the most part, beyond the conscious perception of the viewer. In conclusion, although the idea of media-responsibility regarding the impact of violent programming on children and young adults is often cited by critics as a form of censorship, ample scientific evidence and research exists to establish media-violence as a certain source of negative influence on young people.The fact of the matter remains despite the right of free speech that media-reality and actual reality are non-distinct at some deep, organic level in human psychology: † weeks earlier the Los Angeles police officers whose roadside beating of motorist Rodney King had been shown on TV screens the world over had been acquitted by an all-white jury[†¦]In that crisis, the boundaries between movies and reality blurred, not only for the public but also for Hollywood producers, directors, and actors who were seeing smoke rising beneath their hillside residences and hearing sirens echo up and down the canyons,† (Bok 1999, 36); with such a confusing and agitating impact of adult prof essionals, what can we expect when we expose our children to the same cultural ambiguities through media?If non-violent philosophy according to Gandhi, king, and Mandela is correct then violence is not   a norm in human society, but a constructed evil. If, as the proponents of non-violent philosophy suggest, â€Å"non-violent settlement of conflict is the human norm as we well know from daily experience. We are not programmed in some genetic way to violence† (Kent) than a radical re-visioning of our self-identity and self-image as human beings must take place not only in our media and in our educational facilities, but in our individual psyches as well.The applications of non-violent strategies in contemporary culture can be thought of as being as unknown as the implications of deep-space travel because even though the contributions of such historical leaders as Gandhi, King, and Mandela reveals the tremendous power of non-violent activism, the full impact of the philosophy as articulated by these men has far-reaching cultural, global-poltical, and spiritual implications which surpass anything which has yet occurred in history.   In other words, the â€Å"pioneers† of the â€Å"modern† incarnation of non-violent strategy which we have examined: Gandhi, King, and Mandela represent not the totality of what the non-violent philosophy can or wants to attain, but the mere beginning of a global transformation which is rooted not inly in the basic moral nature of humanity, but in humanity's spiritual destiny and responsibility.Certainly individual leaders and activists continue to utilize the non-violent approach to attain important results in their areas of influence. Modern technology can also help individual activists to promote change by spreading honest information regarding the repercussions of violence and the militarization of political issues. One recent example is when â€Å"a 1991 massacre in the East Timorese capital Dill was rec orded on videotape and subsequently broadcast worldwide, this generated enormous support for the resistance† (Martin 625); such applications of technology by individuals represent one small but important aspect of the many avenues of potential non-violent methods of change.Other methods include educational strategies based in the ideas forwarded by Gandhi, King, and Mandela. The recognition of the historical impact of the immensely influential strategies of non-violent change and civil disobedience will also help to inform and empower individuals who, in turn, may adopt some of the strategies and ideas reflected upon in the above discussion to help bring about social and political change through non-violent means.ConclusionThe examination of three important world-leaders who based their activism in non-violent philosophy reveals certain universal traits among the different incarnations of non-violent activism. Among these universal traits is a belief in the breaking of â€Å" unjust† laws for the purpose of bringing about social and political change. This belief is often, if not always, accompanied by an ambiguous but firmly articulated that such a braking of laws is based in Divine Will. Another core belief seems to be that non-violence rather than violence is, in fact, more in keeping with humanity's organic nature. This idea often results in a corresponding belief that the violence evident in human society is the result of a kind of perversion of humanity's natural attributes into an unnatural and unhealthy state.Against this backdrop, it is very difficult if not impossible to envision the philosophies of non-violent activism as we know them today as anything short of a religious and spiritual philosophy with extremely pragmatic roots in social and political activism. Not only is the spiritual aspect of non-violent philosophy seemingly universal in the three historical figures studied in this short discussion, but the attributes of spirituality embraced by non-violent activists are, in themselves, of great and abiding interest to any observer. A discussion of this aspect alone would probably reveal that the philosophy of non-violence has existed as a spiritual conviction at various times in various cultures throughout the entire history of humanity.Works CitedBarker, Martin and Julian Petley, eds. 2001. Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate. New York:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Routledge.Bok, Sissela. 1999. Mayhem Violence as Public Entertainment. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Schocken Books, 1961.Gandhi, Mahatma, and Thomas Merton. Gandhi on Non-Violence. New York: New Directions   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pub, 1965.Kent, Bruce. â€Å"Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea.† History Today Feb. 2007: 62+.Mandela, Tambo, and the African National Congress The Struggle against Apartheid, 1948-   1990. Ed. Sheridan Johns and R. Hunt Davis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Martin, Brian. â€Å"Nonviolent Futures.† Futures 33.7 (2001): 625.Pierce, Victoria. â€Å"A Tribute to Dr. King Civil Rights Leader's Legacy of Non- Violence Is Alive   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   around the World.† Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL) 29 Sept. 2006: 1.Wolf, Charles, and Brian Rosen. â€Å"Public Diplomacy: Lessons from King and Mandela.† Policy   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Review (2005): 63+.

Is Being Fashionable a Sin?

â€Å"Don't Judge a book from it's cover† is a great phrase, but we do actually Judge appearance first before getting to know people. That first impression helps anywhere, and good knowledge of fashion, and being well groomed really helps. I think it was Marilyn Monroe that said, â€Å"Clothing should be tight enough to show you are a woman, but loose enough to show you are a lady†. Words to live by!! I want to tell them that being modest does NOT mean covering yourself in a shapeless denim bag of a dress that hides any last speck of femininity!It is possible to be beautiful, stylish, and modest. A move toward beautiful clothes that are modest and actually make the person look good is always needed in the fashion world. Remaining fashionable is also a status war in itself, because you can only attain the status at which you can personally afford. I find concept of something being â€Å"fashionable† quite puzzling. Why many people feel obliged to wear â€Å"fashi onable clothes†? They don't wear it because of aesthetic value – or do they?If something was fashionable last season and now it is not, does it mean that the aesthetic Judgment changed or do people recognize value in conforming to the majority? The answer is simpler than you think. â€Å"Fashion† is the effect, not the cause. Combine two separate concepts: First, that pleasure resulting from a certain aesthetic fades over time. So yes to your first question, it is the aesthetic value that changes. You can only eat ice cream so long until you get tired of eating it, even though nothing changed about the ice cream.Similarly, people get tired of seeing the same kind of clothes being worn all the time. There is a certain pleasure in novelty. Second, fashion has a social value, as well as an individual one. Socially, what people ear is a significant part of our environment, so it's more pleasing to see people well- dressed. Individually, to wear clothes that other peo ple find pleasing arouses our vanity, so we have a personal interest in pleasing our society. â€Å"Fashion† refers to this careful equilibrium between social pleasure and individual vanity.It's more of a sign claiming â€Å"I'm up to date† than any aesthetics, but being up to date is very valued by many people, even if it is about something as irrelevant as clothing and even if being up to date about irrelevant things implies an opportunity cost and earns lost opportunities to be up to date about relevant things. Subconscious thoughts are not characterized for being very deep. TOPIC: People nowadays are paying a lot of attention to fashion. Do you think this is a good thing? As a kind of art, fashion has its own values and benefits for people such as making them more beautiful.Nowadays, people are paying a lot of attention to fashion and I think this is a very good thing because of the following reasons. First, fashion makes people become more attractive. On the roads , a girl dressing in fashionable clothes always attracts more attention of people than one in outdated outfit. This is because as human beings, we all want something that is new and appealing rather than boring. And fashion, in this case, contributes a lot to the beauty of people. It makes them more pretty in apparels that are updated to the popular trends, which a number of people are interested in.Secondly, fashion indirectly builds up a healthy lifestyle. People who love fashion always want to be in the most up-to-date dress. However, these clothes are Just suitable for certain body shape, which is usually a thin one. Therefore, fashion and he love for it are encouraging more and more people to follow a healthful diet, to do exercise and to work out in order to have perfect bodies that are fitted in the clothes they like. Last but not least, fashion makes our world an interesting place to live in. If fashion did not exist, the world might be a dull place where all people wore the same things with the same color.We could never see attractive girls in fashionable clothes on the roads or youthful boy in hip hop costumes. Moreover, no fashion meaner no traditional costume, which is a unique part that differentiates each culture. Therefore, with cushion, people can enjoy a colorful world where everyone looks beautiful and attractive in their own fashion style. In short, I believe that the special attention of people to fashion is reasonable and needed to be encouraged. It is because fashion contributes a lot to better people's appearance, to create a healthy lifestyle and a colorful world.Fashion is a sword TTT can heal or destroy. Ultimately in today's age, Fashion Just destroys people's lives. Fashion as healing: As an art, fashion can bring healing and meaning to people's lives especially ones who are gifted in designing and have passion for it. As destructive. Too many to describe. Fashion sprung out from man's perversity to want to dress to impress. To dres s to look good so that who benefits? They benefit and feel better about themselves. Look presentable is the goal for most organizations but that has just set a mindset especially in work cultures where dressing good matters.It does really create stratifications and psychological stress on people to dress a certain way if not be ready to meet the Judgment or isolation in some cases. What do these benefit a person when they reflect back upon the impact of fashion in society? Not forgetting what many people above have indicated on fashion's influence on self esteem and other matters. Fashion like science gives people a reason to have a Job and to feel good about it but it may actually be one of the reasons why people began to sin and erode the societal norms and family unities.Fashion makes people liberal in whatever they want such that they don't have to care anymore bat people around. Making a statement is bold but a great way to make oneself unique and humans crave that because they need to stand out and make a marquee in the community. They want to feel significant and stand out from the crowd. I'm saying good that you stand out but if the assumptive effect of fashion leads to the detrimental destruction on human unity and communion, then fashion shall be no more than a subtle piece of timber waiting to explode in someone's lives in some form of cheat or sick way.It really matters how you dress but many people's lives have been testimonies of the human need to find acceptance and prominence in some way and fashion is really not a good way. Predictability is a fine line between looking good and attention seeking. Conclusion; Fashion destroys pulp's lives very subtly and slowly if no appropriate boundaries are observed. Any since no one can restrict anyone from wearing anything, the trend is that fashion is one factor that harms our society and its a fact that no one can refute.Fashion here refers to the general consensus that dressing encompasses in our curren t day where we dress to show rather than to be presentable. That is the case TTT MAJORITY of brands try to proliferate. Sex sells is the message of the day. Just look at most of the biggest companies and you can be sure TTT is one of their drives in the company. Inner beauty not outer fashion ‘For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone,' is a famous quote by Audrey Hepburn.Thus it is about the inner beauty not the outer fashion. Lol, thank you can't think of anything else Self Respect has officially disappeared Women nowadays no longer dress to impress instead they dress to expose. Even though as women we may think that if we dress in a particular way, it would attract a guy we need to remember that if we respect who we are and how we portray ourselves, men will see this and respect us as well. Children as young as 12 are beginning to dress in clothes with a lot of exposure which is a sign that they are growing up.Children need to be children when they have the time and discovering and understanding grown up stuff should be left for their futures ahead. Makes people feel inadequate. Fashion is greedy and kills individuality. We are told that if you wear this or wear that, men will want you, etc. It is a load of rubbish. You can't Just wear what you want because that isn't ‘in' for that year, or month, or even week. Fashion churns out lines from every high street store in the country. Style and creativity (great things) should not be synonymous with fashion This organized fashion world however is something else.A grotesque facet of humanity and offshoot of capitalism, it commodities and homogeneous almost everything on this planet. Ultimately, in order to reproduce the same shallow, greedy hierarchy behind the the finished/contrived products mediated and presented to us. It DOES damage the planet. It DOES kill animals. It DOES caus e eating disorders. It DOES cause low self esteem. It fuels competitiveness and ignorance, and an irresponsible denial of reality. It causes us to ignore who we really are, who other people really are and values and issues which can't be turned into something sexy and desirable.It causes us to overlook the wonderful non-airbrushed world we already live in, and it also causes us to refuse to acknowledge and solve the problems that are there in it. It causes us to rule out knowing entire groups of people, adopting entire ways of thinking. It also – despite its self-proclaimed image of not doing so – continues racism and tethering. For several years I fell into the fashion trap set for all people. Lured in by the glossiness, the perfection, the sex, glamour, the manipulative language and presentation.I looked at the world through fashion's demeaning gaze and missed out on so much and hurt many people. I hurt my savings! I hurt my development! I wasted time. I hurt myself in developing an eating disorder and not embracing the absolutely wonderful person I already was. I also hurt people close to me, acquaintances, with the inherent Judgment fashion instills. I hurt people all around the world by paying attention to fashion, as fashion is a system relying on the people outside/at the bottom.I also no doubt perpetuated the harsh living standards for those at the bottom of the fashion industry making these clothes. And I damaged the planet. I don't believe that the meaner meet the ends whatsoever and if fashion was really that great it wouldn't need the billions and billions spent on constant PR & advertising. I think our society is seriously lacking in education/seriously over indoctrinated by the media now if a several million dollar ad which taps into your biological/instinctive yearnings to sell you an unrelated and inanimate object is seen s totally normal and an art form.I would also bring into question fashion houses funding of things which maint ain the hierarchy and the concept of ‘cool' and commodities ‘e. Galleries, shows, films, celebrities, buildings and why Italian fashion houses donate millions to the maintenance of crumbling Italian buildings which fuel the rest of the worlds perception of beautiful Italy etc etc I know there are other issues in play. I wrote this very quickly and it may seem reductive but I'm positive my argument is stronger than those trying to reassure themselves fashion is a necessary art form.It deviates youngsters from studies Youngsters who pay more attention to fashion are less attentive to their studies and when it comes to devoting time to their academic career, they seem to be less concerned. This very attitude and the role of fashion Magazines is harming the very basics of the student community and they start feeling that their life would reach a certain height if they involve their selves in the fashion activities. It is making people's minds more dependent on material thing s. It puts this image in your head that its all about how you look and what to wear and tepidity such as that.People are too dependent on what factories and what the government and what industries provide for them, when you can benefit you and your mind set by buying clothes that are for needs, not 50 million shirts to wear because you NEED every dang color. I understand that fashion is a way that people can express themselves, but when you take it too far and make it something you cannot live without, it shows true weakness in you AND society as a whole. Fashion rules the world. How many people do you know that don't care about the way they dress?I could count mine on one hand. People spend money they don't even have on clothes they will only wear once or twice at the most. When you spend money you don't have, your creating a problem for yourself, and others. Once you go broke, you start to have to get help from the government. The government gets it's money from the taxes and stuf f from the people who choose to spend their money the right way. Is it fair either? Fashion is harmful to society It makes you feel not K each season. So in an effort to feel K you pressure yourself to buy.It's not about creating peace or Joy in one's, but rather reinforcing you're not k unless you wear this designer or can afford this fashion. It's a waste of human resources. Displays the â€Å"perfect† image to viewers This causes them to believe in that image and strive to achieve it in order to feed their need to look beautiful. They try to follow the way that they are shown in the fashion industry which will help them to be accepted and look like the perfect beautiful woman so that they can match the society's requirements on beauty.Fashion depresses peoples freedom to be an individual Everyone here seems to be talking about clothes, but following fashion is in my mind, owing something that everyone is supposedly doing at the moment whether it be types of clothes, cars, behavior. Basically copying others Just to fit in or gain supposed social recognition. This can be harmful to a persons individuality, self esteem and general happiness if taken so far to stop people feeling they can freely be themselves. They have to follow the fashion no matter what the cost or think it's k to treat people who don't follow suit as outcasts.People are too bind to realize what fashion can do to person. I know this from experience and have watched people surfer. Fashion is killing naggers and some adults. Fashion is a waste of time. What happened to people expressing themselves? There are too many people wrapped up in what's in or getting the next best thing. Also, the so-called fashion of â€Å"hot bodies†; what the hell is up with that? I watched a friend who is so called â€Å"fat and ugly† struggle with being in style and having a body people want to see. She starved herself and made herself throw up Just to fit in.Honestly, I used to be wrapped up in fashion, but my mom made me realize that I don't need the newest things out there. I don't need make up as I used to think. My mom showed me how to express myself through everything I do. I thank her for that! I may be only 16 but I know what it used to be like. I don't care about fashion because being â€Å"in† is showing how low people can be and labeling them as trash, ugly, poor and worse. Fashion is harmful to a society and there is so much more around us. The sad thing is that most of the world is too blind to see it.People think fashion is so important because they always want to look good. Why do people always think fashion is so important? Well that is my question to you! Why is it so important? Why do you have to ooh good for people to like you? Some people in this world think that life is all about fashion! Well its not! Soot all you losers out there who think fashion is the best things in life.. Well stop thinking that. If you don't stop thinking that then you will grow up to have no friends and will have the worst life ever. So I came here to say fashion is not everything in life and it is harmful to some girls.If girls think that they will be liked if they look good then they will grow up to be lonely and have no friends. So if your one of those people think about al the other important things in life before you go to a party or get dressed up. Young girls are trying to emulate celebrities/models and can't differentiate the celebrity's â€Å"public persona† wardrobe from their everyday â€Å"at-home† wardrobe. Young girls look to celebrities and/or models when trying to figure out fashion. They see what is dished out to them from the media or from in-person events.They don't understand that much of what celebrities wear is worn specifically for the publicity. Some even for shock value Just to get into the forefront of the public eye. They see models with unrealistic body shapes and think that to be beautiful and successful they too have to be unhealthily thin. They don't know how many models are throwing up the only calories their bodies receive on a daily basis. They don't understand that celebrities that are dressing in body-hugging clothes and see-through tops are purposefully dressing that way because sex sells.Girls are so obsessed with being popular and accepted that they are trying to bypass being a girl and instead are trying to rush into being a woman. They aren't even getting the chance to figure out for themselves the stupidity of celebrities who spend a good sum of money walking in 9†³ stilettos or shoes without heels all for the sake of publicity. It is obvious that the celebrity is Just hiding behind the same insecurity that the little girls have about being accepted and loved for who they are. For the record, people with real talent do not need to hide behind the facade of fashion absurdity.At schools, girls have started to rank themselves with fashion. Girls have started to decid ed who's who by what they wear, and if one doesn't have enough money to buy a certain piece of clothing, then see it being worn around schools, than their self-esteems can be lowered to a certain degree, and can be seen as a target to bullies, making the situation worse. I feel that fashion is harmful to society, because it promotes a culture that is based solely on appearance. The fashion industry encourages an unrealistic outlook for men and women in regards to their bodies and their looks.Women and men have gone to great extremes to mold their bodies into what the fashion world has decided is â€Å"perfect†, often disregarding their health and well-being, Just to look like the air-brushed, rail-thin models that the industry has deemed beautiful. Fashion is definitely harmful to society, because it inspires people to make potentially harmful lifestyle choices. Societal problems, such as anorexia and teen violence, are exemplary as to why fashion can actually be harmful. The media pushes the idea of beauty, as it is associated with apparently emaciated super models and punks wearing baggy pants and chains.Our children try to emulate what they are seeing on television. Some restrict their eating to the point that their health suffers, and others steal and even resort to violence to obtain clothes that look like those their television heroes wear. Fashion contributes to excluding certain individuals from society by labeling them as different. Fashion meaner being able to express oneself, but when an individual does not have access to fashionable clothes for financial reasons or cultural ones, this individual is generally excluded from society.Fashion contributes in directing our attention towards appearances, and it impacts in a negative way what people think of each other. It harms the environment, it promotes low paid work, an unhealthy self-image and futility and contributes to the increase of consumerism. Most clothes are made with processes that pol lute the atmosphere and water sources, produce CO and other harmful gas, and a lot of waste. Most of the clothes are made y people who are paid around 12 cents a day and work in very poor conditions. The fashion industry employs models who are too thin and present their bodies as desirable and normal – how your body should be.And because the magazines, ads and whatnot make the clothes – and the whole industry – look so glamorous, people then feel tempted to buy more and more. This way, our society is becoming more image-centered, more futile and consuming. The fashion industry can be harmful to society, due to its unnatural display of weight requirements. In recent years, the alarming trend of fashion models' unnatural weight acquirement has directly affected our society, both as consumers and as individuals dealing with self-esteem issues that turn into dangerous health conditions.Teen and preteen girls are especially susceptible to the trends that the â€Å"h ouses of fashion† determine are â€Å"in†. Fashion is harmful to society for several reasons and it shouldn't be taken as seriously. Fashion is harmful to society because it makes people feel like they have to dress like the models and worst of all have to be the same size as the models. Children get shunned at school because of fashion and not wearing the top labels of clothing. It is unfair to Judge on fashion but that is what we do most of the time. I believe fashion is harmful to society.As the mother of a thirteen year old girl I can tell you that many things that are considered fashionable are ruining society. Whether it be the way they are wearing their clothes or what. There are also other issues that fall into this category television shows and radio. What is acceptable and what isn't? It is all a very thin line but all of it is becoming our undoing. Fashion is not harmful to society as it simply personifies freedom Fashion allows people to express themselves i n an individual way. It provides diversity in society which can only be a healthy thing.It shows that people have freedom and therefore allows them to relax and feel comfortable for who they are. Overall it makes for happier individuals which results in a more prosperous society. Fashion is the reason so many people are up to their neck in credit card debt. How many times do you go to a department store and not get asked by the cashier if you want a charge card for that store. The answer is almost never. Not only will the store charge you $100 for that pair of Sears, they will let you pay more than that if you onto want to pay for it all right now.Fashion is the biggest scam in consumer product because their products are never worth what you have to pay to be fashionable. Fashion beautifies the society There is nothing wrong with the fashion around us. Its Just our perspective that needs to looked upon and changed regarding fashion. Fashion is all around us so we can't imagine a soc iety without fashion. It would Just look like a prehistoric society without fashion. Fashion is the result of the man,s mental development, so there is nothing wrong with it.