Julius Caesar - Mark Antony Essay -- essays research papers

Mark Antony   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It is human nature to change one’s personality to fit the situation. People behave differently when speaking to a dignitary that when talking to a friend. Over time one can change due to a loss or gain of power, sometimes for the better or worse. In Julius Caesar, for example, Mark Antony goes through several changes. Mark Antony loved Julius Caesar, yet when he passed away Mark Antony swears vengeance, and ultimately is corrupted by the power of running a country.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At the beginning of the play Antony is harmless and extremely loyal to Julius Caesar. Mark Antony is about to run a race, but â€Å"When Caesar says ‘Do this,’ it is performed.† It is almost as if Mark Antony is only a puppet to Julius Caesar. He is being respectful of his leader, yet it seems as if he is fearful of him. While Caesar does not realize Mark Antony’s potential, Brutus underestimates him. Brutus refers to Rome as a body and Caesar as the head, yet â€Å"To cut the head off and then hack the limbs† would be killing Mark Antony. If the head of something was shot, there is no need to try to shoot the heart. Julius Caesar is concerned about his well-being, for good reason. Casca has been speaking in low tones and Caesar would â€Å"Have men about me that are fat† because he feels that they can be trusted easier. Caesar trusts Mark Antony as his closest confidant due to the fact that they have been like brothers all their lives.   Ã‚  Ã‚  &... Julius Caesar - Mark Antony Essay -- essays research papers Mark Antony   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It is human nature to change one’s personality to fit the situation. People behave differently when speaking to a dignitary that when talking to a friend. Over time one can change due to a loss or gain of power, sometimes for the better or worse. In Julius Caesar, for example, Mark Antony goes through several changes. Mark Antony loved Julius Caesar, yet when he passed away Mark Antony swears vengeance, and ultimately is corrupted by the power of running a country.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At the beginning of the play Antony is harmless and extremely loyal to Julius Caesar. Mark Antony is about to run a race, but â€Å"When Caesar says ‘Do this,’ it is performed.† It is almost as if Mark Antony is only a puppet to Julius Caesar. He is being respectful of his leader, yet it seems as if he is fearful of him. While Caesar does not realize Mark Antony’s potential, Brutus underestimates him. Brutus refers to Rome as a body and Caesar as the head, yet â€Å"To cut the head off and then hack the limbs† would be killing Mark Antony. If the head of something was shot, there is no need to try to shoot the heart. Julius Caesar is concerned about his well-being, for good reason. Casca has been speaking in low tones and Caesar would â€Å"Have men about me that are fat† because he feels that they can be trusted easier. Caesar trusts Mark Antony as his closest confidant due to the fact that they have been like brothers all their lives.   Ã‚  Ã‚  &...

Was the Provisional Government Doomed from the Beginning? a Russian Revolution

History Dissertation Was the Provisional Government Doomed from the Beginning? word count: 3999 Josh Blake Candidate No. 031276977 Contents †¢ Introduction P 3 †¢ Chapter 1: Nature of the Provisional Government and Structuralist opinions. P 4 – 6 †¢ Chapter 2: Structuralist response P 7 – 8 †¢ Chapter 3: Intentionalist response P 9 – 12 †¢ Conclusion P 13 †¢ Bibliography P 14 †¢ Annotated Bibliography P 15 – 16 Was the Provisional Government doomed from the beginning? After the February revolution on 1917 which saw the abdication of the Tsar, Russia was in turmoil. It had gone (in a matter of days) from being one of the most repressed countries in the world to being totally free with nobody in any real position of power or authority, and this was a massive change for the population of Russia. As a result of this confusion two bodies were set up to temporarily control Russia until a constituent Assembly could be elected. These two bodies were the Provisional government, (made up of leading Liberal parties, and Kadets), and the Petrograd Soviets (made up of workers, soldiers, socialist revolutionaries, and had both Menshevik and Bolshevik members. However this reign did not last long as in October of the same year the Bolsheviks seized the Tauride Palace overthrowing the Provisional government (PG) in the name of the Petrograd Soviet. There are many reasons to why the PG did not manage to consolidate its power; primarily there were a lot of internal problems that gave them a big disadvantage. However there were also external pressures from the pe asants, workers and the war that the PG could simply not cope with. As historians have studied the question in depth different schools of thought have been established. The Structuralist School believes that the PG was doomed from the beginning, because of the problems they faced such as Dual Power, the War and Order No1; however Darby who is a popular Structuralist historian believes that there was a â€Å"window of opportunity. †[1] However they failed to use this to their advantage and it cost them dear in October 1917. On the other hand the Intentionalist school believe that the PG was not in fact doomed from the beginning and collapsed due to outside pressure from the peasants, workers and impact of revolutionary leaders such as Lenin. Lenin’s revolutionary slogans such as â€Å"peace, land and bread†[2] shifted the support hugely from the PG to the Bolsheviks and other factors such as the July Days meant Lenin could undermine the PG completely. And gain support for the Bolsheviks. Chapter1: Nature of the Provisional Government and Structuralist opinions On the 2nd March 1917 the PG was declared and on the 4th minister’s were appointed. The Petrograd Soviet was also declared as a leading body in Russia and this initial system of Dual Power presented an immediate problem for both groups. Having two Bodies trying to run the same country immediately causes difficulties as there would be disagreements between them. This is exaggerated between the PG and Petrograd Soviet because their views and ideologies are so distinctly different. The PG wanted to contain the revolution, whereas the Soviets wanted to deepen it. John Bradley agrees with this, stating: â€Å"The Soviet and the PG although coexisting, would never act in harmony, both preferring to follow separate roads in the pursuit of different goals. †[3] This initial rivalry deepened with the introduction of Order No. 1 which was granted to the Soviets. Order No. 1 essentially gave the Soviets control of the armed forces in Russia. It states that: armed forces are subordinate to the Petrograd Soviet in all their political actions; and one delegate from each company was to be elected to the Petrograd Soviet. Also all weapons were to remain under the control of company and battalion committees, and in no circumstances to be handed over to officers. This meant that, â€Å"the armed forces were disabled from enforcing the PG’s will. [4] Mosley supports this and states that: â€Å"The PG has no real power, troops, railroads; post and telegraph are all in the hands of the Soviet. †[5] The PG’s liberal nature also played a large role in their lack of effective policies and knowledge. When they were appointed the PG immediately: abolished the secret police; abolished censorship; introduced civil liberties; abolished the death penalty; granted civil rights to soldiers; aboli shed discrimination based on class or religion; and gave amnesty to political prisoners. All these things (contrary to the PG’s beliefs) were seen to be giving to much freedom to the population, to soon and this had a knock on effect throughout their reign. For example, when the state was threatened during April, July and October they were unwilling to use force. Orlando Figes sees this as a major reason for their downfall: â€Å"Intoxicated by their own self image as their heirs of 1789, they were deluded into believing that they could resolve the problems by 1917 by importing western constitutional practices and policies, for which there were no precedents, nor the necessary cultural base in Russia. [6] The PG had destroyed the original bureaucracy under the Tsar and did not replace it with anything; this resulted in the population not really knowing what they were supporting. Other aspects that cost the PG dearly were internal problems such as the members within the body. After the abdication of the Tsar on the 2nd March 1917 the population expected the Duma t o take control of Russia. The Duma was a secondary government set up by the Tsar in reply to the October Manifesto after the 1905 revolution to keep the population of Russia happy. However as the Tsar Nicholas was still sovereign and there was a chance that he could come back into power the Duma felt they could not establish a leading role over Russia because if the Tsar were to return they could be accused of treason. They were simply trying to save their backs in case this was to happen. As a result of this they set a Provisional committee separately which was to act as a temporary body in control of Russia until a Constituent Assembly could be elected later in the year. In contrast to the Soviets the PG was chosen by the Duma whereas the Soviet was elected by the people emphasising the PG’s lack of connection with the workers and peasants in Russia. It seems today that historians feel the Duma should have accepted their opportunity to control Russia but they had a dread of responsibility and did no want any blame if anything was to go wrong, Richard Pipes wrote: â€Å"It has been argued that the failure of the Duma to proclaim at once, in an unequivocal manner, the assumption of power had disastrous effects. [7]This suggests that the PG was a second option for the Duma and was not a well established institution and this immediately suggests that the PG was doomed from the beginning. Bernard Paves emphasises the poor quality of the PG in his book: â€Å"The PG was what the country had to offer in experience of government outside the administrative machine; but they amounted only to a few fairly competent critics, without authority, educated in a Duma which had hardly been listened to. †[8] Initially the Duma had announced that the PG was to handle restoration of order. The PG felt a political revolution was needed, not a social revolution. However a social reform or revolution was a necessity in Russia as there was mass unrest in both the countryside and cities. This dissatisfaction needed to be sorted out as soon as possible and although the PG tried they did not recognise what was needed to transform Russia. As Lenin wrote, Russia was in the second phase of the revolution and it was now the turn of the proletariat to continue it. The PG however was trying too hard to contain both the working class and peasants without ever giving them any of their demands making them restless. This was another key reason why they were not able to consolidate their power. Although the PG was predominantly a liberal body there was one exception. Aleksandr Fyodorovich Kerensky was a member of both the PG and the Petrograd Soviet and was the only representative in the body with moderately socialist ideologies. This resulted in disagreements within the party and his key role as prime minister after Lvov came as a disadvantage as he adopted a new self arrogance and cost the PG dearly. There was a huge contrast between Lvov and Kerensky. Lvov was seen largely as a â€Å"figure head†[9] and was an effective leader however he was forced to resign over the issue of regional nationalities. Kerensky on the other hand was not such an effective leader and sought his own goals although appearing popular through the early years of the 1900’s. As the PG was a liberal body they felt a republic was where Russia should be heading. However this contrasted with Kerensky’s ideology’s and was another reason for them being unable to consolidate their power. Milyukov was also a key member in the party. As Mosley wrote, â€Å"he was an outstanding personality in the party. †[10] Milyukov was appointed minister of foreign affairs, and he played a huge role in formulating the policies which the PG adopted. However in connection with the War Milyukov made a grave mistake that ended in his resignation. This lack of knowledge was typical of the members of the PG. Chapter 2: Structuralists response The Structuralist response believes that the PG was doomed from the beginning due to their poor response to the demands of both the peasants and the workers, and the pressure put on them by the war. There were serious problems in Russia however there were also very high expectations of the PG, putting pressure on them, and making it hard for them to effectively consolidate power. These key issues included: the war, land distribution, national minorities, economy, and social reform, and in March of 1917 it was important the PG made a good first impression. The key question involving the war was whether or not Russia should sue for immediate peace. This however would have implications as it would be very embarrassing and humiliating along with the severe loss of territory that would incur. If they were not to call for immediate peace they faced another problem. Should they continue fighting alongside with their allies and try to gain territory or fight a defensive war and simply try not to lose any more territory? The PG made a good choice in only fighting a defensive war. This however backfired when the Milyukov affair became apparent, and this cost the PG dearly. Although this problem could be seen to be a result of outside pressure and not an initial reason for their downfall, their initial reaction was simply the starting point from which the problems involving the war escalated out of control. The question involving the distribution of land was whether they should take land from the nobility and landowners and hand it over to the peasants or should they wait for the Constituent Assembly to organise it in a more controlled way. They immediately opted to stand back from these demands, and stated that they would wait for the Constituent Assembly to be elected so that they could deal with it more appropriately. The PG adopted the same approach when answering the vital question of the demands of the working class in Russia. The Working class wanted much better conditions for both working and living; they also wanted eight hour working days and elected members on factory committees. Beryl Williams wrote: â€Å"Labour legislation was brought in by the PG: the right to strike, and to elect factory committees, an eight hour day, freedom and land reform†¦ however these were postponed until the promised Constituent Assembly. †[11] This made the workers and peasants restless and as the year progresses they simply put more pressure on the PG. The dilemma involving national minorities was that neighbouring countries to Russia such as Finland, Ukraine, and Poland wanted independence. They decided to grant these countries independence as they thought they did not really have any control over them anyway. However this sparked disagreements within the party and turned out to be more important than the PG had originally thought. It resulted in the Kadets leaving the PG and this came as a huge loss of support and meant Kerensky took over Lvov position as prime minister. The economic situation in Russia was not good and supply of food and fuel needed to be increased. These key issues in March 1917 were very important to the PG’s downfall. They gave them an opportunity to excel however due to bad decisions and poor policies the PG was not able to consolidate power. The Structuralists School sees these problems as a chance for the PG to show Russia they were capable of leadership and the historian Darby refers to these times as a â€Å"window of opportunity. †[12] However the PG’s inability to cope with such stresses among other strains put them immediately on a downward spiral. Chapter 3: Intentionalist response Although there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the PG was doomed from the beginning there is also evidence which supports the contrary. Many of the issues that the PG failed to deal with in March escalated and caused big problems within the body. There were also key mistakes made that put support in the hands of the Bolsheviks and gave them a prime opportunity to seize power in October. As Beryl Williams wrote, â€Å"the PG created a climate in which its political opponents could return and flourish. †[13] The initial policy that the PG had set up in response to the war was one of the only vaguely effective policies they had adopted; this however did not last long. On the 20th April of that year a message from Milyukov (The Minister of Defence) that had been sent to the PG was leaked to the public and sparked various protests throughout Russia. The note told the PG that the army was to go on the offensive; however this was deeply unpopular with both the Soviet and the Russian people. Figes sees this as, â€Å"waving a red rag in front of the soviet bull,†[14] In response the Soviet called upon the people of warring countries to force their governments to negotiate peace and in doing so condemned Milyukov’s pledge. It is clear that the PG underestimated how much the Russian people, and soldiers wanted peace. As Mosley wrote, â€Å"not fully aware then of the widespread unwillingness of the Russian people to continue the war. [15] The Milyukov note is a key example of the outside pressure that helped in the collapse of the PG and it emphasises how even a policy that seemed effective in March had backfired due to poor decisions made by key members in the body. This incident put the PG in a bad light and it was only to get worse. Another initial policy that affected the PG badly was the problem involving small ne ighbouring countries to the USSR and their desire for independence. Initially the PG had overlooked these demands, however as the demands grew the PG was forced to make a decision. They made a quick decision as they felt that this issue would not affect anybody within the party or population. They gave these countries independence, however in doing so sparked unrest within the party. Many of the Kadets’ including Milyukov were very unhappy that these countries (Ukraine especially) had been granted independence, and as a result they left the PG. With the loss of Milyukov, Kerensky was appointed minister of war and Paves sees this as: â€Å"gravity shifting very predominantly to the left. [16] This resulted in the PG losing their impact on the population; it also cost them a lot of members and support and signalled another step towards their destruction. As the weeks went by the PG was failing to answer the peasant’s demands for the distribution of land. This meant that the PG was losing support as the peasants’ opinion of them became increasingly bad. Kowalski argues this: â€Å"The problem was that the peasant restraint was not rewarded. The PG with the support of the soviet procrastinated on the land question. [17] Iganev, a leader of a popular socialist party said: â€Å"We are always being told, ‘later, later, not now, not until the Constituent Assembly’†¦ however the land question must be resolved now! †[18] This is a clear example of the pressure put on the PG. This view is supported by many historians such as Richard Pipes and over the years an Intentionalist School has been developed. They believe that it was the outside pressure put upon the PG that cost them, arguing that it was revolutionary leaders such as Lenin that led to the popularity of the PG diminishing whilst the popularity of other revolutionary groups grew. Another example of the outside pressure put upon the PG is the political transformation of the Petrograd Soviet. They had transformed from (in March) being an institution supporting parliamentary democracy into instruments for revolutionary socialism, and there are consequences of this. According to Mosley there are two main reasons for this transformation: Primarily the Soviet’s were annoyed because the PG postponed for future determination by the Constituent Assembly the solution of such pressing problems. The second reason is largely a consequence of the first as there were growing opinions of the workers and peasant against the PG because they had failed to meet any of their demands, and conditions in Russia had not improved. This meant that the soviets felt they had to branch themselves away from the failing PG to keep their reputation intact. The Bolsheviks also used this to their advantage as when they saw this poor reputation of the PG and their lack of support the Bolsheviks took a radical move to wipe the PG out completely. The Bolsheviks saw this opportunity: â€Å"At the Russian conference of the Bolshevik workers party on March 29, there was only one speaker who opposed the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks and establishment of a proletariat dictatorship. And he was rules out of order. †[19] This emphasises how from very early on in the PG’s reign people were looking to overthrow it and using Lenin’s intelligence they found a perfect opportunity. Using Propaganda they adopted a new party slogan of: â€Å"all power to the soviets. In doing so the Bolsheviks felt that they could rise to power through the Petrograd Soviet and then disband it when they got to a dominant position within the party. As a result of this the PG were left with very little support. As opposition to the PG grew there was one key incident that sparked the Bolshevik engine and this was the return of Lenin on the 3rd April 1917. Previously to this Lenin had been in exile and had not been able to ignite Bolshe vik movement. When he returned the Bolshevik workers parties were already willing to overthrow the PG but simply did not have the means to do so, and that is what Lenin brought to the table. Lenin’s initial opinion was that he welcomed the revolution but saw it as only being in its first stage, the April thesis was Lenin’s radical program to introduce the second phase. The April thesis was announced almost immediately after Lenin’s return on the 16th April and it promised the population of Russia exactly what they wanted, which put the PG in a very bad light. The thesis included: No support to the PG; an immediate end to the war; arming the workers to defend the revolution; the introduction of a worldwide socialist revolution; and most importantly it promised, â€Å"Land, peace and bread. [20] That was all the things that the PG had been to scared to do, as they waited for a Constituent Assembly. The July days followed the PG’s summer offensive and were another key reason for the PG’s downfall. On 3rd July there were military uprisings against the army’s poor attempt at an offensive against the Germans on the western front. Ther e were 400,000 casualties and this failure played into the hands of the Bolsheviks and made the PG look very bad for initiating the offensive. On the 4th July 20,000 sailors embarked on the city from Kronstadt naval base. As the PG was to blame all the protestors wanted the soviet to take power. However when the soviet refused to do so they crowds were not sure what to do, and were restricted by the 176 regiment who were used to protect the government. This emphasises the opinions towards the PG and is another example of a poor decision made by them which pushed them closer to being overthrown. However the July days also had a knock on effect on the Bolsheviks, because it was not uccessful in overthrowing the PG people wanted someone to blame and that person was Lenin. However some historians such as Figes argue that Lenin did not actually have any role in organising the uprising. [21] The Kornilov affair was another example of outside pressure which resulted in a large loss of support for the PG and gave the Bolsheviks a more convincing role in the country as they gained support and spread the word of another revolution. By the end of August Kerensky felt that the only course open to him was to restore law and order in the cities and to boost moral and discipline within the army. In doing so he hoped he could put pressure back on the Bolsheviks and potentially deal with any threat that they were to present. Kerensky appointed General Kornilov as new supreme commander of the Russian forces to try and boost moral. However General Kornilov had other ideas that emphasise his poor political mind and it rubbed off very badly on the PG and Kerensky. Kornilov felt that in his new position he could rally soldiers and he saw this as an opportunity to crush the radical socialists and restore military order through counter revolution. However Kerensky realised this and had to call for help from both the Petrograd Soviet and Bolsheviks which reinforced the public’s suspicions that they could not effectively govern Russia. Conclusion: There is a lot of evidence that supports both arguments: that the PG was doomed from the beginning and that it was outside pressure that resulted in their collapse in October 1917. There are also various historians who support these arguments. Evidence suggesting that the PG was doomed from the beginning is supported by famous historians such as Orlando Figes and Beryll Williams who agree with the Structuralist School. Important factors such as the immediate demands from peasants and workers were too strong for the PG to handle appropriately and they made a grave mistake in ignoring them. â€Å"The problem was that the peasant’s restraint was not rewarded. The PG procrastinated over the land question. †[22] This was also the case when they tried to deal with the national minorities demands and this to had severe consequences resulting in a great loss of support and members. On the contrary however there is lots of evidence that supports the counter argument, stating that the PG collapsed under outside pressure put on them throughout their rule. Issues such as the War and Bolshevik movement made the situation even harder and it became too much pressure for the PG to cope with. Also the increasing demands from peasants and workers after the PGs initial ignorance became much stronger and became a real problem for them which they failed to cope with. After looking in detail at both responses it is clear that the PG inherited problems however it was their inability to deal with these problems that immediately put them under a lot of pressure and made it much more difficult for them to consolidate power. This initial hesitance tied the PGs hands behind their back and because the internal problems had not been dealt with by April they had no chance against the external threat from the Bolsheviks who were bent on their destruction. It can also be argued that the PG although being seen as the rulers of Russia did not actually do anything to meet any of the peasants of workers demands and did nothing to increase the standards of Russia at all. As Bernard Paves wrote: â€Å"The PG, although acknowledged as such for eight months cannot be said to actually have ruled Russia. [23] Bibliography †¢ Bernard Paves – A History of Russia (published 1947 in London) †¢ John Bradley – The Russian Revolution (published 1988 in London) †¢ Beryl Williams – Lenin, Profiles in Power (published 2000 in London) †¢ Robert Service – Stalin, a Bibliography (published2004 in London) †¢ Richard Pipes – Russia Under the Old Regime (published1974 in Grea t Britain) †¢ Leon Troski – Stalin (published 1947 in London) †¢ Orlando Figes – A Peoples Tragedy (published 1996 in London) †¢ Orlando Figes – The Whisperers (published in London) Chris Ward – Stalin’s Russia (first published 1993, second edition 1999 in London) †¢ Chris Corin, Terry Feihn – Communist Russia Under Lenin and Stalin (Published 2002 in London) †¢ Tamara Pimlott – The Russian Revolution (first published 1985 in London) †¢ Caroline Kennedy – Russia and the World (first published 1998 in Great Britain) †¢ Philip. E. Mosley – www. emayzine. com/lectures/russianrev †¢ https://mars. wnec. edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev1917 †¢ Beryl Williams – new perspective Volume 1. Number 2. (December 1995) †¢ En. wikipedia. org/wiki/russian_Provisional_Govt Annotated Bibliography Bernard Paves – A History of Russia (published 1947 in London): This book was useful as it gave me an insightful view of this period in history and gave me an in depth structuralist opinion. John Bradley – The Russian Revolution (published 1988 in London): This book was useful as it gave me a greater understanding of some of the different opinions that surround this topic. Beryl Williams – Lenin, Profiles in Power (published 2000 in London): This was useful as it gave me a wider conception of Lenin’s involvement in the destruction of the Provisional Government. Robert Service – Stalin, a Bibliography (published 2004 in London): This book provided me with an array of quotes and deepened my understanding of the Provisional Governments policies and mistakes. Richard Pipes – Russia Under the Old Regime (published 1974 in Great Britain): Gave me an insight to the Bolshevik policies that lead up to the Provisional Governments downfall. Leon Troski – Stalin (published 1947 in London): This book was very interesting and gave me a look at the lead up to Stalin’s reign which was the downfall of the Provisional Government. Orlando Figes – A Peoples Tragedy (published 1996 in London): Was very interesting and gave the views of the population of Russia along with the policies and thoughts of the leading bodies in Russia. Orlando Figes – The Whisperers (published in London): This book gave me more back ground knowledge about the topic and helped me understand some of the reasons behind the revolutions of 1917. Chris Ward – Stalin’s Russia (first published 1993, second edition 1999 in London): This book was helpful because it gave me a lot of statistics and views that emphasised some of the main points throughout the Provisional Governments reign. Chris Corin, Terry Feihn – Communist Russia Under Lenin and Stalin (Published 2002 in London): Gave in more detail some of the main points behind Lenin’s campaign and how he managed to overthrow the Provisional Government. Also was helpful in other parts of the course. Tamara Pimlott – The Russian Revolution (first published 1985 in London): Was helpful in giving me quotes and facts throughout the middle months of the Provisional Governments reign, things such as the July days and onwards to October. Caroline Kennedy – Russia and the World (first published 1998 in Great Britain): Some information about the day the Bolsheviks seized power from the Provisional Government at the Tauride Palace. Philip. E. Mosley – www. emayzine. com/lectures/russianrev: This book was useful as it gave me information about the members of all the parties and some of the internal problems the Provisional Government faced. https://mars. wnec. edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev1917: Gave me an overview of the topic and helped me understand the bases of the Provisional Government leadership. Beryl Williams – new perspective Volume 1. Number 2. (December 1995): This article was useful as it provides some quotes and helped me understand the role of Kerensky better. En. wikipedia. org/wiki/russian_Provisional_Govt: Gave me an overview of the year and put all the events into context whilst giving some opinions of popular historians. ———————– [1] A time from March to April where the Provisional Government could have satisfied the people and had they done so would have been able to consolidate their power however they failed to do so. 2] Slogan used by Lenin to rile up the people of Russia and undermine the Provisional Government prior to overthrowing them. [3] John Bradley, The Russian Revolution, London (1988) p56 [4] Robert Service, Stalin, a bibliography, London (2004) p129 [5] Phillip. E. Mosley www. emayzine. com/lectures/russiarev [6] Orlando Figes, A Peoples Tragedy, London (1996) [7] Richard Pipes, The Rus sian Revolution, New York (1990) [8] Bernard Paves, A History of Russian, London (1947) p531 [9] Mosley www. emayzine. om/lectures/russiarev [10] Mosley, www. emayzine. com/lectures/russiarev [11] Beryl Williams, Lenin, profiles in power , London (2000) p63 [12] Robert Darby agrees with the Structuralist School. Argues it was the ignorance of Provisional Government that resulted in their failure. [13] Williams, Lenin, profiles in power, p 63 [14] Figes, A people tragedy [15] Mosley, www. emayzine. com/lectures/russianrev [16] Paves, A History of Russia, p 533 [17] Kowalski, Russian Revolution 1917-1921, p 133 18] Kowalski, Russian Revolution 1917-1921, p 134 [19] Mosley, www. emayzine. com/lectures/russianrev [20] Quote from Lenin’s April thesis emphasises how Lenin gave them exactly what they wanted. [21] Figes, A Peoples Tragedy [22] Kowalski Russian Revolution 1917-1921, p 133 [23] Paves A History of Russia, p 532 ———————â⠂¬â€œ Word count: 350 Word count: 403 Word count: 478 Word count: 260 Word count: 439 Word count: 167 Word count: 431 Word count: 434 Word Count: 442 Word count: 222 Word count: 373

Epic of Beowulf Essay - 1818 Words

Chivalry is Yet, Not Dead In some select stories of old/middle english, we can see that people have been fascinated by ideals of heroism, chivalry, and what we now refer to as romance for a very long time. I will argue in this document, that our fascination with such imaginary laws has never ceased, and in some ways is even more fantastic. Every further mention of romance will refer to all of these ideas, the way it did when the term was introduced into english. If all things are to be considered this short essay would turn into a book. I would like to compare and contrast Beowulf, Lanval, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight with some of the modern day creations especially in looking at the values, and belief systems in all of the three†¦show more content†¦The most glorious of these examples I would say is the swallowing of Beowulfs smoke by heaven. You do not get much more honorable than to die in combat with a vastly formidable foe, and then have your remains taken to heaven where perhaps you will still be honored. In any case, the Geats certainly always respected Beowulf, and even feared for their safety after he was not there to protect them anymore. To be revered in such a way certainly sounds attractive, maybe in spite of the pain he must have regarded from the fatal wounding endowed by the dragon. The fact that he has survived in so many hearts and minds nearly two millenia since he would have been alive is a dream that many have wished, and so few have accomplished. I believe the desire to leave behind a legacy is innate in us all, many people devote entire lifetimes to these desires. It is actually comic to me when I compare â€Å"Beowulf† to a book I have read by David Laven called Napoleons Legacy: Problems of Government in Restoration Europe. I would consider Napoleon to be the opposite of Beowulf in almost every aspect. Granted, Napoleon is a verifiable real character, he was also a real â€Å"king† instead of being just the hero-turned-king that was Beowulf. Napoleon seized power, by using his brain, while Beowulf was granted power by his physical strength and bravery. Beowulf shows his intelligence as a king in theShow MoreRelatedBeowulf : The Epic Of Beowulf1027 Words   |  5 Pages To begin, Beowulf the poem has a unknown author, Beowulf is an epic poem. In Beowulf he is challenged by the murderous monster Grendel, Grendel is eating and slaughtering Hrothgar the King of the Danes men and people, the king needs Beowulf s help in defeating Grendel, Beowulf ends up killing the monster and is now tormented by the monster s mother that is much larger, she is no match for Beowulf and he kills her as well, lastly it is Beowulf’s last battle after he has been king of Geatland forRead MoreThe Epic Of Beowulf By Beowulf2577 Words   |  11 Pagesoriginal aspects of these different religions. Due to the construction of this Beowulf, students and professors are able to study and get a true understanding of a pagans’ de meanor and how life evolves through their eyes. Throughout the epic poem Beowulf, paganism is exemplified as this epic hero falls victim to fate while embarking on his journey through life fighting monsters and chasing after his fame. To begin with, Beowulf was composed in Old English by an anonymous writer between the sixth and seventhRead MoreThe Epic of Beowulf733 Words   |  3 PagesBeowulf is the oldest anglo-saxon poem written in English. The poem describes the heroic deeds of Beowulf in his fight against monsters. Even if the events narrated in the poem take place in Denmark, the poem was transmitted by oral language between the anglo-saxon even 200 years after its creation. Anglo-saxons did not consider themselves british, but vikings, and their heroes were always from Scandinavia. The author of Beowulf is anonymous. The original poem was written on sheep tanned leatherRead MoreBeowulf as Epic823 Words   |  4 PagesWhat makes an epic? Is Beowulf an epic? ï‚ · ï‚ · ï‚ · What is an epic poem, and how does it differ from other kinds of poetry or storytelling? How have epic poems traditionally been transmitted from generation to generation? How do tellers remember these long and complicated stories? According to Robert Harris’s Glossary of Literary Terms, he defines an epic as the following: Epic. An extended narrative poem recounting actions, travels, adventures, and heroic episodes and written in a high style (withRead More Epic of Beowulf Essay - Beowulf as Epic Hero844 Words   |  4 PagesBeowulf as Epic Hero Epic heroes usually exemplify the character traits most admired in their societies, and Beowulf is no exception.   Beowulf is set in the Anglo-Saxon society, a time when war was rampant among the many peoples trying to take over the different kingdoms of England.   In this dangerous, violent time people lived in constant peril and jeopardy.   These conditions only allowed people of great bravery to survive and men of outstanding courage were admired the populous.   TheseRead MoreThe Epic Of Beowulf As An Epic Hero1519 Words   |  7 Pageswhisked away following a journey, you have most likely read an epic. An epic by definition is â€Å"a long poem, typically one derived from ancient oral tradition, narrating the deeds and adventures of heroic or legendary figures or the history of a nation†. Every epic has a main character that undergoes the same archetypal journey as all other heroes, an epic hero. There are specific qualities one must have to be considered an epic hero. Each epic hero possesses superhuman strength, displays a strong senseRead MoreComparing Beowulf And The Epic Of Beowulf937 Words   |  4 Pagesthe Roman Empire. In the story Beowulf, his actions portray him, indeed be an epic hero. Both Christianity and Paganism are both portrayed throughout the epic Beowulf. Beowulf frequently speaks of God throughout the story, while there are also many Pagan elements that are evident throughout the story as well. In addition, It s hard to ignore the Christian and Pagan elements in Beowulf. These types of elements are what define the heroic warrior in the epic Beowulf(Vengeance the Pagan and ChristianRead MoreThe Epic Of Beowulf As An Epic Hero711 Words   |  3 Pagesthan the writer. These â€Å"epic heros† are protagonists that fulfill their potential of greatness through using their bravery, strength and humility for good. The near ancient tale of Beowulf is a classic example of an epic story that contains an epic hero. In this tale Hrothgar, the king of the Danes, has been terrorized by a beast known as Grendel. This beast has been murdering the king’s people and no one has come close to stopping this killer. A Geat warrior named Beowulf hears of the King’s predicamentRead MoreThe Epic : An Analysis Of The Epic Of Beowulf701 Words   |  3 PagesBeowulf is one of the longest surviving Anglo-Saxon poem. The epic takes place in the sixth century in what is now Denmark and Sweden. The poem opens with Hrothgar, whose successful rule is signified by a glorious mead-hall called Heorot. For 12 years, a massive man-like ogre named Grendel, a descendant of Cain, has raided Heorot and killed the kings warriors. Beowulf, a young warrior from Geatland (Sweden), comes to Hrothgar’s aid, bringing 14 of his best men with him. At a feast before the endRead MoreBeowulf : An Epic Hero930 Words   |  4 Pages The story of Beowulf shows its reader many characteristics of why this Anglo-Saxon poem is an epic. First of all, Beowulf is a warrior of epic renown by the time he formally introduces himself in the poem. Next, Beowulf is the warrior that many strive to be in life. In addition, Beowulf finds himself tackling many quests that involve dangerous beasts, or as he might call them, demons. The next quality shown by Beowulf is his bravery and honor. The reader is able to easily identify this characteristic

The Mexican-American War

From 1846 to 1848, the United States of America and Mexico went to war. There were several reasons why they did so, but the most important ones were the US annexation of Texas and the Americans desire for California and other Mexican territories. The Americans took the offensive, invading Mexico on three fronts: from the north through Texas, from the east through the port of Veracruz and into the west (present-day California and New Mexico). The Americans won every major battle of the war, mostly thanks to superior artillery and officers. In September  1847, American General Winfield Scott captured Mexico City: this was the final straw for the Mexicans, who finally sat down to negotiate. The war was disastrous for Mexico, as it was forced to sign away nearly half of its national territory, including California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of several other current US states. The Western War American President James K. Polk intended to invade and hold the territories he wanted, so he sent General Stephen Kearny west from Fort Leavenworth with 1,700 men to invade and hold New Mexico and California. Kearny captured Santa Fe and then divided his forces, sending a large contingent south under Alexander Doniphan. Doniphan would eventually take the city of Chihuahua. Meanwhile, the war had already begun in California. Captain John C. Frà ©mont had been in the region with 60 men: they organized American settlers in California to revolt against the Mexican authorities there. He had the support of some US navy vessels in the area. The struggle between these men and the Mexicans went back and forth for a few months until Kearny arrived with what was left of his army. Although he was down to fewer than 200 men, Kearny made the difference: by January of 1847 the Mexican northwest was in American hands. General Taylors Invasion American General Zachary Taylor was already in Texas with his army waiting for hostilities to break out. There was already a large Mexican army on the border as well: Taylor routed it twice in early May of 1846 at the Battle of Palo Alto and the Battle of Resaca de la Palma. During both battles, superior American artillery units proved the difference. The losses forced the Mexicans to retreat to Monterrey: Taylor followed and took the city in September of 1846. Taylor moved to the south and was engaged by a massive Mexican army under the command of General Santa Anna at the Battle of Buena Vista on February 23, 1847: Taylor once again prevailed. The Americans hoped that they had proved their point: Taylors invasion had gone well and California was already securely under control. They sent envoys to Mexico in the hopes of ending the war and gaining the land they desired: Mexico would have none of it. Polk and his advisors decided to send yet another army into Mexico and General Winfield Scott was selected to lead it. General Scotts Invasion The best route to get to Mexico City was to go through the Atlantic port of Veracruz. In March of 1847, Scott began landing his troops near Veracruz. After a short siege, the city surrendered. Scott marched inland, defeating Santa Anna at the Battle of Cerro Gordo on April 17-18 along the way. By August Scott was at the gates of Mexico City itself. He defeated the Mexicans at the Battles of Contreras and Churubusco on August 20, gaining a toehold into the city. The two sides agreed to a brief armistice, during which time Scott hoped the Mexicans would finally negotiate, but Mexico still refused to sign away its territories to the north. In September of 1847, Scott attacked once again, crushing the Mexican fortification at Molino del Rey before assaulting the Chapultepec Fortress, which was also the Mexican Military Academy. Chapultepec guarded the entrance to the city: once it fell the Americans were able to take and hold Mexico City. General Santa Anna, seeing that the city had fallen, retreated with what troops he had left to unsuccessfully try and cut the American supply lines near Puebla. The major combat phase of the war had ended. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo The Mexican politicians and diplomats were finally forced to negotiate in earnest. For the next few months, they met with American diplomat Nicholas Trist, who had been ordered by Polk to secure all of the Mexican northwest in any peace settlement. In February of 1848, the two sides agreed on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexico was forced to sign over all of California, Utah, and Nevada as well as parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado in exchange for $15 million dollars and exoneration of about $3 million more in previous liability. The Rio Grande was established as the border of Texas. People living in these territories, including several tribes of Native Americans, reserved their properties and rights and were to be given US citizenship after a year. Lastly, future disagreements between the US and Mexico would be settled by mediation, not warfare. Legacy of the Mexican-American War Although it is often overlooked in comparison with the American Civil War, which broke out about 12 years later, the Mexican-American War was just as important to American History. The massive territories gained during the war make up a large percentage of present-day United States. As an added bonus, gold was discovered shortly thereafter in California which made the newly acquired lands even more valuable. The Mexican-American War was in many ways a precursor to the Civil War. Most of the important Civil War Generals fought in the Mexican-American War, including Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, George Meade, George McClellan, Stonewall Jackson, and many others. The tension between the slave states of the southern USA and the free states of the north was made worse by the addition of so much new territory: this hastened the onset of the Civil War. The Mexican-American War made the reputations of future US Presidents. Ulysses S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, and Franklin Pierce all fought in the war, and James Buchanan was Polks Secretary of State during the war. A Congressman named Abraham Lincoln made a name for himself in Washington by vocally opposing the war. Jefferson Davis, who would become President of the Confederate States of America, also distinguished himself during the war. If the war was a bonanza for the United States of America, it was a disaster for Mexico. If Texas is included, Mexico lost more than half of its national territory to the USA between 1836 and 1848. After the bloody war, Mexico was in ruins physically, economically, politically and socially. Many peasant groups took advantage of the chaos of war to lead uprisings all over the country: the worst was in Yucatan, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Although Americans have forgotten about the war, for the most part, many Mexicans are still irate about the theft of so much land and the humiliation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Even though there is no realistic chance of Mexico ever reclaiming those lands, many Mexicans feel they still belong to them. Because of the war, there was much bad blood between the USA and Mexico for decades: relations did not begin to improve until World War II when Mexico decided to join the Allies and make common cause with the USA. Sources Eisenhower, John S.D. So Far from God: the U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. Norman: the University of Oklahoma Press, 1989Henderson, Timothy J. A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States.New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.Wheelan, Joseph. Invading Mexico: Americas Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846-1848. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2007.

Prescriptivism v. Descriptivism - 1552 Words

The Language Wars have been waged in the realm of English Literature, Language and Linguistics for years. Both sides of the argument are staunch believers in their position, but are more than willing to concede points to the other sides’ favour. In Bryan A. Garner’s essay, â€Å"Making Peace in the Language Wars†, he describes himself as a ‘descriptive prescriber’ (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 270), and offers a truce that fulfils both sides of the argument as the crux of his essay. While the separate sides of the argument are relatively easy to define, it seems that no one sticks to them religiously, and the argument is between individuals fighting over individual points. The two sides are that of the descriptivist and that†¦show more content†¦George Orwell states that, â€Å"our civilization is decadent and our language†¦must inevitably share in the general collapse† (Orwell 2000, 1), when he argues for pres criptivism (though toned down from what was taught and accepted in his day). While Garner posits that, â€Å"describers, meanwhile, remind us that linguistic change is a fact of life – and conclude that it’s therefore not worth opposing† (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 272). When David Foster Wallace discusses descriptivism, he makes a historical reference to, â€Å"Philip Gove’s now classic introduction to Webster’s Third [which] outlines this type of Descriptivism’s five basic edicts: ‘1 – Language changes constantly; 2 – change is normal; 3 – spoken language is the language; 4 – correctness rests upon usage; 5 – All usage is relative.’† (Wallace 2005, 83). Wallace himself argues against most of these edicts, proving himself to uphold his snootitude. Bryan A. Garner creates a list similar to that of Gove’s, while addressing the argument that â€Å"learning gr ammar may seem like an exercise in pedantry,† which is a point argued by many descriptivists: (1) Many if not most people grow up speaking a form of regional or social dialect. If you raise your comfort level with grammar, you’ll have more confidence that your speaking and writing won’t betray you among your more literate peers. (2) Many people who are confident that they know grammaticalShow MoreRelatedA Teacher as a Linguist Essay1644 Words   |  7 Pagesa teacher in a classroom, would presumable be the discussion of whether one demand a standard of English be used in his/her classroom and how is Standard English defined. Such deliberations would inevitably lead us into the debate of Descriptivism vs. Prescriptivism. A Prescriptivist, as the term suggests, is one who believes there is a prescribed list of rules that writers and speakers of the language must adhere. The prescriptive approach is â€Å"Norm-enforcing† (Camron, D., 2003). A descriptivist

Fallen Star free essay sample

Thats what Outpace Shaker would ask If he was still alive. Outpace Is the author of the poem Fallen Star. Outpace always spoke with deep meaning, and he tried to express his feelings. He was a rapper who believed in freedom and respect. Fallen star was written for Hey Newton, a expounder of the black panthers. He dedicated the poem to him showing Hey love and respect. Heehaws living around the civil rights movement. He tried to be a role model and fight for his rights. He wants the African Americans to realize what the white Americans have done.He wanted freedom, and he was trying to prove a point. Outpace said nobody understood what he was trying to do but the white Americans. Since they knew what he was trying to do they were trying to stop him before he could get his message out to the world. People didnt understand what Hey Newton was trying to do. We will write a custom essay sample on Fallen Star or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page His focus was to empower African Americans during a period of time when most of the African Americans could not make much progress. In many poor neighborhoods many young African Americans were looking for leadership and the Black Panther party, which Hey Newton help start, filled that void. They tried to teach self defense. This was a way to show discipline. He was trying to be a leader to the African Americans in the world by creating a 10 step program. He set out goals and objectives, and many people today say he accomplished his goals. Outpace believes the white Americans didnt understand what Hey Newton was trying to do. He felt they were Just trying to mock him and he was trying to do well in the world. There are many situations Outpace could be addressing in the second stanza in line one when you where week he could be talking about Hey Newton getting old. Week Is a sign of getting old.He also could be could be talking about his drug and alcohol addiction. Hey Newton was heavy on drugs and alcohol. Some believe he use the Black Panther party money to pay for his expenses for using the two. They loved the sight basically states that the white Americans notice he was going down. That he will be one man less to worry about. In line three and four states Of your dining and flickering starlight stakes a man trying to accomplish something and he Is fading away. He Is not get gone but he Is almost there. This Is where Outpace was trying to address his charges. Hey Newton had plenty of murder, gun, and assault hares.The white Americans use to try to drop Newton reputation. The third stanza Outpace Jumps back into how the white Americans didnt understand what the African Americans were going through. The hard times they had. In line two states Two beloved by so many, so intimate was stating what type of leader Newton was. He was loved by many African American for trying to turn something negative Into something positive. He tried to be a role module for the young African Americans. He wanted to let them know that they could be somebody. He gave out shoes and food to the African American community. He was like there big brother.Outpace felt the whites didnt want to see this change to. He felt they wanted to see him see him dead so he couldnt change the world. He felt they were scared of a change. They want to see your lifeless corpse, this way you could not alter the course, shows what I mean. Talking about how the white Americans didnt want people to how they treated the African American were wrong. Newton put into the black American eyes this is not how we are not suppose to be treated. In the fourth stanza he finishes his last thoughts with in line one and two with, what they have done, for much long to Just forget and carry on.He was stating the white Americans done too much to the African Americans for them to Just forget about the past Hey knew the white American knew he was trying to show the African Americans what they have done. In line three and for states l had loved you forever because of who you are and now I mourn a fallen star. Outpace loved Hey for what he stood for, for what type of person Hey was. He was like a role model for Outpace now he has to grief to someone he thought was his star. We have had many leaders, some of them good and some of them bad. Hey was setting out to reach a goal to help people in this world.

Multiculturalism in Germany Essay Example

Multiculturalism in Germany Essay Multiculturalism is the presence of many cultures in one place by having same political rights as other citizens regardless of their differences in private lives. In a multicultural society, the citizens must embrace immigrants who have different values, beliefs and religions. Besides, the government must accept immigrants as their own citizens and they must give political rights as well as civil and social rights. Thus, the integration of distinct cultures can be completed and ultimately it can be seen that multiculturalism works in this country. However, multiculturalism does not work in every place and Germany which is one of these places. The reasons of the failure of multiculturalism in Germany are the restricted political rights for immigrants by government, integration problems between Turks and Germans and also cultural changes in second and third generations. This essay examines the history of Turks in Germany and the reasons why multiculturalism does not work in Germany also it briefly provides some suggestions in order to achieve multicultural success in a society. The migration of Turks to Germany in 1961 was the fundamental turning point for multicultural society in Germany. Turks who are the largest minority group, nearly 2. 4 million, migrated to Germany due to the recruitment of labor by German government in order to strengthen their industry. (Hochmuth, 2006) After the defeat in WW2, German economy collapsed and they need workers from other countries because there were more available jobs than their unemployed people. Therefore, the agreement with Turkey was made by the German government. We will write a custom essay sample on Multiculturalism in Germany specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Multiculturalism in Germany specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Multiculturalism in Germany specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer According to this agreement, Turkish workers had to stay in Germany at least 2 years because Germany wanted to guarantee the attendance of foreign workers. However, this period was extended because of the wishes of two sides. The German government did not want to lose skilled workers because training new workers would take a long time. Also, Turkish immigrants did not want to come back to Turkey because they did not have enough money to start new business in their motherland; therefore they wanted to earn more. In addition, they brought their families to Germany from Turkey. Their children who are the members of second generation of Turks were born there, and families did not want to interrupt their education. (Hochmuth, 2006) In 1973, Germany stopped the recruitment of labor from other countries. After that year, Turks preferred to stay in Germany permanently because they thought that if they came back to their motherland, the Turkish government would not allowed them to return to Germany again. Hochmuth, 2006) Since 1973, nobody has migrated to Germany as a worker, but the population of Turks in Germany continued to increase through births and now the third generation of Turks is residing in Germany too. The first reason why multiculturalism does not work in Germany is the restricted political rights for immigrants. Multiculturalism supposed that there is not any inequality between people whether they are immigrant. However, immigrants had to struggle with the lengthy and difficult proces s of having political rights in Germany because the government did not give them political rights without acquiring German citizenship. Citizens of other nations cannot vote in Germany even if they have lived there for 20 or 30 years. (Powell, 1995) In Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany’s constitution separates the rights into two as general and reserved. General rights are approved for all individuals in the country. These rights consist of liberty of person, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. (Kaya, 2002) However, reserved rights are valid exclusively for German citizens. These rights include political rights, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of occupation. The separation of rights is determined with respect to people’s ethnic origin. Therefore, it can be seen as tragically associated with Nazi’s policy which is based on ethnic nationalism. (Kaya, 2002) If Turks want to acquire political rights, they must acquire German citizenship first. There are some ways of acquiring German citizenship. According to Article 116 of the Basic Law, Turkish people have to live in Germany at least 15 years for naturalization but this effort is not enough to be naturalized. They also have to accept to renounce their previous citizenship. Therefore, the requirement of relinquishing Turkish nationality blocked the integration of different cultures in Germany. In addition, until the new law in January 2000, which contained some modifications, children who were born and raised in Germany could not automatically have German citizenship. In order to acquire citizenship, foreigners between the ages of 16 and 23 are required to be resident for more than 8 years, attend school for at least 6 years and have not been convicted of serious offences. (Kaya, 2002) After the new law, the rules of naturalization had little changes. According to the new law, children who are born in Germany can acquire German citizenship at birth if one of their parents have lived lawfully in Germany for at least 8 years, holds entitlement to residence or has an unlimited residence permit for at least 3 years. (Kaya, 2002) There is however a problem about their dual citizenship because they have to choose one of their nationalities within five years between 18 and 23. This application which is prepared by the German government seems to be in contradiction with the essential principles of multiculturalism. The German government constrains Turks to renounce their Turkish citizenship and this damages their cultures too because unless Turks are Turkish citizen anymore, they become distant from their culture which is belong to Turkey. Therefore, it is hard to say that multiculturalism works in Germany. The second reason for the failure of multiculturalism in Germany is the integration problems between Turks and Germans. Turks in Germany are seen as foreigners and migrants by the Germans although Turks search for equality and they wanted to contribute as a part of the German society. Therefore, discrimination is one of the main problems why Turks cannot integrate with the German society. Although Turks have same the civil and social rights as the Germans, their jobs are less prestigious with respect to the German’s. Also, they work for less payment and their profits are identically lower than the German’s. (Powell, 1995) In addition, their education is not adequate for better jobs. Hence, they have to work as blue-collar workers who generally work on manufacturing and mining while Germans work as white-collar workers related to management because blue-collar workers do not require high education. In 1970’s, there were more jobs for unskilled and semiskilled workers like Turks. However, the rate of unemployment among Turks increased since 1980’s because job opportunities in manufacturing industry declined in Germany and education became more important for jobs. (Ozcan, 2004) Turks are not capable of solving the problems which are associated with discrimination in job, lack of employment and fewer educational opportunities. (Powell, 1995) This situation makes the integration of Germans and Turks more difficult. Under these conditions, Turks do not feel accepted by society therefore they also do not want to be accepted. (Hochmuth, 2006) They begin to develop strong ethnic structures and maintain ethnic boundaries hence the integration of these two distinct cultures become more troublesome. The last reason which supports the argument that multiculturalism does not work in Germany is cultural changes in second and third generations of Turks who lived in Germany. In contrast to their parents, the 2nd and 3rd generations speak German better than Turkish. Although their roots were in Turkey, they learn Turkish as a foreign language. (Waldhoff Tan, 1996) This is the indication of the existence of assimilation between two cultures because they are starting to lose their connections with their real homeland. In addition, when they use Turkish, they mix it with a German accent, dialect or words. However, the usage of both languages can cause understanding problem for an outsider. They also use some German words such as Tschu? , which means bye in English, when they speak Turkish and they mixed German and Turkish sentences such as ‘Urlaub ald? ’ which means having holiday in English. This type of blending violates the rules of both languages in terms of the semantics, phonetics and syntax. Also, it damages the characteristics of languages. Their music is another field which is affected by cultural struggle. They create their own cultural synthesis by blending two different cultures. For instance, they mix break-dance and Turk ish folk dance. Thus, they show that the ambivalence which they had because they are sandwiched between upholding tradition and assimilation. Waldhoff Tan, 1996) Due to these confusions between Turkish and German culture, it is clear that multiculturalism does not work in Germany because it is based on the respect to different cultures but in Germany, Turks suffer to protect their culture from German effects. Therefore, the diversity of culture can be reduced and the imagination of multiculturalism can end for ever. Multiculturalism is an integration process which is so difficult to work in any place. It supposed that the cultures can be consistent, unified and tructured in a place. (Kaya, 2002) However, multiculturalism is not a melting pot which absorbs cultures. It always supports the diversity of cultures in one place. Through multiculturalism, people can expand their horizons by comparing different cultures and they can make judgments upon their lifestyle, belief and values. ( Malik, 2002) In order to allow multiculturalism to work properly, first of all discrimination among people should be stopped because if people learn to live together peacefully and equally, multiculturalism can work. Also, the governments should take some responsibilities about this issue. They should protect the immigrants’ rights and struggle with problems of immigrants such as education and job. In addition, they should promote integration by means of counseling and language. (Powell, 1995) Xenophobia is other important obstacle for multiculturalism. The organizations, festivals, seminars should be arranged among immigrants and citizens in order to get rid of this fear. If these suggestions are applied, multiculturalism can work and thus the world can become more tolerable and peaceful place. REFERENCES Hochmuth, H. (2006). Turks in Germany. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. turkishweekly. net/articles. php? id=146 Kaya, A. (2002). The hyphenated Germans: German-Turks. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. tusiad. us/content/uploaded/pw11Hyphenated_Germans. pdf Malik, K. (2002). Against multiculturalism. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. kenanmalik. com/essays/against_mc. html Ozcan, V. 2004). Turks in Germany: aspects of their socio-economic integration. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. ces. boun. edu. tr/papers/feb/veysel_ozcan. pdf Powell, E. V. (1995). Notes from Hamburg: immigrants challenge Germanys social net. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. ssa. uchicago. edu/publications/advforum/v2n3/advocates2. 3. 12. html Waldhoff, H. P. , Tan, D. (1996). Turkish everyday culture in Germany and its prospects. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. ish. uni-hannover. de/Dateien/staff/hw/turkish_hw. html Multiculturalism in Germany Essay Example Multiculturalism in Germany Essay Multiculturalism is the presence of many cultures in one place by having same political rights as other citizens regardless of their differences in private lives. In a multicultural society, the citizens must embrace immigrants who have different values, beliefs and religions. Besides, the government must accept immigrants as their own citizens and they must give political rights as well as civil and social rights. Thus, the integration of distinct cultures can be completed and ultimately it can be seen that multiculturalism works in this country. However, multiculturalism does not work in every place and Germany which is one of these places. The reasons of the failure of multiculturalism in Germany are the restricted political rights for immigrants by government, integration problems between Turks and Germans and also cultural changes in second and third generations. This essay examines the history of Turks in Germany and the reasons why multiculturalism does not work in Germany also it briefly provides some suggestions in order to achieve multicultural success in a society. The migration of Turks to Germany in 1961 was the fundamental turning point for multicultural society in Germany. Turks who are the largest minority group, nearly 2. 4 million, migrated to Germany due to the recruitment of labor by German government in order to strengthen their industry. (Hochmuth, 2006) After the defeat in WW2, German economy collapsed and they need workers from other countries because there were more available jobs than their unemployed people. Therefore, the agreement with Turkey was made by the German government. We will write a custom essay sample on Multiculturalism in Germany specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Multiculturalism in Germany specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Multiculturalism in Germany specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer According to this agreement, Turkish workers had to stay in Germany at least 2 years because Germany wanted to guarantee the attendance of foreign workers. However, this period was extended because of the wishes of two sides. The German government did not want to lose skilled workers because training new workers would take a long time. Also, Turkish immigrants did not want to come back to Turkey because they did not have enough money to start new business in their motherland; therefore they wanted to earn more. In addition, they brought their families to Germany from Turkey. Their children who are the members of second generation of Turks were born there, and families did not want to interrupt their education. (Hochmuth, 2006) In 1973, Germany stopped the recruitment of labor from other countries. After that year, Turks preferred to stay in Germany permanently because they thought that if they came back to their motherland, the Turkish government would not allowed them to return to Germany again. Hochmuth, 2006) Since 1973, nobody has migrated to Germany as a worker, but the population of Turks in Germany continued to increase through births and now the third generation of Turks is residing in Germany too. The first reason why multiculturalism does not work in Germany is the restricted political rights for immigrants. Multiculturalism supposed that there is not any inequality between people whether they are immigrant. However, immigrants had to struggle with the lengthy and difficult proces s of having political rights in Germany because the government did not give them political rights without acquiring German citizenship. Citizens of other nations cannot vote in Germany even if they have lived there for 20 or 30 years. (Powell, 1995) In Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany’s constitution separates the rights into two as general and reserved. General rights are approved for all individuals in the country. These rights consist of liberty of person, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. (Kaya, 2002) However, reserved rights are valid exclusively for German citizens. These rights include political rights, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of occupation. The separation of rights is determined with respect to people’s ethnic origin. Therefore, it can be seen as tragically associated with Nazi’s policy which is based on ethnic nationalism. (Kaya, 2002) If Turks want to acquire political rights, they must acquire German citizenship first. There are some ways of acquiring German citizenship. According to Article 116 of the Basic Law, Turkish people have to live in Germany at least 15 years for naturalization but this effort is not enough to be naturalized. They also have to accept to renounce their previous citizenship. Therefore, the requirement of relinquishing Turkish nationality blocked the integration of different cultures in Germany. In addition, until the new law in January 2000, which contained some modifications, children who were born and raised in Germany could not automatically have German citizenship. In order to acquire citizenship, foreigners between the ages of 16 and 23 are required to be resident for more than 8 years, attend school for at least 6 years and have not been convicted of serious offences. (Kaya, 2002) After the new law, the rules of naturalization had little changes. According to the new law, children who are born in Germany can acquire German citizenship at birth if one of their parents have lived lawfully in Germany for at least 8 years, holds entitlement to residence or has an unlimited residence permit for at least 3 years. (Kaya, 2002) There is however a problem about their dual citizenship because they have to choose one of their nationalities within five years between 18 and 23. This application which is prepared by the German government seems to be in contradiction with the essential principles of multiculturalism. The German government constrains Turks to renounce their Turkish citizenship and this damages their cultures too because unless Turks are Turkish citizen anymore, they become distant from their culture which is belong to Turkey. Therefore, it is hard to say that multiculturalism works in Germany. The second reason for the failure of multiculturalism in Germany is the integration problems between Turks and Germans. Turks in Germany are seen as foreigners and migrants by the Germans although Turks search for equality and they wanted to contribute as a part of the German society. Therefore, discrimination is one of the main problems why Turks cannot integrate with the German society. Although Turks have same the civil and social rights as the Germans, their jobs are less prestigious with respect to the German’s. Also, they work for less payment and their profits are identically lower than the German’s. (Powell, 1995) In addition, their education is not adequate for better jobs. Hence, they have to work as blue-collar workers who generally work on manufacturing and mining while Germans work as white-collar workers related to management because blue-collar workers do not require high education. In 1970’s, there were more jobs for unskilled and semiskilled workers like Turks. However, the rate of unemployment among Turks increased since 1980’s because job opportunities in manufacturing industry declined in Germany and education became more important for jobs. (Ozcan, 2004) Turks are not capable of solving the problems which are associated with discrimination in job, lack of employment and fewer educational opportunities. (Powell, 1995) This situation makes the integration of Germans and Turks more difficult. Under these conditions, Turks do not feel accepted by society therefore they also do not want to be accepted. (Hochmuth, 2006) They begin to develop strong ethnic structures and maintain ethnic boundaries hence the integration of these two distinct cultures become more troublesome. The last reason which supports the argument that multiculturalism does not work in Germany is cultural changes in second and third generations of Turks who lived in Germany. In contrast to their parents, the 2nd and 3rd generations speak German better than Turkish. Although their roots were in Turkey, they learn Turkish as a foreign language. (Waldhoff Tan, 1996) This is the indication of the existence of assimilation between two cultures because they are starting to lose their connections with their real homeland. In addition, when they use Turkish, they mix it with a German accent, dialect or words. However, the usage of both languages can cause understanding problem for an outsider. They also use some German words such as Tschu? , which means bye in English, when they speak Turkish and they mixed German and Turkish sentences such as ‘Urlaub ald? ’ which means having holiday in English. This type of blending violates the rules of both languages in terms of the semantics, phonetics and syntax. Also, it damages the characteristics of languages. Their music is another field which is affected by cultural struggle. They create their own cultural synthesis by blending two different cultures. For instance, they mix break-dance and Turk ish folk dance. Thus, they show that the ambivalence which they had because they are sandwiched between upholding tradition and assimilation. Waldhoff Tan, 1996) Due to these confusions between Turkish and German culture, it is clear that multiculturalism does not work in Germany because it is based on the respect to different cultures but in Germany, Turks suffer to protect their culture from German effects. Therefore, the diversity of culture can be reduced and the imagination of multiculturalism can end for ever. Multiculturalism is an integration process which is so difficult to work in any place. It supposed that the cultures can be consistent, unified and tructured in a place. (Kaya, 2002) However, multiculturalism is not a melting pot which absorbs cultures. It always supports the diversity of cultures in one place. Through multiculturalism, people can expand their horizons by comparing different cultures and they can make judgments upon their lifestyle, belief and values. ( Malik, 2002) In order to allow multiculturalism to work properly, first of all discrimination among people should be stopped because if people learn to live together peacefully and equally, multiculturalism can work. Also, the governments should take some responsibilities about this issue. They should protect the immigrants’ rights and struggle with problems of immigrants such as education and job. In addition, they should promote integration by means of counseling and language. (Powell, 1995) Xenophobia is other important obstacle for multiculturalism. The organizations, festivals, seminars should be arranged among immigrants and citizens in order to get rid of this fear. If these suggestions are applied, multiculturalism can work and thus the world can become more tolerable and peaceful place. REFERENCES Hochmuth, H. (2006). Turks in Germany. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. turkishweekly. net/articles. php? id=146 Kaya, A. (2002). The hyphenated Germans: German-Turks. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. tusiad. us/content/uploaded/pw11Hyphenated_Germans. pdf Malik, K. (2002). Against multiculturalism. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. kenanmalik. com/essays/against_mc. html Ozcan, V. 2004). Turks in Germany: aspects of their socio-economic integration. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. ces. boun. edu. tr/papers/feb/veysel_ozcan. pdf Powell, E. V. (1995). Notes from Hamburg: immigrants challenge Germanys social net. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. ssa. uchicago. edu/publications/advforum/v2n3/advocates2. 3. 12. html Waldhoff, H. P. , Tan, D. (1996). Turkish everyday culture in Germany and its prospects. Retrieved April 29, 2007 from http://www. ish. uni-hannover. de/Dateien/staff/hw/turkish_hw. html