What are the simple sentences in the first chapter of Robinson Crusoe?

Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe was published in 1719. No one can deny that writing styles, especially in fiction, have changed dramatically in the last three hundred years. The first chapter of this work contains more than five thousand words, and among all those words, very few "simple sentences" occur. Among modern authors, the short sentence is often preferred. Not so in Defoe's day.
A simple sentence is defined as a sentence with one clause; it could have a dual subject or a dual verb, but it cannot have two or more dependent or independent clauses. A reader will notice immediately Defoe's penchant for semicolons. Any sentence with clauses joined by a semicolon cannot be a simple sentence. Any sentence that has a relative clause (beginning with who, which, or that) is complex or compound-complex sentence rather than simple. The great majority of Defoe's sentences are compound-complex.
The rare simple sentences from this chapter include:

Being the third son of the family and not bred to any trade, my head began to be filled very early with rambling thoughts.
Then all hands were called to the pump.
Perhaps this has all befallen us on your account, like Jonah in the ship of Tarshish.
I would not set my foot in the same ship with thee again for a thousand pounds.

Although Defoe's syntax is challenging, his story is nevertheless gripping. Readers who make it through the first chapter will no doubt want to continue reading despite the complicated sentence structure.

What are some interesting facts about Chester Arthur?

Chester Arthur was the 21st President of the United States. He was vice president under James Garfield, and later became president after Garfield's death in 1881. During this time, there was not a set protocol for who should assume the role of vice president after he became president, so he served for four years without one.
Here are some additional facts about the 21st president.
Although he was born in Vermont in 1829, he faced accusations of not being born in the United States—which would make him ineligible for presidency. His father had lived in Ireland and Canada, and his parents did move around after Chester's birth, but he was a natural-born citizen.
He was a member of the Ristigouce Salmon Club, which was an exclusive club made up of New York fisherman who traveled to Canada for fishing trips.
His first son suffered a sudden death when he was three years old, and his wife died of pneumonia a year before he was sworn in as president.
He was the first president to take the Oath of Office in his home. There was a dispute about whether or not the Oath was official, so he retook it when he arrived in DC. He also did not give an inaugural address.
Shortly after becoming president, he was diagnosed with Bright's disease, which is a kidney disease.
He held a yard sale to raise money for new furniture for the White House. He sold twenty-four wagon loads of items he found in the White House, including the old furniture, Abraham Lincoln's pants, and a hat that belonged to John Quincy Adams.
He was nicknamed "elegant Arthur" for his fashionable attire and is known to have owned at least 80 pairs of pants, which was unheard of back then.
He was a night owl and was rarely in bed before 2:00 a.m. When friends visited, he often took them on late night or early morning strolls through DC between 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning.
Under his presidency, the International Meridian Conference met to determine the international standardized time that we still use today.

Does Richard Roma have a hidden agenda?

One of the many surprises in David Mamet's excellent play Glengarry Glen Ross is Ricky Roma's revelation of his crafty and venal character at the very end. Roma has pretended to share in Shelly Levene's triumph when the aging salesman bursts into the office and announces that he just finished selling eight units of Mountain View for $82,000 and is "back on the board." Roma wants to hear all about the sale. He keeps calling him "Levene the Machine," praising and flattering him, defending him from Dave Moss, and finally suggesting that he would like to go into partnership with Shelly. He shows what he has in mind in the following:

"Shel: I want to talk to you. I've wanted to talk to you for some time. For a long time, actually. I said, "The Machine, there's a man I would work with. There's a man. . . . You know? I never said a thing. I should have, don't know why I didn't. And that shit you were slinging on my guy today was so good . . . it . . . it was, and, excuse me, 'cause it isn't even my place to say it. It was admirable . . . it was the old stuff. Hey. I've been on a hot streak, so what? There's things that I could learn from you. You eat today?"

But then, near the very end of the play, when Shelly is pushed into the side room to make a formal confession to the cop named Baylen, Roma says:

"Williamson: listen to me: when the leads come in . . . listen to me: when the leads come in I want my top two off the list. For me. My usual two. Anything you give Levene . . . . Do you understand? My stuff is mine, his stuff is ours. I'm taking half of his commissions--now, you work it out."

Roma obviously doesn't know that Shelly is going to be taken out in handcuffs and will lose his license and probably go to jail. What Roma has in mind is accompanying Shelly on his "sits" but keeping his own sits all to himself. All his flattery has been leading up to a selfish proposition. He thinks Shelly will go for the idea of a partnership because Shelly has been running cold and Roma has been running hot. Roma is still young. Shelly is getting old and demoralized, not unlike Willy Loman in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman.
Eventually Shelly would have found out that Roma was not sharing his own leads with him but helping himself to half of Shelly's; in the meantime Roma might have made a lot of extra money, and he might have even been able to continue the partnership arrangement if he had proved Levene could make more money with his help than he could make going out on sits by himself.
The way Roma proposed to cheat Shelly is similar to the way Dave Moss cheated Shelly on the sale of the the Glengarry leads to Jerry Graff. Shelly stole them but Moss took them to Graff and gave Shelly $2500, probably keeping around $5000 for himself. Moss was planning to do the same thing with Aaronow, but Aaronow backed out and Moss enlisted Shelly at the last minute.

Explain the pathetic fallacy in act 2, scene 2, and what it reflects in Macbeth's and Lady Macbeth's characters.

A pathetic fallacy is a literary device that attributes human emotions to inanimate objects of nature in order to reflect the mood of a certain scene. In act 2, scene 2, Macbeth is assassinating the king inside King Duncan's chamber as his wife waits for him to finish the bloody deed. As Macbeth is murdering the king, Lady Macbeth remarks:

It was the owl that shrieked, the fatal bellman, Which gives the stern'st good-night. (2.2.3–4)

The shrieking owl can be perceived as an element of nature that reflects the horrifying murder taking place in Macbeth's castle. The shrieking sound is unnatural and jarring, which corresponds to the bloody assassination. By comparing the sound to a "fatal bellman," Lady Macbeth reveals her resolute nature and satisfaction. She is pleased with the assassination and shows absolutely no remorse.
When Macbeth comes out of Duncan's chamber, he asks Lady Macbeth if she heard a noise. Lady Macbeth responds by saying:

I heard the owl scream and the crickets cry. (2.2.16)

Once again, Shakespeare utilizes a pathetic fallacy to reflect the horrifying murder and ominous mood. The owl screaming and crickets crying corresponds to Duncan's assassination and contributes to the frightening, threatening atmosphere of the scene. Macbeth proceeds to mention that he heard Duncan's servants saying:

Sleep no more; Macbeth does murder sleep. (2.2.34)

Macbeth's hallucinations highlight his guilt and anxiety regarding his crime. Unlike his wife, Macbeth is not at ease, and the pathetic fallacy reveals that he is experiencing deep remorse and regret.
https://literarydevices.net/pathetic-fallacy/

A pathetic fallacy is an attempt by a character to relate the outside world to their internal thoughts and emotions. When someone feels like the outside world is a pure reflection of their inner life, it is very egocentric and drawn in on themselves.
In the play Macbeth, both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth hear sounds outside that they believe are indicative of the events they have set in motion—Lady Macbeth states that the owl is ringing the bell to signal Duncan's murder, while Macbeth believes he hears a voice outside of his head telling him he will never sleep again because he will be tormented by the events that have transpired.
Lady Macbeth presents an attitude of satisfaction and completion when she reflects on the sound, showing her callous and calculating nature. Macbeth, however, is tormented by what he experiences, showing that he is more withdrawn. However, by the end of the play, Lady Macbeth will be the one to crumble and descend into madness because of the events she has woven, not Macbeth.

In the pathetic fallacy, characters perceive nature or the world outside of themselves to be reflecting or expressing their own thoughts or emotions. A classic example would be a rainy night reflecting the downcast mood of a character.
In act 2, scene 2, both Lady Macbeth and Macbeth use the pathetic fallacy. Lady Macbeth perceives the owl's shriek as the sign reflecting that Macbeth has murdered Duncan. She likens the owl to the "fatal bellman," the person who rings the bells to signal an execution. She says,

Hark! Peace! It was the owl that shrieked, the fatal bellman . . .

Macbeth comes back from the murder believing he has heard a "voice," something outside of himself, that reflects his own emotion of horror and tells him he will no longer sleep peacefully. He tells Lady Macbeth,

Methought I heard a voice cry, “Sleep no more!
Macbeth does murder sleep”—the innocent sleep,
Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care . . .

Lady Macbeth at this point comes across as the stronger, harder character. She advises Macbeth not to think about voices or dwell on the horror of what he has done, because that is the way of madness. He is shattered at this point, but later, their roles will reverse: Lady Macbeth will crack under the strain and go mad while Macbeth becomes hardened.

Explain how Bear and Crispin enter the town of Great Wexley without being stopped by armed soldiers who guard the entry gates in Crispin: The Cross of Lead.

With a bounty on his head, Crispin cannot simply walk into Great Wexley. As Bear and Crispin approach the city, they can clearly see that the guards outside the city's gate are closely questioning the people who wish to enter. Bear correctly assumes that the guards are looking for Crispin. He hatches a deceptive plan to get past them.
Instead of trying to sneak quietly into the city, Bear decides that they should do just the opposite. He tells Crispin to take out his flute and play a diddy. Dancing joyfully along to the music, Bear attracts the crowd over to him. They start cheering and laughing along as they enjoy the impromptu show. Even the guards join in. They must assume that wanted fugitives would not be so bold as to call this much attention to themselves. Consequently, Crispin and Bear are permitted to enter the city without any further questioning.

Why is luck important?

The idea that cultural success comes from geographic chance, rather than anything inherent in race or biology, is a significant concept for many reasons. It shows that all our modern constructs of "First World" and "Third World" countries come from absolute happenstance. Luck, or the lack of it, has made our world into what it is today.

How did neo-classical elements imbue court life under Louis XIV? Refer to art, architecture, music and performance, and especially the theater of Molière.

In the following response, I'll share some thoughts on the relationship between art and absolutism, and the ways in which the absolutists made use of the arts, and to what purposes. Hopefully, this should give you some context you can then think about when trying to answer this question.
First of all, you should be aware that absolutism in the early modern era was largely about forwarding a certain image of royal authority. We see this displayed in the great palaces of the early modern era: most famously at Versailles, but one can also point towards such examples as the royal palace of Caserta (in Italy), or the royal palace in Madrid (to give only two other examples). In any of these cases, you will observe extraordinary visual opulence on a phenomenal scale, and this is all by design. These palaces are meant to invoke feelings of awe, to humble the observer with this impression of royal grandeur.
Additionally, consider that absolutist monarchies were very much performative, and to look with more detail into your example of the Bourbon court at Versailles more than verifies this. Life in Versailles was dictated by ritual, with the aristocracy of France essentially reduced to the level of sycophants, competing for the favor and attention of the King. And note, this was very much by design: the nobility represented a competing power structure which absolutist monarchs were ultimately trying to weaken and render powerless. Consider that Louis XIV rose to power in the backdrop of a civil war (the Fronde) which ultimately culminated in armed conflict between royalist forces and the arch-nobility of France. This is all very much by design.
Neo-classicism, then, represented a tool the monarchy used in order to foster an image and impression of royal power and authority. As mentioned before, we see it in the royal palaces of Europe, as well as in the artwork which fills those palaces. We can look backwards (towards the Renaissance for example), and trace this same theme across most of history, to see how art has been used as a tool by the ruling powers to assert an image of themselves conducive to their own interests: the history of patronage is practically based within this calculus. So it is with absolutist monarchs as well: absolutism draws heavily upon the use of imagery, and for a very specific effect.

To what extent is Ayi Kwei Armah's The Healers a call for unity, oneness, solidarity, and the rebirth of a new Africa?

The Healers presents a society that is being torn apart, with damaging and often fatal effects on its people. Healing is both a literal occupation (and necessary activity in regard to treating sick people) and a metaphor for supplying the social unity that is sorely lacking. Densu, the protagonist, is shown to represent belief in traditional culture through his participation in its manhood rituals. This attachment is further shown when, after escaping a miscarriage of justice, he joins Damfo and his group of healers in the forest. Araba Jesiwa, mother of the murdered prince Appia, is recuperating in this community.
The simple ways of the healers, however, are not adequate to restore social wholeness. Araba Jesiwa, who had been presumed dead, is also the symbolic mother of all the Asante; her recovery is key to the prescribed social unity. The excesses of both sides, represented by the two generals—the resentful Asante Asamoa Nkwanta and the arrogant British Wolseley—put forward serious obstacles to progress. Densu cannot hide away from his social responsibilities, which include helping numerous tribes to unite against the British. At the same time, the author suggests, the Africans should use the best of the British system, such as the courts that exonerate Densu.

How would you write a paper on pesticide control? It needs an introduction with a roadmap for your argument, as well as a thesis, contextual information explaining why change is needed, and identification of the problem that can be addressed via policy (the one you propose) and the existing policy landscape (which policies currently impact the situation). What are the pros and cons of your proposal, and how does the anticipated payoff justify the costs?

The National Pesticide Information Center (see the link below) is a good source of information for this paper. As they point out, pesticides can not really be divided into "safe" and "dangerous." Instead, pesticides always pose a risk to humans and pets. The risk of pesticides depends on one's exposure to the pesticide and the toxicity of the pesticide.
There are several different options for this paper. One option is to write about methods of pest control that are less toxic. Another potential topic is how the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has developed plans to control pesticides in schools (see the CDC link below). They have developed a process called Integrated Pest Management to limit the exposure of children and teachers to pesticides. You could phrase your thesis along the lines of "The government should limit pesticides in schools to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals." The context is that children (and teachers) can show adverse health effects from exposure to pesticides. Then you want to include the pros and cons of your proposal, which depend on your research. In the case of Integrated Pest Management, the cons are that there could be extra costs from keeping up schools (for example, repairing cracks that are the points of entry for pests) and keeping schools clean to avoid pest infestations (part of Integrated Pest Management). The pros are that this proposal would reduce children's and teachers' exposure to dangerous chemicals and improve the safety of schools. In your paper, you can weigh the pros and cons of the plan and decide whether you think the pros outweigh the cons. Your conclusion can recap your proposal, stating it in different words.
http://npic.orst.edu/health/risk.html

Why was Martin Luther King, Jr. such a powerful figure in American history?

Martin Luther King was a pivotal figure in American life during a time of extreme transformation of society, the 1960s. This was the period following the violent assassination of a president (JFK) and later, his brother Robert Kennedy, as well as the Vietnam War, women's struggle for rights, and mass migration of African-Americans to northern cities. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 attempted to put into law protections for individuals who had faced social, political and economic discrimination, and King at the forefront of that movement. Like Ghandi, King was able to preach a positive message--the equality of all citizens, particularly equal protection in a land of laws. His counterparts in the civil rights movement had some success with messages of overcoming oppression, but none had the King's universal appeal. Malcolm X, for example, attempted to unify the black community with a message of pride in their African heritage and rejecting white norms such as Christianity. But Malcolm X's message was threatening not only to the powerful elite, but to many ordinary citizens. King, conversely, appealed to white society with a message of spirituality founded in the Bible, a doctrine white America could relate to. King preached peace, used non-violent protest, and stood behind the rule of law. His leadership unified at a time when unification was desperately needed. Ultimately, King was a realist; he preached about the promised land and how "I may not get there with you" (prophesying his early death), but within his realism was a profound faith in law, civility and spirituality. King had the right message at the right time, when violence was playing itself out across society from the riots in Watts (and many other large cities) to the Black Panther movement to sit-ins on college campuses. His non-violent beliefs were consistent with his actions through all of it, and his message of peace and unity still resonates among many Americans today.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was such a powerful figure in American history because he was an incredibly prominent figure within the civil rights movement. MLK was an absolutely outstanding orator who used his artistic, moving, and powerful speaking ability to help bring about a cultural shift within the United States as he helped push for racial justice. Not only was MLK a powerful speaker, but he also was a brave individual who was arrested numerous times as he courageously took to the streets with his comrades to fight for radical social, political, and economic change that would ameliorate the brutal oppression black people experienced every day in America.
While MLK was a powerful force, he was also a gentle soul who encouraged every American to open their hearts to an integrated, interracial society. MLK imagined a world in which people could love each other and form meaningful bonds free from the brutal constraints of racism. When listening to a recorded speech of King's, it is difficult not to feel deeply moved by his vision, passion, and strength.

One of the primary reasons why Dr. King was such a powerful figure in American history was his willingness to embrace transformation in civic discourse. Dr. King was distinctive in the way he understood that Civil Rights in America recognized a voice of transformation. Dr. King was able to articulate thought that transformed the issue of Civil Rights from a political issue to a human issue with moral implications. Dr. King's framing of the paradigm was one where individuals who stood in the way of Civil Rights were demonstrating a resistance to human dignity. In this manner, his advocacy is distinctive.
The transformative nature of Dr. King's voice was in his embrace of love. The ethic of love as a universal quality that should be afforded to all human beings spoke to all Americans in the fight for Civil Rights. Dr. King understood the philosophical significance of his position. In advocating that followers embrace the ethics of love and compassion over bitterness and resentment, Dr. King suggested that human bondage can be overcome from a psychological frame of reference as opposed to a strictly political one. Dr. King asserted a form of thought in which individuals could openly embrace what can be as opposed to what is. It is in this regard where Dr. King's words resonate far beyond the Civil Rights battlefront. In any struggle for recognition, Dr. King's philosophical message exists. Dr. King articulated a frame of understanding that sought to reach the individual on both spiritual and political levels. In asserting that both notions of the good were critical to modern human beings, Dr. King was a transformative voice that was both a part of the historical dialogue, but also transcended it. The ability to inspire individuals to see what can be from what is through the power of love and solidarity is where Dr. King's significance lies.

How did Marx distinguish communism from other similar theories?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels obviously believe that practical action is far more significant than theoretical thought. This idea is powerful and well-defined in The Communist Manifesto. It is this concept which colors Marx’s rejection of anything other than his own revolutionary declarations. In The Communist Manifesto, this concept is applied to denunciations of other “Social and Communist literature” and to the call for all workers of the world to unite.
In the third section of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels reject other socialist doctrines to distinguish their own Communism from these other literatures. These other socialist ideologies do not recognize the paramount role of the proletariat, and that is a significant reason why they are dismissed by Marx and Engels. However, the concept of necessary revolutionary action seems to be also prominent. Describing “Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism,” they preeminently stress that this doctrine “reject[s] all political, and especially all revolutionary, action.” Marx and Engels describe this type of thinking as “a fantastic conception.” According to them, revolutionary action is only thing that suffices to make fundamental changes in society, politics, and the economy. The socialists who “violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class” are idle dreamers who will never progressively alter the course of history. Thus, their idealistic fantasies, unsupported by real action, are “necessarily doomed to failure.” Marx and Engels reject, too, the idea of gradual reform. “Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism” does not understand “abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution.” These “administrative reforms,” gradual steps of socialism rather than complete revolution, actually do not “affect the relations between capital and labour” at all. In fact, this redressing of social grievances is only “in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.” Accordingly, Marx and Engels maintain that Communist revolution is the only way to bring about the resolution to class struggle.
The implications of this claim are vast. It is easy to see how this argument makes sense philosophically because revolutionary action brings about change in a manner that no other action or inaction can. This concept also brings a political question to the surface – how would this revolutionary action be realized, realistically and tangibly? It is easy to grasp as a theory, but Marx himself denounces theory without action.
Marx’s argument is strong and clear; he characterizes his perspective in a manner that is practical. What is interesting is how Communism seems to be characterized, mostly by modern popular media, as overly optimistic and therefore unrealistic. Yet, The Communist Manifesto clearly distinguishes Marx’s Communism from the types of socialism that are actually overly optimistic and unworkable. These other “castles in the air” are categorically discarded by Marx.

What political party did Millard Fillmore belong to?

Millard Fillmore, 13th president of the United States, was a member of the Whig Party. He was the last Whig President; all of his successors have been either Democrats or Republicans. When he first started out in politics, Fillmore was a member of the Anti-Masonic Party, which, as the name suggests, was strongly opposed to the influence of freemasonry in American politics. Later on, however, Fillmore gravitated to the Whigs, and he would represent the party in the White House from 1850 to 1853.
The Whigs were in the tradition of the Federalists, and one of the forerunners of the present-day Republican Party. They tended to be somewhat suspicious of unchecked democracy, seeing it as a harbinger of mob rule. Instead, they advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution, absolute fidelity to the rule of law, and the establishment of a modern, industrialized economy based upon a federal banking system.

why was it important for the swallow to migrate?

The Swallow has a strong desire to migrate to Egypt because that is where all his friends, the other swallows, have gone to stay. The Swallow has only stayed behind because of being in love with a reed. But she rejects him, so he longs to join his friends. He dreams of being in Egypt with his group, as he tells the Happy Prince statue:

“I am waited for in Egypt,” said the Swallow. “My friends are flying up and down the Nile, and talking to the large lotus-flowers.”

Despite the allure of the many beauties of Egypt, the Swallow pities the Happy Prince, who is so sad because of all the suffering he sees in his city. The Swallow stays on and on, helping the prince to alleviate the miseries of the poor.
Because he gives up the pleasures of being with his friends in Egypt, we are able to see more clearly the sacrifices the goodhearted Swallow makes to help those who are in need.

What is the significance of the cup of coffee Billy has when he camps at Bluebird Creek with his father and grandfather in Where the Red Fern Grows?

The significance of Billy's drinking coffee is that it makes him feel like a man, not a boy.
This is the first time that Billy's Papa and Grandpa have given him this special privilege. Previously, it was only the grown-ups who'd drunk coffee. At home, Billy's never allowed to drink the stuff. But out on the trail, where men are men, it's a different story. Billy has earned the respect of Papa and Grandpa, so it seems only right and proper that they should let him drink coffee just like a man.
But although Billy may feel like a man, he still displays occasional evidence of immaturity, such as when he hears the eerie hooting of a couple of screech owls in the distance. Billy takes this as a bad omen, but Papa and Grandpa tease him for being so superstitious. It seems that there's still a long way to go, and much more coffee to be drunk, before Billy finally makes the transition to manhood.

In Genesis 33:13, it is written, “I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God.” Is seeing the face of a man in all its grace like beholding the very face of God? Relate this idea to the final chapter of Wise Blood.

In the final chapter of Wise Blood, Hazel Motes's landlord, Mrs. Flood, comes to regard Motes as a kind of religious figure. When she sees the dead Motes at the end of the novel, his face resembles the face of God.
At the beginning of the last chapter, Hazel, who has put out his eyes, wanders around blind, poor, and half-starving from walking all the time. Mrs. Flood thinks to herself about Motes, "To her, the blind man had the look of seeing something." Mrs. Flood at first only wants more rent out of her strange tenant, but then she comes to regard him as a kind of religious figure.
As Motes becomes thinner and thinner and his life is only dedicated to walking, Mrs. Flood believes that Motes is a kind of monk. While she regards herself as a kind of automaton and thinks of her mind as a "switchboard," she thinks Motes's mind contains the infinite. She thinks that "his head [was] big enough to include the sky and planets and whatever was or had been or would be." She urges him to return to preaching.
At the end of the novel, Motes tries to pay for being what he calls "unclean." He walks around in shoes filled with gravel and glass, and he throws away any extra money he has. He dies after being clubbed in the head by a policeman, and Mrs. Flood looks at Motes lying dead on her bed. As she looks at him, she closes her eyes and sees a pinpoint of light. In death, Motes has reached a state of grace and has become purified, and when Mrs. Flood looks at his face, it is like looking at the face of God. Do you think that Mrs. Flood retains this sense of grace, as his image begins to move away from her, and she can't quite grasp it at the end of the story?

In how may ways does the speaker commit sins in "A Hymn to God the Father"? Explain.

Donne wants God to forgive his many sins, even though they are the same sins that have been committed by countless others before him. (" . . . though it were done before.") Even if the Almighty should deign to forgive those sins, however, the speaker has many more that he'd like to have taken into consideration, though he doesn't specify exactly what those sins are.
Furthermore, the speaker has led others into sin, acting like a door to welcome them into a sinful world. But even if God should forgive him for that, the speaker has yet more sins that need to be forgiven, including one that he's practiced for the better part of twenty years.
It's instructive that the only specific sin that the speaker refers to is the fear of death. And yet here he isn't asking for forgiveness; his only desire is that God should promise him that when he, the speaker, dies, he will see Jesus Christ, his savior. If God makes good on this promise, then the speaker will give up his fear of death, or his "sin of fear."
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44115/a-hymn-to-god-the-father

In which lines is the theme of honor most seen from the Cid?

The theme of honor runs throughout the Song of My Cid. While his ignoble, illegitimate birth meant he was initially a man without honor, the Cid was able to gain it through his actions. An injury to his honor resulted from the royal banishment, but this was compensated by his impressive performance in battle, specifically in victories over the Moors.. Personal honor by resisting insult, as through his impressive beard, also factors into the Cid’s situation. In addition, the defense of women’s honor by opposing the daughters’ bad marriages helps him accrue honor.
For the battle victories, the king rescinds the banishment and disgrace, as well as accepting the proffered gifts seized from the Moors. The king tells him:

Beyond all this Minaya thine exemption I accord,
For all thy lands and honors are unto thee restored.

After it turns out that the daughters’ husbands have behaved badly, the Cid request that the king dissolve them and make superior matches for them. In this way, the women’s and the family’s honor is restored. He makes this request of the king, stating his true loyalty to his monarch, who in turn replies,

I will grant the thing this day:
And it shall be consented in open court straightway,
For so will grow thy glory and shine honor and thy lands.

How is the theme of untamed ambition shown in The Pearl?

Untamed ambition is one of the main themes in John Steinbeck's The Pearl, and it destroys the lives of the main characters. Greed and ambition are evident in almost every character, first seen in the greedy doctor who refuses to treat Kino’s son after he is stung by a scorpion. This theme will continue throughout the story—people’s greed will either make them rude and uncaring, leading them to take advantage of others, or will tear them apart because they sacrifice important things to gain more wealth.
Kino, after he finds the pearl, becomes extremely ambitious, trying to sell it for the highest price possible. He begins to argue constantly with his wife, who was content in their life beforehand. People try to scam Kino and purchase the pearl for extremely low prices, and a thief attempts to break in and steal it from Kino’s house. This ambition eventually leads to a rampage of violence and the death of Kino’s young son.

How does Austen explore the theme of nature versus nurture?

Austen made her central characters sets of siblings who have opposing characteristics and even opposing educations. This choice permits her to explore the ideas of human nature and environmental nurturing, as put forth by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Both Locke and Rousseau built their theories of education on the relationship between the forces that shape individuals, such as family, education, sociocultural environment, and the natural propensities of personality, intellect and temperament. Locke emphasized the importance of nurture, while Rousseau depended on nature.
John Locke:
"The well educating of their children is so much the duty and concern of parents, and the welfare and prosperity of the nation so much depends on [education], that I would have everyone lay it seriously to heart ... [to promote] the easiest, shortest, and likeliest [means of education] to produce virtuous, useful, and able men in their distinct callings."
Jean-Jacques Rouseau:
"Everything is good as it comes from the hands of the Maker of the world but degenerates once it gets into the hands of man."
These sets of siblings represent different positions in the nature versus nurture discussion.
Elinor and Marianne represent the nature side of the discussion.
Lucy Steele and elder sister Anne represent both faulty nature and faulty nurture.
Edward and Robert represent the nurture side of the discussion.
Charlotte Palmer and sister Lady Middleton, like Lucy and Anne, represent both nurture and nature, illustrating flawed, although not faulty, nurture and opposite natures.
Throughout the story, Marianne's nature is pitted against Elinor's. Marianne criticizes Elinor for not being in raptures in her praises for Edward. Marianne is unable to understand how Elinor can control her grief over the loss of their father and the later loss of Norland. Though nurtured in the same environment, with a mother whose nature matched Marianne's, their natures are very different.
Lucy and Anne both have faulty natures: Lucy is manipulative and grasping while Anne is silly and foolish. They also suffer from faulty nurturing: The narrator makes a point of saying that Lucy did not have the benefit of an education that might have turned her mind to a more prosperous direction: "her powers had received no aid from education: she was ignorant and illiterate...." The same lack of education is more apparent in Anne's mentality.
Both Edward and Robert make a case for Edward's personal deficiencies being caused by inadequate nurturing in his education. Robert posits that had Edward received a public instead of private education like he himself did, Edward would fully equipped to take his place in politics [private education at the home of a private tutor; public education in one of the elite schools, like Eton].
Charlotte and Lady Middleton have natures that are as unlike as possible. Both have natural flaws in their natures: Lady Middleton is vain and shallow while Charlotte is affectionate and giddy. Though Mrs. Jennings attempted to provide good nurturing at home and in their educations, her resources, personal and financial, were limited thus the nurturing provided was limited, thus flawed.
There are also trios of siblings:
Edward, Robert and their sister Fanny (Ferrars) Dashwood.
Elinor, Marianne and their younger sister Margaret.
We engage but little with Margaret but are told that while she tends towards Marianne's romanticism, she has not the sense of her older sisters, thus does not present as bright a prospect for adulthood as her sisters do. Margaret reinforces the nature side of the discussion, which is best represented in Elinor and Marianne.
Margaret, the other sister, was a good-humored, well-disposed girl; but as she had already imbibed a good deal of Marianne's romance, without having much of her sense, she did not, at thirteen, bid fair to equal her sisters at a more advanced period of life.
Another example is the trio of Edward, Robert and Fanny. Mrs. Ferrars, representing a consistent (assuming she treated her children about the same) nurturing environment, is the mother of a humble, self-diffident man; a proud, vain, arrogant man, who is nonetheless gregarious; and an arrogant, selfish, cold-hearted woman. With this trio, the influence of nurture--whether a negative or a positive one--is shown to be inadequate to superseding the forces of nature. We see that in a consistent home environment, Mrs. Ferrars raises one child who is humble, one who is gregarious (although vain) and one who is also cold-hearted. Austen makes her exploration of this theme, a recurring one for her, more complex because she introduces the influence of educational environment into the discussion: Edward was educated with a private tutor, Robert at a public school, and Fanny at home and possibly also, although we are not told so, at a school like the one Austen herself attended for a time.
Austen's conclusion seems to be that strong natures can withstand the impact of nurturing influences when they are detrimental, but individuals with weaker natures will yield to the strongest, most compelling influence that nurtures and that the strongest external influences are often, if not generally, of a negative sort. Thus our conclusion must be that Austen sides with Locke over and against Rousseau: She agrees that nurturing of the best sort, as in education, is required to shape individuals, men and women, into wise, thinking, moral citizens who make right choices for their lives and the lives of those they influence.

What is an example of free indirect discourse in Dubliners?

Free indirect discourse, does not use third person narration with quotation marks but instead is a combination of narration and statements or thoughts from the perspective of the character at the same time. What is effective about indirect discourse it that it removes the formality of conventional narration and it usually makes the situation seem more immediate and in the moment to the reader.
James Joyce is a writer who uses free indirect discourse in many of his stories. Here are examples from different short stories in his work, The Dubliners.
From the story "Araby":
Mrs Mercer stood up to go: she was sorry she couldn't wait any longer, but it was after eight o'clock and she did not like to be out late, as the night air was bad for her.
Notice here how and how the feeling and actions of the character are written without making a separate statement in quotation marks.
From the Story "Eveline":
Home! She looked round the room, reviewing all its familiar objects which she had dusted once a week for so many years, wondering where on earth all the dust came from.
Here, the first phrase (Home!) is the example.
From the story "Two Gallants":
All at once the idea struck him that perhaps Corley had seen her home by another way and given him the slip. His eyes searched the street: there was no sign of them. Yet it was surely half-an-hour since he had seen the clock of the College of Surgeons. Would Corley do a thing like that?
Here is it implicit that the last sentence is a thought occurring to the character Lenehan, looking for his friend Corley, and a woman. Joyce chose not to write it out as a statement in quotation marks.

Free indirect discourse is when the point of view slides from third-person omniscient narration to inside the head of a particular person in a story without indicating the change. Jane Austen is the writer most famous for using this technique.
Though James Joyce is most associated with stream-of-conscious, which attempts to mimic capturing a person's thoughts as they flow through his or her mind, Joyce also uses free indirect discourse in his story "The Dead" in Dubliners. In the passage below, Joyce slides from omniscient narration to Gabriel's thoughts.

Gabriel's eyes, irritated by the floor, which glittered with beeswax under the heavy chandelier, wandered to the wall above the piano. A picture of the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet hung there and beside it was a picture of the two murdered princes in the Tower which Aunt Julia had worked in red, blue, and brown wools when she was a girl. Probably in the school they had gone to as girls that kind of work had been taught for one year. His mother had worked for him as a birthday present a waistcoat of purple tabinet, with little foxes' heads upon it, lined with brown satin and having round mulberry buttons.

First, we are told that Gabriel's eyes are irritated, and we can watch him from afar, as if he is being filmed, as his eyes wander to the wall. In the first half of the next sentence we are also outside of his head, watching with him as he looks at the Romeo and Juliet balcony scene. So far, we are viewing him from the outside. Then we slip into his thoughts as he looks at the embroidered pictures hanging on the wall. It is the thought flowing through his mind that the picture of the princes had probably been worked by Aunt Julia as a girl, and that idea leads him to think of his mother. If this were a movie, the thoughts in his head would be filmed as a flashback, perhaps in a hazier light to indicate the shift.

How does Coraline make it back home to her own world?

When Coraline realizes she is trapped in the world of the other mother, she understands she will have to use her wits to return home. First, she proposes a game to the other mother: if she, Coraline, can find the souls of the children trapped behind the mirror and find her parents, the other mother will free her, the souls of the children, and her parents. If she fails, she will stay with the other mother forever. The other mother agrees to this game.
Coraline is able to use her rock to locate the three marbles that hold the souls of the three trapped children. She realizes her parents are held in a snow globe, but she doesn't want the other mother to know she knows.
To confuse the other mother—and to get her to open the door between the two worlds—Coraline says she thinks her parents are in the passage between the two worlds. When the other mother unlocks the door to show her she is wrong, Coraline seizes the snow globe and throws the cat she is holding at the other mother. The cat attacks the other mother, and after a fierce struggle, Coraline gets through the door to the other side and back to her real home and parents.
In short, Coraline uses her brains, trickery, and surprise to confuse the other mother so that she can escape and save her parents and the souls of the other children.

Why did Dred Scott take Emerson and Sandford to court? What did he want?

Though born a slave in a slave state, Dred Scott had been taken by his owner, Dr. John Emerson, to a number of free states and territories. Emerson was a surgeon in the US Army and, as part of his job, often had to move around the country. On one such work assignment, he ended up at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory, where slavery was prohibited. By bringing a slave into a free territory, Emerson was effectively violating the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
During his time in the Wisconsin territory, Dred Scott got married, something he would not have been able to do had he remained in a slave state. Yet Scott's owners continued to hire him, and his new wife, out as slaves, despite their residing in other free territories such as Illinois. Scott wanted to buy freedom for himself and his wife, but his owners refused his request. So Scott felt he had no choice but to take the matter to court. The case went all the way up to the US Supreme Court, which in an infamous ruling, held that Scott, by virtue of his "inferior" race, was not an American citizen and as such had no rights that the Court was bound to respect.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393

What does Fast Food Nation reveal about American culture?

Schlosser's Fast Food Nation is an unflinching look at American culture through the prism of the fast food industry. One of the themes of the book is the degree to which this really is an industry: we are a nation of industrial food.
The book also addresses the ways in which Americans have adopted a monoculture, meaning that there are the same chain restaurants, department stores, movie theaters, and retail shops in nearly every city in America. Schlosser asserts that fast food is so beloved because it answers a typical American problem: our need for convenience.
That desire for fast and convenient food is also necessary at this point because it has created millions of jobs and, in some cases, entire new business models. He discusses the Idaho farmers who, essentially, farm potatoes for one or two companies, most notably McDonald's. Schlosser is particularly hard on the meat packing industry that supplies fast food with virtually all of our protein, calling it "The most dangerous job in America."
Fast food has other influences on American culture: it is directly linked to obesity, particularly in children, and it has created millions of jobs, virtually all of which are low-paying positions for the working poor. US culture has also been affected by fast food's willingness to market to children, inextricably linking food with the characters in their children's meals, which has probably been a major factor in the obesity crisis.

What happens to the parents in the book, Among the Hidden, if they are caught having more than 2 children?

In the dystopian society of Among the Hidden, the despotic government takes extreme measures to prevent overpopulation. All families are limited to no more than two children, and this law is ruthlessly enforced by the Population Police. It's never actually spelled out exactly what happens to so-called Shadow Children like Luke and Jen, those deemed surplus to society's requirements, but we can safely assume that it wouldn't be a very pleasant fate.
We can say this with some degree of certainty given what happens to Jen and some other children later on in the story. They attend an anti-government rally demanding rights for Shadow Children. Jen had assured Luke that there'd be so many children there that the police would be overwhelmed. Unfortunately, that's not what happens. Instead, the police brutally shoot all the children to death, including Jen. This illustrates the sheer brutality of the regime and shows us why Luke was always right to worry about the Population Police knocking on his door.

Was James Buchanan the worst U.S. President?

The general scholarly consensus is that he was among the worst, if not the worst, President in American history. The main reason for this assessment is that Buchanan failed to prevent the country's slide towards civil war. Instead of stepping up to the plate and showing leadership when the United States needed it most, he openly sided with the South—whose voters had helped him get elected—thereby antagonizing Northern opinion and driving the country further and further apart.
To be fair to Buchanan, the issue of slavery had been a running sore in American politics for decades. But instead of taking active steps to try and deal with the problem and the huge sectional divisions it had generated, the hidebound, stubborn, and not very imaginative Buchanan made a bad situation a whole lot worse than it might have been. Hence his deserved reputation as one of the very worst occupants of the White House.

How does Dorothea justify wearing the emeralds?

Dorothea's religious persuasion makes her generally feel that the wearing of jewelry reflects a sinful nature and that jewels should not be worn in company. When she opens the box and finds the emeralds, however, she becomes suffused with a "new current of feeling." In order to justify to herself her pleasure at seeing the emeralds, she alludes to the Revelation of St. John, in which gems are used as "spiritual emblems." She describes the jewels as being akin to "fragments of heaven." In this way, she is able to see the emeralds as an outward reflection of her Christian faith, rather than as an affront to it, as they might otherwise have been seen. Because she is not enjoying the beauty of the jewels purely for their own sake—now, she decides they represent something greater—she feels that she can justify keeping them.
Celia is rather shocked by this and evidently not completely convinced by the explanation—she asks in some disbelief if Dorothea intends to wear the jewels in public, not understanding Dorothea's feelings of "mystic joy" on the subject.

What is an analysis of the Matilde Urrutia sonnets?

Matilde Urrutia was the third wife of Pablo Neruda and the subject of a series of his work, mostly sonnets. The first work of Neruda's to reference Urrutia was Los Versos del Capitan. He would later dedicated much of his collection 100 Love Sonnets to Urrutia.
Before Neruda finalized his marriage with Urrutia, he began a passionate affair with her and even bought a property in Santiago, Chile to host their meet-ups. The sonnets that he dedicated to her were lush, vivid, and poetic in the typical Neruda style. Neruda, despite being known as a political Marxist poet in his country, was highly skilled in composing love poems. Some of his most famous poems come from 100 Love Sonnets.
In the poems dedicated to Urrutia, the reader can feel the intense love he had for her and that she served as a muse for his writing career until his death. The two were devoted to each other; so much so that Urrutia would edit his memoir after his death, despite opposition from the dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who labeled Neruda as a communist radical and tried to suppress his works.
The sonnets are reminiscent of Keats and Byron, illustrating the influence of the Romantics in Neruda's works. However, despite Neruda's feelings for Urrutia, he withheld the publication of his earlier works for her, particularly Los Versos del Capitan, out of respect for his wife.
While he did practice extramarital affairs, Neruda held the loves of his life in a high regard. His sonnets for Urrutia would go on to be considered some of the most beautiful love poems in the Spanish language.

Why do the boys make having fresh water in the huts a rule?

Ralph understands straight away that if the boys are going to survive on the island they need to follow some basic rules. One of those rules relates to the gathering and storage of fresh water. A regular source of good, clean water has been found in a nearby stream. Drinking directly from the stream is perfectly fine, but Ralph thinks it would be much more convenient to fetch water from the stream in coconut shells and store the water in huts. That way, when someone needs a drink they don't have far to go.
Although it seems like a good idea on paper, it doesn't work in practice because most of the boys are too lazy to fetch water. This is one of the many important responsibilities—another one would be the maintaining of the signal fire—that is neglected by the boys, and this leads to growing tensions between Ralph and Jack's gang of savages.

How does Barack Obama's description of "slip[ing] back and forth" between his black and white worlds in Dreams from My Father relate to W. E. B Dubois's double consciousness?

First, let's look at what Du Bois means when he uses the term "double consciousness." Here's what he writes in The Souls of Black Folk:

The Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife—this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He would not Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He would not bleach his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face.

In Dreams from My Father, Obama writes:

I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds, understanding that each possessed its own language and customs and structures of meaning, convinced that with a bit of translation on my part the two worlds would eventually cohere.

Obama's longing for the worlds to cohere is articulated in the "two-ness" that Du Bois describes. Both men are tapping into the legacy that slavery has left in American society, even though the institution itself has been dismantled. That legacy creates a fissure that is, for Du Bois and Obama, unable to ever really disappear and that serves as the dividing line between the "black and white worlds" Obama describes.
Both men see being a black American as having to constantly negotiate this "two-ness" and feeling unable to truly collapse the words "black" and "American" into a single identity. This is what Du Bois means when he says that a black American feels "this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self." Because America has such deeply racist roots, its social structures often prevent this "better and truer self" from ever developing because the double self has to divide itself into the white and black worlds Obama defines.
How very sad that something Du Bois was wrestling with in 1903 continues to be a lived experience for people of color in America today. When Obama was president, he often spoke about not seeing a liberal America and a conservative America but simply "the United States of America." May we all work harder so that there is not a "white world" and a "black world" but simply a world we are privileged to inhabit and thus are responsible for bettering and protecting.

How did the French Revolution contribute to “modern day” nationalism?

The French Revolution contributed to modern-day nationalism by encouraging the citizenry to engage in self-determination within a nation. The French Revolution began through the establishment of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a charter drafted by the National Assembly in 1789. The charter mentioned equality and liberty for French citizens and all people of the world. The document was a milestone for democratic and liberal nationalism that would come to define modern-day nationalism in the coming centuries. Like the United States, French revolutionaries championed freedom and equality as a unifying principle among citizens. France was among the earliest societies that encouraged common citizens to have a voice in a nation. Such ideals were departures from previous attitudes, where authoritarian monarchs typically ruled European societies, and previous generations primarily pledged allegiance to a city-state, church, or ethnic group.
During the revolution, France shifted from a constitutional monarchy to its first republic, with a unified government and universal suffrage for adult males. The idea of a people’s state pioneered a new concept, as nationalism did not gain a strong foothold throughout Europe until the 19th century and onward. France was among the earliest nations to establish a national republic. With that, Napoleon Bonaparte consolidated power during the revolution and was eventually declared emperor of France in 1804. However, Napoleon’s global conquests spread the ideals of nationalism into Europe, Africa, the Near East, and Latin America.

The French Revolution contributed to "modern day" nationalism by essentially making the power of the people known. Nationalism is most prevalent during times of turmoil and destruction and this was exactly the case during the French Revolution. Their economy was going bankrupt, crops were failing, and the prices of common goods like bread were going way up. The "Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens" was established in 1789 and effectively served as a blueprint for modern day nationalism. This declaration was a civil rights document that established what are now common freedoms such as freedom of speech, equality, and a government represented by the people. There were many questions that followed this document regarding the powers of the king and the clergy though. This led to more destruction and division but the idea that the people should have some form of power remained. Nationalism today is a feeling of inclusiveness and a ground where all people and parties can come together as one. The French Revolution embodied that sentiment from 1789 up until the Napoleonic era began in 1799.

The French Revolution contributed to the modern concept of nationalism by aiding in the creation of national identity. In early modern Europe, most people identified with their ethnic heritage, their religion, or their city. A Catholic person from Venice would not have called themselves Italian, because the modern nation of Italy did not exist. This was due to the large empires that ruled over several European countries. Without an independent nation, many lacked a national identity. This concept gained popularity during the French Revolution, because revolutionaries used it as a tool to gain support for the movement. There was a call to unify the French people, and this resulted in pride for one's nation. Today, one's country is a defining point for their identity. A person now calls themselves American, French, Croatian, Greek, etc. because they identify with their nation. When empires collapsed and countries gained independence, those citizens found national identity.

Why had Shere Khan decided to change his hunting grounds in The Jungle Book?

Shere Khan, the tiger, has decided to change his hunting grounds because he has made the people of the village by the Waingunga River, twenty miles away, very angry by killing their cattle. Because Shere Khan is lame, he can't successfully hunt wild animals. Therefore, he moves near to where the wolves live because there is a human village with livestock close by. Since these human villagers don't know about him yet, he will be able to get some of their animals before they go after him.
The wolves are not happy about this turn of events. As Mother Wolf explains, the villagers will get very angry when Shere Khan begins killing their cattle and will burn down the grasses to try to flush him out. This will force the wolves and their children to have to run to escape the fire.

Why does Ralph not descend into savagery?

This is a very interesting question that is not completely true. Ralph does experience minor lapses in civility by continually forgetting the importance of maintaining a signal fire and participating in Simon's brutal death. Despite Ralph's lapses in civility, he does not completely descend into savagery like the majority of boys on the island. One could assume that Ralph's childhood and background play a significant role in his ability to reject a life of savagery. Ralph's father is a commander in the British Navy, which implies that he grew up in a structured, civil home. One can assume that Ralph's father instilled morals in his son and raised him to obey the laws of civilization, which is why Ralph understands the importance of establishing a civil society on the uninhabited tropical island. Ralph is also the elected leader of the group and feels a sense of moral obligation to protect everyone by creating a civil society. Ralph's structured upbringing and obligation as chief motivate him to maintain his civility and not descend into savagery. Ralph's friendship with Piggy and hostile relationship with Jack are also motivating factors that allow him to reject a life of savagery and remain civil.

What were the strategies of the South African government to maintain apartheid policies?

Successive governments in South Africa adopted a number of strategies to maintain apartheid. The various strands were combined under the premiership of P.W. Botha to constitute what became known as the "total strategy." This was in response to what was perceived as a "total onslaught," a threat to South Africa's security from the Soviet Union. The ruling white minority detested the Soviet Union, seeing it as an agent of subversion due to its alliance with the ANC. In response, the government pursued a number of policies, both domestic and foreign, to keep apartheid in place and repel the alleged Soviet threat.
On the international stage, South Africa attempted to gain support for its anti-Soviet stance. South Africa occupied a key strategic position during the Cold War, and part of its total strategy played upon anti-communist fears in the West in an attempt to bolster its position. South Africa used the cover of the Cold War to carry out undercover operations designed to destabilize neighboring countries such as Angola and Mozambique. This was intended not only to allow South Africa to assert itself economically in the region, but also to undermine the support of neighboring states for the apartheid movement.
On the domestic front, Botha, in common with his predecessors, used force in cracking down on growing unrest among the black majority. The detention and execution of anti-apartheid activists gathered pace, further contributing to South Africa's international isolation as well as making it harder to pursue any political initiatives to keep apartheid in place. Nonetheless, Botha did attempt to protect apartheid by making minor political concessions, such as a proposed new constitution which would give certain ethnic groups—such as coloreds (a multi-racial ethnic group) and Indians—voting rights, but not the majority black population. Botha hoped that by granting votes to colored and Indian citizens, he would secure their loyalty to the apartheid regime, forming a tactical alliance with the ruling white minority to thwart the political aspirations of the black African majority.

What are direct and indirect characteristics of Artemis Fowl?

To answer this, the terms "direct characterization" and "indirect characterization" need to be defined. Both methods are employed by authors to inform the reader about a character in the story: who they are, how they feel, and what they think.
Direct characteristics would be aspects of the character that are given to the reader through the narration. For example, the back cover of many Artemis Fowl books has the following quote:

A genius. A criminal mastermind. A millionaire. And he is only twelve years old.

Before even opening the book, the reader already knows several critical aspects of Artemis's character that will be important to understanding the story.
Indirect characteristics are more challenging to decipher. These are aspects of the character that are shown to the reader as the story progresses. Usually a character's actions, speech, and choices will gradually reveal significant aspects of their character. For example, Artemis Fowl (in the first novel) is involved in kidnapping and extortion fairly early in the book. He demonstrates greed through his actions. Later, his willingness to use some of the gold to help his mother shows the reader that he is not an inherently cruel character. This level of complexity is usually shown through indirect characterization in order to be believable, while factual characteristics such as appearance, intelligence, and history might be given directly.
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson800/Characterization.pdf

What did John Locke say about human nature? According to Locke, how did people live in a “state of nature?” What role did Locke believe the government should play in the lives of its citizens?

John Locke's ideas of human nature actually did not differ much in their main premise from those of Thomas Hobbes. Both philosophers believed that human nature permits individuals to act in ways that are essentially selfish. In a state of nature, anyone can harm anyone else, whenever and however it suits them. Someone's power is dictated by their strength and intelligence. Locke believed that a state of nature exists whenever people have no authority that they can turn to for managing disputes. Unlike Hobbes, though, Locke believed that, in a state of nature, people also have the capacity for cooperation and the ability to work toward a common goal.
According to Locke's ideas, as posited in his Second Treatise on Government, the role of a government is to provide a population with a common collective entity for their protection. People voluntarily, although usually tacitly, make a social contract with the government in order to allow for conflict resolution in a process that is more equitable than what would occur in a state of nature. Therefore, a government's role is to fulfill the wishes of the people by enforcing laws that protect the natural rights of individuals (life, liberty, and property) that would otherwise be in jeopardy in a state of nature. The important point that Locke repeatedly stresses, though, is that a government only possesses legitimacy if it operates with the consent of those it governs.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

How are the characters reminded of guilt for the crimes they have committed?

The only character who is reminded of his guilt concerning the fate of Jay Gatsby is Tom Buchanan. Following Gatsby's death, Nick Carraway recalls running into Tom Buchanan one October afternoon on Fifth Avenue. Nick initially refuses to shake Tom's hand and proceeds to ask Tom what he told George Wilson. Nick reminds Tom of his involvement in Gatsby's death and Tom admits that he informed George that Gatsby was responsible for Myrtle's death. Tom experiences guilt and reluctantly tells Nick,

What if I did tell him? That fellow had it coming to him. He threw dust into your eyes just like he did in Daisy’s but he was a tough one. He ran over Myrtle like you’d run over a dog and never even stopped his car. (Fitzgerald, 191)

After admitting to telling George Wilson that Jay Gatsby killed his wife, Tom demonstrates his selfish personality by lamenting how Myrtle's death negatively impacted his life. Nick then refers to Tom and Daisy as "careless people" who destroyed things and simply retreated back into their wealth while other people cleaned up their mess.
Nick does not run into Daisy after Gatsby's death, and the only character reminded of their guilt regarding Gatsby’s fate is Tom Buchanan. From their conversation, it is evident that Tom feels somewhat guilty after Nick confronts him but insists that Gatsby had it coming. Overall, Tom and Daisy Buchanan are portrayed as completely selfish, callous individuals, who hide behind their money and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.

The only character I can think of who is reminded of his guilt is Tom Buchanan. This occurs when Nick runs into Tom on Fifth Avenue in New York City in October. Tom is looking into the window of the jewelry store when he sees Nick's reflection and turns to greet him.
Nick doesn't want to shake his hand, which reminds Tom of the events that occurred around the time of Myrtle and Gatsby's death. He feels guilty and becomes defensive. Nick asks him what he said to George Wilson before Wilson shot Gatsby. Tom tells Nick that he told George the car that ran over Myrtle was Gatsby's, suggesting that Gatsby was responsible for Myrtle's death. Then, Tom's guilt rising, he bursts out, "what if I did tell him? That fellow had it coming to him". Therefore, it is Nick who reminds Tom of his guilt.

Explain the links between the poem and Bradbury’s story.

Ray Bradbury includes the full text of Sara Teasdale’s poem “There Will Come Soft Rains” within the short story. Just prior to the house being destroyed, the home’s artificial intelligence agent begins to recite the poem—a favorite of the now dead owners—as part of its preprogrammed evening ritual.
Teasdale’s poem describes a world without mankind after he has exterminated himself due to an all-consuming war. Nature continues its cyclical progression, not caring that “mankind perished utterly.” Without humans, nature reclaims its dominion over the earth: spring is personified as a woman who, upon waking, “would scarcely know that we were gone.”
This poem serves as a contrast to the postwar reality within Bradbury’s story. While a nuclear bomb effectively wiped out the population of Allendale, it also obliterated the landscape. The “radioactive glow” of the “ruined city” can be seen for miles at night. Although it is raining in the beginning of the story, a nod to the poem’s title, nature is depicted differently. Unlike Teasdale’s vision of a post-apocalyptic harmony as nature peacefully ensures, Bradbury posits that modern warfare will actually destroy nature in addition to humans.
When the house catches fire, this represents nature’s violent revenge on the manmade technology that has destroyed it. The house is the last reminder of human existence in the city, and the personified flames consume the structure with “ten billion angry sparks.” This shows that nature, as represented by fire, can be wrathful and destructive just like the humans whose nuclear war damaged the earth.
Bradbury includes the poem as an ironic contrast to his vision of a world without people in order to illustrate the potential consequences of nuclear war. Published in 1950—just a few years after the bombs dropped on Japan to end World War II—the story addressed real fears about what could happen in a world where such consummate annihilation was now possible thanks to man’s innovation.

My thesis for my essay is about how Squealer is the most powerful animal in Animal Farm. Why should he be considered the most powerful?

The real power in society stems from the people. Whether the regime in place is democratic or autocratic, the possibility of its perpetuation hails from the public. Since the concept of a governing body is artificial by its very nature, the key to its endurance lies in continual support of the system. Therefore, the most powerful entity in a government is the one that controls the people.
While in ancient societies the public believed in divinity and supremacy of their rulers--obviating the need for propaganda machines, modern regimes are built on the principle of 'first of many' where rulers are perceived as fallible and systems as overthrow-able. This realisation that a governing body can be flawed and corrupt birthed the idea of propaganda. Propaganda is essentially a form of advertisement, employed by the government and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda. In an oppressive regime, such as the one in Animal Farm, this propaganda is often the only connection between the governing body and the population. The people perceive the people in charge only through the distorted lens of propaganda. Thus the official, responsible for the distribution of propaganda holds the key for swaying the public opinion.
In Animal Farm, Squealer is Napoleon's second-in-command and his minister of propaganda. He is a highly skilled and convincing orator, tasked with conveying Napoleon's announcements to the whole farm and maintaining the support for Napoleon's regime. While through the novel's progression Napoleon recedes further and further out of the public eye, Squealer remains ever in the spotlight. Due to his convincing rhetorics, he is able to manipulate the animals and conceal the increasing social rift between the pigs and the other animals on the farm. Thus, the Squealer becomes the real leader of farm animals. While Napoleon still technically remains in charge, the actual power resides in Squealer. It is through his speeches that the animals receive the will of Napoleon and his becomes the voice of authority.
While their leader Napoleon becomes progressively alien to the population of the farm, the Squealer remains familiar and from this stems his actual power. When the animals think of authority they do not picture Napoleon, instead they see the one who conveyed the commands and the one whose cheerful and friendly demeanour overshadowed the distant presence of their alleged ruler.

Squealer the Pig from "Animal Farm" is easily the most powerful character in the book, and it's clear why. While Napoleon is in control, Squealer holds control over the information, which is what gives true control over a populace. This is a very important tidbit to understand because of its relevancy to real life. Control over the media, or control over information flow, is true power in any government or organization.
If someone is able to spin a narrative or change a story to fit their own needs, they can motivate the people to support whatever they want—whether you believe the idea of "Fake News" spreading a certain narrative in today's media or information being disseminated by the likes of WikiLeaks, whoever controls information controls the people.

Because Napoleon is the pig most obsessed with power and manipulates all the other pigs in order to get and keep it, it would make sense to characterize him as the most powerful animal. However, the reason that Squealer can be considered the most powerful is that he controls the information. As the novel progresses, the information that is disseminated is very carefully controlled—both the amount and the kinds. The literacy campaign seems intended to help the animals learn more about the new social order, but it is quickly squashed. A simpler set of messages is all that is required. It is Squealer who crafts the message and gets them it to people. He is both a gifted writer and a gifted speaker who can make what is true one day seem a lie the next day. Squealer spreads the revised dogma, "Four legs good, two legs better!" after the pigs walk upright. And he crafts the single, essential commandment, “Some animals are more equal than others.”

How did Truman help African Americans with equality in the military?

Harry Truman went from being the vice president to being the president of the United States in 1945, following the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was elected president in 1948.
On July 26, 1948, President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which desegregated the U.S. military. In part, this recognized African American service during World War II, which had been slightly higher than the overall representation in the U.S. population. About 11% of military personnel were African American, contrasted to about 10% of the general population.
The order built both on initiatives that President Roosevelt had established and on the findings of December 1946. Truman appointed a distinguished panel to serve as the President's Commission on Civil Rights, which he had created in December 1946. That commission had recommended voting reforms and a stronger civil rights division within the Justice Department.
While it can be considered that Executive Order 9981 helped African Americans, President Truman’s action is generally viewed as helping the United States, in part through benefitting the U.S. military. It was an important milestone in civil rights because it established a precedent for the removal of legal barriers that had prevented people of all races from contributing to national service, including defense, and more generally from participating fully in American society.
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=84

What rule does Mayor break in The Book of Unknown Americans?

In the novel The Book of Unknown Americans, Mayor Toro is deeply in love with Maribel Rivera. Because of the events of the novel and some misunderstanding, Mayor is forbidden from seeing Maribel. It is presumed that Mayor is taking advantage of her, and, as she had been sexually abused earlier in the novel, her parents are extremely wary of letting her around boys in general, especially Mayor because of their incorrect assumption that he had harmed her.
So, Mayor steals his father's car one day so that he can go see her, and he convinces her to leave school for the day, making up a story so she can leave without getting in trouble. This action leads to Mayor being strictly punished and reprimanded.

What is the significance of smiling in Julius Caesar?

It seems to have been one of Shakespeare's favorite observations that just because someone smiles does not mean they are innocent or friendly. In Act IV, Scene 1, Antony, a "shrewd contriver," recognizes the danger in the many seemingly friendly people he sees around him. And Octavius agrees as follows:
And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear,
Millions of mischiefs.
In the conference on the battlefield at Philippi of Antony and Octavius with Brutus and Cassius in Act V, Scene 1, Antony describes how all the conspirators were smiling just before they turned on Caesar:
You show'd your teeth like apes, and fawn'd like hounds...
In Macbeth, Act II, Scene 3, Donalbain tells his brother:
To Ireland, I; our separated fortune
Shall keep us both the safer. Where we are

There's daggers in men's smiles: the near in blood,
The nearer bloody.
Hamlet seems to make an important discovery about human nature when he reflects on the interview he just had with his father's ghost in Act I, Scene 5.
O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
Shakespeare has given all of us fair warning that we shouldn't always take people's smiles at face value.

Discuss promissory estoppel.

It its most basic terms, promissory estoppel “estopps” a person from benefitting from another’s reliance on a broken promise. In contract law, it can be substituted for consideration. Consideration is one of the three elements that must be present in order to create a contract. The other two elements are offer and acceptance. Consideration is usually money but does not have to be. For example, let’s say you are a seller and you state “I will sell you this fan if you promise to give me $100.” The buyer gives you the $100 in exchange for the fan. The consideration in this example is the $100. There must be a bargain from the promisor (the one making the promise) or a detriment to the promisee (the one giving up something) for there to be consideration. Thus, there must be an exchange of promises for consideration to be present.
However, there may not always be consideration and this is where promissory estoppel can be used to seek recovery. For promissory estoppel to apply, there first must be a promise. Next, the promisee’s reliance on the promise must have been reasonably foreseeable to the promisor. Also, there must have been actual reliance on the promise. Finally, only by enforcing the promise can injustice be avoided. All of these four elements must be met in order to apply this doctrine. In Ricketts v Scothorn (77 N.W. 365, 367), a grandfather promised to give his granddaughter $2000 plus interest so that she would not have to work like his other grandchildren. Here, there was no consideration to support this promise and the executor of the estate was “estopped” from alleging a lack of consideration as a basis for terminating the contract. Because the promisee here, the granddaughter, was induced into quitting her job based on this promise, the court held it would be grossly inequitable to dismiss it because there was no consideration. The doctrine has since evolved to not only include cases where there is no consideration but can also be a viable remedy for enforcing a contract by treating the promisee’s reliance alone as a separate and allowable basis for recovery.

Firstly, it is important to understand the term 'estoppel.' Essentially, an estoppel is a concept and legal term that will prevent someone from denying or contradicting something that they had said or done in the past. It is used as a legal tool to ensure that no one is left at a disadvantage because of someone else's inconsistencies or attempt to skew the truth.
Now, a promissory estoppel is a type of estoppel that prevents someone from doing or acting in a way that goes against something that they had already promised to do, whether it was in a formal or informal manner. This type of estoppel is usually found in a contract. Say you sign a lease contract that says you must pay your rent on the first day of every month; this is a promissory estoppel that ensures you will do what you promise to do in your lease.
A promissory estoppel is only used when the hypothetical breaking of whatever promise was made would be extremely detrimental, whether financially or otherwise, to one of the parties involved.

What is the essence of chapter 28, "We Are All Americans," in Battle Cry of Freedom?

The essence of chapter 28, "We Are All Americans," is the end of the Civil War and how the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment affected the government, the slaves, and the South. The chapter also discusses the Confederacy's movement toward arming slaves and having them fight on the battlefields.
The people in favor of arming slaves began to take precedence. One important person who supported it was Robert E. Lee. He also believed that the ones who served should be freed. However, many Southerners believed it would upset the social structure of the South. The chapter uses its first section to discuss the topic and says that ultimately the black men who were made to serve never saw battle and were not freed by the South.
The second section discusses the Thirteenth Amendment and how Lincoln saw his reelection as a "mandate" for its passage. He wanted both Democrats and Republicans to vote for it even though Republicans would have control of the legislature in the next Congress. The vote passed 119 to 56. The author notes that black people were there in the congressional galleries to hear about the passage of the amendment, which was important because they were barred from it until 1864. It also discusses the Freedman's Bureau and Lincoln's movement toward the left on the political spectrum.
The third and final section talks about how Ulysses S. Grant and the Northern Army took Richmond back. According to the author, President Lincoln visited and was celebrated by the now-freed slaves there; some of them even touched him to be positive he was real. He told one man not to kneel to him, because he was free and should only kneel before God. General Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse. The chapter discusses the reaction of the country to the end of the war and ends with a threat against President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth.

How do you see the theme of greed in Treasure Island?

The treasure in Treasure Island is initially a concept only, represented by a map. The map itself is like a portal to gold’s power, and, like the ring in Lord of the Rings, Captain Flint’s map signifies a glittering objective, its particular allure subjective to its beholder. Jim sees it as an invitation to wild adventure and romance, as he’s been hitherto grounded at an inn with his mother. To Jim’s advisors, Dr. Livesey and Squire Trelawney, the map touches off an exploratory zeal: of course they’re driven to mount an expedition in an attempt to recover the sea chest.
To a lesser extent to that of the pirates, greed is an influencial force underscoring Jim’s and the upright adults’ visions. Jim realizes on the island that he’s been susceptible to flattery, by the “abominable old rogue” Silver, for example. He and the Squire and the Doctor are like the marks that a con man targets, exploited for their weakness.
And to Long John Silver and his motley crew, Flint’s treasure is one more conquest along the spectrum of life-or-death power struggle to massive pay-off that’s pretty much intrinsic to the whole pirating enterprise. As Silver says, “Lambs wasn’t the word for Flint’s old buccaneers.”

Here is is about gentlemen of fortune (Silver’s euphemism for pirates), they lives rough, and they risk swinging, they they eat and drink like fighting cocks, and when a cruise is done, why, it’s hundreds of pounds instead of hundreds of farthings in his pockets.

When splinter groups of mutinous crewmen plot, drunkenly betray and kill each other, it’s because of the loot at the heart of it. Silver is older, farsighted, and accustomed to treatury. But the actual material goal is less the point than what people are willing to do, or do to others, to aquire it.

What does each level of government face as challenges in the developing relationships between local, state, and federal government?

The most fundamental challenge in the developing relationship between different levels of government in the United States is the evolving definition and view of federalism.
The relationship between federal governmental authority and responsibility on one hand, and that of the states and the local governments they created on the other, was defined by the concept of dual federalism in the early history of the United States. Dual federalism saw each component's duties effectively placed into self-contained silos.
Since the Civil War, but more intently since the New Deal, this relationship has evolved into what has been called cooperative federalism. In cooperative federalism, the different levels of government do not have duties that exist independent of other levels but, instead, overlap. The challenges this presents are two-fold.
First, cooperative federalism tends to favor the federal government over those of the states and localities. That is, the responsibilities of the federal government are more likely to spill into areas traditionally reserved for the states and localities than visa versa. This has been derisively called "one-way cooperative federalism."
Second, cooperative federalism does not have clearly defined limits and is in a state of continuous evolution, creating the need for continuous case law creation to determine its boundaries.
http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Kincaid_Pub.pdf

Describe what assignment day is in The City of Ember.

In the novel The City of Ember, Assignment Day is the day kids graduate from their schooling. At the end of their education, they are assigned a job, which they must report to regardless of their preference. These jobs are essentially doled out at random, and many people end up in fields they don't care for.
The two main characters, Lina and Doon, are assigned jobs as Pipeworks Laborer and Messenger, respectively, but neither of them like their particular assignments. So, the two switch, which sets off the events of the novel. This "assignment" trend is similar to many other dystopian or youth fiction novels, where characters are sorted or divided and put into specialized groups essentially against their will, like in Harry Potter, the Divergent Series, and other books.

What is the Lusitania Effect: America's Mobilization against Germany in World War I?

The Lusitania Effect: America's Mobilization against Germany in World War I is the title of an article by Frank Trommler that appears on pages 241-266 of the May 2009 edition of German Studies Review. You can read the full text of the article at the link below.
Here is the article’s abstract:

The sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine in 1915 became not only a crucial factor for the American entry into World War I, but unleashed an increasingly emotional drive of exclusion in the name of forging a new unity of the American nation. In the broader context the persecution of German Americans reinforced hysteria against socialists and other dissenters for the next half-century. A closer look at the battle for and against German culture reveals it as part of America's battle for its cultural independence, which became a fatal identity test for German Americans but also a challenge to American intellectual elites who maintained strong interest in German modernity and social policies.

Here is a general history of the Lusitania:
The RMS Lusitania was travelling from New York to Liverpool on May 7, 1915 carrying 1900 passengers. Both the British and American governments were aware of Germany’s declaration of unrestricted submarine attacks in British waters. Because of this, the British Admiralty had warned the captain of the Lusitania to exhibit caution and attempt to evade the German forces in the area. The captain did not heed these warnings and the Lusitania was hit by a torpedo and sank near the coast of Ireland.
At the time, the United States was remaining neutral in World War I. However, due to the sinking of the Lusitania, and the subsequent sinking many other American liners and other boats carrying Americans, the public opinion in America became decidedly anti-German. The United States officially entered the war on April 4, 1917. The sinking of the Lusitania is seen as the catalyst to the entrance of the United States into the war.

When Boxer finally succumbs to his poor health, what lie is spread about his care?

Boxer, the strong and loyal horse, is one of the most important members of the rebellion. He develops a codependent dynamic with Napoleon and dedicates himself to the cause. However, Boxer's enthusiasm and work ethic burn out in the end. Whilst rebuilding the windmill, Boxer's lung is damaged from his extreme work effort. Boxer eventually collapses from exhaustion and weakness.
Napoleon decides that Boxer is no longer a valuable asset to his rebellion and growing regime. Boxer, on the other hand, believes that he will be taken care of by Napoleon, whom he states is "always right." However, the naive Boxer does not realize that Napoleon does not reward loyalties and only manipulates animals to increase his power.
Squealer later tells the other animals that Boxer will be transported to a veterinary hospital in town for much-needed care. However, Benjamin, a good friend of Boxer's, read that the van meant to transport Boxer was owned by a slaughterhouse. Boxer also realized his true fate, but it was already too late, as he was unable to free himself from the van.
Later on, Squealer tries to quell the other animals' fury and distrust by explaining that the van was owned by the surgeon and that it was recently purchased from a slaughterhouse, hence the markings on the side of the van. This, of course, is a blatant lie.
Boxer's character and fate are an allegory into how Stalin manipulated the populace in Russia and then discarded them when they were no longer needed. The hardest workers were not rewarded in the end, because all of the rewards went to the dictator and top officials.
Squealer's lies are meant to represent the Stalinist propaganda machine, which tried to deceive the population through misinformation and blatant lies.

What happens when ammonium hydroxide and copper II bromide are combined?

Ammonium hydroxide (NH₄OH) is a clear liquid, while copper (II) bromide (CuBr₂) is a translucent blue liquid. When these two chemicals are combined, the following reaction takes place:
NH_4OH + CuBr_2 -> NH_4Br + Cu(OH)_2
In this reaction, the products are ammonium bromide (NH₄Br) and copper (II) hydroxide (Cu(OH₂)). The resulting solution is cloudy blue in color, and a blue precipitate is also observed. The precipitate is copper (II) hydroxide.
This reaction is a double-displacement reaction, in which both the species on the reactant side exchange their cations and anions with each other.
The above equation is not yet balanced. To balance it, count the number of atoms of each element on both sides of the chemical equation carefully, and ensure that they are the same on the reactant and product sides.
The balanced chemical reaction for the given scenario is:
2NH_4OH + CuBr_2 -> 2NH_4Br + Cu(OH)_2
Hope this helps.

How does Jean Valjean turn his life around after his confrontation with the bishop? Use two quotations for support and commentary.

The last thing the Bishop says to Jean Valjean is

Do not forget, do not ever forget, that you have promised me to use the money to make yourself an honest man.

As we read the rest of Valjean's story, we see how the encounter with the Bishop has influenced him.
Valjean is a poor and homeless guest of the Bishop, yet he robs the holy man. Valjean even comes close to murdering the Bishop before taking the silverware.
The next morning, the Bishop is not fazed by the robbery, and when the police show up with Valjean, the Bishop easily proclaims that he gifted the silverware to the man and hands over the silver candlesticks as well. We can see the effect this has on Valjean simply from his reaction:

Jean Valjean opened his eyes wide, and stared at the venerable Bishop with an expression which no human tongue can render any account of.
...
“Is it true that I am to be released?” he said, in an almost inarticulate voice, and as though he were talking in his sleep.

Valjean does indeed turn his life around.

And as he wept a new day dawned in his spirit, a day both wonderful and terrible.

Valjean confesses his identity when another man is mistaken for him. It would have been easy to let this other man take the fall and let Javert believe he captured the ex-con. Instead, Valjean speaks up. He takes in Cosette, the illegitimate child of Fantine, the prostitute. He raises Cosette and follows her love, Marius, to the barricade, watching out for him and bringing him home. At the barricade, Valjean takes care not to kill, even sparing the life of Javert, who has been hunting him. This is significant because Valjean journeys from almost killing the innocent Bishop to freeing Javert, the man who has caused him trouble.
On his deathbed, Valjean shows us his religious influence in his new life:

"I have one," Jean Valjean replied; and he pointed upwards as though there were some other being present whom he alone could see.

Discuss Janie as a romantic hero in Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God and one of the romantic heroes of Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying. Explain how these romantic heroes contribute to the meaning of the overall works. What would be a good outline/thesis to go about this prompt?

When using the term "romantic," one means either a figure who is engaged in a love story or one who is on a quest. Because you are asking about Janie in relation to Faulkner's characters, the latter concept seems more appropriate.
Hurston's novel is a bildungsroman, or coming-of-age, novel. Tracing Janie's development from a young girl without a sense of self or a voice, the novel ends with a fully actualized woman who has "been to the horizon" and who has achieved her "pear tree" vision of mutuality. She does this by leaving unfulfilling relationships with Logan and Joe and setting off on a quest with Tea Cake. This quest, like all successful romance quests, involves an eventual return home, with wisdom gained though the journey.
Faulkner's novel also involves a journey, though one that is largely unsuccessful for most of the characters. Somewhat inspired by Homer's Odyssey, this journey to return Addie to her preferred resting place involves similar patterns of desire for fulfillment and obstacles that each character must seek to overcome. A strong parallel to Janie seems hard to make, though one might see the parents—Anse and Addie—both having a successful journey. Addie, though dead, does take revenge on her family, whom she resents, and does end up buried in her home county. Anse does achieve new teeth and a new wife, though at the expense of his children. Neither of these characters experience the growth or self-awareness that Janie does, however.
It does not seem plausible that any of the children in Faulkner's novel gain the kind of wisdom or self-expression anticipated in a quest story, though Faulkner beautifully conveys the inner life and aspirations motivating each. Like Janie and her pear tree vision, each of these characters has a singular quality to their personality that drives them intensely and against all odds.
Both of these novels seem quintessentially American as well, and American literature has a strong romantic element to it. I think a strong thesis statement might address the idea of journey and movement and compare the two works in terms of the quest the characters undertake. I think one might make a case for Faulkner's novel ultimately being a repudiation of the romance quest Hurston presents. Hurston was ultimately a more optimistic writer in terms of opportunities for self-actualization. While Faulkner's novel is actually very funny, it is so in a grim way that traffics in gallows-type humor.

What were the thirteen original colonies and their capitals?

The thirteen colonies were settlements under British rule that spanned the Atlantic coast. They were founded in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and included Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Over time, the capitals of these colonies changed, and many of the original capitals were different than the state capitals we know today.
Jamestown was the capital of Virginia from 1607 to 1699. Then the capital became Williamsburg, from 1699 to 1776.
In the Province of Maryland, St. Mary’s City was the capital from 1632 to 1695. Then Annapolis became the capital, and it still is the capital today.
Philadelphia was the capital of the Province of Pennsylvania.
New Castle was the colonial capital for Delaware Colony.
Elizabethtown was the capital of the Province of New Jersey from 1664 to 1673, and then Perth Amboy and Burlington were known as the capitals from 1702 to 1783.
New York was the capital of the Province of New York.
In the Connecticut Colony, New Haven was a joint capital with Hartford from 1701 until 1776 when Hartford became the capital.
Boston was the capital of the Province of Massachusetts Bay.
Providence Plantations and Newport were the capitals of the Colony of Rhode Island.
In the Province of New Hampshire, Portsmouth was the capital from 1630 to 1774, and then Exeter became the capital until 1776.
The Province of North Carolina had several capitals during its colonial time: Bath, from 1712 to 1722; Edenton, from 1722 to 1743; Brunswick Town, from 1743 to 1770; and then New Bern, until 1776.
Charleston was the capital of the Province of South Carolina.
Savannah was the capital of the Province of Georgia.

In The Swiss Family Robinson, what did the mother and sons do on day three?

The famous adventure novel The Swiss Family Robinson tells the exciting story of a family (comprised of a couple with their four sons) left alone off the shore of a deserted island when the ship's crew abandons them after a terrible storm. I am assuming that the question refers to day three after reaching landfall from the wrecked ship. On the first day, the family comes ashore on a makeshift raft, erects a tent, prepares a meal, and eats together. On the second day, the father, William, and the oldest son, Fritz, explore for signs of their lost shipmates and gather some coconuts. When they return, the family all eats together.
On the third day, William and Fritz return to the ship to save the livestock and as many supplies as they can manage. On the boat, Fritz feeds the animals that had been left there. He then proposes putting a sail on the small boat that had carried them and works with his father at this task. He and his father then spend the rest of the day loading their raft with supplies, and then they spend the night out on the boat.
Because the story is told in first person by William, we only learn what the mother, Elizabeth, and the rest of the sons (Ernest, Jack, and Franz) did on day three later, after William and Fritz return. On day three, Jack had made a belt for himself and collars for their dogs out of jackal skin. Elizabeth had helped him with the sewing. Those are actually all the details that the text supplies about what the rest of them do on day three, except that Elizabeth says that it was "spent in anxiety about [William and Fritz], and attending to the signals." In other words, most of what Elizabeth, Jack, Ernest, and Franz do on day three is wait on shore and send signals that all is well.
Only on the morning of the fourth day, when William and Fritz are still on the ship, do Elizabeth and the other boys set out for a walk to explore the part of the island on which they landed.