How does the first-person narrative used in "A Father's Story" cause the reader to sympathize with the events and narrator of this story in a case where the events that transpire might otherwise cause the reader to be judgmental toward the narrator?

In general, first-person narration connects the reader the best with a single individual in a story. A reader begins to feel like they are inside the head of the narrator and they are in fact living those actions that they take. It becomes much easier to distance oneself from a character's actions if you're not experiencing their thoughts and emotions while the events transpire, because you can see their rationale behind the actions and feel the emotions that led to those decisions.
When Paul decides to cover up his daughter's accidental manslaughter while driving drunk, you can feel the anxiety he experiences, as well as the love and devotion he has for his daughter. While he makes a terrible decision, it is much harder to judge him when you feel his emotions in that moment.

The first-person narration causes the reader to identify with Paul long before he makes the decision to cover up the murder his daughter committed while she was driving drunk. Because the reader sees his life and events from his perspective, they are already inclined to identify with him and have sympathy for him even when he does a terrible thing.
It's clear that the right thing to do when Paul finds out what Jennifer did is to call the police and medical personnel to see if the man's life can be saved. Instead, he goes out himself to investigate. When he finds the man dead, he covers it up and hides the truth. He does it to save his daughter. Since the reader already identifies with the man and understands a parent's love for a child, it's easy to see why they would feel sympathy with him. They're experiencing the story through his eyes, his thoughts, and that makes them understand his choices.

Who was Father Christmas, and what gifts did he bring for the children?

Father Christmas is Santa Clause, and readers should look in chapter 10 for the sequence that contains him showing up and helping the Pevensie children. Even before being told it is Father Christmas, readers are likely to figure it out from the man's description.

He was a huge man. in a bright red robe (bright as hollyberries) with a hood that had fur inside it and a great white beard, that fell like a foamy waterfall over his chest.

He does bring gifts for the gathered group, but that is not the only reason he is important. The White Witch has made it always winter but never Christmas. It is an appalling thought for the characters in the story, and it is an appalling thought for most young readers. The fact that Father Christmas shows up at all means that the White Witch's power is weakening.

“I’ve come at last,” said he. “She has kept me out for a long time,but I have got in at last. Aslan is on the move. The Witch’s magic isweakening.”

Being a busy guy that hasn't been able to deliver his presents in a long time, Father Christmas wastes no time in handing out gifts to everybody present. He tells Mrs. Beaver that he will drop off her new sewing machine on his way out, and he tells Mr. Beaver that the dam will be mended and a new sluice-gate put in. Peter gets a sword and a shield, Susan gets a bow, arrows, and horn, and Lucy gets a dagger and vial of special medicine. His final gift is a tray with tea, milk, and sugar.

Father Christmas is the British version of what Americans call Santa Claus. He brought Peter a sword and shield to fight in the battle. He also brought Susan a weapon, a bow that "does not easily miss," but he specifically instructed her not to fight in the battle. Susan's other gift was a magic horn that could call up help if blown; in the second book in the series, Prince Caspian uses it to call up Susan herself, along with the other children! Lucy also gets a weapon, a dagger, but she also isn't supposed to fight—"battles are ugly when women fight," Father Christmas tells her. A more important gift is the magic cordial that can cure people who are on the point of death. Edmund does not receive any gifts because he is with the White Witch at the time when Father Christmas visits the Beavers and his siblings.

What is the meaning of the title of Joan Didion's book The White Album?

"The White Album" is the colloquial name given to the ninth studio album by The Beatles, called simply The Beatles. The album got its alternative name from its plain white sleeve. It was released in 1968, the same year in which Joan Didion's collection of essays of the same name begins.
The title essay of the collection details the author's decline in mental health during a time of great social upheaval in the United States. Didion starts off by telling us how, during this tumultuous era, she started to doubt the premises of all the stories she'd ever told herself—stories which, as she says in the essay's famous opening line, we tell ourselves in order to live.
The implication is that all the old certainties are being undermined, not just in the nation at large but in Didion's personal life too. Metaphorically speaking, this has left a huge void in the author's life—a large gap previously occupied by unreliable narratives which no longer make any sense. In that sense, her fraught, troubled existence has become a white album, a blank space on which she needs to write new stories.

What kind of courage is present in Cold Mountain? Can we say that Inman was courageous in taking the risk of desertion as well as Ada and Ruby for surviving on their own?

In Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier, various types of courage are displayed. In many stories about war, the term or concept of courage is often portrayed as a masculine trait associated with a form of aggression. In war stories, "guts and grit" are associated with courage. One of the main characters in Cold Mountain, Inman, does the opposite of risking his life in battle and instead deserts the Confederate Army.
However, one could argue that risking being charged with treason—which could be punishable by death—in order to go back home to his wife is just as courageous. It could also be argued that it is courageous to think for one's self after being indoctrinated by what George Orwell called "groupthink." Deserting one's military unit does not always necessarily mean they are cowardly, but could be due to not believing in the cause they are fighting for.
Likewise, Ada and Ruby are courageous in that they try to regenerate Ada's farm despite being surrounded by war. Trying to make a living and trying to bring life to a farm is the opposite of having the courage to kill and destroy, but is just as courageous. It is easy to pull a trigger for some people—like the psychopathic Confederate and Union soldiers who either pillage or kill outside the laws of war—but it is much harder to bring life into the world. This is symbolically represented by Inman and Ada's child being born after Inman's death, and the survivors of the war continuing to reside on the farm to keep it alive.

Explain why there is no higher latitude other than 90 degrees north and south.

Latitude was designed to create a way to pinpoint location on the earth. We have 90 degrees of latitude north and 90 degrees of latitude south. What the degrees are measuring is the angle from the center of the Earth. The equator, which is the center of the Earth, is used as the starting point for measuring latitude. Thus, when we draw a line from the equator to the center of the Earth and then a line from the center of the Earth up to the North Pole, we have an angle of 90 degrees that has been created. The North Pole and the South Pole are the extreme ends of the Earth, and, as a result, you cannot have any angle greater than 90 degrees. Please see the attached image for a visual example demonstrating what I have described.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/2b.html

What, according to O’Brien, are the benefits of stories?

In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien presents a linked series of stories about his experiences in the Vietnam War. However, he does not limit his perspective to actual combat but also writes of his life leading up to the war and the war's effect upon him as an older writer, long after the war is over.
Several chapters talk about the value and veracity of war stories. For instance, in the chapter "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien makes it clear that real war stories are so bizarre that they are all but unbelievable. He emphasizes that there are never morals such as Hollywood likes to invent in true war stories.

A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it.

O'Brien clarifies that true war stories are incredible, obscene, embarrassing, crazy, and contradictory. Real war stories don't generalize or indulge in abstractions such as "War is hell." Often, in war stories, there is no point.
In the chapter "Good Form," O'Brien explains further what stories mean to him. He says that in writing this book: "I invent myself." He says that sometimes truth in stories is truer than events as they really happened. He adds that writing the stories enables him to look at things that he is otherwise unable to look at.
O'Brien explains the greatest benefit of stories, however, in the last chapter called "The Lives of the Dead." In this chapter, he writes not only about dead soldiers in Vietnam but also the death of his childhood sweetheart, Linda. He begins by stating that "stories can save us." He says that writing about people in stories brings their memories back to life. He writes:

The thing about a story is that you dream it as you tell it, hoping that others might dream along with you, and in this way memory and imagination and language combine to make spirits in the head. There is the illusion of aliveness.

As O'Brien describes Linda's death by brain tumor at nine years old, he says that as a writer he wants to "save Linda's life. Not her body—her life." In other words, writing about her in a story causes him to remember her, which somehow brings her back to life in a dreamlike sense. O'Brien summarizes his viewpoint by saying that in Vietnam, "We kept the dead alive with stories." However, it is not for their sake, but for the sake of the living. As O'Brien clarifies in the last line of the book: "I realize it is as Tim trying to save Timmy's life with a story."

What did Mrs. Frisby notice on Nicodemus's face?

Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, written by Robert C. O'Brien, is about a family of field mice who are joined by rats from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in order to help rescue their family home.
Mrs. Frisby is the head of the family of field mice and is a brave mother. She will do anything to help save her family and her home. Mrs. Frisby meets Nicodemus and immediately notices that he has two important facial features—he wears an eye patch and he has a long scar across his entire face. Despite his rough features, Nicodemus is an intelligent, fun-loving rat. When he is captured and sent to NIMH, he becomes more intelligent and becomes the leader of the rats. He encourages them to live a life without human interaction. Mrs. Frisby and Nicodemus make an excellent team.

When Mrs. Frisby enters the rosebush and is ushered into the depths of the rats' quarters in the eleventh chapter of Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH she encounters "a lean rat with a scarred face," who is introduced as Nicodemus. Mrs. Frisby notices two primary things about him: that he has a facial scar runs over his left eye, upon which he wears a black patch and that he carries a satchel strapped over his shoulders. The eye patch and scar are the most noticeable aspects of Nicodemus' appearance, distinguishing him at a glance from the other rats in the colony. Although this scarred appearance likely seems imposing upon Mrs. Frisby's first glance, Nicodemus is intelligent, respectful, wise, and fair, which makes him an excellent leader for the rats of NIMH, as well as a strong ally for the Frisby family.

Why was the author haunted by the story of his namesake in The Other Wes Moore? What was the reason he insisted on meeting him in prison? Talk about the awkwardness of the two Wes's first meeting and their gradual openness and sharing with one another.

Wes Moore, the author of The Other Wes Moore, is haunted by the story of his namesake for several reasons. As Moore writes in his book, both men share a name as well as the potential to have lived the same life. Moore the author was able to escape the difficult urban surroundings of his youth and become an accomplished, well-educated young man. Moore the namesake was not able to do the same, and he succumbed to the violence that Moore the author was able to leave behind.
The story of the other Wes Moore is haunting because Moore the author believes the circumstances around the other Wes Moore could have been avoided. The other boy's family lacked resources and money, and he lacked a positive mentor. Because the differences in their lives are so stark and dramatic, Wes Moore the author finds it darkly ironic that they share a name. Moore the author believes that he too could have turned out to be a drug dealing robber and murderer had he not been lucky enough to have had role models and a supportive network of people surrounding him, and he feels he made a narrow escape from this life.

Compare and contrast the Neolithic and Paleolithic eras.

As the suffix -lithic indicates, the biggest point of comparison, or continuity, between the Neolithic and Paleolithic eras is that both featured the use of stone tools. Stone technology developed considerably over hundreds of thousands of years, and the Neolithic era featured far more sophisticated stone axes, blades, and other tools than before, but in absence of metalworking technology, stone remained the primary material for tools. People remained predominately hunter-gatherers during each of these eras as well.
But during the Neolithic era, people began to develop agriculture, a profoundly significant development that defined the era. People also began to construct pottery, bricks, and other materials during the Neolithic era, particularly in areas like the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, where people developed agriculture earliest. Of course, these developments happened over a very long period of time, and there is no firm cutoff point between the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras. But the development of settled agriculture, though it was at the time a supplement to hunting and gathering in many societies, was the biggest point of contrast between the two.

Why does St. John propose to Jane in Jane Eyre?

St. John is a stern, severe, rigidly self-disciplined, and religious person with a cold personality, although he is morally good and pure. He wants to marry Jane not because he is in love with her but because he thinks she is a capable worker who can help him with his planned missionary work in India. He tells her that he has observed her for the last ten months and has seen that she has the strength to do the work demanded of a missionary's wife.
When she says she would go with him as a sister and a helper but not as a wife, he says that if she comes at all she must come as his wife because anything else would be improper. He also states that he does not want her to come as a sister because that would leave her free to part from him at any time. He tells her:

I, too, do not want a sister: a sister might any day be taken from me. I want a wife: the sole helpmeet I can influence efficiently in life, and retain absolutely till death.

Jane refuses this loveless offer.

Who threw ribbons?

The Third Commandment of Animalism states clearly that "No animal shall wear clothes." These include ribbons, which are regarded as a symbol of the animals' previous subordination to the hated human oppressor. The ribbons had been used to decorate the horses' mane and tails, to make them look more presentable on market day.
The new restriction proves very upsetting for Mollie, the not-very-bright-white mare, who loves to wear ribbons as she thinks they make her look rather pretty. But Snowball's having none of it. Ribbons are a badge of slavery and so must be destroyed along with all the other symbols of human oppression. So Snowball throws all the horses' ribbons onto a large fire, much to poor Mollie's distress. Indeed, so upset is she by the burning of the ribbons that she takes off during the Battle of the Cowshed and escapes to another farm, where she can spend the rest of her days showing off her pretty colored ribbons and munching happily on sugar cubes.

Did William Faulkner have iconoclastic views?

One of the reasons it took so long for the world to recognize William Faulkner's greatness was his seemingly perverse views of just about everything that everybody else had already accepted. Here are some pertinent quotes showing his irreverence for tradition and popular opinion:

When [Malcolm] Cowley, for example, wrote asking if it would be fair to call his work a “myth or legend of the South,” Faulkner testily replied that the South “is not very important to me,” adding, in a gratuitous discharge of bile, that in his opinion human life is “the same frantic steeplechase toward nothing everywhere and man stinks the same stink no matter where in time(”Frederick Crews, “Faulkner Methodized,” in The Critics Bear It Away: American Fiction and the Academy, p. 117).

On the great Alfred, Lord Tennyson:

One wall of the study is lined with books. He pauses before them, seeking, until he finds the one which he wants. It is Tennyson. It is dogeared. He has had it ever since the seminary. He sits beneath the lamp and opens it. It does not take long. Soon the fine galloping language, the gutless swooning full of sapless trees and dehydrated lusts begins to swim smooth and swift and peaceful. It is better than praying without having to bother to think aloud. It is like listening in a cathedral to a eunuch chanting in a language which he does not even need to not understand (William Faulkner, Light in August).

On George Gershwin's music:

And over all, brittle, dissonant and ephemeral, the spurious sophistication of the piano like symbols scrawled by adolescent boys upon an ancient decayed rodent-scavengered tomb(William Faulkner, The Wild Palms).

What is this “quiet war”?

Esperanza grew up in a neighborhood and household with different types of women. As an adolescent, this had an effect on her own self-image as a female. The "quiet war" mentioned in the book was Esperanza's initiative to not be like the girls and women around her.
The novel features vignettes, or sub-stories, featuring various female experiences. Some are even abused by their husbands, or are "imprisoned" in a life of domesticity. Additionally, Esperanza compared herself to "beautiful" people like Sally and Nenny. This showed Esperanza's developing identity in a neighborhood full of female identities to emulate.
However, instead of emulating them, she decides to go to "war" with these identities, and instead creates her own. The "quiet war" also illustrates that this conflict is internal, which shows Esperanza's rich inner-world and strong personality.

How did Eisenhower's farewell speech relate to Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech?

President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered what became known as the Four Freedoms Speech on January 6, 1941. It was officially his State of the Union address. In it, he delineated four freedoms that people everywhere had the right to enjoy. These included freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. Roosevelt gave the speech less than a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the entry of the United States into World War II. His intention was to disengage the country from its isolationist policies and gather support for an effort to prepare to meet the imminent threat of foreign attack.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell speech on January 17, 1961. It relates to Roosevelt's speech in that it addresses threats to the nation in the aftermath of World War II. Roosevelt called for an increase in war preparations. Eisenhower, however, warned against the power of the military-industrial complex and its potential for excessive influence. He called for a return to balance in American life. Military spending had escalated radically during the Cold War with the development of new technologies to meet the Soviet threat. Eisenhower called for a balance of meeting military needs and civilian needs.
So, we can see that Roosevelt called for an escalation in military power and spending, while Eisenhower cautioned against continuing military escalation to the determent of individual liberties and other needs of American society. However, both speeches are concerned with freedoms that all people should have.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/eisenhowers-farewell-speech-50-years-later-4356528/

Why was Nelson Mandela imprisoned?

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned as a terrorist in 1962 and would remain behind bars for the next twenty-seven years.
At the time of his imprisonment, the organization that he led—the African National Congress (ANC)—was banned by the apartheid government. The government had brought in very strict laws against any kind of opposition to apartheid, and the ANC was considered the most dangerous opponents of all, not least because they attracted the most support.
The ANC regarded themselves as freedom fighters, but to South Africa's white minority government they were a terrorist organization engaged in armed subversion against the state. To be sure, Mandela and other members of the ANC did engage in acts of sabotage against the South African state, such as bombing military installations, bridges, power plants, and telephone lines. The idea was to cause the maximum amount of damage to the apartheid state with minimal casualties.
Irrespective of the ANC's intentions, however, the government saw such actions as a threat to the very existence of the apartheid state and responded accordingly. By imprisoning Mandela and other senior members of the organization, they hoped to break the back of the ANC, but things didn't work out quite like that. From inside his prison cell, Mandela became an icon of resistance whose name became famous the world over as a symbol of the anti-apartheid struggle.

Define the effect of charismatic leaders on followers and explain that leaders can be very transformational but lack charisma. This concerns transformational versus transactional leadership.

Transformational leadership, a theory developed by Bernard Bass in the 1980s, includes four components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. All four should operate interdependently, with none heavily outweighing the others. The first two elements combined generate the leader’s charisma. Transformational leaders tend to create a successful environment and productive workers or team members because they have and express positive expectations for their followers. Transactional leaders, in contrast, tend to be top-down and rely on reward for risk, appealing to workers’ self-interest to elicit good performance, as in expectation of higher future wages.
Charisma is an ineffable quality which individuals project and which draws followers to them. Charismatic leaders can convince potential followers of the correctness—often the moral value—of a position they support or an action they wish to take. The idea was developed by nineteenth-century German sociologist Max Weber. Charisma can be a necessary but sufficient element of transformational leadership; an individual can have charisma but not succeed at the other three components. In contrast, transformational leaders can be effective even if they lack charisma. Examples of this can be studied in Bill Gates contrasted to Steve Jobs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-4-elements-transformational-leaders

Back in 1808 New York City was a small town located at the south end of Manhattan Island -- the rest of the island was merely farm and pasture land. But the ambitious New York City Mayor De Witt Clinton had great plans. He created a map where he laid out where the future streets would go. Clinton hoped that New York would expand northwards in time to fill up the entire island. Sure enough, by 1850, New York had grown and had become the largest city in the world. The old America was a place filled with "big dreamers" and their 'big dreams" who thought that anything was possible. Even as late as 1963, President John F. Kennedy pledged that the United States would land a man on the Moon by 1970 -- even though at that moment Kennedy had no idea how to accomplish this incredible feat. But by 1969, the American flag had been planted on the Moon. Today, as we seem unable to solve our many problems (and acquire new problems every day). It looks as though America is no longer filled with confident "big dreamers." Do you agree or disagree with this negative assessment of the United States in 2018?

When answering this question I think you would be best off seeing if you can find examples of Americans overcoming great problems of the current day. I understand that it can all seem like doom and gloom if you are just watching the news highlights, but I would challenge you to see if there really is nothing akin to the growth of New York City or the space race happening today being accomplished by the "big dreamers" of the country.
I'll give you a few examples you might want to consider. Elon Musk is certainly a big dreamer. He seeks to completely transform the way people travel both on Earth and off the planet. While he is not without his own controversies, you should consider his goals to be as audacious as De Witt Clinton or President Kennedy.
You might also consider Sheryll Sandburg, the chief operations officer at Facebook. She is simultaneously growing the world's largest social network and striving to create an even playing field for women in the workplace.
These are just two people you might consider to start off with. I would argue that there are still many American visionaries out there. The difficult part of identifying the big dreamers of today is that their dreams are still uncompleted, and therefore we do not have the historical perspective by which we can analyze and consider their accomplishments.
One final note to consider: America has always had its issues that it has struggled to overcome. In Mayor Clinton's time, there was legalized slavery and oppression of just about every minority in the country as well as a major financial crisis. Kennedy's time had its issues as well. All this is to say that no time in history was without both its setbacks and its visionaries.

What makes John Donne a metaphysical poet? Refer to "The Sun Rising" and "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" for evidence.

Samuel Johnson, who coined the term "metaphysical" to describe seventeenth-century poets like John Donne, wrote that they "yoke" unlikely comparisons (metaphors) together. They like to startle us with their ingenious ideas and images. Not for them are the standard Renaissance metaphors comparing a beloved to a beautiful red rose.
In "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning," Donne startles us with an unusual metaphor to describe two lovers. He compares them to a drawing compass, a tool that enables people to draw perfect circles by holding one "foot" or rod steady in the center of the page while the other foot, attached to a pencil, travels around it. He says the two lovers are like the two feet of the compass: no matter how far apart they might be physically, they are always connected by a spiritual center. This is a startling way to describe love, one that had not been used before.
In "The Sun Rising," Donne turns the tables on the sun. The bed the lovers lie in becomes the sun. This is a startling idea. His speaker addresses the sun, saying,

This bed thy center is, these walls, thy sphere

Metaphysical poets also liked to use hyperbole (exaggeration), and Donne does so in this poem, stating of his lover and himself that they are greater than all states and princes. This is startling but expresses how lovers often feel, that there is nothing in the world but each other:

She's all states, and all princes, I,
Nothing else is.
Princes do but play us; compared to this,
All honor's mimic, all wealth alchemy.

What are some examples of sub-conflicts within the novel Nothing But the Truth?

Nothing But the Truth: A Documentary Novel (by award-winning young adult novelist Edward Irving Wortis, using the pen name "Avi") tells the story of a boy's suspension from the fictional Harrison High School in New Hampshire. The prose style is epistolary, comprising a series of letters and memos dated to specific school days. The protagonist, Philip Malloy, is unable to participate in track (his favorite sport) owing to poor grades in an English class. The interpersonal conflict between Philip and his English teacher, Ms. Narwin, exacerbates into a conflict involving several others in the school and larger community.
Because of his resentment toward Ms. Narwin (who didn't give Philip a passing grade in her English class), Philip hums the National Anthem to disrupt her class. After Philip is asked to be silent for three consecutive days, the school principal (Dr. Joseph Palleni) gives Philip an opportunity to apologize to Ms. Narwin. When he refuses, school policy mandates that he be suspended from school for two days.
When Philip tells his parents that he was suspended from school for "singing the National Anthem," his father in turn tells school board candidate Ted Griffen. Griffen facilitates an interview between Philip and a local journalist, who twists the article to suggest that the school stifled Philip's patriotism. The local article generates national attention, which coincides with Griffen's election to the school board. When Griffen is elected (using Philip's story for notoriety), he cuts Harrison High School's funding.
Ms. Narwin has been discreetly asked to leave her English teaching position. This results in a conflict between Philip and his would-be girlfriend, Allison Doresett, who resents him for his deceitful behavior that caused the dismissal of Ms. Narwin. Philip also foments conflict among the larger student body, which has started a petition to coerce Philip into confessing his belligerent behavior in the incident. Philip's classmate reveals that it was in fact the track coach, Coach Jamison, who suggested such a petition, which was allegedly being spearheaded by Philip's former crush, Allison.
In addition to conflict among Philip and his teachers, peers, and coaches, conflicts arise between Philip's parents, who disagree about using savings to send him to private school. There is also ample conflict among the Harrison High School faculty. The school superintendent (Dr. Seymour) and vice principal (Dr. Doane) are forced to deny Ms. Narwin funds requested for a professional development course, owing to the school's looming budget cuts, despite her generally good rapport and long tenure at the school. There is also conflict between the superintendent (Dr. Seymour) and the school board candidate (Ted Griffen), because Ted both threatens budget cuts to the school and sensationalizes the incident surrounding Philip and the National Anthem. Among this unique novel's many themes is the demonstration that small conflicts can escalate dramatically and involve unwitting and unwilling victims.

How did the soldiers in "The Charge of the Light Brigade" respond to the orders given?

The soldiers of the Light Brigade have been given the suicidal order to charge the Russian guns. They do so without a moment's hesitation. Why? Because "Theirs is not to reason why, / Theirs is but to do or die." In other words, as humble soldiers, it's not their job to question their superiors' orders. If their commanding officers give them the order to charge, even if it's completely suicidal, then they charge. It's as simple as that. The common soldiery isn't there to question orders but to "do or die," i.e. do their duty or die trying.
So the brave men of the Light Brigade make their "wild charge" towards the Russian artillery; all six hundred of them riding straight into the "valley of Death."
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45319/the-charge-of-the-light-brigade

What does Steinbeck say about friendship in Of Mice and Men? What types of friendship are present? What are some quotes that prove this? What would be a good thesis for this?

As the previous educators have discussed, the most notable example of friendship in the novella is the one between George and Lennie and Steinbeck makes it clear that we all need friendship in our lives. However, Steinbeck presents friendship in a more negative light, too. The friendship between George and Lennie, for instance, ends in tragedy when George shoots Lennie to save him from the mob. In addition, Curley’s wife is so desirous of friendship in her life that it damages her reputation on the ranch and, more importantly, leads her to death in the barn with Lennie.
Perhaps, then, we could argue that Steinbeck views friendship as a necessary evil. On the one hand, friendship stops people from feeling empty and lonely, but, on the other hand, friendship can place people in dangerous situations. This idea could form the basis of a thesis statement about friendship in Of Mice and Men.

Steinbeck presents friendship as an essential part of being human, especially for those on the bottom rung of society who don't have much else in life.
George and Lennie's friendship is, of course, the most notable in the story. As itinerant workers, they're unable to establish any lasting friendships apart from the one that binds them together. This makes them ever more reliant on each other for mutual support. As they'll never stay in one place for any appreciable length of time, there's no opportunity to make more than casual acquaintances. But that's not a problem as George and Lennie have each other, as well as their dreams of one day running their own ranch.
Slim notices the close friendship between this unlikely pair. As he keenly observes

Ain't many guys travel around together.

This brief quotation highlights just how unusual the friendship between George and Lennie really is. Slim's an old hand, and has pretty much seen it all, but he's never seen anything like the close bond that exists between this unlikely pair.
A possible thesis statement could be "Friendship in Of Mice and Men allows the poor and exploited to hang on to their dignity and self-respect in the midst of widespread poverty, hardship, and exploitation".

Steinbeck says that friendship is very important in Of Mice and Men. He shows that what gives George hope of a better future is the possibility of owning a small farm with Lennie. Even though George sometimes gets irritated with Lennie, he depends on him for companionship, both in his life as a migrant worker and in his aspirations for a better future.
In contrast to George and Lennie, the other migrant workers are isolated and lonely. Yet many of them are attracted to the idea of a farm and the companionship and rootedness it would offer. Even Crooks is drawn to the idea, though he quickly backs away from it as an impossible dream.
A quote that illustrates the friendship Lennie and George share comes near the end of the book when George is about to shoot Lennie to save him from a worse fate. George says to him "you ... an' me," meaning they are friends who will always stick together. George then says, speaking of the farm and the shared future they will never realize:

"Ever’body gonna be nice to you. Ain’t gonna be no more trouble. Nobody gonna hurt nobody nor steal from ‘em.”

This shows the dream of a world of kindness and fellowship.
Finally, George affirms the deep friendship he feels for Lennie:

“No,” said George. “No, Lennie. I ain’t mad. I never been mad, an’ I ain’t now. That’s a thing I want ya to know.”

A possible thesis would be: "Steinbeck shows that friendship and solidarity with others is key to building a better life than that the migrant workers experience in a soulless capitalist system."

Based on this excerpt from Ernest Hemingway's "In Another Country," what is the contextual meaning of the phrase "take up"? "Ah, yes," the major said. "Why, then, do you not take up the use of grammar?" So we took up the use of grammar, and soon Italian was such a difficult language that I was afraid to talk to him until I had the grammar straight in my mind.

To "take up" the use of grammar means that A) he is suddenly interested in it or engaged with it.
The narrator notes that once he begins paying attention (or engaging in the correct use of) grammar, it becomes difficult to even speak Italian until he processes everything correctly in his mind.
To examine the other (incorrect) things "take up" could mean, the narrator isn't beginning a new position/job, so that context doesn't fit. He's just paying attention to the rules governing usage of Italian speech. He isn't really occupying a time or space here that is conveyed in this phrase. That would be something like, "I took up half the aisle with my bags and buggy." And he is not saying that he's going to postpone his knowledge of Italian grammar, which would be something like, "I decided to take up Italian grammar later."

What happens when Liesel wakes from her dream about the Führer?

Liesel has been having a dream about the Führer, Adolf Hitler. In the dream, Hitler makes a powerful speech, skillfully manipulating language to drive home his point. Hitler is presented in Liesel's dream as a master of words, someone who understands their intrinsic force and the powerful effect they can have on people. In the dream, Liesel—who will later come to understand the power of words herself—greets the Nazi dictator like an old friend. When she suddenly wakes up, she's horrified to see the figure of Death—the narrator of the story—take away the soul of Werner, her younger brother. After Werner's death Liesel often has nightmares about him. In due course, she also comes to realize the true nature of Hitler and everything that he stands for, and which is completely at odds with the benign, friendly image he presented in the dream.

How was the map of the United States changing in the 1800s–1820s?

Let's break the question into three parts, a map of 1800, 1810, and 1820. In 1800, which is about a quarter of a century after the American Revolution, there were sixteen states. The states were primarily converted colonial territories on the Atlantic Coast. The population of the United States according to the census was about 5.3 million. In 1800, France controlled most of the areas west of the Mississippi River, and Spain maintained a presence in what is now Florida as well as the southwest, in what is now Texas. The majority of America was still considered unexplored territory. Lewis and Clark would not be commissioned to explore the region in middle America until 1804.
By 1810, the census count rose to approximately 7.2 million. The United States added one state, bringing the total to seventeen states. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 more than doubled the size of the territories in America ready for exploration and future statehood. The west, from modern-day Texas to what is now California, was still considered foreign land, but this was gradually changing as American pioneers slowly migrated west of the Mississippi River and began to establish settlements.
The census count of the United States by 1820 rose to approximately 9.6 million people. The United States had 23 states. The United States controlled all of the territories west to the Pacific. Looking at the map, you can see the parts of middle America, modern-day Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and parts of Colorado and Utah were still considered foreign territories.
The expansion of the United States west of the Mississippi River was due to the Louisiana Purchase and the gradual displacement of the Spanish in the southwest, bordering modern-day Mexico to the Pacific. Census counts provide evidence of expanding statehood and western expansion.
http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/Territorial%20Map%201775%20-%201920.pdf

https://www.businessinsider.com/animated-map-of-200-years-us-border-territory-changes-2016-1

What do you think some of the reasons are for Okinawa's reversion from American control to Japanese control in 1972? Do you think this choice benefited or put Okinawa at a disadvantage? Why Do you think there was a better option available (such as continued governing by America, independence, or governing by another country)? Why?

There were many reasons why Okinawa reverted to Japanese control in 1972, after 27 years of American control. The aftermath of World War II, the Cold War, Japanese economic recovery, international relations, and the discontent on Okinawa all played a role.
In 1879, Okinawa became a part of Japan. At this time, Japan was expanding its power and influence throughout East Asia, so it was not surprising that the islands came under Tokyo's control. Located just 350 miles from Kyushu, Okinawa was—and remains—a strategic location. Before the Japanese annexed Okinawa, it was known as the Ryukyu Kingdom. The region had paid tribute to China before Japan's ascension in the late nineteenth century. The Japanese suppressed Okinawa's culture and language. For instance, children were not permitted to speak their native language in school. Also, tattooing of women as a sign of adulthood was no longer allowed.
During World War II, the Japanese converted Okinawa into a formidable military base. American military forces finally captured the islands in mid-1945 after an extremely bloody campaign. Over 12,000 American and 100,000 Japanese troops died. About one-fourth of the native population also perished. The Battle of Okinawa, decisive in WWII, was also a defining moment in modern Okinawan history. Memories of the bloodshed were not forgotten by the Americans, the Japanese, or the natives of Okinawa. American leaders were convinced that an invasion of Japan itself would be too costly, and this influenced the decision to use atomic weapons.
All of Japan came under US occupation after WWII. Japan regained its independence in 1952, but Okinawa remained under American control. This was unusual because other defeated Axis powers had regained full sovereignty over their territories. Therefore, permanent American control seemed unfair to Japan.
For the first few years after WWII, not much happened on Okinawa. The small American garrison tried to survive typhoons and dusty conditions. But this changed after 1950. By 1950, the Cold War was on in Asia, and Okinawa was on its front line. The US turned Okinawa into a huge military base and used it during the wars in Korea and Vietnam.
The people of Okinawa had few political and economic rights. They were not citizens of either Japan or the US. As Japan's economy boomed in the 1960s, the people of Okinawa felt left out. No Japanese money was sent to Okinawa before 1961 because the US wanted Okinawa to remain dependent on Washington. However, after 1961, the level of Japanese aid steadily increased, and this increased Tokyo's leverage. Discontent with the status quo grew on Okinawa. Leftist Chobyo Yara became the chief executive of Okinawa, and the US worried about potential violence.
By 1970, the Vietnam War had turned into a nightmare for the US. Moreover, America did not want Okinawa to remain a point of contention in its relationship with Japan. Therefore, Washington was ready to agree to relinquish its total control of Okinawa as part of its new posture in Asia. Japan paid hundreds of millions in reversion costs and American nuclear weapons were removed. As the sovereign power, Japan also gained a voice in determining the American troop levels in Okinawa.
Was there an alternative to Japanese reversion? That is difficult to answer, but probably not. Independence was not a real option, and continued American control was problematic. In a sense, Okinawa will always be problematic because of the US bases there. They dominate the region and its economy. They provide jobs but also limit possibilities for economic diversification.

What is Haywood’s view on patriarchy in light of Fantomina’s and Beauplaisir’s experiences? Is she critical of the uneven consequences of characters’ actions?

Eliza Haywood's Fantomina seeks to expose the double standards of 1700s society, particularly in regard to gender, and therefore is critical of the patriarchy.
Fantomina is a young woman who tricks her lover Beauplaisir by using various disguises to seduce him. While Fantomina (also one of her disguises, by the way) is able to enjoy sexual pleasure for a while without explicit consequences, she eventually becomes pregnant and is sent away to a monastery as a punishment for her behavior. Her lover, however, faces no punishment. The ending of the story shows how men are privileged in a patriarchal society and how women are, by nature of their biology, subject to the burden if an unwanted pregnancy occurs.
He is also able to carry on these affairs with supposedly different with no sense that he's actually sleeping with the same woman. While Fantomina herself devotes lots of thought and energy to her game, Beauplaisir is clueless, showing how he is detached from the personal aspect of sexual interaction. While Fantomina cleverly plans her disguises and gets into character, Beauplaisir moves from woman to woman without a second thought.
The characters' respective behavior throughout the story and vastly different consequences at the end of the story serve as a critique of gendered double standards and by extension of patriarchy at large.

Haywood presents a critical view of patriarchal society in Fantomina. In the story, female identity and individuality are rendered unviable by patriarchy. The fact that the protagonist is nameless, only known under the names of her various disguises, makes her a nonentity, powerless and restricted by society. She is introduced in the very first sentence as “a young Lady of distinguished Birth, Beauty, Wit, and Spirit.” Other than this generic phrasing, she is given no truly distinguishing characteristics. Fantomina, the name of her first disguise, creates for herself a number of differing identities in order to pursue the love of Beauplaisir, a man who does not truly care for any one of those disguises (nor the lady herself).
There is also the point that Beauplaisir does not recognize that the different women he is seeing are in fact all the same person. He does not know that each successive disguise is actually the protagonist until she confesses her masquerade to him. He does not truly see her because in their society, the protagonist does not have a specific self—she is a female role rather than a self-actualized person. This generic female self is what enables her scheme to work in the first place.
While her series of disguises seems like a form of power to the protagonist, they are ultimately a lost cause. She does indeed have a form of control and she does effectively manipulate Beauplaisir, but this fruitless. She undertakes all of these actions that further lessen her sense of identity for a man who does not care for her. He does not end up loving her in any one of her personas. Thus she forces herself to take on these disparate roles in order to keep his affection and she loses her freedom in the process. Beauplaisir, on the other hand, maintains his freedom and his identity throughout the story.
As for the consequences, the protagonist ends up pregnant and without the man she loves. Her mother sends her to a monastery in France as soon she is able to do so. This would have been a sobering life at the time, thwarting her from any possibility of personal freedom. As for Beauplaisir, he faces no lasting consequences. While he offers to take charge of the child, he does not offer marriage or any other form of commitment to the protagonist. When denied the child, he “took his Leave, full of Cogitations, more confus'd than ever he had known in his whole Life.” Beauplaisir simply leaves confused and perhaps a bit troubled, but certainly no worse for wear. Haywood presents this disparity in consequences as a matter of fact. It was how things were at the time, but by presenting a sympathetic figure in her nameless protagonist, she offers a subtle critique of the patriarchal society that engenders such stark realities for women.

Who is the narrator?

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne is narrated in the first person by the character of Pierre Aronnax. Throughout the narration, we tag along with Aronnax as he is first taken under the charm of the charismatic Captain Nemo in spite of his normally scientific and objective nature. We understand firsthand his wonder at how the Nautilus functions and hear directly about the terror he feels throughout their adventure. Over the course of the story, Aronnax shows the reader his slowly dawning realization that Captain Nemo is not the man he thought he was at first, but rather much more mysterious and nefarious.
Aronnax's narration is limited to his own perspective. We often see only what Aronnax is allowed to see by Nemo. At the end of the story, after the destruction of the Nautius, Aronnax tells the readers that he is reporting the story exactly as he experienced it without any revisions.

Not a single fact has been omitted, not the slightest detail exaggerated. It is the faithful narration of an incredible expedition. (2.23.3)

Write a reflection on the TED Talk "Jill Bolte Taylor—My Stroke of Insight." Can you make any connections with the characters in Lord of the Flies?

In her TED Talk entitled "My Stroke of Insight," Jill Bolte Taylor, a brain scientist, speaks about her experience having a stroke. She also speaks, while holding an actual brain, about the differences between the two hemispheres of the brain.
She explains, "our right hemisphere, it thinks in pictures and it learns kinesthetically through the movement of our bodies" (see the link to the transcript of her talk below). The right hemisphere is connected to what is happening at that moment, and it processes the sensory information related to that moment. In many ways, Jack in Lord of the Flies typifies the right side of the brain, as he is concerned with the bodily movements of hunting and with the here-and-now, rather than the future. For example, he does not care whether the boys are rescued or not, and he is not rational or linear in his thinking. He instead concentrates only on the moment and his sensory experiences of the moment.
Jill Bolte Taylor also speaks about the left hemisphere of the brain. She says, "our left hemisphere thinks linearly and methodically. Our left hemisphere is all about the past and it's all about the future" (see the link to her video and the transcript of her video below). In many ways, Piggy in Lord of the Flies exemplifies the left brain's emphasis on order and rational thinking, as well as its focus on the future. He wants to get rescued, and he spends his time thinking rather than hunting. He is rational and civilized, and he does not take part in sensory experiences but instead focuses on intellectual experiences.
The speaker in this TED Talk also mentions the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres of the brain and helps them communicate with each other. Ralph in Lord of the Flies is like the corpus callosum, as he is the intermediary between the savagery and immediate action of Jack, the hunter, and the careful, rational thinking of Piggy. For example, Piggy is the person who convinces Ralph to use the conch, the symbol of order, to call the boys together. Ralph does not think of using the conch on his own, but when he does so, he engages in a left-brained experience of the world. However, Ralph also delights in stabbing pigs and hunting, so he has moments of engaging in a more sensory, right-brained approach to the world. Therefore, Ralph is like the intermediary between the two halves of the brain, the corpus callosum. You may have other reactions and connections to the TED Talk.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight/transcript?language=en

How should one analyze "Meeting at Night"?

ANALYZING 'MEETING AT NIGHT'
Poem Narrative
The poem is about ardent young love, ardent enthusiasm, and feats of devotion. It is about a secret, stolen meeting between upper class lovers who were not yet married. We know they are upper class because of the poetic persona's vocabulary and expression of imagery: These are not common, lower class words and images. The narrative is a simple one expressed in two sentences, each sentence making up one stanza of six lines each. The first sentence ends in a "full stop" period and the second in an exclamation. In between are semicolons and commas, with each stanza having enjambment, no line-end punctuation, in the third line (enjambment: the carrying over of a thought to the next line without line-end punctuation).
I
The grey sea and the long black land;
And the yellow half-moon large and low;
And the startled little waves that leap
In fiery ringlets from their sleep,
As I gain the cove with pushing prow,
And quench its speed i' the slushy sand.

II
Then a mile of warm sea-scented beach;
Three fields to cross till a farm appears;
A tap at the pane, the quick sharp scratch
And blue spurt of a lighted match,
And a voice less loud, thro' its joys and fears,
Than the two hearts beating each to each!
Sentence terminal punctuation:
"i' the slushy sand."
"beating each to each!"

Enjambment:
"waves that leap"
"quick sharp scratch"
The rhymes are different in the two six-line stanzas but each follows the rhyme scheme pattern of abccba, which is a common six-line, or sexain, stanza rhyme scheme pattern. Each stanza contrasts light and dark. In the first stanza, the boat in the darkness, the "black land," the "grey sea" and the "little waves" are illuminated by the contrasting glimmer of the "yellow half-moon large and low." In the second stanza, the "sea-scented beach," the "[t]hree fields" and the farmhouse window "pane" are illuminated by the "blue spurt" of flame gotten after a "quick sharp scratch" from the "lighted match." Although small, the "lighted match" symbolically cuts brightly into the glimmer of the "yellow half-moon." The chiaroscuro effect of light contrasting with dark symbolizes the dichotomous nature of their secret love: their love is their light though hidden in secretive darkness.
The boat used by the poetic persona is a small dinghy that is either a rowing or sailing dinghy. In either case, such dinghies are not meant for traveling great distances across ocean waters. Therefore, our poetic persona has not traveled far, perhaps no further than from up the coast slightly or across a fjord. The boat, since it is a dinghy of a sort, does not imply danger in crossing the sea but excitement and expediency in arriving as quickly as possible. Thus the sea cannot be represented as an obstacle to the persona; the boat with "pushing prow" signifies, in contrast, the haste and ardent energy of the young lover.
Similarly, the man's journey across sea, beach and fields is made without great physical exertion. No imagery of sound or feeling gives an indication of physical strain while facing great obstacles in a quest to perilously reach his beloved's side. On the contrary, the man speeds effortlessly along his way as though with the winged sandals of Mercury (Hermes for the Greeks). The first physical effort recorded is his "tap at the pane." This is followed by the physical effort made by his beloved as she, with a "quick sharp scratch," strikes "a lighted match." Earlier, when the boat came ashore, he gains land, but it is the wave-sped momentum of the boat that gains land and the friction of the sand that slows the speed of the boat. Thus, since his rowing or sailing is completed upon reaching land, the effort alluded to in stanza one is not his own but that of the cooperative forces of nature.
As I gain the cove with pushing prow,
And quench its speed i' the slushy sand.
Poem Setting
Since "Meeting at Night" and "Parting at Morning" are presented as separate poems, their settings seem to suggest different locations. In "Meeting," the mile of beach transitions into three fields approaching the farm and house (the farmhouse, though not mentioned, is implied by the "pane" of a window). In "Parting," the four-line text of which is added below, a cape ushers in the morning sea and morning sun, which is shinning over the mountain top and beaming a path of golden light across the ocean.
Parting at Morning

Round the cape of a sudden came the sea,
And the sun looked over the mountain's rim;
And straight was a path of gold for him,
And the need of a world of men for me.
Seeming to be two different places, one setting is characterized by "long black land," a "cove," a "mile of beach," and "three fields," while the other setting is characterized by a "cape" and a "sudden" rush of "sea," with "a path of gold" from "over the mountain's rim." To reconcile the differences, we might suppose that if the mile of beach in "Meeting" were to terminate in cliff formation, with the three fields running parallel to the cliff-bounded coast, and if the farmhouse were at the cliff edge, then the "cape," "sudden ... sea" and "long black land," "[t]hree fields" and "mountain's rim" might indeed describe two environs of the same setting.
Even though the poems are read independently of each other now, with readers sometimes not knowing of the existence of the other part of the pair, Browning did originate them as forming a poetic unit, therefore it is reasonable to understand them as occupying the same setting. Since we know the setting has sea, cove, beach, fields, cape (cape: a large raised piece of land jutting out into water, usually the ocean), and mountains, it is clear the secret lovers are at the seaside. The specific of "warm sea-scented beach" inclines us to think the seaside may be in the Mediterranean area, perhaps in Italy since Browning spent so much time there.
Poem Diction and Sounds
Diction refers to the categories of word choices a writer makes. The two primary categories of word choices are formal (high) words or informal (low) words. Other categories of word choices are concrete versus abstract words and emotive versus non-emotive words. Diction determines a writers vocabulary, tone and style, which in turn determine a reader's reaction to a work. Poetry, even after the advent of Wordsworth's Romantic era convention of poetry in common (or informal) language, is most often written in high, formal poetic diction with figurative and symbolic language. Nonetheless, there are degrees of formality in poetic diction. "Meeting at Night" presents a meeting of informal and formal diction.
Browning's vocabulary choices are informal, monosyllabic words. [Vocabulary is comprised of the various diction choices, like feline versus kitty, comprised versus made of, is not versus ain't, proximal versus near, etc.] Yet stanza one contains high formal poetic diction in a wonderful pathetic fallacy on the sea waves: "startled little waves that leap / In fiery ringlets from their sleep,...." Browning uses high poetic figurative language to give waves personality and reactions. He first makes them them sleepy and startles them with the presence of the boat pushing its prow toward land. He then gives them ringlets, as found in young beauties' hair, that are lit by the yellow glow from the large, low half-moon. In our mind's eye, we complete the image of the startled, sleepy waves joining in the effort to get the boat speedily to the slushy beach sand of the cove.
Sounds play another significant role in high poetic diction. Some poetic techniques employing sound commonly used are alliteration, consonance, assonance and rhyme. The rhyme Browning uses repeats in an abccba pattern: rhymes land, low, leap / sleep, prow, sand and beach, appears, scratch / match, fears, each.
Stanza one builds harmoniousness--even in haste of "pushing" toward the cove--with consonance of /l/: long black land, startled little, leap, ringlets sleep. He builds friction and suspense into the act of arriving yet still having farther to go by using consonance of /s/ /sh/ /sl/ and /ch/: sleep, slushy, pushing, quench, speed, sand. Consonance of /p/ /g/ /q/ /d/ and /c/ adds conflict and tension: gain, cove, pushing, prow, quench, speed, sand.
Browning further uses sounds of letters to build other sensations, for instance, using /sh/ /ch/ /sl/ and /shy/ to stem the strength of speed and energy as the man reaches the cove in stanza one. Then, in stanza two, he uses /ck/ /scr/ and /tch/ to define the power and eagerness of the woman's actions as she performs the contrastingly small gesture of striking the match at the window pane.
From the diction and sounds of the poem, we can ascribe a tone to the poetic speaker that is energetic, cheerful and bright, as bright as the "yellow half-moon large and low." Note that in this case "low" refers to proximity to the horizon, which governs perceptual size, brightness and light dispersion. "Low" also represents the poetical sensation of being able to reach out and touch the moon. It is interesting that the moon is a "half-moon": it symbolizes the clandestine, secretive, half-hidden nature of the lovers' tryst. We can ascribe a mood (mood: the emotional feeling within the poem based on diction, setting and characterization) that is quiet, calm (a half-moon, sleepy waves, dark long beach, slushy beach sand), not uncooperative, pleasantly accommodating.
Poem Obstacles Confronting the Man
While it might be tempting to think that the sea, mile walk on beach sand and three fields to traverse present obstacles to be overcome and defeated, the idea of conflict against physical obstacles cannot be supported through the text. A reader's responsive reaction might be to see the man's journey as comprised of obstacles that he faces and overcomes, but is there any indication in the text that the man sees or feels the parts of his journey as obstacles?
The only action words apply to the waves. The man doesn't row, run, walk, exert breathlessly, stumble blindly, jump over field stiles. He only "gains the cove" as though effortlessly and on the curls of the "startled little waves" leaping with "fiery ringlets" alight in the beam of the "yellow half-moon." The only action he actually performs is to "tap" on the "pane" of the window. Even his embrace is implied, rather than stated as an action, in "two hearts beating each to each!" No dark straining struggling words or sounds intrude on his effortless journey to the farm. Thus there is no indication that this poem is about obstacles met with, faced and overcome.
There are several textual elements that contradict the idea of a journey against physical obstacles. We've considered the elements of diction, tone and mood, none of which point to conflict or obstacles. What would we expect to find in the text if obstacles were a theme of the man's journey? We might expect to find dark, straining words and sounds; dark tone and mood; dark figures of speech. Let's examine a few literary techniques and see what we do find.


• There are no dominant dark words: "grey" and "black" are counterbalanced by "yellow" and "warm sea-scented"; "fiery" is counterbalanced by "ringlets" and "little waves"; "long black" is counterbalanced by "half-moon large and low."
• Line one opens the poem with mono-syllabic words that are dominated by consonants that stop air flow, /g/ /l/ /ng/ /bl/ /d/; this sound technique adds energy and speed but doesn't add darkness or strain.
• Words with more than one syllable are used for describing elements of nature and create a cheerful tone: yellow, half- moon, startled, little, ringlets, sea-scented.
• Browning uses diction choices and pathetic fallacy to give nature a decided playfulness by creating "startled little waves," "waves that leap," waves that have "fiery ringlets," waves that are awaken "from their sleep" (symbolic of innocence startled into wakefulness); playfulness even extends to the flame of the match, which comes into life with an enthusiastic "blue spurt."
• The tone conveys optimism and strength, not anxiety, exhaustion or exertion: they are said to "gain the cove," not reach or crash into the cove; there is a "pushing prow," not a struggling boat; there is no jarring halt, but they "quench its speed i' the slushy sand."
• There is the representation of beauty in the man's journey in the "warm sea-scented beach," the "[t]hree fields," and in the moment when the "farm appears."
• Energetic sounds and sights dominate the second stanza with the "tap at the pane," the "quick sharp scratch," the "blue spurt" and the "voice less loud" than the quick sharp scratch.
• Personal emotions implied are mostly of elation with "two hearts beating, each to each," although they face both "joys and fears."
It is also not possible to suppose distance presents an obstacle that the man must overcome. We do not know that he is separated by a long distance. We know only that he is separated by an inconvenient distance, a distance most easily traversed by small boat. He is not in danger in the "startled" waves with "ringlets." He is not faint from exertion once he crosses the third field and approaches the farm and taps on the pane of the window. We can suppose only inconvenient distance, not great distance. Therefore we cannot suppose that distance and dangers of travel present obstacles to be faced and overcome.
After a careful analysis of the text, what we find is that there is a harmony between the diction, sounds, tone, mood, imagery and figurative language. We find that none point to physical obstacles that threaten to defeat and must be overcome. While personal experience or individual perspective may tempt a reader response that identifies "fiery waves with ringlets" and "warm sea-scented beach" as conflict of man against physical obstacles, the text points to the antithetical position of harmonious enjoining of personified natural forces and the man's expectant efforts.

Who were the beneficiaries of transatlantic trade?

The Transatlantic or Triangular Trade involved four continents: Europe, Africa, South America, and North America. The term is used to describe the trading relationships from the early seventeenth century to the late eighteenth century. This three-way trade involved the shipment of sugar, tobacco, and cotton to England from America; England exported rum, manufactured goods, and textiles to Africa, and so on.
Mercantilism was the main guiding concept for these complex trading relationships. According to mercantilism, the mother country (England) should have a trade surplus. Colonies existed both to provide raw materials to the mother country and to buy manufactured goods from the mother country. Also, the colonies should not manufacture goods or do anything that might be detrimental to the economic interests of the mother country.
Even though mercantilism was designed to maximize the mother country's benefits, many groups profited. Even African rulers who sold slaves became rich. In the colonies, the export of tobacco was crucial for their economic survival. England became wealthier. African slaves and Indians did not benefit, however. In fact, these may be the only two groups who did not profit from the trade.
England did not strictly enforce navigation rules during most of this period. Lax enforcement was a boon to colonial economic interests. However, after the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, England began to strictly enforce trade rules and levy taxes on the colonies. This change in London's attitude ultimately led to the Revolutionary War (1775–1783).

What does Rainsford hear that causes him to be curious while aboard the yacht?

Rainsford hears what he believes to be gunshots as he reclines aboard a yacht on his way to hunt jaguars in the jungles of South America. Just as he reflects on how genuinely "dark" the night is, he hears the sound:

An abrupt sound startled him. Off to the right he heard it, and his ears, expert in such matters, could not be mistaken. Again he heard the sound, and again. Somewhere, off in the blackness, someone had fired a gun three times.

Rainsford's curiosity draws him to leap onto the rail of the ship to listen for more shots. Unfortunately, he extends too far from the boat, first losing his pipe, and then tumbling into the "blood-warm waters of the Caribbean Sea." He struggles through the waves, swimming toward the general area where he heard the gunshots. Eventually he makes it to the shore of "Ship-Trap Island." Later, he finds out that the gunshots were those of General Zaroff, who was hunting down a sailor from a recent ship wreck on what turns out to be Zaroff's private island. Because he has grown bored with hunting animals, Zaroff has turned to hunting men. The major conflict in the story involves a hunt between Zaroff, the hunter, and Rainsford, the prey.

Why does the astrologer think that he has committed a murder?

The astrologer carries a great burden of guilt for many years. He thinks that he committed a murder long ago, because he stabbed his acquaintance and then took steps to ensure that the latter would not rise again.
After stabbing the man, the astrologer pushed his unfortunate victim into a well. He imagined that his actions rendered the wounded man powerless to escape from the well.
The text tells us that the astrologer was drunk on that day. This could have played a part in his perception of the unfortunate incident. In the story, the astrologer learns a stunning truth: his victim did escape, after all. It was only the coincidental appearance of a stranger that saved his victim's life.
Of course, the astrologer had no knowledge of this. It is the main reason he believes that he committed a murder long ago. Because he feared being discovered, the astrologer ran away from his village. If he had stayed, he would have tilled the land, like his forefathers before him, and grown old in his ancestral home. The story ends with a stunning resolution: not only does the astrologer discover his innocence, he also manages to evade the clutches of his vengeful former acquaintance.

Years before, the astrologer had brutally stabbed a stranger and thrown him down a well, leaving him for dead. It's not really surprising under the circumstances that he felt he'd murdered the man. Ever since that day, the astrologer has had to live with a crushing burden of guilt, believing himself to be a murderer. It's only when he finally comes face to face with the man he thought he'd killed that he realizes that his would-be victim survived, saved by a passerby.
Ironically, the man seeks the astrologer's assistance in finding the man who attacked him; he doesn't recognize the astrologer as his assailant, but the astrologer certainly recognizes him. Despite the tension of the situation, the astrologer is able to do the job for which he's being paid without revealing his identity to the man he attacked all those years ago. But he reveals his true identity to himself: a man who really isn't a murderer after all.

What are the plain facts about Douglass's birth and early years, and how are such facts significant?

Frederick Douglass was born a slave in Talbot County, Maryland, around 1818. One key part of his childhood was that he lived in the same home as the plantation owners—it is speculated that one of the owners may have been his father. When he was ten, a slave owner's wife taught Douglass the alphabet. Douglass would prove a quick and hungry learner who learned to read from others in the neighborhood even though it was forbidden to teach slaves to read. Douglass would later be hired out to William Freeland who did not interfere with Douglass teaching other slaves to read the New Testament.
Douglass would later go on to be hired out to Edward Covey. At the age of sixteen, after taking considerable abuse, Douglass fought back. After beating Covey, the white man never abused Douglass again. Douglass would eventually escape to the North where he would become an activist against slavery.
Douglass came of age at a great time in American history to be associated with the abolitionist movement. Douglass would have been in his thirties and forties at the movement's height. By the time of the Civil War, he was already one of the most prominent black abolitionists in the country. Douglass's thirst for knowledge also led him to be highly literate. Douglass learned that whites did not want blacks to read; from this, he learned that education is power and that it could help end slavery. Douglass also learned that abusive slaveholders were cowardly, in that men like Covey backed down when the slave fought back. Douglass's formative years helped to shape the man he would become later in life.
https://www.biography.com/activist/frederick-douglass

Do you have the summary of Chapter 3 in the Shakespeare Stealer

In Chapter 3, Widge is traveling with the stranger who has just purchased him from Dr. Bright.
As they travel, Widge tries to guess his new master's background. Judging from his clothes and gruff appearance, Widge concludes that the stranger is not a Londoner.
During the journey through the forests of Berwick, the stranger rides on his horse. As for Widge, he must try to keep up the pace on foot. Twice, Widge hopes that his new master will stop for a rest. However, they travel through the night. Widge is exhausted by the time daylight arrives.
Eventually, Widge strikes his poorly-shod foot upon a sharp rock. He sustains an injury and is unable to continue walking. Reluctantly, the stranger hoists Widge up onto his horse. Although grateful, Widge does not dare voice his thanks. The two ride on in silence until they chance upon a group of thieves. All of the thieves are armed with swords, and one even has a crossbow, which he levels at Widge and his new master.
Widge is frightened, but his new master appears unperturbed. The thieves are looking for his master's purse of gold, of course. Surprisingly, the stranger reaches into his cloak and pulls out his purse. The thieves are pleased and by now, lulled into a false sense of security.
As the man with the crossbow reaches out for the purse, the stranger swings out at him in a surprise move. The thief is taken aback and loses his crossbow. As the other thieves close in on the stranger, the latter surprises Widge even more. He more than holds his own against the ruffians and begins to beat them one by one. None of the thieves can match his fighting skills.
As for Widge, he must fend for himself when a one-armed ruffian attacks him. By hanging on to the horse's saddle, he swings his legs at the thief. However, his efforts are in vain. The thief grabs him, and both of them find themselves falling. To regain his balance, Widge grabs on to the thief's neck. Both fall, and the thief strikes his head on a rock. With the thief unconscious, Widge is soon able to disentangle himself.
He does so in time to see his new master dispatching the last of the thieves. Then, the stranger does a surprising thing. He opens up his purse of gold and flings a coin towards the man with the crossbow. The big thief is too dazed to react with much emotion.
Upon resuming their journey, Widge can't help but voice his admiration for his new master's fighting skills. However, the stranger only repeats his former command for Widge to remain silent unless spoken to.

Compare and contrast how the labor unions, the Populists, and the Progressives responded to the changes wrought by industrialization and corporate capitalism between the Civil War and World War I. Which group do you feel was most effective in promoting its ideals, and why? In answering the question, you must discuss the class origins, the concrete proposals, and the values and ideologies of each of these “movements” or groups.

Ultimately, this question refers to the political and economic realities taking shape under the Gilded Age, when business operations were getting larger and larger, as the United States transitioned into the Industrial Age. The thing to keep in mind about this era is that it was defined by laissez-faire capitalism, and there were no regulations in place to protect the rights of workers as there are in today's United States. Poor wages, dangerous working conditions, extraordinarily long hours, child labor: these were all common to the time period in question.
In some respects, the most difficult part of your question to address is the subject of unionization. Unlike the Populists and the Progressives (which tend to reflect specific political movements), there were multiple approaches and organizations which have collectively shaped the history of labor in the United States. The earliest national unionization movement (The National Labor Union), for example, looked towards political action in a way more reminiscent of Britain's Labor Party than what would become the norm in the American context. Both the NLU and the Knights of Labor (founded in 1869) declined, however, and the labor organization which would ultimately prove most effective was the American Federation of Labor. In addition, you'd need to differentiate between Craft Unionism (like the AFL, which is specifically aimed at Skilled Workers) and Industrial Unionism, which embraces all workers within a given industry. The basic idea of unionism, however, remains consistent: there is a fundamental power imbalance between workers and employers, and through the use of collective action and mobilization, unions seek to correct that imbalance.
By contrast, the Populists and Progressives were both political movements, based in government action. The Populists were based in agricultural communities, and while they did try to get reforms in line with working class interest, their main appeal remained in the farming sector. Their most famous reform called for the adaptation of silver currency, to increase inflation (a policy which would be to the benefit of farmers, who would be able to command higher prices and more easily pay off their debts). In addition (among other reforms) they called for a graduated income tax, and various political reforms to increase new levels of democratization into government. The Progressives adopted some of the Reforms first championed by the Populists, and were largely focused on passing legislation and devising solutions which would address and correct some of the fundamental shortcomings of society around the turn of the century. As an example of Progressivism, consider administration of Theodore Roosevelt, during which time the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed, and under whom the Federal government began applying anti-trust laws against Big Business interests (a policy which Taft would expand far beyond Roosevelt's deeply pragmatic sensibilities).
This represents a very basic overview to the key subject matter your question addresses. From here, you would need to look further into the historical record, to compare and contrast which of these groups was most effective, and come up with a rationale for why.

What are three good reasons for capital punichment?

One justification for capital punishment comes from the Biblical admonishment not to murder (one of the Ten Commandments) and from God's instruction to Moses in Exodus 21:14: "But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die."
Another justification comes from the renowned Biblical notion of "an eye for an eye," which in reality was a quote expressing the societal mores of the time. In most ancient societies, as well as modern ones, it has always been acceptable to put someone to death in retribution for first-degree (premeditated) murder. Applications of the death penalty for non-fatal crimes—say, for treason or embezzlement—are more controversial.
A third justification for the death penalty is more practical. Advocates say capital punishment deters others from committing crimes they know could result in execution. They also argue it's cheaper for society in the long run to execute prisoners than to confine them for life, paying for their food, shelter, and medical needs. Though these claims have been challenged by death-penalty opponents, I believe they are mostly accurate.
One major problem with the argument that capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent is that it's difficult to measure events that never happen. In other words, researchers really don't know how many times a criminal chose not to kill someone, or not to get involved with a crime that led to murder, because they were afraid of the consequences. Also, I realize that both keeping inmates imprisoned and the long process of court appeals before execution are expensive; it makes intuitive sense, though, that housing a murderer for life (say, on average, 40 years) and tending to medical needs as he or she ages, will ultimately cost more than a multi-year appeal process and the price of execution and burial.
As a case study, it is estimated that it cost California taxpayers more than $1 million—by some estimates more than $2 million—to house notorious murderer Charles Manson for 46 years before his death last year. Capital-punishment proponents claim it would have cost the state about half that much to execute him (California outlawed the death penalty shortly before Manson's 1971 conviction).
https://fortune.com/2017/11/21/charles-manson-prison-cost/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charles-manson-cost-millions-to-keep-in-prison/

https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/7-cap-pun.htm

How did Britain benefit from America?

The American colonies were a benefit because they added to Great Britain's wealth and prestige.
Even in the seventeenth century, when Europe was far less populated than today, it had depleted many of its natural resources. North America, on the other hand, looked to the Europeans like a vast "wilderness" and was, compared to Europe, filled with an abundance of seemingly limitless natural resources: fertile land to be cultivated, a vast number of animals for fur, trees for timber, and other raw materials. The merchant and governing classes saw the potential for vast money making.
The British set up the colonies to capture most of the wealth produced for the British homeland, which eventually created the tensions that led to the American Revolution. Legally, the colonists were only allowed to sell their raw materials to the British. Since it was a captive market, the British could pay low prices for these materials. (There was such an abundance, however, that the colonists could still prosper.) The British would then turn these raw materials into finished products and sell them back to the Americans at high prices. The British had a monopoly on selling as well as buying, as the colonists were, in theory, only allowed to buy from the British."Buy low, sell high" was the motto.
If they did buy finished goods from other countries, the colonists were supposed to pay high tariffs. For many years, however, the British turned a blind eye to the Americans breaking these laws, as there was so much wealth pouring in; when the motherland did try to get more serious about enforcement of tariffs, the Americans became extremely unhappy.
As for prestige, after realizing that Columbus had discovered a new continent, the race was on to establish first outposts, claims to land, and then colonies there, which added to the prestige of countries wanting to be powerful players on the world stage. This period of colonialism and imperialism would last into the twentieth century, after which the cost of administering colonies began to outstrip profit. England, a rising world and a naval power, wanted to flex its muscles around the world and show it was a power to contend with that could control the high seas. Colonies in the Americas helped it extend its power and prestige.

The morning after the Fourth of July celebration, what did Grimes learn?

The morning after the Fourth of July celebrations, Grimes learns that Lucy has escaped from the plantation. As the overseer, it's Grimes's job to make sure that all the slaves are herded on and off the wagons at the beginning and end of each working day. But on this particular occasion, when everyone returns to the plantation, he notices that Lucy's nowhere to be found.
Caline tells Grimes that Lucy's been sick and so spent all day in her cabin recovering. Grimes is angry that Lucy appears to have stayed home without asking permission. He tells Bob to go to Lucy's cabin and check if she's still there. The guard thinks that she is, but it turns out the next morning that it was just a dummy's head lying on Lucy's pallet and that she's actually escaped. So Grimes puts together a posse of men and bloodhounds to go find the runaway slave.

How does this story explore the theme of youth?

Oates's short story is compelling because she is able to expose the frailty of youth. In a culture obsessed with being young and associating youth with power, Oates offers a contrary perspective. The story demonstrates how the allure of youth is illusory and a potential dangerous mirage.
Arnold Friend is one of the best examples of the illusion that is youth. It becomes clear that he is much older than he appears to be. Youth is the mask that he uses in order to perpetrate his crimes. He first appears in a popular hangout for kids, blending in because of his youthful appearance. The supposed uniqueness of youth is actually a conformist mentality because of how fashion dominates individual choices. Arnold is perfectly fit for this because fitting in is his modus operandi in terms of moving closer to his intended targets. His car is one that appeals to young people, complete with the slogans that young people speak. Connie recognizes that his outward appearance of youth masks someone older, pasted together with makeup and lifts in his shoes. Connie would not have given Arnold a second thought had he originally appeared his age. It is because he is young that Connie pays attention to him, and thus seals her own fate.
Connie's youth is also an example of illusion. Connie believes that she has power and control. She is scornful towards the more mature visions of domesticity that her parents and sister represents. At the same time, she believes that because she covets social popularity and her own status is central to her being, she holds power. It is only when Arnold threatens her life and the lives of her family that she understands the frailty of her being young. In the final moments of the story, Connie actually acts older than anyone else in her condition of self-sacrifice. Connie rejects youth in favor of maturation, thereby causing her own destruction.
Interestingly enough, Oates's construction of Connie's parents is one where the immaturity that is often associated with youth is present. Connie's parents are "immature" in the sense that they are out of touch with their child, unable to form a bond or provide the nurturing environment that a teen like Connie needs. Their failure to provide structure is seen in the story. It is evident in their failure to demand clear answers to the most basic answers that govern all parenting of teenagers: "Where are you going?" and "Where have you been?" In being able to display parents who are immature in their failure to provide boundaries and expectations, Oates suggests that the folly of youth is not limited to children.
Youth is a "runaway train" that deludes people into believing they have control. The reality is far different. The derailed train is evident in the terror of Arnold Friend and the victimization that he causes.

How is the old man symbolic of the plight of a civilian at the time of war?

The old man in the Ernest Hemingway's short story "Old Man at the Bridge" is certainly representative of the plight of civilians during wartime. In this short story, a war correspondent during the Spanish Civil War happens upon an old man who has stopped from fatigue at a bridge. Soldiers had just crossed the bridge, quickly retreating from enemy forces who are making their way towards the retreating soldiers. The war journalist asks the old man why he is stopping at the bridge considering the imminent death that is so steadily approaching him. The old man reveals that he is simply too fatigued to go any further and is also incredibly worried about the animals he was forced to leave behind in his village. The old man, too weary to continue any further, is forced to await his impending death as the reality of war closes in all around him. The old man represents the helplessness that emphasizes so much of civilians' experience when being impacted by war.

What did Edmund Burke mean by "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."?

Although this famous quotation has been attributed to the great Irish statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke, it's by no means certain that he actually said it. However, he did say something that sounds very similar which has a similar meaning:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

Here, Burke is drawing attention to the natural tendency for the wicked to form themselves into self-serving groups or cabals. It is this capacity for organization that makes evil men so powerfully effective and so difficult to eradicate from public life.
In response to this, the only way that the wicked and their malevolent designs can be defeated is if good men do likewise—by also forming themselves into organized groups. If this doesn't happen, if good men "do nothing," as in the original quotation, then it is certain (as night follows day) that evil will triumph.

What does the Ghost share about Tiny Tim’s future?How does Scrooge react, and what does this show about him?

The Ghost of Christmas Present shows Scrooge how the Cratchits celebrate Christmas. It's a happy, jolly scene, full of warmth and laughter. But there's no getting away from the fact that Tiny Tim's not in the best of health. He's so severely disabled that he has to be carried home from church by his father. And when at home, he can only get about by hobbling around on crutches.
Scrooge shows concern for Tiny Tim by asking the Ghost what will happen to him. The Ghost replies by telling Scrooge that if things go on as they are, then Tiny Tim will die. The implication here is that Scrooge must change his ways in order to save the young lad's life. At this stage in the story, it would appear that Scrooge is indeed starting to change his ways. His concern for Tiny Tim's welfare appears genuine and unforced. But it's only later on, when the Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come shows him Bob Cratchit and his family mourning the death of Tiny Tim, that Scrooge finally realizes his responsibilities towards the poor young boy.

What impact did Europeans have on their New World environments—meaning native peoples and their communities as well as ecological elements such as the land, plants, and animals? Conversely, what impact did the New World's native inhabitants, land, plants, and animals have on Europeans? How did the interaction of European and Indian societies together shape a world that was truly "new"?

Both the New World and the Old World influenced each other heavily in what is called the Colombian Exchange. Diseases such as smallpox wiped out entire villages of Native Americans—around ninety percent of the Native Americans in the New World died due to disease brought from the Old World. These weakened strong empires enough so that small groups of Europeans could wipe out civilizations that had existed for hundreds of years.
The Spanish, realizing the power of the horse, initially forbade Native Americans from owning them. The horses soon escaped, and Native Americans on the Plains soon became adept riders, using the horse to hunt buffalo and in war. The arrival of the horse led to the Cheyenne and Lakota becoming strong Plains tribes.
Pigs also escaped from farmers and became feral hogs. Having no natural predators, these pigs soon reproduced and destroyed native crops. Today feral hogs remain nuisance animals throughout the southeastern United States. Europeans also brought wheat to the New World—the climate soon made the New World a major exporter of grain back to the Old World.
The New World also contributed heavily to the Old World. Jamestown settlers created a hybridized tobacco that used strains from Virginia and the Caribbean—this tobacco then became popular throughout the world, especially in Europe and the Middle East. Vegetables such as squash, maize, and potatoes increased lifespans in the Old World and thus helped to fuel the overcrowding that led to immigration.
The Colombian Exchange changed the world and was the greatest man-made biological exchange in history. The Old World ultimately benefited more than the New World, as the New World faced unknown European diseases. All was not bad for the New World, however, as the horse transformed Native American culture and enabled many tribes to thrive.

The arrival of Europeans in the Americas had a profound effect not only on the Americas but also on the world as a whole. For the first time, there would be a sustained connection between the Old World (Europe, Asia, and Africa) and the New World (North America and South America). The exchange of culture, technology, disease, plants, and animals between the two worlds would become known as the "Columbian Exchange" and would lead to an interconnected globe.
The impact Europeans had on native civilizations is generally considered to have been negative. Although new technology and food were introduced to the Americas by Europeans, many of the thriving native civilizations were destroyed as Europeans craved greater territorial control over the Americas and the plentiful valuable resources they contained. One of the biggest threats to indigenous civilization came through the introduction of diseases like smallpox. Europeans had developed greater immunity to diseases like smallpox, whereas Native American immune systems had not been previously exposed to these new diseases and were not able to fight them off. In the centuries following European arrival in the Americas, there was a severe drop in the native population. This drop is largely due to the introduction of new deadly diseases. (However, it is equally important to note that the population also dropped due to systemic and intentional violence perpetrated by the Europeans.)
Native Americans and Europeans also clashed on ideas regarding land ownership. European colonizers saw land as something that could be owned by an individual. This meant they could use the land as they saw fit and could keep others off their land. This led to clashes with many of the natives, who did not see land as something one could maintain private ownership of. The indigenous peoples viewed land as more of a resource that could be shared for the greater good.
Europeans also had an impact on the environment in the Americas. The popularity and value of beaver pelts led to the arrival of great numbers of fur traders and hunters from Europe. The high demand eventually led to a significant decline in the beaver population in the Americas, as hunters sought them out in the name of profits. In some regions of North America, the beaver faced near-extinction. The loss of the beaver—a key part of the ecosystem—led to decreases in populations of other creatures that relied on the beaver for their own survival.
Europeans also introduced pigs to the New World. Pigs, when released to search for food sources, proved destructive as well. Pigs competed with animals native to the New World for food sources, and they can be seen as an invasive species.
Europeans also found the environment of the Americas suitable for certain cash crops which they struggled to develop in Europe. Tobacco, cotton, and sugar became central factors in making European colonization profitable. New plant-based foods would also be introduced to Europe from the Americas. Staple foods, such as potatoes, tomatoes, corn, and peanuts, which were native to the New World would be introduced and become popular in Europe.
The major impact of Native Americans on Europeans could be their knowledge of the Americas. In a number of cases, early colonists in the Americas relied on the knowledge of indigenous people to survive harsh conditions. This would ultimately prove to hasten the downfall of many native cultures.
Contact between Europeans and Native Americans brought the world into a new, unprecedented interconnected era. The contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" would lead to the introduction of new foods, technologies, and ideas to people who had not yet been exposed to them. It would, however, also lead to the introduction of new diseases and the destruction of entire civilizations as well. Over the next few centuries, the Americas would change from continents controlled by Native Americans to continents dominated by European colonizers.

Explain "wholeness, harmony, and radiance."

This quotation comes from A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce. It forms part of Stephen Daedalus's interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas's aesthetic theory, which he patiently explains to one of his schoolmates. The great medieval philosopher set down three criteria for what is truly beautiful, which can be translated from the original Latin as wholeness, harmony, and radiance. Each of these essential qualities corresponds to a specific phase of artistic apprehension. Let's take the example that Stephen Daedalus uses, that of a basket.
The first stage of aesthetic apprehension involves isolating the object—in this case, a basket—from its surroundings. It is only then, when it has been freed from the world of space and time, that the object can be apprehended as a singular thing in its own right, in its wholeness.
If the first stage involved seeing the object, the second stage of artistic apprehension involves analyzing it. This means that one starts to examine all the features of the object—its lines, shapes, and colors—observing how all the various parts fit together to form a whole. This is what Daedalus, following Aquinas, means by an object's aesthetic harmony.
Having seen the object and analyzed it into its component parts, what we now need to do is synthesize it, or put the whole thing back together in our minds. Using our example, we are now in a position to see the basket as this thing and no other. The final stage of aesthetic apprehension involves an appreciation of what medieval philosophers called the quidditas of a thing, its essence. Once this stage has been reached, then the object's beauty stands revealed in all its radiance, illuminating the mind of the artist, stimulating their imagination, and inducing a state of supreme aesthetic pleasure.

How does this book explore the idea of duty over love?

In As I Lay Dying, duty seems to be more of a factor and motive than love. The Bundrens are basically taking Addie’s body to Jefferson to bury because of familial duty. Cash does his duty in making Addie’s coffin. Darl and Jewel do their duty in running an errand for Tull for three dollars. The Bundrens are poor, so this three dollar job seems to be more important than being there when their mother dies. The family is tied together by obligation, rather than any emotional tie.

Explain how the Grand Inquisitor represents the almost unlimited power of the Roman Catholic Church at that time, and try to cite some historical examples of the church's far-reaching powers.

Ivan relates a story that Jesus Christ returned to earth in the sixteenth century, during the Spanish Inquisition. The Grand Inquisitor adamantly repudiates the core values of Christ’s teachings. Instead, he conforms to the rigid views that the Catholic Church was putting forward at that time. One of the most far-reaching was the condemnation of all non-Catholics as heretics, which resulted in either burning them and texts that contained their beliefs or forcing them to convert. Such a mass burning was called an acts of faith, auto da fe.
As Ivan and Aloysha discuss this fable, Jesus was apprehended by the Inquisition, and the Grand Inquisitor ordered his execution. Among the tenets this Church official challenges is Christ’s assurance to make men free and promises to end what he sees as a false promise of freedom. This implies that the Church seeks domination and control, as distinct from faith. The Grand Inquisitor’s concern is that this has encouraged evil to spread, and that his responsibility is to contain it.
During the fifteenth–seventeenth centuries, as the Inquisition extended its reach across the Atlantic, forced conversions were a part of the missionization of the New World. Some indigenous people were still killed after they were baptized, with the rationalization that they would no longer be condemned to limbo. The Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas was among the Spanish clerics who wrote treatises that opposed such practices.
The considerable political power that the Catholic Church wielded in the fifteenth century is well illustrated by its role in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas which divided the subsequent colonialization of the New World between Spain and Portugal. The treaty built on the Spanish support obtained from Pope Alexander VI, who issued two papal bulls in 1493 favoring the claims of Ferdinand and Isabella, known as the Catholic Monarchs.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Tordesillas

What is the meaning of "Placetne, magistra?" and "Placet" in Gaudy Night?

Gaudy Night was written by mystery writer Dorothy L. Sayers and published in 1935. It is her tenth novel to feature her detective character Lord Peter Wimsey.
The novel ends with the Latin phrases: "Placetne, magistra?" and "Placet." The translation of these two phrases are "Does it please thee, Mistress?" and "It pleases," respectively.
In a little more detail, "Placetne, magistrata?" is asked by Lord Peter Wimsey to Harriet Vane. Harriet Vane replies with "Placet." By adding the "ne" to the end of Placet in the question means that Lord Peter Wimsey knows that he will receive a positive response. "Magistra" means mistress in the scholarly sense: Master or Mistress of the Arts. Lord Peter Wimsey is addressing Harriet Vane with her title.

What does Captain Keller assume about his position in society and his family? Is that challenged in the course of the play? How does he respond?

For Annie Sullivan to succeed with Helen, she must challenge Captain Keller’s assumptions about his role. He is a conservative Southerner who behaves as an authoritarian figure in his home. He also expects respect because he comes from a prominent family. One thing Annie must point out to him is that the family has actually allowed Helen, a child, to run their lives because they have not laid out rules that she must follow. He feels pity toward his daughter, who he assumes to have mental as well as physical disabilities. Sullivan points out that he must think ahead about Helen’s well-being after he passes away (or is buried “under the strawberries,” as she puts it).
She helps initiate a change by insisting on removing Helen from the home for her lessons. His opinion of himself and his family basically do not change, but his behavior in regard to his daughter and his appreciation of Annie’s talents does change after Annie and Helen demonstrate that the Helen understands language.