Research Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 14

Research Paper - Essay Example The invaders moved forward taking a North wise course and captured several other towns such as Beirut. The eminent collapse of German superiority and the failure of the European western front led to the collapse of the war in the Middle East. (Oschsenwald 375) Consequently, there was the formation of treaties such as the Paris Peace Conference, which happened in a time span of not more than two weeks after the end of the war in the Middle East. For this case, Germany entered the armistice with forces of the Entente Allies and officially ended the war. The Paris Peace Conference developed peace in the Middle East. However, there was a challenge in the course of development of the peace movements because Germany dominated the agenda with more problems than any other did. The Middle East conflict was also a concern among the London Pact that happened in 1915, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Balfour Declaration, and others (Oschsenwald 380). Another problem during the Paris Peace Conference was the fact that British and French powers, that were the strongest powers of the time, pursued their interests rather than that of other nations. For instance, the advisers to the then British Prime Minister, David Lloyd told him to consider the Middle East as a prize. On the other hand, the French powers led by Georges Clemenceau considered a control over the straits of Syria and Southern Anatolia. They also hoped to have a French advisor for the Ottoman Sultan. Oilmen, bankers, merchants, missionaries, humanitarians, and bondholders also converged for the Paris meeting to push for their interests concerning the Middle East (Woodward 34). Zionists succeeded in incorporating a version of Balfour Declaration and benefited from approval by the League of Nations. There were other movements and treaties such as the San Remo agreements and the Treaty of Sevres. The former was because of the failure of the Paris peace meeting to yield mu ch fruit for the

Stereotypes and Prejudice Worksheet Essay Example for Free

Stereotypes and Prejudice Worksheet Essay I personally do not think there are many positive aspects of stereotypes. You cannot form judgments about everyone in a group based on one person. Just because one has tattoos, it doesn’t mean that they are tough, scary, or delinquent. Ones choice to have tattoos is their creative way of expressing themselves. Stereotypes and Prejudice Worksheet 2 Negative Aspects of Stereotypes Stereotypes have several negative aspects. When people are put into these groups, people judge them before getting to know them and forming opinions on what kind of person they are without even giving the person a chance. It causes people to think negatively based on someone else opinion. Stereotypes and Prejudice Defined and Their Differences A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality. Prejudice is an opinion or judgment that disregards the facts. Stereotypes are actually loosely based on fact.. Irish like to drink fight, Southern people are all dumb, Latinos are sexy good dancers, etc. Prejudice is when people judge someone they meet based on stereotypes. The Relationship between Stereotypes and Prejudice. While they may seem similar at first they are actually quite different. Stereotyping is assuming that all people belonging to a certain group will all behave in a certain way. This is not always done with negative intentions; its often done through a lack of understanding Stereotypes and Prejudice Worksheet 3 or knowledge, and sometimes even through humor. Prejudice is displaying negative feelings or actions towards a specific group of people because of something that separates them from others, and is almost always done through hatred or fear of the thing that makes them different. Preventing Prejudice You cant prevent it entirely. But education is a big thing. Helping people get to know and understand other groups and cultures. Teaching and learning that all people are created equally. That no matter what their race, gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation we are all human. Making sure that people know the effects of being prejudice causes and that it will not be tolerated. Being open-minded and do not be so quick to pass judgment.

Heterogeneous Space In Architecture

Heterogeneous Space In Architecture In Space Reader: Heterogeneous Space in Architecture, Michael Hensel, Christopher Hight and Achim Menges discusses the possible approach of heterogeneous space in contemporary architecture through examining the role of space in Modern and Post-Modern architecture, To understand what constitutes heterogeneous space, let us examine each term. Most simply, heterogeneous means something (an object or system) that consists of a diverse range of items or qualities, which can include differences in kind as well as differences in degree. These could be multiplicities of things, abrupt changes or smooth gradients. However, the dominant approach to such diversities draws from a Platonic lineage that sees all the variations in reference to a model or perhaps a norm; all apparent differences are here really only deviations from the model, their identity given by degrees of resemblance to a single uniformity. All diversity is seen as phenomena measured against this unity, which is seen as more real, even if it only exists as an ideal or statistical mean. This is true for dualism as well. Examples might be the traditional opposition of masculine and feminine, in which the latter is treated as a version of the first, or any number of racisms. Luce Irigaray h as shown that the logic of dualisms involves not two terms but only the semblance of two terms. Phallocentrism is the use of a netural or universal term to define both sexes: within this structure, there is not one term, man, ant another independent term that is denigrated, woman. Rather, there is only one term, the other being defined as what it is not, its other or opposite. Irigarays claim is that woman is erased as such within this logic: there is no space for women because taking their place is the specter or simulacrum of woman, mans fanciful counterpart, that which he has expelled and other from himself. Gilles Deleuze has called this the Logic of the Same, and while it may appear either benign or despotic, it nevertheless always forecloses the possibility of real difference. Implicit in the pervasiveness of structures of binarization is the refusal to acknowledge the invisibility or negligibility of the subordinated term, its fundamental erasure as an autonomous or contained term. The binary structure not only defines the privileged term as the only term of the pair, but it infinitizes the negative term, rendering it definitionally amorphous, the receptacle of all that is excessive or expelled from the circuit of the privileged term. Yet while attempting to definitively and definitionally anchor terms, while struggling for settled, stabilized power relation, while presenting themselves s immutable and givem dualisms are always in the process of subtle renegotiation and redefinition. They are considerablt more flexible in their scope and history than their logic would indicate, for each term shifts and their values realign, while the binarized structure remains intact. It would be a mistake to assume that these oppositional categories are somehow fixed or immune to reordering and subtle shifts. Therefore, something significant is at stake once one thinks of differences as a positivity rather than simply a variance from uniformity. Here we should distinguish between difference and diversity in the way Deleuze described for philosophical traditions of ontology and epistemology in Difference and Repetition (1968). Difference is not diversity. Diversity is given, but the difference is that by which the given is given. Difference is not a phenomenon but the noumenon closest to phenomenon. .. Every diversity and every change refers to a difference which is its sufficient reason. Everything which happens and everything which appears is correlate with orders of difference: difference of level, temperature, pressure, tension, potential, difference of intensity. Deleuze argues that rather than naturalise the Logic of the Sames presumption of an underlying uniformity, we should accept the diversity of the universe as such and not attempt to reduce it. Once one accepts that diversity is irreducible rather than simply variations on or resemblances to an ideal model of Sameness, the problem becomes not how to account for divergences but how to think through multiplicities and how they happen and are correlated through other differences. Deleuze argues that such differences are Real, not effects of our perception or cultural constructions. Indeed, these differences produce the events, objects, and qualities that produce affective phenomena (such as temperature changes). Everything is produced via events of differentiation, even coherences and order. That is, while heterogeneity was once understood as a divergence from an underlying uniformity of Being that needed explanation, now we need to explain any apparent uniformity and ordering via process es of differentiation. Difference is active production of apparently coherent Beings-as-events. Thus, heterogeneity is a condition where phenomena of coherences across diversities are produced by processes of differentiation and can be understood and apprehended as such. This runs immediately into common ideas of space as homogeneous and passive, ordered only by the imposition of form, movement, activities or boundaries understood as distinct from space itself. In other words, space is seen as the product of formal operations or as a neutral and uniform space for such relations. Such commonplace are incompatible with the immanent heterogeneity of things since space becomes an underlying or overlaying uniformity against which to read diversity. Obviously, the differentials sketched above occur in time but also in space. This field of relations transforms through time and space, indeed is spatially configures through temporal transformations (for example, heated air produced a different spacing of molecules). Heterogeneous space therefore neither pre-exists diversity, nor is it simply the effect of processes of differentiation; rather, it is the immanent field of relations between differentials. It is not static but always flux, and therefore might be more precisely understood as the spacing through which difference manifests and is constituted via other differentials. The nature of heterogeneous space and homogeneous space can be studied by looking at Deleuze and Guattaris discussion of smooth and striated space using chess and game of Go for comparison in A Thousand Plateaus. In chess, the pieces are hierarchically differentiated while the board consists of a simple grid that is almost neutral but polarized between two sides (analogous to battle fronts). The pieces move across the grid, but always with a bias to the two fronts. In occupying the spaces, the pieces change the strategic conditions of the game. However, the strategic space of the game is constructed by moving distinct objects in relation to one another across what remains an essentially homogeneous and static field. In the game of Go, on the other han, the pieces are minimally differentiated (they are only black or white discs). While chess pieces occupy the spaces of the grid as if they were enclosed territories, in Go the discs are located at cross-points of a much larger grid field. Instead of moving, pieces are placed and remain, only being altered when surrounded by pieced of the opposite color. Players do not advance in fronts, but can place discs anywhere to control the board from all sides, attempting to create conditions where the addition of one single piece might create a closed territory around many opposite colors and potentially instantly switch control of the board. Here, the pieces are not so much objects occupying territories within an otherwise homogeneous space as charges within a fluctuating field-space out of which territorial boundaries emerge or are held open across distances. What one manipulates in Go is thus the space of th game itself. While the typological pieces are dominant in chess, using translational dynamics to produce strategic effects, in Go space dominates the notational pieces, whose importance is determined purely by their relation to the space around them and is dynamic, holding the potential for a multiplicity of outcomes at any stage. Chess poses active objects moving through a static space that is basically homogenous. In Go, space itself is in flux and cannot be reduced to a static frame of reference or ordering measure. For Deleuze and Guattari these two games suggest different ways of understanding the relationship between identity, agency and space: chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversarys pieces: their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only) Chess pieces are actors whose roles are defined a priori of the temporal spatial relationships, while those of Go are produced through the playing of a game. To extend this analogy, in the heterogeneous space like that of Go, identity and agency is produced via contingent spatial relationship with many similarly informed but also thereby differentiated actors. In chess, on the other hand, identity is given and occupies a given role and space as a sovereign subject in relation to others. The queen is always the most powerful piece; a pebble in Go is critical or not only in relation to the space of the board it participates in constructing. The body politics of chess requires a static space through which to organize itself; the multitude of Go is at once constructed through space and a spatial construct. One plays Go by managing spatial differentials; one plays chess by deploying already defined differences in space. Heterogeneous space can thus be contrasted to an isotonic space through which one moves. Rather than defining difference against a constant measure, or metric, of space as a ground, differentiation is produced via the immanent unfolding of spatial processes. These differentiations could be sudden or gradual, or both at different locations. Moreover, there can exist within the same dimensions a manifold set of such relationships; these sets, or systems, might be intricately entwined or barely connected though they must be calibrated to each other in some way and not simply overlapped. In terms of design, this understanding of heterogeneous space would hold that differentiation of use and complexity of form arise from spatial qualities, and that these qualities are inseparable from its material conditions. This space could produce controlled but varied atmospheric effects as well as different performative capacities that are not determined by programmatic function. Such a space would necessarily be affective in relation to the actors and agencies that traverse it, enfolding subjective perception with its material conditions. Moreover, these spatial affects would not be distince or th result of formal organizations of matter but would be means through which material and programmatic organizations would be configured and manifested. Heterogeneous space in architecture is therefore neither difference produced by form within an overall uniformity (modern space) not a collage of distinct formal elements (Post-Modern space). Instead, the proposition of a heteroheneous sp ac would produce and permit differentiation and discontinuity of both quality and organization across multiple conditions within an overall coherency. In a certain sense, all of Deleuzes works, as Deleuze makes clear in his reading of Foucault, are about the outside, the unthought, the exterior, the surface, the simulacrum, the fold, lines of flight, what resists assimilation, what remains foreign even within a presumed identity, whether this is the intrusion of a minor language into a majoritarian one of the pack submerged within an individual. It is significant that Deleuze, like Derrida, does not attempt to abandon binarized thought or to replace it with an alternative; rather, binarized categories are played off each other, are rendered molecular, global, and are analysed in their molar particularities, so that the possibilities of their reconnections, their realignment in different system, are established. (desire) Can architecture inhabit us as much as we see ourselves inhabiting it? Does architecture have to be seen in terms of subjectivization and semiotization, in terms of use and meaning? Can architecture be thought, no longer as a whole, a complex unity, but as a set of and site for becomings of all knids? What would such an understanding entail? In short, can architecture be thought, in connection with other series, as assemblage? What would this entail? What are the implications of opening up architectural discourses to Deleuzian desire-as-production? Can is become something -many things other than what it is and how it presently functions? If its present function is an effect of the crystallization of its history within, inside, its present, can its future be something else? How can each be used by the other, not just to affirm itself and receive external approval but also to question and thus to expand itself, to become otherwise, without assuming any provolege or primacy of the one over the other and without assuming that the relation between them must be one of direct utility or translation? Architecture has tended to conceive of itself as an art, a science, or a mechanics for the manipulation of space, indeed probably the largest, most systematic and most powerful mode for spatial organization and modification. Deleuze claims that Bergson is one of the great thinkers of becoming, of duration, multiplicity, and virtuality. Bergson developed his notion of duration in opposition to his understanding of space and spatiality. This understanding of duration and the unhinging of temporality that it performs are of at least indirect relevance to the arts or sciences of space, which may, through a logic of invention, derail and transforms space and spatiality in analogous ways. Space is understood, according to Deleuze, as a multiplicity that brings together the key characteristics of externality, simultaneity, contiguity or juxtaposition, difference of degree, and quantitative differentiations. Space is mired in misconceptions and assumptions, habits and unreflective gestures that convert and transform it. Architecture, the art or science of spatial manipulation, must be as implicated in this as any other discipline or practice. According to Bergson, a certain habit of thought inverts the relations between space and objects, space and extension, to make it seem as if space precedes objects, when in fact space itself is produced through matter, extension, and movement: Concrete extensity, that is to say, the diversity of sensiblequalities, is not within space; rather it is space that we thrust into extensity. Space is not a ground on which real motion is posited; rather it is real motion that deposits space beneath itself. But our imagination, which is preoccupied above all by the convenience of expression and the exigencies of material life, prefers to invert the natural order of the termsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Therfore, it comes to see movement as only a variation of distance, space being thus supposed to precede motion. Then, in a space which is homogeneous and infinitely divisible, we draw, in imagination, a trajectory and fix positions: afterwards, applying the movement to the trajectory, we see it divisible like the line we have drawn, and equally denuded of quality. Space in itself, space outside these ruses of the imagination, is not static, fixed, infinitely expandable, infinitely divisible, concrete, extended, continuous, and homogeneous, though perhaps we must think it in these terms in order to continue our everyday lives. Space, like time, is emergence and eruption, oriented not to the ordered, the controlled, the static, but to the event, to movement or action. If we shut up motion in space, as Bergson suggests, then we shut space up in quantification, without ever being able to think space in terms of quality, of difference and discontinuity. Space, ineffect, is matter or extension, but the schema of matter, that is, the representation of the limit where the movement of expansion would come to an end as the external envelope of all possible extensions. In this sense, it is not matter, it is not extensity, that is in space, but the very opposite. And if we think that matter has a thousand ways of becoming expanded or extended, we must also say that there are all kinds of distinct extensities, all related, but still qualified, and which will finish by intermingling only in our own schema of space. It is not an existing, God-given space, the Cartesian space of numerical division, but an unfolding space, defined, as time is, by the arc of movement and thus a space open to becoming, by which I mean becoming other than itself, other than what it has been. It is to refuse to conceptualise space as a medium, as a container, a passive receptacle whose form is given by its content, and instead to see it as a moment of becoming, of opening up and proliferation, a passage from one space to another, a space of change, which changes with time.

Le Morte D’Arthur Essay -- Character Analysis, Thomas Malory

Comparative Essay Many themes in popular literature today include a type of betrayal to others or themselves. In the story Le Morte D’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory, a noble knight by the name of Sir Bedivere is ordered to dispose of a sword and instead secretly hides it under a tree betraying his king. In â€Å"Genesis 3† Adam’s new companion named Eve becomes too curious about a forbidden tree when talking to a serpent and disobeys god and eats it. Sir Bedivere and Eve both betray others through their greed, temptation, and ignorance; however Sir Bedivere’s betrayal to King Arthur is far greater than Eve’s betrayal to god. Greed can often influence one’s judgement as a result; Sir Bedivere and Eve are overtaken by greed during their betrayal to their masters. Sir Bedivere is noble knight that serves his beloved King Arthur, and soon is faced with a decision between a treasure and his king. Sir Bedivere’s greed is portrayed when he, â€Å"hid [the] Excalibur under the tree† (Thomas 12). Shortly after, he is exposed to the king; King Arthur becomes appalled by his noble knight and asks why he would â€Å"betray me for the richness of my sword† (Thomas 23). It is evident Sir Bedivere greed overpowered his commitment and loyalty to the king. Eve a companion of Adam in â€Å"Genesis 3† portrays her greed when she learns about the tree in the center of the garden. She becomes curious and wants to learn its powers for â€Å"gaining wisdom† (â€Å"Genesis† 6), and â€Å"she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband† (â€Å"Genesis† 6). Eve disobeys God as she does not follow the specific instructions God gives her. The more she learns about the tree, the more Eve wants to take a fruit. In the end, greed is one of many things that convinces her to betray God.... ...nd Eve both let ignorance drive their betrayal, however Sir Bedivere lack of knowledge hurt himself and the king. Eve on the other hand, had some discretion when talking to the serpent. While Sir Bedivere without thinking of the consequences, jumps on the opportunity, once again making the betrayal greater than Eve’s. Greed, temptation, and ignorance are all influences to each Sir Bedivere and Eve’s betrayal in Le Morte D’Arthur and â€Å"Genesis 3†. Both characters use these to influence to betray their masters on various levels. Throughout Le Morte D’Arthur, there is no question Sir Bedivere’s betrayal was an act of selfishness in contrast to Eve where she is simply curious about the tree in the center of the garden and is swayed by the serpent. Therefore, Sir Bedivere’s betrayal is represented at a higher level, whereas Eve’s was an act of innocent curiosity.

Can Television Improve Social and Political Life in the United States?

Throughout history television has been used to improve social and political life in the United States in many ways. Television reaches millions of viewers in the United States on a daily basis. It is an important form of communication and has been for many years. Television brings important historical events, both positive and negative, directly into the homes of America. People do not only read about current events, they experience them in real time. Society and Television Television can be used as an education tool because there are many television shows on the air that are informative and educational. The right television shows can teach our children about morals and values. Educational television is not only for children, television channels such as â€Å"National Geographic† and â€Å"The History Channel† can serve as learning tools for adults. There are also programs that educate society about problems and concerns about the social and political aspects in America. Since there is at least one television in each household, it is the best tool to use when airing news broadcasts used address a large audience (Csun. edu). Issues such as the large rate of unemployment or political happenings in the country are made known to the American public. Using television to educate those who do not know all of the facts and data related to issues of society is one way these issues can be addressed. Airing programs that address these issues during prime time news or highly watched shows would utilize the influence that television has and reach a large number of people at one time. One way to improve social life in the United States is to let the majority of the population know what is going on in America. When awareness is improved, news coverage and politics begin to get involved with the issues that the American people are concerned about. Political Television The television can be used to improve political life as well. The news stations cover and dramatize the news when it comes to politics. There is always a politician arguing over the latest issue that has arisen. Even though these types of arguments are sometimes dramatized, it gives the American people a chance to view both sides of an issue. Television also airs messages from politicians who are campaigning for seats in the Senate or House. This is useful with providing American people with knowledge about candidates and what they stand for. The American people get to see the pros and cons of one side versus the other side and then decide who they agree with. Television can improve political life by informing Americans about who stands for what and what the politician’s goals may be (abelard. org). A person is better suited to make a clear and conscious decision about who they want to vote for in any election through the information that television provides to the public. Television helps improve both social and political life in by raising awareness of social issues and informing people about political aspects that are going on in the United States.

The Hijab Essay Example

The Hijab Essay Example The Hijab Essay The Hijab Essay The Hijab is the outer cloak worn by a Muslim woman to cover her hair. The general perception of the hijab throughout the western world is that the hijab symbolizes a woman who is oppressed and without a voice and needs liberation. This is one perception and is often misguided and based on misconceptions that hide and distort the truth behind the hijab. The preconceived notion that all Muslim women who wear the hijab are oppressed is highly problematic.First, it ignores the large number of Muslim women who wear the hijab on their own terms and second it uses a piece of a garment as an indicator to figure out which women are oppressed and which are not. The Hijab is at a basic level an outward expression of a Muslim woman’s inner belief. The hijab may in reality be a symbol of liberation for Muslim women as it is their personal choice to wear it. The view of the Hijab being a tool of oppression among western civilizations has been challenged by Muslim women of all ages and back grounds through adopting the Hijab and defending their right to wear the Hijab.Often in the face of criticism by many political figures in attempting to ban the wearing of headscarfs at school for example, as seen recently in France. Many women argued that far from being a tool of oppression they saw the hijab as a tool of liberation. Too often, the image of a covered woman is used to represent what much of the western world views as oppressive. Her very existence is described in terms that convey ignorance and unhappiness.Words like â€Å"beaten down,† â€Å"repressed† and â€Å"oppressed† are used by the Western media in an attempt to convince the readers that women in Islam have no rights and are relegated to second class citizens. Descriptive and intrinsically oppressive terms such as â€Å"shrouded† and â€Å"shackled† are used to portray an image of women who have no autonomy and who are the slaves or possessions of their husbands and fathers . It is claimed that over 1400 years ago, Islam raised the status of women from a position of oppression to one of liberation and equality.In an era when women were considered possessions, Islam is said to have restored women to a position of dignity. The general perception of Islam and its views of women is presently not a positive one, especially through recent media attention with terms like Islamophobia. Any form of openly displayed Islam must be fundamental or extremist. Wearing a Hijab is therefore seen as an open expression of an extreme religious belief. Opposition to the hijab has often been reactive rather than responding to the real issues and making rules that in themselves can be oppressive for the very women they are designed to liberate.Muslim women wear the hijab because in the Qur’an it says â€Å"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof. † There is however, no clear rules on a uniform that must be worn as a Muslim woman. What is â€Å"modest clothing? † For Muslim women, â€Å"modest clothing† may mean a multitude of different things. For some, it will mean a burqa. For others, modesty means loose clothing and a head-cover. For others, loose clothing that does not reveal cleavage, arms and legs is modest.The burqa satisfies these requirements from the Qur’an which is why it is worn. People innately have different perceptions, different ideas and ways. Diverse levels of intellect, foresight, education and environment are all among the factors which make Muslims interestingly different. To put it simply; its the way in which Muslims have been created as was stated in the Quran and this results in the many issues we see surrounding Muslims. The differences between religions and beliefs should lead us to learn and experience, to reach out in understanding and use o ur wisdom to remain open minded.The fact that a woman may want to cover herself should not lead to political and social injustice. Surprisingly, choosing to wear the Hijab is not something done on a whim, imagine a change that will affect your every interaction with society, it will lead you to be stereotyped and quite often looked down upon. Contrary to common beliefs, Muslim women claim covering themselves with the Hijab is in fact a symbol of freedom, rather than one of oppression. Providing them with clear guidelines to love and honour their God.