Blacks in the Revolutionary War Essay Example for Free

Blacks in the Revolutionary War Essay Blacks in the Revolutionary War1 Blacks in the Revolutionary War African American Studies Latasha Gating September 20, 2012 LaChanda K. Clemons Blacks in the Revolutionary War2 Looking back at the history of the United States, it is evident that the Revolutionary War impacted the country a great deal. It was the first war fought with slaves thanks to Lord Dunmore’s controversial proclamation. Historian Benjamin Quarles stated â€Å"The Negros role in the Revolutionary War can be best understood by realizing his major loyalty was not to a place nor to a people but to a principle. There were black loyalists, black sailors, black patriots and black regiments who fought and died in the name of Independence. It has been estimated that over 5,000 African Americans served as soldiers for the Continental army and more than 20,000 fought for the British cause. Slavery in Colonial America is noted to have begun in 1619 with the arrival of 20 African slaves on the Dutch ship named Man-of-war. The slaves made up over half the population in the colonies although they were seen more so as property instead of people. In 1776, there were about 500,000 African American men, women and children slaves. Everyone had a reason for taking part in the war. There were factors that motivated the blacks to take part in such a battle as well. The text mentions that when it came to fighting between the Patriots on one side and their Loyalist American allies on the other, African Americans joined the side that offered freedom. Having that choice of gaining freedom in exchange for serving in the military was indeed motivation. Other motives for blacks were the Blacks in the Revolutionary War3 desire for adventure, belief in the justice and the goals of the revolution and the possibility of receiving a bounty. The Continental navy and The Royal Navy signed blacks into the navy because of the manpower shortages at sea. Some blacks had been captured from the royal navy and used by the Patriots on their vessels. They also served as seamen on British vessel. Slaves and free slaves served as seaman. Because so many Patriot leaders resisted employing black troops, by mid-1775, the British had taken the initiative in recruiting African Americans. Revolutionary leaders feared using blacks in the arm forces. They were afraid that the slaves who were armed would uprise against them. In May 1775 the Massachusetts Committee of Safety put a stop to enlisting slaves in the armies of the colony. However, this did not apply to the blacks who were already serving in the army. 1775-1783 the navy recruits freed black slaves and runaway slaves. Lord Dunmore, born John Murray, was the last Royal Governor of Virginia. Because he was short of men, Dunmore issued a proclamation stating that all able bodied men to assist him in the defense of the colony, including the slaves of rebels. He promised freedom to the blacks who served. After doing so in a month he had 800 soldiers. The purpose of his Proclamation was to declare martial law and to encourage slaves of rebels in Virginia to leave their masters and support the loyalist cause â€Å"All indentured servants, Negroes, or others†¦free that are able Blacks in the Revolutionary War4 and willing to bear arms†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Such an act outrage Virginians. Those that took Dunmore up on his word range between 800 and 2,000. The Virginia Congress replied to his Proclamation with the Dunmore’s wasn’t as successful as his plan out, the number of his soldiers decreased due to smallpox outbreaks. Dunmore’s Proclamation was the first mass emancipation of slaves in American history. After the war ended, over 5,000 blacks left for Jamaica or St. Augustine because they were the property of loyalist that they would never gain their freedom from slavery. By 1786, many were back in bondage. There were those who were Patriots’ slaves but sided with the British were promised their freedom and was granted such. Many black patriots found that the post war military held no rewards for them. So many men served in the armed forces which meant that their wives were left behind and had to take on their husband roles. Their lives changed a great deal during the Revolutionary War. The women, who could, serve the Colonial military forces and interacted with the male soldiers in camp. They were usually the wives and daughters of the male soldiers. The cooked, did laundry and cared for those that were sick. There also some who fought in the military battles: Margaret Cochran Corbin and Captain Molly. Molloy’s husband had taught her how to load and fire cannons. Black women, many of whom were slaves, served both Americans and the British in the capacity of nurses, laundresses and cooks. Blacks in the Revolutionary War5 Many African American soldiers fought and died for the sake of the Revolutionary War. The war ended in 1783, slavery was dying in the North and declining in Chesapeake. What was truly the purpose of Blacks fighting if they did not attain freedom at the end of the war? Were the lives lost beneficially to the slaves or was it just a gimmick to get blacks to stand in stops where white soldiers have already died in. Blacks in the Revolutionary War6 Bibliography Georgii, Colette. May 30, 2007. Slavery in Colonial America. www. helium. com/items/365359-Colonial-Early- Gabriel, Brian. Women’s roles and lives in the revolutionary war. http://www. ehow. com/) (http://blackloyalist. com/canadiandigitalcollection/story/revolution/dunmore. htm) Halpern, Rick (2002). Slavery and Emancipation. Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 90-91 Harold, Stanley, Hine, W. C. , Hine, D. C. The African American Odyssey: Volume 1, 5th Edition. Prentice Hall. 2011. Pearson Education, Inc. . (Scribner, Robert L. (1983). Revolutionary Virginia, the Road to Independence. University of Virginia Press. Pp. xxiv. ) [ 2 ]. Scribner, Robert L. (1983). Revolutionary Virginia, the Road to Independence. University of Virginia Press. Pp. xxiv [ 3 ]. Halpern, Rick (2002). Slavery and Emancipation. Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 90-91 [ 4 ]. Harold, Stanley, Hine, W. C. , Hine, D. C. The African American Odyssey: Volume 1, 5th Edition. Prentice Hall. 2011. Pearson Education, Inc. [ 6 ]. Gabriel, Brian. Women’s roles and lives in the revolutionary war. http://www. ehow. com/)

Sprite :: GCSE Business Marketing Coursework

Sprite â€Å"Image is Everything† â€Å"Thirst is Everything, Image is Nothing† we have all seen this slogan slapped on to every one of Sprite’s products for last couple of months. But what does it mean? Does it mean that someone at a Pepsi convention should order a Sprite, a Coke product, just cause they like the taste? Of course not, cause if they did they would get kicked out at the very least. Advertisers use this sort of slogan to catch your attention, and then they have you right where they want. In the most recent Sprite commercials that feature Grant Hill of the Detroit Pistons, they show us that the reason why we would have a Sprite is just for the taste of it. But if this was all they are trying to get across to us wouldn’t it be cheaper and wiser to use a 6 dollar per hour kid rather than a guy that won’t step foot in a place for less that a 100 grand. Why would they make a commercial that contradicts itself? The reason an advertisement would contradict itself like thi s is for one reason only, to try and fool our wants and desires into becoming our needs. Our needs are simply something that is a necessity for us to survive, such as food and water. We all know we couldn’t go long without these simple yet essential things. While our wants and desires for things such as five star restaurants and luxury cars. Which by no means are needed to survive, but just make living all the more fun. Advertisers are masters on how to exploit our desires, and to make us believe that they are our needs. And it is by no means is this easy or cheap for a commercial to be able to do. To be able to make us believe that our life would, in some way, be better with this product by our side. Sprite’s commercial that plays every time you blindly surf the television channels are all about image. The commercial that is shown the most, features Grant Hill drinking a Sprite. While they state in the back round and print on the screen, â€Å"Thirst Is Everything, Image Is Nothing†. When I first saw this I was thinking, â€Å"cool a great drink that anyone can have and not look out of place†.

Non-Violence

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

What Is A Symbol - 1827 Words

Nedum Aniemeka SOSC 12100 February 17th 2014 Collective Thought vs. Individual Thought: Discussing the Categories of Understanding When discussing the use of symbols in both Durkheim and Strauss’ works, it is important for us to look at how both thinkers talk about the categories of understanding. In Elementary Forms, Durkheim believes the categories of understanding are grounded in the social, using Australian totemism to explain how the primitive mind used symbols derived from collective thought to create the ways in which we categorize ideas in society today. In saying this, he was adopting both an empiricist and a priori approach in explaining the categories. He states that the categories are inherent to human nature, but only†¦show more content†¦In the hunt at a distance it is the reverse† (Pg. 52). The use of menstruating woman in hunting eagles is an illustration of how symbols are only meaningful when understood in relationship to other symbols. While in most rites, a menstruating woman is usually regarded as harmful, when used in eagle hunting she is a powerful tool. To put it sim ply, while in one system she is considered one thing, in another system she is considered something completely different. This is how Strauss believes we form categories and classifications. Though Durkheim does not have such an in depth look at how humans understand relationships within categories, he does discuss what he believes are the origins of classifications in his work. As Durkheim highlights in his analysis of Australian totemism, the most important part of the religion is the feelings of kinship you feel with fellow members of your clan. Because of these strong connections you feel to your totemic group, there is an internal bond that consequently places you into a certain â€Å"category†. According to Durkheim, this is the same kind of logic that results in a genus –the way that we sort humans into totemic groups is the same way that we try to find similarities between things in nature and then classify them accordingly. Furthermore, he writes â€Å"the only groupings of that kind with which experience acquaintsShow MoreRelatedWhat Makes A Durable Wheelset Is Symbol Of A Good Buddy1549 Words   |  7 PagesA durable wheelset is symbol of a goo d buddy If you are exploring around for wheelsets to buy for your bike, you will find out that numerous different types are accessible for you to decide from. The type of wheelset you pick relies on what your competitive riding or every day riding requirements is. Carbon fiber bike wheels offer a very pleasant riding familiarity to you. There are a number of aspects for this. This type of wheels offers you better stability and performance. These sorts of wheelsetsRead MoreLiterary And Social Law : What Makes A Symbol Of The Human Experience?1514 Words   |  7 Pageswhen an author decides to defy literary and social law by employing the use of a nameless protagonist, they do so with the intent to make an impact. Namelessness strips the character of the idea of individuality and makes them more of the likes of a symbol of the human experience. The lack of a name intensifies the character s quest to find an identity in a world that has denied them of one or that has tried to control who they are. Without a name the character is presented to us as nobody or lessRead MoreSymbols And Images Of The Catcher Rye : What s The Holden s Head? 1758 Words   |  8 PagesThe Catcher in the Rye, many symbols and images relate to the main character, Holden. Many of these symbols represent how Holden sees the life around him and what kind of person is Holden Caulfield. Such symbols include the red hunting hat, the ducks in Lagoon Lake, the museum, broken glass, a carousel, catcher in the rye, cigarettes and smoking, Allie’s baseball mitt, and the Little Shirley Beans record. These symbols are essential, for they are what started off with what looks significantly smallRead MoreTo What Extent Is a Focus on Metaphor and Symbol Central to an Analysis of Understanding of Douglass Dunns Poetry?1699 Words   |  7 PagesTo what extent is a focus on metaphor and symbol central to an analysis and understanding of Douglas Dunn’s poetry? (The Kaleidoscope/Sandra’s Mobile /Second Opinion) It is considered more difficult for a poet to grab the attention and imagination of an audience than it is for an author. The use of metaphor and symbol in poetry means that the poet can say one thing and invoke a whole range of possibilities, be it love, anger, jealousy or envy; an old memory or a new wish. The use of metaphors andRead MoreWhat Does It Mean to Say That Lord of the Flies Is an Allegorical Novel? Discuss Its Important Symbols.1139 Words   |  5 Pagessymbolise ideas much deeper than what is first perceived. It is these important symbols that make Lord of the Flies an allegorical novel. It is the constant struggle to maintain civilization and resist complying with the savage urges that rages within each human individual that plays a central theme throughout the novel. Significant objects like the conch and signal fire; plot events such as the pig hunts; the main characters and even Ralph’s hair are all symbols that have a grander meaning andRead MoreOur Liv es With No Regrets Is A Symbol Of What Bit s Family Could Have Done Things Differently927 Words   |  4 Pagesstory, Bit periodically mentions the many regrets he has in his life and things he wished to one day accomplish. The narrator uses symbolism in the short story to represent the broken relationship he has with his son. The Harry Potter book is a symbol of what Bit’s family could have been; the abuse of drugs has led to the overdose of his wife and separation from his son. The author wrote, â€Å"Bit kind of wishes he’d kept up with the books, before the dominos started going: before CPS came, before JulieRead MoreTheme Of Symbolism In V For Vendetta1295 Words   |  6 Pagesfor Vendetta explores the theme of the power of symbols used for good and evil. A totalitarian government rules England and use their symbols to manipulate society into thinking they are safe. A vigilante named V use symbols to express his ideas. The novel shows how the oppression by one series of symbols is fought by the emancipation of an opposing set of symbols. Here words speak louder than actions. It is the friction between the two sets of symbols that sparks the rebellion against the oppressionRead MoreSymbolism, Tone and Mood757 Words   |  4 PagesSymbolism, Tone and Mood: An Overview and Review What is a symbol? †¢ A  symbol is  an  ordinary  object,  event,  person,   animal,  or  color  to  which  we  have  attached  a  special   meaning  and  significance. †¢ So,  symbolism is  simply  the  act  of  attaching  inner meaning  to  outward  things. So what is Literary Symbolism? †¢ When  the  author  uses  an  object  or  reference  to  add  deeper   meaning  to  a  story.   †¢ Can  be  subtle  or  obvious,  used  sparingly  or  heavy† handedly.   †¢ An  author  may  repeatedly  use  the  same  object  to  convey  Read MoreSymbolism In The Scarlet Letter1247 Words   |  5 Pagesis simply defined as the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities. Symbolism is a common occurrence in literary works and many books use symbolism to express mystical ideas, emotions, and states of mind. As in most literary works, symbolism also appears in The Scarlet Letter. There is lots of symbolism used in The Scarlet Letter to convey multiple things and to express many ideas. Symbolism can be found everywhere in The Scarlet Letter and many of the symbols that appear play very importantRead MoreHow Does Read Literature Like A Professor1557 Words   |  7 Pagesmetaphor or as a device to move and build upon the plot. Foster writes that â€Å"Violence in real life just is†¦Violence in literature, though, while it is literal, is usually also means something else† (95). I agree that violence can be used as a symbol, depending on what the act of violence is, and I agree that violence will further the plot to the novel. While reading this chapter, I built on the author’s thoughts, and I also think that violence is so present in literature because violence is abundant in