Victims Of Society Essay Example for Free

Victims Of Society Essay Often literature is used to underline some social problems, to criticize and to some extent eliminate certain defects of social system. For example, fictional characters may be depicted as victims of society. Thus, A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen focuses upon this dilemma in society during Victorian epoch. Ibsen raises much controversy on the roles of males and females in society and tires to attract attention to hypocrisy and use of public opinion to suppress individuality. A number of literary critics treated Ibsen’s play as a means for infringing social norms and rules, for instance, Bjorn Hemmer, literary critic and researcher, in his article in The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen, observed: â€Å"The people who live in such a society know the weight of ‘public opinion’ and of all those agencies which keep watch over society’s ‘law and order’: the norms, the conventions and the traditions which in essence belong to the past but which continue into the present and there thwart individual liberty in a variety of ways† (Hemmer, 83). Almost every key personage of A Dolls’ House is presented as a victim of society. Torvald is a victim of society, because he is forced by the need to fit into society’s standards and to be treated as a representative of a high social status. Torvald knows very well about the pressures, produced by the society upon him and shows his willingness to get adjusted to them. Though Torvald is a victim of social circumstances, Ibsen makes it absolutely clear that he is quite comfortable and satisfied with the idea. Torvald has reached everything he may have wanted, and everything he may have been expected by society to have, in life. He established a family, with a beautiful wife and three children, a big comfortable house, a respectable job, which provided him with a higher status in society, he supervises other people in his business, and enough money so that he can spoil his pet, Nora. Probably, due to all these achievements Torvald does not want to do anything such as â€Å"touch any case that isn’t well nice† if it can affect his image and make him bad reputation. Torvald is ready to do whatever is required to prevent the need to â€Å"cut costs to an absolute minimum† and â€Å"save every cent† again, in other words he is not ready to lose what he has earned at any cost. The last scene makes it apparent when he wants to conceal Nora’s misdeeds, only to prevent it leaving a bad mark on his name: â€Å"I must try to buy him off somehow. This thing must be hushed up at any price. † (Ibsen, Act 3) Torvald would do everything to keep up to any expectation set by society for people. He created his own social image as someone who must maintain an important and influential role in the family. He is confident that maintaining such an image will make him become similar to everybody else, in society. Being the male and husband Torvald believes that it is his responsibility to be the family supporter the head of the household: â€Å"you will not find me lacking in strength or courage. I am a man enough to bear the burden for us both. † (Ibsen, Act 2) The implications of social impact on Torvalds moral convictions appear in Act 3. The realization that society may get to know about Nora’s actions almost kills Torvald. He cannot go through the fact that his wife tried to give support to him and save his life: â€Å"he’s so proud of being a man- it’d be so painful and humiliating for him to know that he owed anything to me (Nora). † (Ibsen, Act 1) Social tradition claims the opposite the man is to support the family and to protect them. Another critic of Ibsen’s works Gail Finney in the same book The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen says that in the notes for A Doll’s House, Ibsen comments that a mother in modern society is â€Å"like certain insects who go away and die when she has done her duty in the propagation of the race. † (Finney, 91) The evidence for this opinion one can find in Torvald’s rejection of his wife as soon as he discovers her secret; he insists that she is not good for bringing up their children if her good name is disgraced. The importance for being accepted into society for Torvald is also evident when Torvald reveals about Nora’s agreement with Krogstad. It becomes obvious that Nora and Torvald’s ideal marriage had been a falsification made for society’s sake. Torvald introduces society’s views and destroys Nora’s belief that he truly loved her: â€Å"As regards to our relationship- we must appear to be living together just as before. Only appear of course. † (Ibsen, Act 3) He appears as an absolute hypocrite and cares how her actions may harm his reputation. Torvald’s wife Nora is also a victim of society because of Torvald’s wish for being a perfect family, in order to fit in into social stereotype. As a consequence, Nora is convinced that it is her responsibility as a wife to live up to Torvald’s expectations and play the established role, in order to satisfy the society. At the beginning of A Doll’s House a reader perceives Nora as a doll controlled by her husband. She relies on him in everything. At first Nora enjoys playing the role of Torvald’s obedient wife. She finds it appropriate to be comfortable in society. The Christmas presents bought for the children prove that she follows the stereotypical views of society. She makes her children to respond to the different treatment by feeling different and behaving differently. She reinforces the stereotypical gender roles that keep her in subordination to her husband. Nora treats her daughter the same way she seems to be treated all of her life – that is, as a doll: â€Å"A trumpet for Bob. And a doll and a cradle for Emmy. ’ (Ibsen, Act 1) Nora protests against society’s morals that â€Å"a wife can’t borrow money without the husband consent. † (Ibsen, Act 1) but as she realizes it is not proper and wrong thing to do, nevertheless, she finds it â€Å"great fun, though, sitting there working and earning money. Almost like being a man. † (Ibsen, Act 1) As the play proceeds Nora becomes aware that she has been disillusioned that it is her duty to act as the ornament and prize to her husband, the role which society has given to her. The moment in A Dolls’ House where Nora takes off her fancy dress, symbolizes her refusal to remain the same person as she was: â€Å"Taking off my fancy dress†¦I’ve changed. † (Ibsen, Act3). Finally she finds courage to reject playing the role to please society. The example of a person who once being a victim of society changes as soon as the whole situation changes is Mrs. Linde. The social circumstances made her marry the man who she did not love, but could support her ill mother and two brothers. But after her husband’s death she behaves as an independent woman. She must work to support herself and become self-sufficient. Torvald in this case again reveals his biases in relation to women’s proper roles in society: â€Å"Well, it is not altogether impossible. I presume you are a widow, Mrs. Linde? †¦ Ah! well, its very likely I may be able to find something for you† (Ibsen, Act 1) The analysis of the choices the characters from the play make in society, either to follow the social convention or be a social outcast, like Dr. Rank, reveals characters readiness to be a victim of society. Dr Rank while being a respectable man with important profession of doctor and supposed to be an important and honorable member of society he is a victim of both his father’s mistake and social conviction that he deserved such fate. Through Torvald’s words it becomes evident that Dr. Rank was always an eyesore for perfect social circle: â€Å"He with his sufferings and loneliness was like a cloudy background to our sunlit happiness. Well, perhaps it is best so. † (Ibsen, Act 3) No matter, whether major or minor, most of the characters throughout the whole play are presented as victims because of their wish to be accepted into society. A Doll’s House openly declares the need for a renewed society’s understanding of males and females role. Works Cited list: Goldman, Emma, The Social Significance of the Modern Drama.The Gorham Press, Boston, 1914 Retrieved on 18 Nov. 2005 from http://sunsite3. berkeley. edu/Goldman/Writings/Drama/doll. html Hemmer, Bjorn. Ibsen and the Realistic Problem Drama. The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Ed. James McFarlane, Cambridge University Press, 1994, 68-88. Ibsen, Henrik. A Dolls House. 1879. Trans. James McFarlane and Jens Arup. 1981. Retrieved on 07 Nov. 2005 http://www. classicreader. com/booktoc. php/sid. 7/bookid. 2011/ Finney, Gail. Ibsen and Feminism. The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Ed. James McFarlane, Cambridge University Press, 1994, 89-105.

Creation is Real Essay Example for Free

Creation is Real Essay When a lawyer walks into a court room, he has two jobs to do. He has to prove his case is the correct account of what happened and prove the other story is false. This is called the â€Å"Burden of Proof†. Lawyers on both sides of each case present facts, evidence and professional or eyewitness testimony to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt they are correct. Since In this case there are no eyewitnesses nor DNA this is more difficult, but there is evidence and there are facts. This is the case of Creation vs. Evolution and by the end of this case; the jury will be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that creation is the only plausible answer for the beginning of the earth. The facts presented in this case are based on fossils and skeletal remains, the likelihood of an explosion creating a perfectly structured world fit for life, and the lack of continuing evolution. One fact that lends itself to creation is the lack of a missing link. In order to prove that humans evolved from apes there would need to be a half man, half ape out there. Scientists have been searching for this missing link, since the origin of the evolution theory and no remains have been found to indicate this link exists. Human remains have been found from previous times and all of them have been human. Scientists have found partial remains of very old skeletons, which they claim are up to 3. 5 million years old they attempt to claim these as missing links (Creationtheory. org 2006) The truth however is the remains are so deteriorated is would be impossible to tell if they are human or ape. They are not something in between even in modern society, facial characteristics and jawbones differ between cultures, therefore claiming the bone structure differs from that of a human is inaccurate. A second point to substantiate creation is the intelligent design. Everything on earth is designed exactly as it needs to be in order to sustain life. If the oxygen levels were different or the atmospheric pressure varied substantially, the earth would be uninhabitable. Evolutionists choose to believe that a large explosion causes planets to form and fall into a perfect orbit around the sun. The earth stays the right distance from the sun to provide heat and light, but does not over heat or dry the planet. In addition to this, the explosion left small particles in the oceans, which amazingly formed in the explosion, which turned into living creatures. These living single cell organisms then somehow evolved into fish, which turned into birds, mammals and eventually humans. Even without figuring the complex probability probability problem it is obvious the odds of this happening are unfathomable. Even if the inert matter could all fall into place, no experiment has proven successful in turning inert matter into living matter (allaboutcreation). The complexity of DNA could not have happened by chance it has too much detail and would have taken very precise design it could not have just developed from a particles in the ocean (allaboutcreation). Scientists have failed to find links between any current species and a previous one. There are no amoeba-fish or bird-fish (Allaboutcreation). Bats have wings, but there is no evidence they were ever anything except mammals. In addition to the lack of evidence proving evolution happened is the complete lack of higher evolution during recorded history. For at least a few hundred years, history has been written down and it was humans that wrote it not ape-men. There were oxen, fish, sheep, and birds just as there are today. If evolution had occurred, it would not just stop squirrels should be starting to walk on two legs and apes should be turning into people and they are not. People and technology are advancing, but people are staying people. Some theories that evolutionists used to present as evidence have been proven false such as embryology (the belief that in embryonic stages humans followed the evolutionary cycle), horse evolution (the evolution between horses with three toes and the current horses which turned out to just be differences in horses), and vestigial organs (organs that were needed by ancestors but are now useless organs). These were all proven to be false proof, but many still appear in science textbooks (Thinkquest). If after the evidence, facts and reasoning of this case have not convinced all who hear it there is only one logical, intelligent, and educated answer for the beginning of the earth, then the facts need to be presented again. The only reasonable solution is that the earth and all of its contents were created by God who had a plan and followed it. Any human who chooses to believe their ancestors were amoebas, fish, or even apes is simply making an effort to deny God. This is because they do not want to recognize God’s authority and follow his laws. They would rather live in a world that happened by some unrealistic explosion. No scientist could even show an instance where order was created from chaos (such as an explosion), yet this is what evolutionists want people to believe. It is the job of the reasonable intelligent humans, who know their ancestors were humans to convince others the true story of how the world came to be. Otherwise the future may be filled with children who call the apes in the zoo Grandma and Grandpa. Works Cited â€Å"Creation Vs. Evolution. † All about Creation. 17, May 2007. http://www. allaboutcreation. org/evidence-for-creation-faq. htm â€Å"Creation Vs. Evolution II†. 1999 17, May 2007. http://library. thinkquest. org/29178 â€Å"Creation Versus Science† 18 September 2006. 17May 2007 http://www. creationtheory. org

Social constructionism and its effects

Social constructionism and its effects Social constructionism is a general term sometimes applied to theories that emphasize the socially created nature of social life. Social Constructionism is something that a group in society has constructed, for example brotherhood is a social constructionism. It is something that is created socially but happens because society supports it and encourages it to occur. It is something that has been created at some point, but may be considered a social norm now. It has a label and continues if people continue to talk about and put time into it. Social constructionism is regularly traced back to the works William Isaac Thomas and the other Chicago sociologists, as well as the phenomenological sociologists and philosophers such as Alfred Schutz. Such approaches emphasize the notion that society is actively and imaginatively produced by human beings. They describe the world as made or invented rather than simply given or taken for granted. In social theory, constructivists stress the social construction of reality. This is the philosophically idealist component of constructivism which contrasts with the materialist philosophy of much social science positivism. According to constructivist philosophy, the social world is not a given: it is not something out there that exists independent of the thoughts and ideas of the people involved in it. It is not an external reality whose laws can be exposed by scientific research and explained by scientific theory. (Marshall, 1998) The political and social world is not part of nature. There are no natural laws of society or economics or politics. History is not a developing external progression that is autonomous of human thought. (Hacking, 1999) One of these socially accepted norm is racism , although much of society believes that racism does not exist in a modern society whoever there is many circumstances that differ from this and prove that in todays society there is still many forms of racism and it has become one of these social norms . Racism is the term used to explain the hostile or negative feelings of one ethnic group towards another and the consequential actions from such attitudes, but sometimes the hostility of one group toward another is expressed and acted upon with a single-mindedness and cruelty that goes far beyond the group centred prejudice that seem to constitute an almost universal human failing. Racism is not just xenophobia, a phrase invented by the ancient Greeks to describe impulsive feelings of hostility to another, xenophobia may be the preliminary point upon which racism can be constructed but it is not the actual thing itself. Racism has two components power and difference; it originates from a state of mind that regards them as dissimilar from us in ways that are stable and unbridgeable. (Fredrickson, 2002) In Australia racism is still evident although much of society believes that racism does not exist in a modern society however there is many circumstances that differ from this and prove that in todays society there is still many forms of racism and it has become one of these social norms. The nature and frequency of Australian racism varies over time and across space: it is not a static phenomenon (Vasta and Castles, 1996)pp. 5, 20 There are many different terms that are currently used to describe racism which include intolerance, ethnocentrism, prejudice, racialism, bigotry and discrimination all to describe racism. (Vasta and Castles, 1996) The increased exposure of individuals to cultural variation gradually improves individuals tolerance of a cultural dissimilar to their own. Therefore, the residents of areas that have a strong established cultural diversity may be expected to develop greater admiration of cultural difference, and have a lesser dependence upon cultural similarity if they are exposed to other cultures, the preliminary stages of contact between different cultural groups are likely to involve racisms. There are a variety of theories that attempt to explain the geographical discrepancy of racisms. These range from the traditional urbanists through neo-Marxist explanations, Social Construction approaches. Social constructionism about race more politically correct than essentialism. Existentialism, can form a picture of a self with absolutely no centre, a self that constructs itself by free acts of will. The constructed self must, however accept agonizing responsibility of what which it has constructed, later thought of the self as being constructed in a social matrix .this suggest a genuine distinction in which some constructions of the self are social ,and some are not ,This is called Social existentialism and is worth reviving. One which sees the self as a social of people , an attitude which is strongly reinforced by cultural background ,This psychological essentialism is proposed , in part ,to explain the prevalence of concepts of race and the ease with which they can be conscripted for racism (Hacking, 1999) Social constructionism is often contrasted with essentialism because it moves away from the ideas of the naturally given or taken for granted and questions the social and historical roots of phenomena Most anti racialist writing denounces essentialist attitudes to race. They may not use the label social construction, much but they are regularly grouped among social constructionist about race. (Hacking, 1999) This theory suggests that race is a socially constructed category rather than a natural order. (Jackson and Penrose , 1993) (Vasta and Castles, 1996). These races are constructed in different ways, these way are reliant upon the specific location and the identity of the specific place. Jackson and Penrose stated that place contextualises the construction of race, generating geographically specific ideologies of racism. (Jackson and Penrose , 1993) Place is significant in the construction of race and therefore it is imperative in the construction of racism. The precise forces that determine race in any location will also strengthen racism. Constructivism has become the dominant approach for geographical study of racisms. (Bonnett, 1996) A social construction approach should be predominantly positive for unscrambling the geographies of racism. It would definitely be crucial for formulating place-sensitive anti-racism interventions. A constructivist theory of the geographies of racism has both explanatory and policy contributions. Constructivism clearly allows for a more spatially sensitive understanding of the construction of race and the development of racisms. Theorising the causes of spatial variations in racism is not straightforward. Nevertheless, some of the established theories of racism can be of assistance in understanding the geographies of racism. There is some evidence of a rural and urban variation in ethnocentrism. The uneven tolerance of cultural diversity could be explained in part by the differing experiences and expectations that arise from an urban way of life. As in Chicago School thinking, the assumption is that the long-term exposure to otherness or difference eventually spawns an accommodation, or tolerance, of at least the cultures that are encountered. This model is confounded, however, by the persistence of racism against some minority groups. The most remarkable such persistence in the Australian case is the racism long endured by Indigenous peoples. (Dunn and McDonald, 2001) Australia is known as a multicultural country with many foreign individuals making Australia their permanent residence. As Australia is a multicultural society the idea of racism is minimal, however this is not the case. The highest form of racism in Australia is that of the indigenous people not only the majority of white society also by the government policies that the leaders that approve these policies. Since the colonization of Australia the Indigenous population have been disadvantage in all aspects of life. This can be due to many different forms of racism from the white population and the Australian Government that have left Aboriginal people in this disadvantaged state. Aboriginal people up to the twentieth century were not constitutes as Australian citizens .They had no rights compared the white population ,they were not allowed to owned land or were not about to vote in national elections .It was this that continued to reinforce that the white society was superior to the Indigenous population These racist beliefs restricted the Aboriginal peoples from achieving the same basic rights as white Australians and it was not until the 1960s that all Aboriginal people around Australia were able to vote in State and federal elections. (Lyons, 2005) The main form of racism by the Australia Government was the creation of the white Australian policy. The White Australia policy arose from a Commonwealth government objective of creating and maintaining a mono racial Australia, termed racial integrity. Although there were other racist policies in the earlier years, by the 1950s, this usually meant only restrictions on immigration. It was the most significant and lasting policy adopted in 1901, described as providing an impetus to our national life. White Australia was not some strange abnormality for Australias rulers. This policy of institutionalised racism had deep roots in the interests of Australias ruling class. (Lyons, 2005) Racism against Aboriginal people helped open the door to other forms of racism especially for the Chinese immigrants during the gold rushes of the 1850s, they were treated as appalling as the indigenous population they were segregated onto protectorate camps these camps were modelled on previous colonial experience including the protectorate camps that had recently been imposed on the survivors of the wars of extermination against Aboriginal people. (http://www.sa.org.au/component/content/article/126-edition-48/1069-100-years-or-racism-federation-and-the-white-australia-policy) This Racism towards Aboriginals in Australia is widespread and the effects of racism affect the lives of Indigenous people in their day to day lives. This is due to the continuing effect of White invasion and the dispossession that followed. These effects have resulted in low socio economic status and therefore leading to poor health, higher rates of imprisonment and less job opportunities then the rest of white society within Australia. (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1991, p. 72) The level of intolerance differs between cultural groups in Australia. White society from varies backgrounds suffer majority less ethnocentrism or racism compared to other ethnic groups. The groups, who suffer from racism and the relative follow on effects of racism, could therefore be expected to differ in each locality. It can therefore be assumed that racism will differ across space according to the presence of different cultural groups. There are substantive strands of racism running throughout Australian society. (Dunn and McDonald, 2001) Research into racism in NSW found that results shows there is consistent racism still in Australian society .The results suggest that for the Australians shows that a large majority of respondents in NSW felt that Indigenous Australians were treated over generously by the government names such as dole bludgers have stemmed from this in regards to the Centrelink payments , almost a quarter of those respondents were supportive of calls for the scrapping of multiculturalism, the majority of respondents felt that migrants should learn to live and behave like the mainstream Australians do, therefore returning to racial Government policies of the past , such as assimilation and the white Australia policy .Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2000) Although the Past Government policies have excluded the beliefs and the wellbeing for Aboriginal peoples , current Government policies are beginning to bridge the gap between the Indigenous and non indigenous population .These policies included improved policies on health and education , this improved policies are important in lessening the effects of colonisation and the racism felt by the Indigenous population. This policies however has not improved the health socio economic status of the Indigenous population, it is only recently that these policies are inclusive of the cultural beliefs of the indigenous society. (Dunn and McDonald, 2001) The effects of racism by Europeans through assimilation, the stolen generation, white Australian policies and other non cultural appropriate policies have been Aboriginal Australian health, education and law have been horrific and destructive to the Indigenous population. The Aborigines peoples face problems in their struggle for equality of opportunity and toleration. Generations of Europeans have attempted to exterminate the Aboriginal Australians or to exclude them the rest of Australian society. The Aboriginal people have showed considerable resistance and cohesion and laws introduced by Europeans has helped to create and preserve the present condition of Aborigines, and changes to that condition depend largely on changes to the law and its administration. Social construction exists in Australia in the form of racism however there are acts to try and correct some of the socially constructed issues. Apologies to the stolen generation, the possibility of a referendum to recognise the aboriginals as rightful owners of the land are both steps to address the issues that aboriginal people face, however it is still not enough. Racism is feed by those who have fear of others and accept stereotypes as being fact. Unfortunately in order to change a social construction there needs to be a complete change of society and that takes time.

Position Paper On Heroes -- Argumentative Persuasive Hero

Position Paper on Heroes On September 11th 2001, New York City, Washington D.C., and Somerset County, Pennsylvania all came face to face with an unthinkable tragedy. When the emergency response teams were sent out to the sites, they had no idea what they were going to experience. They helped others to safety and then turned right back around to help someone else. These are America’s real heroes. As The United States changes because of these tragic events, the focus of our heroes should be placed on everyday people and not sports and movie stars.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"A hero should be someone who unselfishly does something for someone else, regardless of danger.† Marylyn Schwartz wrote this in the Houston Chronicle on Monday, October 8, 2001. Do sports stars face much danger to make a touchdown, goal, homerun, etc.? Not really. They may face the danger of breaking bones or getting some pretty nasty bruises, but that’s about it. All too often these are the people that children look to as a heroic figure. Little boys think Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds are some of the greatest people ever born. Granted that they all performed an amazing feat, but that makes them no more qualified to obtain the status of heroic. Little girls are looking to Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, and Christina Alguilera as role models and sources of encouragement. They should be looking at the women who put their life on the line as police officers and peacekeepers. A local hero died early Saturday ...

King Sauls Development Essays -- Religion, God

In First Samuel chapter eight the Israelites request a king to reign over them. God appoints a man who’s name is Saul. He first appears as a typical young man who belongs to the small tribe of Benjamin. When he is appointed king he is somewhat intimidated by his new task. However, over time he experiences a series of events that make him a selfish, envious, and a power hungry ruler, and eventually insane. This development in his character starts from his son Jonathan’s disobedience to his orders, but its main source is his jealousy of David’s successfulness on the battlefield, and his failed attempts at killing David. The first time we meet Saul he is sent by his father to go look for their lost donkeys. After looking and not finding the donkeys, he wants to go home, because his father might be worried. â€Å"Let us turn back, or my father will stop worrying about the asses and begin to worry about us.† (1 Samuel 9:5) This is an ordinary reaction that an ordinary person would have to this situation. From Saul’s first utterance it is obvious that he is an average man who was worried about his father. Alter states that a biblical character’s first utterance is the defining moment of a character. However, from the moment of Saul’s first remark to the day of his death he changes drastically. Saul tells the Israelites that â€Å"Cursed be the man who eats any food before night falls and I take revenge on my enemies.† (1 Samuel 14: 24) However, Saul’s son Jonathan did not hear Saul’s declaration. When he spots honey spilt on the ground he tastes it and â€Å"his eyes lit up.† (1 Samuel 14:27) Although the other troops warned him that Saul had forbidden eating, Jonathan did not regret his decision in disobeying his father’s orders. â€Å"My fath... ...with him, and he knew that David was better fit for a king. Saul knew he could not stay king as long as David was around. Saul attempted to kill David many times. Each time he would fail. Every failure brought Saul closer to snapping. In chapters twenty-four and twenty-six David has two opportunities to kill Saul. Each time he spares Saul’s life, but he leaves a mark to let Saul know that he could have killed Saul. The first time David cuts part of Saul’s robe. The second time David takes Saul’s spear and his ______________________. David was playing with Saul’s mind. Saul was powerless in comparison to David. Saul had been determined to kill David, but each time he would fail. David gets two chances to kill Saul, and he spares Saul both times. Saul was no match for David and he knew it. Saul realizes he is unable to get rid of David, because God is with him. King Saul's Development Essays -- Religion, God In First Samuel chapter eight the Israelites request a king to reign over them. God appoints a man who’s name is Saul. He first appears as a typical young man who belongs to the small tribe of Benjamin. When he is appointed king he is somewhat intimidated by his new task. However, over time he experiences a series of events that make him a selfish, envious, and a power hungry ruler, and eventually insane. This development in his character starts from his son Jonathan’s disobedience to his orders, but its main source is his jealousy of David’s successfulness on the battlefield, and his failed attempts at killing David. The first time we meet Saul he is sent by his father to go look for their lost donkeys. After looking and not finding the donkeys, he wants to go home, because his father might be worried. â€Å"Let us turn back, or my father will stop worrying about the asses and begin to worry about us.† (1 Samuel 9:5) This is an ordinary reaction that an ordinary person would have to this situation. From Saul’s first utterance it is obvious that he is an average man who was worried about his father. Alter states that a biblical character’s first utterance is the defining moment of a character. However, from the moment of Saul’s first remark to the day of his death he changes drastically. Saul tells the Israelites that â€Å"Cursed be the man who eats any food before night falls and I take revenge on my enemies.† (1 Samuel 14: 24) However, Saul’s son Jonathan did not hear Saul’s declaration. When he spots honey spilt on the ground he tastes it and â€Å"his eyes lit up.† (1 Samuel 14:27) Although the other troops warned him that Saul had forbidden eating, Jonathan did not regret his decision in disobeying his father’s orders. â€Å"My fath... ...with him, and he knew that David was better fit for a king. Saul knew he could not stay king as long as David was around. Saul attempted to kill David many times. Each time he would fail. Every failure brought Saul closer to snapping. In chapters twenty-four and twenty-six David has two opportunities to kill Saul. Each time he spares Saul’s life, but he leaves a mark to let Saul know that he could have killed Saul. The first time David cuts part of Saul’s robe. The second time David takes Saul’s spear and his ______________________. David was playing with Saul’s mind. Saul was powerless in comparison to David. Saul had been determined to kill David, but each time he would fail. David gets two chances to kill Saul, and he spares Saul both times. Saul was no match for David and he knew it. Saul realizes he is unable to get rid of David, because God is with him.

Holdens Mentality in J.D. Salingers The Catcher In The Rye :: Catcher Rye Essays

Holden's Mentality in J.D. Salinger's The Catcher In The Rye A young man going through puberty, not knowing what he is doing or where he is headed, becoming increasingly insane, in a world in which he feels he doesn't belong in, and around a bunch of "phonies." This would describe the position of Holden Caulfield, the controversial protagonist and main character in The Catcher In The Rye (1951) written by J.D. Salinger. The book, all narrated by Holden in first person, in its very unique and humorous style, is about Holden, and all the troubles he has encountered through school, family, friends, and basically life. Holden has been expelled from a private school in Pennsylvania because of failing four classes, and decides to go to New York for three days before going home to his disappointed parents. At the beginning of the novel, Holden seems to be like any other 16-year-old young man. But the novel progressively displays through various examples of symbolism that Holden has many problems coping with the world around him. These symbols represent Salinger's ideas and concepts. Holden likes to reminisce about his childhood and visiting the Museum of Natural History in Central Park. He loved to visit the museum, for many reasons, and he even said that he got very happy when he thought about the museum. He tells us of the symbolic details in the museum, by saying, "The best thing, though in that museum was that everything always stayed right where it was. Nobody'd move. Nobody'd be different. The only thing that would be different would be you"(121). Holden likes this kind of world, and wishes that he lived in it. He wishes things would stay unchanged and simple. Holden is almost scared by change, and can't handle the conflicts in his life. Another very symbolic example in the book is the title itself. On the first night of his three-night excursion, Holden decides to sneak into his house and visit his sister, Phoebe, who he adores very much. Phoebe asks Holden what he would like to do with his life. Holden ponders the question and tells Phoebe about the poem, "Comin' Through The Rye" by Robert Burns. He tells Phoebe," I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around--nobody big, I mean--except me.

Are Curfews Fair to Juveniles Essay

Cities across the United States have imposed curfews on juveniles for many years. Teen curfew laws restrict the hours that juveniles may be on the streets or in public places at night (Sutphen and Ford). Some people consider curfews infringing on people’s constitutional rights. Curfews are hard to implement by law enforcement, and, in fact, take law enforcement away from more serious crimes. More crimes occur during daytime hours and more children are victimized in their homes than on the streets. Although curfews are made to protect our juveniles and to deter crime by juveniles, does imposing these curfews violate the juvenile’s civil rights and target the true underlying problems involved in enforcing these issues? People have a right to personal freedoms, including juveniles, but curfews take away some personal freedoms of juveniles. A 16-year-old en route to a fast-food restaurant is stopped and questioned five times, by five different police officers (Davidson). Even though this teen had no intension of any mischief, he or she was stopped five times. When a juvenile transitions from a child to an adult they are required to take on more responsibilities, curfews limit them as they make the transition into adulthood. This hinders the juvenile from making adult decisions. Youth curfews use the idea of childhood based on innocence/ignorance, passivity and dependence, in order to prevent young people from crossing the boundary into adulthood before society deems them ready (O’Neil). Most parents want the freedom to choose how to raise their children and what values they want to instill in their children. If the state leaves guidance in the hands of the parents, they can monitor their child’s development and gradually increase her liberty and responsibility by allowing her to experience new situations and to make choices as she develops into an adult (Assessing the Scope if Minors’ Fundamental Rights: Juvenile Curfews and the Constitution). Curfews stifle the personal freedoms of juveniles. The enforcement of curfews presents even more reasons to abolish curfews. It is hard for law enforcement to enforce curfews and curfew violations are not taken seriously. Juvenile curfews will not stop young people who are intent on committing crime, in part, because the penalties for a curfew violation are not that serious (O’Neil). There are also limited police officers to help with the enforcement of curfews. Because of the curfews, it takes the police away from more serious crime that are happening in cities across the United States. The enforcement of juvenile curfews is hard to put into effect, and there are limited police officers to enforce these curfews, which are often not even taken seriously. Crimes by juveniles occur more often during the day than at night. When either both parents work, or there is a single parent household, juveniles must come home from school alone. Since juveniles are left unsupervised, they sometimes commit crimes and these crimes usually occur during the day. Those opposed to curfews replied that most juvenile crimes occurred in daylight hours, that most children were not criminals, and that many legitimate nocturnal activities were being suppressed (Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion Over Minor Rights). Since most juvenile crimes occur during the day, why should a curfew be imposed on juveniles? One of the main reasons juvenile curfews were imposed, was to protect the juveniles from the dangers that could occur during the late hours of the night. Although many feel curfews protect juveniles from these dangers, many times that is not the case. Many juveniles are victimized in their own homes. Critics argue that because many juvenile crimes occur during the day and most juvenile victimization occurs at home, nighttime curfews fail to target the worst problems (Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion Over Minor Rights). Although juvenile curfews were put in place to protect children, the streets are not always the places where children are victimized. Most large cities in the United States impose juvenile curfews. Juveniles have rights to the personal freedoms their parents allow and the government needs to let the parents raise their children without interference. Because most juvenile crimes are committed during the day, and since curfews restrict night time activities, we should abolish these curfews. Curfews also take law enforcement officers away from more serious crimes. Curfews were made to protect juveniles and to deter juvenile crime, but since most juveniles are victimized at home and most juvenile crimes are committed during the day, curfews are ineffective and should be abolished.