Why did Della look at her hair with brilliantly shining eyes?

Della looks at her hair with brilliantly shining eyes because it has just occurred to her that she could sell it to buy an expensive Christmas gift for Jim. Just before she glimpses it in the mirror, she is wondering what she can buy for him with the mere $1.87 she has saved.
We note too that Della is conflicted about the sale of her hair. While her eyes are shining at the idea of selling it for Jim, her "face had lost its color within twenty seconds." This is because she also realizes that she loves her hair. It is very long, rippling down to below her knees. She thinks the if queen of Sheba lived across the street, she would hang her hair out the window to put the queen's jewels to shame.
Della loves Jim, which is why her eyes light up at the idea she can use her hair to buy him a gift. But Della loves her hair, which is why her face pales at the thought of sacrificing her hair. Selling her hair is hard for her to do. Nevertheless, her love for Jim will win the day.

What are the men fighting about in Treasure Island? What is the connection between the men wrestling on the ship and the boisterous singing on shore?

The men on the hunt for the treasure are in a fight because there has been a mutiny on board the Hispaniola. The two groups are fighting because Captain Smollett and his men are trying to survive, while Long John Silver and his men are trying to take control of the ship and the island. Jim fights for Smollett because he believes that Silvers is evil.
The connection between the song on the shore and Jim’s wrestling with Isreal Hands on board the Hispaniola is Jim’s decision to stay on Captain Smollett's side of the conflict. Jim tries to cut the Hispanola loose so that it will drift away and Silver’s men will have no way of getting off the island. While he is waiting and trying to cut the ship’s line, he hears the pirates on shore singing, and he realizes why he could never side with them,

And I thought it was a ditty rather too dolefully appropriate for a company that had met such cruel losses in the morning. But, indeed, from what I saw, all these buccaneers were as callous as the sea they sailed on. (Chapter 23)

The pirates are cruel and quick to turn on one another. Jim realizes that they don’t care for each other. Instead, they can easily overlook their allies who have died because they only really care for themselves and their fortunes. Jim ends up wrestling Isreal Hands because he sneaks onboard the Hispaniola and has to fight the pirates to save the lives of his friends and allies.

Where did the Puritans settle, and why?

Puritans were members of the Church of England that wished to purify the church. Most did not want to separate from the Church of England but rather reform it, although there were some separating Puritans as well. The most well-known group of Puritans that wanted to separate from the Church of England were the Pilgrims. In England, the Pilgrims were subject to investigations and social hostility from conforming members of the church. Those that conformed were hostile to the Puritans for wanting to change the ways of the church. The Pilgrims left England, first moving to Dutch areas before settling in the Plymouth Colony. Non-separatist Puritans settled throughout New England, and most came to the new world for religious freedom. They established the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Saybrook Colony, Connecticut Colony, and New Haven Colony. Puritans could also be found in New Hampshire.

Think about Dance Hall of the Dead: its plot, its characters, the themes, literary devices, figurative language, etc. Throughout this novel, there are numerous incidents of prejudice and misunderstanding between Navajo and Zuñi and between Leaphorn and the other law enforcement officers. How do the characters in the novel deal with prejudice? What message about prejudice and discrimination does the novel communicate?

In Dance Hall of the Dead, Tony Hillerman depicts the differences and tensions among the Navajo, Zuñi, and Anglo communities in New Mexico. Navajo detective Joseph Leaphorn investigates the death of Ernesto Cata, a young Zuñi boy, and the disappearance of George Bowlegs, Ernesto's friend—as the Zuñi prepare for the upcoming Shalako ceremony.
A Navajo, George feels his tribe's belief system is lacking something his mystical nature needs. He wants to become a Zuñi and learns about traditions of the tribe from Ernesto. George deals with his dislike of his own tribe by trying to become someone else. Yet his decisions and actions lead to the breaking of a taboo regarding the sharing of Zuñi beliefs and customs, a deed that worries both Ernesto and George.
The events of the novel reveal that the Zuñis have a cherished and protected spirituality and a certain continuity in their history. At one point during his quest, George even approached a Zuñi elder about learning sorcery but only angered the old man. This dedication to their traditions and cohesiveness of their community seems to impart the Zuñis with a spiritual knowledge and power that the other communities fear and secretly admire.
During his investigation, Leaphorn encounters prejudice and mistrust directed against the Zuñi and the Navajo and between the tribes. He admits to his lack of knowledge about Zuñi beliefs and his own misgivings against the tribe, due to his clashes with his Zuñi roommate at Arizona State University. The Zuñi police chief, Ed Pasquaanti, expresses a dismissive attitude toward George, leaving Leaphorn with regrets about raising the topic of George's school experience:

Pasquaanti would simply remind them all that Bowlegs was a Navajo—thereby explaining the gap in academic performance.

Leaphorn feels a reluctance to learn and engage with the Zuñis and admits to himself, "It was because he felt that Zuñis felt superior to Navajos." Yet later on, he thinks the Zuñis have done a better job than the Navajos of surviving and preserving their customs.
Leaphorn's interviews with the community members reveal their attitudes as well as provide insight into the Navajo, Zuñi, and Catholic religions. Archaeologists Ted Isaacs and Dr. Reynolds have their own agendas about interacting with the tribes. Cecil Bowlegs, George's younger brother, declares to Leaphorn, "I do'’t think Ernesto was a friend. Not really a friend . . . He was a goddamn Zuñi," thus blaming Ernesto for leading George astray. In contrast, Susanne, a young Anglo woman living at the hippie commune, mourns the death of Ernesto, expresses admiration for the Zuñi way (along with compassion for George Bowlegs), and later teams up with Leaphorn in the search for George.
Leaphorn describes to Isaacs the prejudice against Native cultures in general during his time at a Bureau of Indian Affairs high school, which displayed a banner stating "tradition is the enemy of progress,"—a not so subtle attempt to get Native students to disengage with their tribes. During the conversation, Leaphorn inadvertently reveals his anger:

He didn't mean it to sound bitter, but Isaacs gave him a quizzical look.

Other examples of unease and ambivalence about Native identity include the Anglo names of the Navajo boys and Ernesto's dual role as Little Fire God and altar boy the Catholic church.
The events of the novel build up to the climax at the Shalako ceremony: revealing why George was interested in finding Kothluwalawa (the dance hall of the dead), the motivations of the archaeologists, and the price paid for violating the Zuñi way.
http://ehillerman.unm.edu/node/9

https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/zuni-shalako-figure-767

Who are the most important characters in Beowulf?

The most important characters in Beowulf are the titular hero, King Hrothgar, Wiglaf, and the three monsters Beowulf faces, Grendel, Grendel's Mother, and the Dragon.
Beowulf is significant because he is the hero. He represents true heroism and the epitome of the warrior-king once he takes a crown.
Hrothgar serves as a role model for Beowulf early in the story. He prefigures the wise warrior-king Beowulf shall one day grow to become. Hrothgar is generous to his warriors and concerned for his people. He gives Beowulf a fatherly speech warning him against being too prideful and reminding the young warrior of his own mortality.
If Hrothgar is a father figure to Beowulf, then the warrior Wiglaf could be seen as a son figure or at least as the closest thing Beowulf gets to a successor. When the other warriors prove unwilling to join Beowulf in the final battle against the Dragon, Wiglaf alone stands by his king's side, both in the battlefield and as he dies from his wounds.
The monsters Beowulf fights serve as the chief antagonists. Each one is harder to conquer than the last and Beowulf must find different ways of besting them individually. Grendel is a predator made bitter by his outsider status (he is descended from the biblical Cain, who was doomed to wander the world separated from the rest of his family), so he takes his anger out on human communities. Grendel's Mother seeks vengeance on Beowulf after he kills Grendel in hand to hand combat. Unable to take her on with his fists alone, Beowulf uses an enchanted sword to defeat her. The Dragon attacks Beowulf's people after he has grown old. He fights the Dragon and wins, but at the cost of his own life. While all different, the three monsters are united in their antisocial nature and serve as threats to organized society.
While there are other characters in the epic poem, these are the most important in terms of thematic significance and the closeness of relationships with the protagonist, Beowulf.

How do the expansion of an empire and a religion connect?

An empire is sometimes defined as a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual political entity or state. A state becomes diverse through the process of integrating, usually by force, peripheral or neighboring areas. These territories have their own ethnicities (or from a biological perspective, their own gene pools), their own languages or dialects, and their own religious worldviews, traditions, and rituals. The imperial ruler or rulers may choose to allow for religious difference or may seek to establish religious homogeneity and suppress minority religions. We find examples of both approaches in history.
The Mughal Empire in India provides us with a helpful example of how one and the same state might adopt different religious policies in an imperial context. Akbar the Great (r. 1560–1605) saw himself as a patron of all religions and sought to create a new religion, borrowing from Islam, Hinduism, and even Christianity and Zoroastrianism. This policy essentially translated to religious toleration. Meanwhile, Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) tended to strive for homogeneity through the imposition of Islam, the taxation of non-Muslims, and the conversion of Hindu temples to mosques or their outright destruction.

This question's a bit difficult, because different empires have different contexts, and in each case the answer to your question will be very different. In some cases, the expansion of empire has very little in and of itself to do with religion at all (nineteenth-century imperialism, for example, was a mostly secular affair, driven largely by economic motivations), while there are other examples in which religion plays a very strong role as one of the key driving forces or even the primary driving force. The Islamic expansion from Arabia into the Byzantine Empire, the Sassanid Empire, and Western Europe had a very strong religious motivation in defending and spreading the Islamic faith. Centuries later, the Ottoman Empire would have its origins as one of many Ghazi States existing on the edge of Islamic territory, waging war on their non-Muslim neighbors to expand the Muslim world. From a Christian context we can observe the Spanish monarchy in the Spanish Golden Age, which saw itself as a bulwark for the Catholic faith and was very active in trying to defend Catholic interests in Europe, as well as support missionary work in the New World. If we were to delve further into the question of European colonization, the question can be broken down further: in the Spanish case, religious activities were largely focused on converting the native populations to Christianity, but the Puritans in New England were largely concerned with creating their own "Godly societies" beyond the reach of the Church of England.
Of course, this answer has so far only applied to imperialism and conquest, but religion's role in politics and empire runs far deeper and more subtly than that. Nation states and monarchies have often seen religion as a tool for state-building, as a way of centralizing and imposing power and strengthening their own claims of legitimacy. Whether we're looking at Justinian or Ferdinand and Isabella, often those monarchs who set themselves up as defenders of religious piety also used those religious institutions to strengthen their own political authority. Indeed, it should be noted that the Spanish Inquisition was actually under the direction of the Spanish monarchy, not Rome. We can also look at the historical example of the Greek Orthodox Church and the authority vested in the Byzantine Emperor.
To conclude, it's a very big topic, when you look at the ways religion and empire intersect, and one that is really best looked at on a case-by-case basis.

What is an analysis of medieval Europe and Japan, comparing similarities and differences in social structure, values, and way of life?

Even though Europe and Japan are geographically far away from each other, both societies independently developed social structures that were quite similar during the region’s respective medieval periods. The social structure that both areas had in common during this time was known as feudalism. Both societies developed feudal structures and relationships in situations where it was difficult to create more centralized political organization for various reasons. Both feudalistic systems had some shared principles and practices, but they also had many key differences.
Feudalism can best be defined as a medieval political, economic, and social system where land was the most important commodity. Society was built of a system of hereditary hierarchical class structures based on landownership where kings were at the very top, followed by nobles, then warriors, with peasants (serfs) at the bottom. In Japanese feudalism, the hierarchy went emperor (mostly a figurehead), shoguns (military dictators), daimyo (lords), samurai (warriors), and artisans/serfs.
All of the members of the system were bound to one another by a system of loyalties and obligations. There was no social mobility. In all feudal systems, the lords would have warriors whose sole job in life was to protect the estate and all the people living there. Most of the people who lived on the estate in both systems were serfs who were tied to the land. As vassals (people who entered into a feudal obligatory relationship where they promised to serve another), the peasants would owe their landlords a large percentage of the crops that they grew. They were only allowed to keep a very small amount of the yield for themselves and their families. For this reason, most serfs were incredibly poor and had no option but the remain on their lord’s manor.
Key differences arose between feudalism in Europe as compared to in Japan. Firstly, the medieval periods for each area do not correspond exactly, but they do overlap. For example, the feudal medieval period in Europe lasted from 800 CE to 1400 CE (Common Era), while in Japan it lasted from 1192 CE to 1868 CE.
In Europe, feudal structures developed mainly because kings had limited power. Because kings could not keep centralized control of their kingdoms, they used feudalism as a way of having their nobles control smaller areas. However, in Japan, emperors had an even more difficult time centralizing control of their subjects, making feudalism attractive. Japan’s rugged mountainous terrain made keeping tabs on their landed aristocracy especially difficult. A feudal structure made that more possible. For much of the medieval period in Japan, the emperor was mostly a figurehead who held little real power. Most real power was held by the shogun, or military dictator, who ruled the countryside and controlled the daimyo and samurai.
Both European and Japanese feudal structures also created systems of protection, albeit in slightly different ways. Castles in both systems had tall walls, moats, and steep stairways for protection. In each region there was a warrior class, but there were key differences between the knights and the samurai. Both classes fought to protect the people who lived on their lord’s or daimyo’s land, but the samurai were actually legally obliged to fight via contract, while the knights were morally obliged via moral obligation to their lord. While both knights and samurai were taught to fight at an early age, knights were more poorly educated than their Japanese counterparts and used different weapons and codes of conduct. While European knights used more advanced technologies such as long bows, samurai used traditional samurai swords in battle. Knights used a code of conduct called chivalry, whereby they were expected to serve and protect those who were weaker than themselves. In comparison, bushido, the code of the samurai, can be thought of as courage and loyalty toward the daimyo above all else. It was considered better to commit suicide than to fail to protect the daimyo.
Another key difference in both systems was religion. In medieval Europe, the Catholic church was the unifying factor throughout kingdoms. The church was effectively the highest point in the feudal structure, even above the king. However, in Japan, there was no such unifying force. People practiced Shintoism, a traditional animistic religion. This religion focused on the worship of kami, or nature gods, who varied between groups based on geographic location. While the center of religious life on the European manor was the church, in Japan it was a Shinto shrine where the kami were worshipped.
https://1.cdn.edl.io/wLDGhJw4C5wEeSeoaSiiMRleitaDUifROff9kpgRMqdb72cj.pdf

What was Hamlet's opinion about his mother's remarriage? Why?

Hamlet is absolutely scathing over Gertrude's remarriage. Why? Well for one thing, it's come much too soon after the death of her first husband, King Hamlet. Prince Hamlet is still brooding over the death of his father, and yet here's Gertrude moving on quickly with her life as if nothing's happened. Hamlet is in mourning for the death of his father and doesn't see why anyone else shouldn't be.
The second reason for Hamlet's hostility towards Gertrude's remarriage is that her new husband is the wicked Claudius, the man responsible for the murder of King Hamlet. Young Hamlet never liked Claudius to begin with, but he likes him even less now that he's discovered that he was the one who murdered his father as he lay sleeping in the garden one day.

In Song of Solomon, what was the significance of Macon Dead’s death to the other “young boys at the time”?

In order to answer this question, I will ground our discussion in Chapter 10, which appears in Part II of the Toni Morrison's novel. During his visit to Reverend Cooper's house in Pennsylvania, Milkman learns the story of his grandfather's murder. Jake "Macon" Dead was killed by white men who were never prosecuted for their crimes. Astonished that no justice was ever served, Milkman interrogates the Reverend to figure out why his grandfather's killers faced no punishment.
The Reverend, in his wisdom, tells Milkman an anecdote about how he wound up with a knot the size of a walnut after attending an Armistice Day march in Philadelphia after the end of World War One. Because the white people in the city did not want blacks included in the march, the police were called. They actually trampled the black marchers with their horses in order to drive them away.
This anecdote is intended to suggest that white people, as a general rule, can not be expected to uphold the rules of law and order when a black person is the victim of a crime or injustice. Therefore, it becomes clear that Jake "Macon" Dead's death was so significant to the young people at the time, Reverend Cooper included: because it showed them this ugly reality of their powerlessness against violence and discrimination.
Milkman even refers to his grandfather's murder as the "beginning of [the young boys's] own dying," suggesting that from that moment on, the boys understood their own mortality; if someone as strong and dignified as Jake "Macon" Dead could be killed without retribution, then any one of the young boys could be, too.

Is Montresor an unreliable narrator?

Many people have called Montresor an "unreliable narrator." Some seem to think Montresor is telling his story to them. There are multiple ways to look at this issue, but one can definitely make the case that Montresor is a reliable narrator. Poe makes it clear from the beginning that this is a confidential communication to one single individual whom Montresor has known for many years. He addresses this person as "You, who so well know the nature of my soul." If he is unreliable, he is not intentionally so. If the reader fails to understand something Montresor says or writes, that does not mean the confidant, or confidante, does not understand it perfectly. If Montresor is "unreliable," it can only be because he does not understand himself; he is not trying to deceive the confidant or confidante, and there is no one else he could have been trying to deceive.
So, where is the evidence of unreliability? Most people point to the thousand injuries plus an insult. Montresor is certainly unreliable in what he says to Fortunato, but he knows he is being intentionally deceptive. Why does it seem unreliable to say that he received a thousand injuries from his victim? Surely the recipient has heard from Montresor a number of times over the fifty years before receiving this strange confession. If the reader does not know the nature of at least some of the injuries, the person who reads the confession must surely have heard about some of them in all that time. If they had not been corresponding for fifty years, Montresor would not be so sure he could trust the other person with this incriminating revelation. He considers the other man, or woman, a person who knows all about him, who knows the nature of his soul. Is this also supposed to be unreliable? Was Montresor making a big mistake in trusting this other person with such information? That seems unlikely because he had taken such great precautions, not only to commit the murder, but to do so with what he calls "impunity." No one would suspect him of having anything to do with Fortunato's strange disappearance because everyone thought they were the best of friends. Montresor repeatedly refers to his victim as "my friend," "my good friend," and "my poor friend" even when he is leading him to his death. He has conditioned himself to think of Fortunato as his friend and always to speak of him as his friend, even as his good friend. He should be above suspicion, and he would have been the one who showed the most concern about Fortunato's whereabouts for the longest time. The reader can only call Montresor "unreliable" if he assumes Montresor is addressing him, but Poe has invented a narrative device that enables him to leave out a plethora of background information in order to focus on the dramatic aspect of the narrative.

How does O. Henry use dialect?

I appears that this question does not have a specific story in mind, so I'll use "The Ransom of Red Chief" for examples of how O. Henry uses dialect. Dialect is the language used by people in/around/from a specific area, class, district, etc. It involves unique spellings, sounds, grammatical constructions, and even pronunciations of a particular group of people.
In literature, dialect can be a powerful characterization tool because it can highlight a geographic, educational, or social background of a character. O. Henry uses dialect this way with Bill and Sam. They claim to be intelligent and crafty men that can pull of a kidnapping scheme in order to fund their next scheme; however, the dialect provided to readers supports the idea that they believe that they are better educated and smarter than they actually are. O. Henry uses dialect to give Bill and Sam a stereotypical down south "good ol' boy" characterization.

“You’re a liar!” says Bill. “You’re afraid. You was to be burned at sunrise, and you was afraid he’d do it. And he would, too, if he could find a match. Ain’t it awful, Sam?"

The use of dialect for characterization and for comic effect was very popular in America for many years. It was also a standard routine among stand-up comedians in vaudeville. Dialect was probably popular with American readers and audiences because there was such an enormous influx of immigrants in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and this influx must have been caused by the introduction of steamships and cheap, relatively safe transportation from the Old World. The most common dialects mimicked by writers and comedians were German, Swedish, Jewish, and Irish. The use of such dialects in fiction has a tendency to date a story or novel--i.e., to make it seem olf-fashioned. Readers do not appreciate it any more because it makes hard reading, because it doesn't seem very funny, and because it smacks of prejudice. O. Henry uses dialect frequently in his stories, and he is pretty good at it, although it does tend to make his stories sound old-fashioned. Reading O. Henry often seems like traveling back into America's past.

How is Willy a (tragic) hero that goes through the 12 stages of a hero's journey? When compared to Hamlet, he does not seem to be a hero at all.

Willy Loman is a modern hero whose course of action differs somewhat from that of the classical tragic hero. On his journey, he makes many missteps, either through having the right goal but choosing the wrong action by which to achieve it or just plain doing the wrong thing altogether. It is through his wife, Linda, that we see many of Willy’s positive characteristics, some of which he had long ago set aside. The words Arthur Miller gives her (“Attention must finally be paid to such a person!”) enforce the idea of Willy’s greater significance.
It could be possible to trace 12 discrete stages of Willy’s journey if one began at a point in his life earlier than the action of the play. As the title indicates, the play is concerned with the end of his life, but flashbacks and the other characters’s dialogues fill in the gaps.
Turning again to Linda’s words, we find mentions of some of his heroic acts, trying to help his sons. In his younger days, he had some success in sales: “He used to be able to make six, seven calls a day in Boston.” Although he no longer does so, he tries harder and travels farther, despite the frequent futility: “He drives seven hundred miles, and when he gets there no one knows him anymore, no one welcomes him.” Angry with the boys for attacking him, she demands: “And you tell me he has no character? The man who never worked a day but for your benefit?” Willy’s efforts to help his sons have largely gone unrewarded: “When does he get the medal for that?”
Each reader or viewer can decide if his last actions are heroic—if he gets a medal—given that his motive was to provide for his family. The 11th stage, resurrection or the encounter with death, is certainly represented. Is the final stage of the return, coming home a changed person, depicted here? Perhaps in the attitudes of his sons, which we are led to think may have changed, Willy finds completion after death, though it had escaped him in life.
Soon after writing the play, Arthur Miller explored precisely this topic in the article "Tragedy and the Common Man" (1949). Aiming to portray the common man as a tragic hero, Miller believed that

. . . the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing--his sense of personal dignity.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/00/11/12/specials/miller-common.html

Does The Curious Case of Benjamin Button have a moral, or attempt to teach its readers a lesson of sorts?

Fitzgerald's story is a meditation on the inexplicable nature of "life." I would argue that he's not so much presenting a moral as implying that life in its forward process (or progress) makes little sense. If it occurs in retrograde, backwards, it makes no less sense than in the normal forward way.
Button begins life as an old man then "youthens," (the term applied to Merlin in some versions of the Arthurian legends), finally becoming a baby and seemingly fading into oblivion: non-existence. The irony is that it's a mirror of normal life, because ordinary people begin helpless, become functional beings, and then end as helpless beings again in old age. It reminds one of the Sphynx's riddle solved by Oedipus: what goes on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three in the evening? The answer is Man, and the riddle symbolizes the kind of cyclic journey of life, beginning with weakness, moving to a condition of strength, and returning to weakness again.
On one level, Fitzgerald is simply giving us an amusing conceit. The deeper meaning, however, is that this retrograde life span, simply because it is so bizarre, forces us to examine "real" life and to recognize how similar the forward process is to the backward one. In both cases, man sadly fades into nothingness at the end.

Did Brown v Board of Education move forward the development of Special Education Law in the United States (for example, students with disabilities)?

As you answer this question, you want to analyze the results and legal decision of Brown v Board of Education in relation to several elements within the case. Yes, the Brown decision advanced the movement for Special Education laws because the Court mandated that all students have an equal right to quality education.
The landmark decision of Brown v Board of Education declared that segregation of children in public schools was illegal and unconstitutional. "Separate but equal" was deemed to be inherently prejudiced. Much of Brown's argument resided in the rights and protection clauses provided by the 14th Amendment of the US constitution. In relation to later laws regarding special education, the premise that it is unfair to segregate students for any reason was the vital foundation.
The specific Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was a central focus of the Brown case, as it provides that all citizens have equal protection. This clause has been applied in many cases to give equal access to education to all students of ability or disability.

nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

In the Brown decision, the Supreme Court stated

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.

After the Brown decision, movements began among parents who claimed that any segregation of students based on abilities was also unfair and unequal. Parents began to file lawsuits against school districts when their children were segregated in school from others based on a disability.
Therefore, as this movement for total educational inclusion continued, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. This federal legislation protected equal access to good education for all students, specifically any disadvantaged.
Just a few years later in 1970, two more cases argued for additional support for any challenged students with special needs. These cases were Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC) and Mills v Board of Education of District of Columbia. These cases again stated that students with special needs cannot be segregated or ignored.
In the Mills case, the Court declared:

the failure of the District of Columbia to provide publicly supported education and training to plaintiffs and other “exceptional” children, members of their class, and (2) the excluding, suspending, expelling, reassigning and transferring of “exceptional” children from regular public school classes without affording them due process of law.

The cases continued to increase, even leading to the passing of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, as well as many others.
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/history.spec.ed.law.htm

How does heat affect vitamin C?

Heat adversely affects vitamin C. Vitamin C, like many other nutrients, breaks down and becomes more unstable in the presence of high heat. Combine that with heating the vitamin C containing food in water, and it is possible that all vitamin C content could be lost before the food even enters your mouth. The reason for that is because vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin. The heat causes the vitamin to break down, and the water causes the vitamin content to leach out into the water. The vitamin is still somewhat present in the water; however, more than likely, a person isn't consuming the water that is cooking their vegetables. This means that the best way to cook your vitamin C-containing foods would be to do it quickly with minimal exposure to water. For example, steaming them works well.
https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/cooking-food-reduce-vitamin-content-5164.html

Examine the presence of 'The Odyssey' in the film 'O Brother Where Art Thou?' directed by the Coen Brothers

O Brother Where Art Thou? has several allusions to The Odyssey in its narrative, themes, and characters.
Firstly, the George Clooney character, Ulysses, is based directly on Odysseus. (Ulysses is the Latin variation of the name Odysseus, which is important to keep in mind.) Like Odysseus, he yearns to return home and reunite with his wife (called Penny instead of Penelope in this story). He undergoes a journey wherein he meets strange and menacing figures who want to prevent him from achieving his goal for a variety of reasons.
Several characters in the film reference corresponding figures in Homer. The blind prophet Tiresias is replaced with an old blind man on the railway who also tells future events to the protagonist and his companions. The sirens are replaced with three shapely wash-women who drug the men with liquor. The KKK become a stand-in for the Cyclops, with the main characters disguising themselves as clansmen the same way Odysseus and his men used sheep's wool to disguise themselves during their escape.
And so on it goes. Though the plot isn't exactly the same as The Odyssey, the movie riffs a lot on the epic poem.

Where in Evicted does the quote “Eviction is a cause, not just a condition, of poverty.” appear

The quote "Eviction is a cause, not just a condition of poverty," appears on page 299 of the book Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the America City by Matthew Desmond. It appears in the final chapter titled "Epilogue: Home and Hope."
In this chapter, the author talks about how people need a place to call home and how communities need people that feel secure in their homes. He uses an example of a heroin addict named Scott who, once he was provided with stable housing, got off heroin and found himself a worthwhile job. By comparison, people that are simply evicted tend to get moved to poorer and more dangerous areas. What you get is a whole community of people who are angry about having to live there. As the author states, "neighborhoods determine so much about your life from the kind of job opportunities you have to the kind of schools your children attend."

Why do the people of Waknuk kill deviations?

The people of Waknuk have suffered a great cataclysmic event—the aptly named Tribulation—which has wrought massive devastation on their society. In the wake of this monumental catastrophe, people try to figure out why such a terrible event occurred. The general conclusion is that it must have been a sign of divine wrath. For some reason, God was angry with the people of Waknuk and subjected them to the Tribulation as punishment.
Under the circumstances, it's considered essential that such a disaster doesn't happen again, and so thoughts turn to how God may be appeased. The simple country folk use a narrow interpretation of the Old Testament to justify the wholesale destruction of anything—animal, vegetable, or mineral—that displays signs of mutations. More disturbingly, this also applies to humans, which is why someone like Sophie, who has six toes, is in serious danger. Effectively, the agrarian folk of Waknuk have decided that the only way to avoid a repeat of the Tribulation is by sacrificing those deemed to be in any way deformed. Although they use the Old Testament to provide a moral justification for what they're doing, in actual fact people in this primitive, superstitious society are behaving more like pagans.

How did Dr. Flint’s wife influence Harriet’s life in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl?

Mrs. Flint shows Harriet just how morally corrupting the system of slavery really is. Instead of holding her husband accountable for his serial philandering, she puts all the blame onto Harriet, seeing her as a craven temptress rather than a cruelly exploited slave.
To some extent, Mrs. Flint is also a victim of the peculiar institution in that it encourages white men to force themselves upon their female slaves, thus breaking their marriage vows. But instead of developing a sense of solidarity with Harriet, Mrs. Flint hates her guts, seeing her as responsible for her husband's infidelity. Not only that, but she actually joins with her husband, the man responsible for all her feelings of jealousy and rage, in trying to track down Harriet after she escapes.
What all this demonstrates is the corrosive effect of slavery on the human soul, how it turns traditional notions of right and wrong completely upside-down.

what was Prince Henrys role in overseas exploration

Prince Henry rarely traveled with his men to explore new lands. Instead, he acted as the main center of command and sponsor of these explorations. He had the money and was curious to find out if what he had read was true. One goal that was close to his heart was finding the home of Prester John- a revered king and priest. He provided his men with the resources to set sail across the Atlantic and explore the west coast of Africa, which was unknown to the rest of the world at the time. Although Prince Henry's men never found Prester John (since he was a legend), they were successful in spreading Christianity in West Africa and mapping out the boundaries of that area.
https://mrnussbaum.com/explorers-profiles

What is the main problem in the book The Egypt Game?

I believe that there are two main conflicts going on in The Egypt Game. One conflict is an external conflict that affects the children as well as the greater community at large. That conflict is focused on the murderer that is somewhere present within the neighborhood. This conflict comes to a climax when April and Marshal are attacked by this person. The attack is thwarted by the Professor, who happens to be nearby and sees the attack. He calls for help, and the kids are able to get away. The murderer is caught soon after, and the neighborhood is returned to safety.
The other main conflict is an internal conflict for April. April has been forced to move into the neighborhood, and she isn't sure if she wants to stay there living with her grandmother. This conflict is also resolved by the end of the book. April has made several good friends, and she has discovered that she is happy with the place and the friendships that she has made.

How is WWII Significant?

In the summer of 1942, the beginning of the novel’s flashback, the United States is fighting World War II, but the war has affected the boys at Devon very little and only indirectly. A substitute headmaster is in charge of the Summer Session, and some of the regular teachers have gone to war, but life at Devon goes on, with traditions like the Headmaster’s Tea observed as usual. The upperclassmen participate in fitness training to prepare for military service, but the younger students spend the summer free of such obligations.
When the Winter Session gets underway, the boys make their own beds since there are no maids. During the fall, the boys are called upon to harvest the local apple crop since the men who would have done it are serving in the military or away doing work in support of the war effort. Photographs in the newspapers and newsreels at the movies acquaint the boys with scenes of the war’s destruction, but the war itself seems unreal to them, far away from the peace of Devon.
As the school year continues, however, World War II becomes a reality as it seems to move closer and closer to Devon. The boys’ first personal encounter with the war occurs during the winter when they shovel snow blocking the train tracks in a railroad yard south of Devon. When the main line is cleared, they watch a troop train pass by. Looking at the soldiers going off to war, the boys see young men “not much older” than themselves.
The war becomes an even greater reality when recruiters come to the campus. Leper enlists, and he leaves school almost immediately. Leper’s subsequent psychological breakdown is shocking, and his condition is frightening to Gene in particular. After spending an afternoon with Leper in Vermont, Gene realizes that Leper is deranged and brings the news of his disturbing behavior back to Devon. Although Finny has actively denied that World War II is taking place, he acknowledges the reality of the war after hearing about Leper’s pitiful state. “Leper’s gone crazy,” Finny says. “When I heard about Leper, then I knew that the war was real …. If a war can drive somebody crazy, then it’s real all right.” Leper’s destruction, like the boys’ encounter with the troops on the train, brings the war closer to Devon.
In June, 1943, Gene watched from a window in his room at Devon as a military convoy approached the Far Commons. He understood the significance of the moment and remembers it clearly as the novel’s narrator:
The advance guard which came down the street from the railroad station consisted of a number of Jeeps …. Following them there were some heavy trucks painted olive drab, and behind them came the troops.
An Army Parachute Riggers’ school would be headquartered at Devon. The war, so far away the summer before, had finally arrived.

How does the state of Israel come to express Jewish identity across the world, and what does this represent for Jewish people in the United States? How can the current conflict between Palestine and Israel be addressed in a political, rather than a religious, frame of reference?

The state of Israel represents Jewish identity across the world because it is the considered the Promised Land of the Jewish people, according to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The creation of the nation of Israel is considered by many Jews to be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. This is especially important when one considers the hardship that the Jews underwent during the Holocaust and in the Soviet Union. Israel was to be a place where Jews could practice their religion and culture freely without persecution from other groups.
The current conflict between Israel and Palestine can be considered politically as well as religiously. The Western powers created Israel in 1948 out of land that belonged to other states for years. These other states did nothing wrong and did not feel as though they should have to give up sites that had cultural value to them, as well. Palestinians also resented Jews coming from all over the world; in many cases, the new immigrants demanded that their Muslim neighbors move elsewhere. Since its formation, Israel has also increased in size much to the consternation of Palestinians who wish to preserve their own culture in the region. It is difficult to separate the religious aspect from the political one in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; one can see that the expansionist policy of Israeli leaders has led to Palestinian unrest, as Palestinians feel as though they need their own state as well. This has led to many people all over the world to push for a two-state solution to the problem in which the Palestinians also have their own country with access to holy sites.

Who says, “You are right, but there is not a man alive who can force the will of the gods,” in Oedipus, and what is its significance?

Most translations of Oedipus that I've read say something more along the lines of no mortal being able to force a god's "mouth" or "speech." This line is spoken by Oedipus in response to the Choir, who says that one day Apollo will make the man who slew Laius's identity known. Oedipus agrees but says that they will have to wait, since a man cannot make a god speak. This line is significant because it is the dilemma that causes Oedipus to summon Tiresias, who the choir proclaims is a seer that has all of the knowledge that Apollo does. It is the conflict with Tiresias that spurs the intrigue of the play, as Tiresias informs Oedipus that he himself is the killer that he is seeking. It is also ironic, considering that Oedipus fulfilled the prophecy by attempting to avoid it.

Oedipus says this, or something like it, at around line 280. I think a better translation would be that there is no man living who can force the gods to speak against their will, specifically. Oedipus is responding here to the Chorus, whom he has asked for the identity of the man who killed Laius. The Chorus tell him they cannot tell him the answer, but that Apollo could, if Oedipus could only make him speak. To this, Oedipus says it isn't possible for a man to make the gods do something they don't want to.
The significance of the statement is that it is ironic, for two reasons. The first is that, unbeknownst to Oedipus, the murderer he is seeking is himself—he is the one who has killed Laius, his own father. The other irony is that Oedipus has brought the will of the gods down upon himself by attempting to avoid it. Having heard the prophecy that he would kill his father and sleep with his mother, Oedipus took steps to avoid this but ended up encountering his father and killing him.

How important were exhibitions such as the St. Louis World's Fair of 1904 in shaping the public opinion about the issues of the day?

From the mid-nineteenth century on, expositions helped physically create urban environments, bring together spectacles and achievements, and communicate significant new developments to attendees and the public more broadly.
The expos were often held to commemorate important events. In the antebellum era, displays of national unity were necessary for healing. The Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876 is a perfect example. While looking back to America's independence, it also highlighted industrial achievements.
The 1893 World's Columbian Exposition, often known as the Chicago World's Fair, was the largest scale expo to date. Ostensibly celebrating 400 years since Columbus's arrival, it brought speakers and performers from throughout the Americas. But even more, it celebrated Chicago itself as a gateway to the western frontier. Educational exhibits and speeches were a major part, and commemorative publications shared the knowledge with the wider public who could not attend.
For the 1904 St. Louis fair, for the centennial of the Louisiana Purchase, the architects and planners tried out a novelty: the entire grounds were fitted with electric lights, the first time a large urban area had been specifically set up that way. "Exotic" cultural groups were brought to live there and perform, such as the Igorot headhunters from the Philippines and Ota Benga, a pygmy from southern Africa who later went to live in the Bronx, New York zoo.
Tragic events occurred as well. President McKinley, appearing at the 1901 Buffalo, New York expo, was assassinated there.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Fair_America.html?id=iKFqBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

What do Holden's ice skates symbolize?

In chapter seven, Holden begins packing his belongings before he leaves Pencey Prep for good after flunking out, and he feels bad that his mother had recently bought him a new pair of skates. Although Holden feels bad that his mother bought him a gift and he is repaying her by flunking out, he proceeds to mention that his mother bought him the wrong kind of skates. Holden asked for racing skates, but his mother purchased hockey skates instead.
Holden's skates can symbolically represent his isolation and distance from his parents. The fact that Holden's mother buys him the wrong skates highlights their distance, which emphasizes Holden's isolation. It is also significant that Holden wants racing skates instead of hockey skates. Hockey is a team sport, and the skates his mother purchases could represent integration into society, while Holden desires to skate by himself in racing skates. The racing skates Holden wants represent his desire to flee and escape from society.

What does Goldsmith wants to convey through his play She Stoops to Conquer?

In this exquisite comedy of manners, Goldsmith seeks to lay bare the many hypocrisies and double standards at the heart of upper-class English society. In particular, he wants to draw attention to the enormous gap between how the characters perceive themselves and how they really are.
On the face of it, Sir Charles Marlow is the epitome of social respectability. In the rarefied surroundings of a high society gathering, he always conducts himself with the utmost reserve and decorum. Yet when he's in the company of the lower orders, he lets his hair down, laughing, drinking, and carousing with the best of them.
It's only by "stooping to conquer"—that is to say, disguising herself as a barmaid to win Sir Charles's love—that Kate is able to get a glimpse of his true self. Like just about everyone else in society, Sir Charles puts on a false persona, hiding his true personality behind a mask of respectability. Goldsmith, like his heroine Kate, wants to remove that mask and in doing so, reveal what the English upper-classes are really like, warts and all.

How do we first realize that a horse, not a human, being is telling the story in Black Beauty?

There are several hints in the first few paragraphs of the story that the narrator is the eponymous horse. For example, the narrator describes how he and others like him "looked over a gate at our master's house." On its own, this might suggest that the narrator is a human slave perhaps, although the reference to the gate, in hindsight, suggests a horse rather than a human.
In the second paragraph, we are told by the narrator that, when he was young, he was raised "upon (his) mother's milk, as (he) could not eat grass." The first part of this quotation could feasibly be said by a human, but the second part, about feeding on grass, probably couldn't. At this point, it seems clear that the narrator is some kind of animal.
The point at which it becomes explicit that the narrator is a horse is in the first line of the fourth paragraph, which reads, "There were six young colts in the meadow besides me." The phrase, "beside me," indicates that the narrator is also a colt, which is a young male horse.

What is the difference between internal and external taxation?

An external tax was one imposed on imports into the American colonies. A prime example of this would be the Sugar Act of 1764, which was imposed by the British to raise much-needed revenue to help them pay for the upkeep of their troops on American soil. This measure proved deeply unpopular and led to widespread civil disturbances throughout the colonies.
An internal tax was one directly levied upon the property and goods of the colonists. A notorious example would be the Stamp Act of 1765, which required that many printed materials in the colonies were to be printed on stamped paper produced in London and needed to have an embossed revenue stamp. Inevitably, this greatly increased the cost of printed documents, which were essential to American trade, law, and the dissemination of ideas in books and pamphlets. If anything, the Stamp Act proved even more unpopular than the Sugar Act, and pushed the American colonists closer to outright resistance to British rule.

Do you think price discrimination through coupons is fair? Should there be laws against this behavior? Why or why not?

By definition, manufacturers, retailers, and marketing companies use coupons providing discounts to different market segments to drive traffic and increase the profitability of the product. The action of selling a product for different prices to different buyers is in itself not discriminatory or unethical in a legal sense. It is difficult to imagine any organization selling a product not offering a discount on their products or services using coupons or some other marketing scheme as a way to encourage buyers to try their products. Coupons and discounts may be used as a reward for loyalty as well as for inducing new customers to switch brands.
As to the issue of fairness, while it may annoy you someone is getting a better bargain than you are, it is not inherently unfair. For example, the local cable company offering new customers a twenty dollar per month price for a limited term for the same service you pay nearly forty dollars a month. The cable company is relying on you to remain loyal to their service at forty dollars per month, or it is incumbent on you to negotiate the same deal when you become aware of the pricing differential.
As a general statement, marketing practices are reasonably well-regulated. At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission monitors practices of business for fairness. The Bureau of Consumer Protection protects consumers from abuses in advertising, telemarketing fraud, and identity theft. Local Better Business Bureaus monitor practices locally and investigate complaints against businesses initiated by consumers who believe a business practice has treated them unfairly. Congress investigates incidences that are brought to their attention and proposes new regulations to resolve consumer complaints. There are laws against coupon fraud, which occurs when someone uses a coupon for something they have not purchased and obtains a financial benefit. It appears the regulation of coupon discounts and price discrimination doesn't need additional regulation.
Finally, companies are very invested in maintaining their good reputations with consumers. If price discrimination by use of coupons suddenly came under intense negative publicity, they would not offer them. Coupons benefit consumers by discounting products they use on a regular basis and inducing consumers to try new products. By trying new products in place of the ones consumers are familiar with, consumers increase the competition between sellers for your business and dollars. Price matching has become a very common retail practice offering consumers the same discount on similarly valued products, even if the coupon is for a different product. There is nothing unfair, discriminatory, or in need of regulations in how coupons are issued and used.
https://www.dummies.com/education/economics/how-to-use-coupons-for-price-discrimination-in-managerial-economics/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/08/21/individualized-coupons-aid-price-discrimination/

Why you think O'Brien's story is more effective than a heroic war story?

Personally, I think O'Brien's book is effective because it humanizes the characters. They feel like real, everyday people—not just fictionalized war heroes. Much of the writing feels like a memoir, and while it is true that O'Brien served in Vietnam and draws from his experiences, this is not a true memoir because parts are fabricated. Readers often expect that the characters are real people, only to find out they are made up. I think this shows how his writing is so believable, and therefore more effective than something obviously fictional.
O'Brien chooses to write about what the soldiers are carrying and what the items' significance is. This is a different way of approaching writing about war, and I think it is effective because it subverts our expectations and tells us more about the characters. If we wanted to just read about the war, we could read a history book.
In an interview with Port City Daily, O'Brien explains his thought process:

What we carry says a lot about the people we are . . . It's telling, the things that we carry. And on top of that, it's one of those overlooked things about combat that really, as far as I know, hasn't been written about much . . . which is just that incredible weight that soldiers bear in wars, and what it does to your psychology and your judgment. You get tired enough and you're lugging around a hundred pounds and it's, you know, 90 degrees out and you're exhausted and you've been walking all day with your stuff—you get careless and make killing mistakes, I mean, mistakes that kill people and sometimes yourself.

As O'Brien says, the things we carry say a lot about ourselves, and that's why I think this choice is effective storytelling.
Since this is an opinion-based question, your response may vary! Think about how you felt while reading this book, and how that differs from how you feel when reading about war in different narrative formats. How does O'Brien's writing draw you in?
https://portcitydaily.com/local-news/2014/01/13/interview-the-big-read-author-tim-obrien-on-the-things-they-carried-and-finding-truth-in-fiction/

Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried is definitely not a heroic war story in the vein of old John Wayne movies; rather, it shows readers the horrors of war. Showing readers Kiowa dying in a field of sewage is a horrific image that most readers will likely never forget. I would classify the book as a realistic war story.
The answer to your question is subjective, so feel free to defend your personal thoughts. The first thing to figure out is what "more effective" means. O'Brien's story is more effective at what? It most certainly is less effective at glamorizing war. Perhaps the question is asking you to explain how O'Brien's storytelling style is more effective at showing the randomness, unfairness, and reality of war and combat. Anybody can die in O'Brien's story, no matter how morally good or bad they are. Characters can die no matter what their heroic actions look like. This is a sharp contrast to heroic war stories in which the protagonist seems impervious to death and suffering. Those stories seem to tell readers that if a person is brave enough, they will survive. That isn't telling readers the truth. Finally, a story like O'Brien's shows that war leaves its "heroes" with emotional and mental scars long after combat ends. Heroic war stories erroneously teach readers that survivors live happily ever after.

How does the story show that love can turn to hatred?

In the opening of Roald Dahl's short story "Lamb to the Slaughter," readers are given a view of how loving Mary Maloney is as a wife. Dahl writes the living room in which Mary is waiting as a cozy setting. It is "warm and clean, the curtains drawn, the two table lamps alight," and "fresh ice cubes" are waiting in an ice bucket because she has gotten whiskey drinks ready. She is patiently and contentedly awaiting her husband's return and has everything ready for him after a long day of work.
When Patrick arrives, Mary attends to his needs by taking his coat, making his drink, and giving it to him while he sits in his chair quietly. Dahl writes the silence of them just sitting in their chairs as a "blissful" part of Mary's day because she loves to "luxuriate in the presence of this man." Although Patrick remains distant as he unwinds from his day, Mary continues to try to attend to his needs by jumping to get him another drink or retrieve his slippers—neither of which he wants her to get for him.
It is at this point that the bliss and contentment in Mary begins to fade. Patrick tells Mary bad news, and readers can guess it is that Patrick is leaving Mary. A shadow is cast on Patrick's face to highlight the change in him.
Mary also goes through a change, as she goes from being an adoring, loving wife to a killer. At first, after Patrick's announcement, she continues on as normal and does what a loving housewife would do by getting something to cook for dinner. It is when Patrick snaps at her that he doesn't want her to make him anything that Mary breaks. Without thinking, she hits him with the leg of lamb, causing the table with the lamps to fall over and also causing Patrick to fall dead. The setting of a once "warm and clean" room is now in disarray, reflecting Mary's life. She has completed her transformation from a loving wife to someone filled with hatred.

William Congreve in his play The Mourning Bride (1697) has one of his female characters make the following statement, the last part of which has been quoted and misquoted countless times ever since.
"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
In "Lamb to the Slaughter," the author Roald Dahl intentionally emphasizes how strongly Mary Maloney loves her husband. She dotes on him. She adores him. She admires everything about him. Then when he rejects her, she reacts with a burst of rage. Her action is all the more shocking to the reader because her feelings turn from loving to violent in minutes.
Is this credible? Congreve would probably say yes. Mary has several reasons for changing so drastically. For one thing, she is six months pregnant and her husband is walking out on her. She never would have expected that of the man she adored. For another thing, she not only realizes that Patrick does not love her, but she sees that he is not the same man she always thought he was.

Where is the ball scheduled to take place in A Doll's House?

Nora and Torvald have been invited to attend a fancy-dress ball at the home of their neighbors, the Stenborgs. Nora will wear the costume of a gypsy-girl and dance the tarantella, which she's been practicing intensively. Yet Nora's not really entering into the party spirit. All kinds of dirty secrets have been revealed, putting a dampener on her mood. As well as Krogstad's sordid little blackmail scheme, there's the little matter of Dr. Rank's shocking admission that he's in love with Nora. All in all, this isn't ideal preparation for what's supposed to be a fun night up at the Stenborgs' place.
To make matters worse, Nora gets into a blazing row with Torvald. Nora, fearful of Krogstad's attempts to blackmail her, has interceded with her husband to get Krogstad his job back, but all to no avail. Torvald just won't budge, and after their ensuing argument, Nora storms off, angered by Torvald's stubbornness and insensitivity.
Nevertheless, the Helmers still attend the costume ball, at which Nora dazzles everyone with the intensity and sensuality of her dancing. This isn't surprising when you consider how hard she practiced. Though, this was a way of distracting Torvald so that he wouldn't open his mail and read Krogstad's lurid revelations about Nora's financial wrongdoings.

How does Okonkwo achieve greatness as defined by his culture?

In the novel Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo has already achieved a great deal of acclaim amongst the village of Umuofia because he is considered one of the best wrestlers: he has bested another wrestler, Amalinze the Cat, nicknamed because he never landed on his back before wrestling Okonkwo. While this occurred twenty years prior to the events of the novel, this is a major foundation of Okonkwo's good social standing.
Additionally, Okonkwo is described as a wealthy farmer with two barns full of yams, and he has just married a third wife. Furthermore, Okonkwo is clearly an accomplished warrior, having won renown and glory in two separate wars between the tribal villages. As such, Okonkwo is described as "one of the greatest men of his time," since these achievements are revered in Umuofia. The author says that Okonkwo has "washed his hands," a metaphor for working to success, and as a result now eats with kings and elders.
Part of Okonkwo's good standing represents a contrast to his own father, the deceased Unoka, who was a lazy man who never worked hard, never saved for the future, and died with many debts. Okonkwo's drive to be a respected man in Umuofia is a reflection of his dislike of his father and his drive to be a better member of Umuofia's small society.

What does "Only for them, and mine eternal jewel Given to the common enemy of man, To make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings!" mean?

At this point in the play, Macbeth has achieved his ambitious dream of becoming king of Scotland. However, even though he anticipated the price of killing Duncan would be high, gaining the throne has cost him more than he thought. He is beset with worry that enemies will undo him and former friends betray him. He cannot rest easy on the throne.
Therefore, as he thinks back on the witches' prophecy that Banquo's descendants will inherit Scotland's throne, he becomes bitter. He says "only for them," meaning by "them" Banquo's heirs, contemptuously, now realizing it was hardly worth it to sacrifice his "eternal jewel"—his salvation in heaven—so that Banquo's line could be kings. Since being king in the present moment is no fun and brings Macbeth no fulfillment, he seethes with anger that his work may "make . . . the seed of Banquo kings!" We can almost feel him gnashing his teeth and wanting to lash out at someone in his pain.
It seems clear from this passage that what motivates Macbeth to have Banquo murdered goes beyond merely getting rid of a threat. Macbeth actively wants Banquo dead because he resents the idea that his heirs might be kings: he wants to prevent that from happening out of spite. This shows the deterioration of Macbeth from a moral, if ambitious man, to a soulless, malevolent monster. He has fully turned on his former friend.

In this soliloquy, Macbeth expresses his frustration due to the fact that he has killed King Duncan but is still jealous, envious, and suspicious of Banquo because of the witches' prophecy that Banquo's offspring will become kings of Scotland. In this metaphor, Macbeth is saying he has sold his soul (his eternal jewel) to the devil (the common enemy of man), but he cannot bring himself to say as much in plain words because he doesn't even want to think about that terrible truth. That is why the words "Given to the common enemy of man" seem to come out so hastily. Perhaps Shakespeare intended the actor to say, "and mine eternal jewel," then take a deep breath, release all the air from his lungs with a sigh, and then say, "Given to the common enemy of man" with his lungs virtually empty. The fact that the actor is saying the words "Given to the common enemy of man" with empty lungs naturally forces him to speak the eleven syllables quickly, and this is what suggests that Macbeth doesn't want to dwell on what lies ahead of him after his death. Since Macbeth feels he is already damned, and that therefore nothing worse can happen to him in the afterlife, this explains why he becomes more and more tyrannical until his ruthless and insupportable behavior forces numerous subjects to flee the land and ultimately brings an invasion of an army from England led by Malcolm.

How did Eurocentrism frame early views of history?

Eurocentrism, the belief that Europe is (or should be considered) the center of the world, framed most early history told by Europeans and their descendants. Africa, the Americas, and Asia were rarely mentioned in world histories. Non-Western accounts were dismissed as unreliable. One of the most striking examples of this is the Battle of Little Bighorn. Because Custer's troops were wiped out, Western historians argued there were no surviving accounts of the battle. Of course, there were thousands of accounts: the 2,000 Native Americans he attacked who were at the battle and defeated him.
Many still hold or are taught Eurocentric views today. For example, some still call the Americas "the New World," which is only true from a European perspective. Many textbooks still teach students the Bering Strait Theory of American population, even though many Native history accounts disagree and say that the Americas were populated by multiple migrations by boats much farther back in time.

Although Baldwin admires many aspects of the Nation of Islam, he is also somewhat critical of their ideology. What are some of Baldwin’s specific doubts and criticism regarding the Nation of Islam?

Initially Baldwin feels remote from Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam movement simply because he, Baldwin, does not see himself as a religious believer. Baldwin, though brought up in a strict Christian home, has rejected organized religion as an adult, and he does not feel the urge to convert to Islam, as many other African Americans have done.
However, Baldwin's criticisms of the Nation of Islam go further than this. He sees the separatism of the movement as another form of prejudice. Baldwin himself does not wish to reject white people as a whole and believes to do so would be to fall to the same level as the whites who have oppressed and marginalized African Americans. Furthermore, he regards the Nation of Islam's separatist agenda as simply unworkable. It does not seem realistic to Baldwin to think that African Americans can create a separate society or, as Elijah Muhammad planned, a new country for themselves on American soil. Even if they could do so, Baldwin does not see this as a form of progress for black people.
Baldwin wrote The Fire Next Time at a point in history when the Civil Rights Movement had only recently begun in earnest. He was prescient in seeing that an equal, multiracial society was, in fact, possible, and one can only hope his vision will be completely realized some day, since, as many would acknowledge, there is still some distance to go.

How did the culture of the 1950s influence Twelve Angry Men?

In "Twelve Angry Men," a jury of 12 men of various ages and backgrounds deliberates the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of crime. At trial there was an eye-witness, and it looks like an open-and-shut case. Eleven jurors, including the foreman, vote to convict on the first ballot, but one is not satisfied that guilt has been proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." That juror comes under intense pressure from the others, as their prejudices emerge and the problems they face in their personal lives are seen to influence their decisions as jurors. The dissenting juror raises one question after another about the evidence all 12 have heard and about their individual interpretations and conclusions. One-by-one, they switch, until all 12 vote to acquit the defendant.
The prejudices the men exhibit--bigotry and authoritarianism, among others--and the personal problems they face--job and family pressures, mainly--are timeless and not particularly grounded in the culture of the 1950s, but the resistance of the dissenting juror and the brutality of the criticism he withstands exemplify an era of conformity that shocks many of those who lived through it. In the decade following World War II, dissent was not tolerated. People lost their jobs and some even went to jail because of their political views. There was near unanimity among opinion-leaders of the period that harsh critics of US social institutions should be silenced. The protagonist in "Twelve Angry Men" is the rare example of a lone critic who held to principle and prevailed despite the pressure of unanimous opinion.

Twelve Angry Men deals with the racial and cultural prejudice of the United States of the 1950s. During the trial of a young man of color who's been accused of killing his own father, twelve white male jurors argue over how to settle the case. Eleven of the men assume he is guilty; one does not. Some assume the young man must be guilty due to his economic status (he lives in the slums) and his racial identity, but there is reason to doubt his guilt. One juror forces the men to reconsider the evidence.
The men makes assumptions about the accused's character based on his race and poverty, saying things like "we know what they're like" or "they're all liars." Only one juror suggests they put aside assumptions and look at the hard evidence.

What are issues addressed in Why We Can’t Wait by Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote this book in 1963 to explain the urgency of his non-violent campaign against segregation and racism to a national audience. The central essay in the book is "Letter from Birmingham City Jail." In this essay, King explains why he was arrested for protesting in the city of Birmingham, Alabama, then thought of as one of the most segregated cities in America. He explains why his movement uses non-violent resistance and explains the ways non-violence works. In brief, non-violent resistance creates a sense of crisis that brings about change. King feels that the legal campaign that is being waged by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has brought about legal victories such as Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court case that made school segregation illegal, but that these victories did not create a just or equal society.
King also explains the urgency of the movement and the harmful effects of racism and segregation on blacks and whites alike. He writes about how racism has damaged the city of Birmingham which, for example, has chosen to shutter its parks rather than integrate the parks. He believes that racism has hurt all Americans and that racial justice is in the interest of all Americans.
King wrote this book to justify his methods and the urgency of his campaign to critics, both white and black. There were many who criticized him for his protests, which were against the law in Birmingham, but King writes about the need to break human laws that are unjust and to heed a higher law of justice and human dignity.

How Twelfth Night is different than other comedies of Shakespeare?

In many respects, Twelfth Night is cut from the same cloth as William Shakespeare's other comedies. It is basically a love story, or rather several, with disguises, mistaken identities, and unrequited passion all providing merriment. But this play has a dark side that is not completely swept aside by the plot resolutions as is usually the case.
The differences and darkness largely concern the character of Malvolio and his treatment at the other characters' hands. A comic trick to make him think Olivia loves him, which will cause the pompous social climber to make a fool of himself, goes a bit too far and does not seem so funny. While he may deserve ridicule, imprisonment seems extreme. His desire for revenge, although justified to some extent, mars the usual happy, wedding festivities ending for the others. Critics and audiences alike have wondered about the Bard's motivation and after whom the character might be modeled.

I need help writing a single diary entry from the perspective of a citizen of Oceania.

I am presuming that by a "citizen" you mean a Party member in the world of 1984.
To be descriptive means to use the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and taste to build a sensory awareness of what is going on. Orwell provides a good example of how to do this in the opening chapter of the novel, as he follows Winston through coming home from work and mounting the steps to his apartment.
To describe, you want to imagine you are filming a movie of the citizen's day, highlighting the most important points.
From what we know, a citizen is likely to be uncomfortable for most of the day. You might want to emphasize the lack of heat, the poor food, a tiny apartment, and the broken elevators. What does the person eat? What is the morning exercises routine that they experience through the telescreen? Would the citizen have any friends or would that be too risky? What would their job be like? You might describe a Two Minutes Hate session. Does the person love Big Brother? Does the citizen like their life?
Orwell mentions items like posters of Big Brother everywhere, Victory gin, rationing, and possibly enemy rockets hitting a target—all of these are everyday items you might want to mention.

What is the name of Maurya's youngest son in Riders to the Sea?

Maurya has had six sons in total. At the beginning of the play, however, four have died and a fifth, Michael, is suspected to be dead. Indeed, the opening stages of the play are largely concerned with whether or not Michael is still alive. A priest reports that a body has washed ashore, which is assumed to be Michael's. Maurya's sixth son, and the youngest, is called Bartley.
Maurya's husband and father-in-law have also died before the play begins, meaning that, with the absence of Michael, Bartley is left as the only man in the house. He takes up the responsibility of financially supporting the family, which includes his mother and also his two sisters, Cathleen and Nora. Later in the play Bartley dies, too, after falling from his horse and drowning in the sea.

Why is establishing the right culture and hiring processes important, especially for "new" companies? Why is it worth it for HR managers to discuss career development with their employees on a regular basis? Why or why not? At what point do you believe a separate Human Resource staff member (or department) should be hired for a company? 10 employees? 50? 100? Or should no HR department be created? Why? List at least two potential consequences (good or bad) of your decision.

It is vitally important for any company, new or old, to establish the right culture and a sound hiring process. Creating a culture that employees respect and buy into is one of the best investments company owners can make. The cost of turnover—constantly seeking and hiring new employees—dwarfs the cost of having happy, stable, productive employees to begin with. It is more efficient to spend money up front to thoroughly vet each new hire and ensure they are a good fit.

In my opinion it's definitely worth it for HR managers to discuss career development with employees on a regular basis. Open communication on this topic allows managers to gauge employees' ambitions and identify good candidates for internal promotion. Also, it indicates to employees that management cares about them and encourages them to take a broader view of their jobs. A company that promotes qualified candidates internally inspires employees to stay and work their way up the ladder, because they see a clear path for promotion.
The point at which companies establish an HR department is variable, and depends on a number of factors—the nature of the company, number of employees, management philosophy, and so on. I once worked for a small company (about 100 employees) that had no HR department for years, until the company was sold to a larger one. The new bosses immediately established an HR department, with mixed results. On the plus side, the HR director took a lot of work off managers' plates, especially with regard to hiring and handling small inter-office disputes. On the negative side, the nascent HR department added a layer of bureaucracy between employees and management, which some employees resented. Also, light banter in the office turned into a disciplinary situation when a couple of employees complained about a joke. Behavior that was no big deal before suddenly became deadly serious. In my experience, the office became a more formal, less fun place to come to work, which affected employee morale and led several, including me, to leave for a job elsewhere.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2018/09/28/what-it-means-to-hire-for-culture-fit-and-how-to-do-it-right/

https://www.inc.com/brent-gleeson/how-important-is-culture-fit-for-employee-retention.html

How could Britain go about getting its American colonies back?

The answer to your question may be to think about how the British could have avoided the Revolutionary War and American independence to begin with. Once the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783, formally ending the war, there was little Britain could do to reclaim colonial status for the American colonies. Emboldened by the defeat of Great Britain, a significant world power, and excited by the prospect of self-governance, it is highly unlikely the American colonists would see any need for remaining colonial citizens of Great Britain. Suppose for a moment that, rather than go to war, Great Britain had conceded to the demands put forth in the Declaration of Independence. Would that be enough for American colonists to remain as colonial citizens?
The list of grievances from the Americans against the King of Great Britain is outlined by this statement in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

The colonists believed there was a long pattern of abuse by the British, and the only remedy left after long-suffering forms of disrespect and indignity was to break from Great Britain's colonial rule. The Declaration of Independence says,

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

From this point forward in the document, the writers begin to list the facts and reasons for American discontent with Great Britain. By reading the list of complaints of the American colonists presented in the Declaration of Independence, it becomes clear that the damage to the relationship between the colonists and Great Britain was substantial, and likely beyond repair.
The only conceivable way in which the colonies would return to Great Britain is if they had conceded on every issue as stated by the Declaration of Independence. More than likely, this still would fall short, as even in concession Great Britain would be admitting they were guilty of the abuses that had transpired previously. The American colonists would be encouraged by forcing Great Britain to change the governance structure of the colonies. Eventually, both parties would recognize the decline of Great Britain as a world power and the rise of America to assume the void left by the absence of Great Britain on the world stage.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/american-independence-inevitable/

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/

Please summarize the history of the Mormon Trail, 1840 -1860.

The Mormon Trail is the journey by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from Illinois to Utah. They wanted to find a place where they could practice their religion freely and live fulfilled lives. One of the key drivers for the migration was persecution from nearby communities. The Mormons, who lived in Nauvoo, Illinois, practiced polygamy, which angered members of the public and leaders who believed in other forms of Christianity. Because of persecution, the Mormons left in groups and settled in different places due to harsh weather conditions. For instance, the first group settled close to the Missouri River because of the harsh winter. As years went by, Mormons devised better ways of travel. Some of the trails that they followed included those in California and Oregon.

I need help with starting out a fiction essay introduction paragraph.

If you are writing an essay on a work of fiction, like one of Shakespeare's plays or a novel like Moby Dick, the introductory paragraph should be a very simple overview about what you intend to talk about in the essay. A good way to look at the organization of an essay is like this:
1) Introduction—you say what you're about to say.
2) Body paragraphs—you say it.
3) Conclusion—you say what you've just said.
This structure makes it clear what the central point of the essay (usually an argument or an analysis) is all about.
If the essay is a more straightforward review, you can introduce the main characters of the story, the main conflict of the story, and the main themes the story touches on. You can compare it to other works by the author or other works of the time period/genre.

In Leaders: The Strategies For Taking Charge, explain what is meant by “organizational positioning.” What conclusions can be drawn from the Global Airways case study?

Warren G. Bennis and Burt Nanus describe organizational positioning as the position of the organization relative to the environment that is in relationship with the organization. An organization's environments can be understood as external situations that impact the success of the organization's vision and profitability. Environments might be the industry, the government or the economy. Organizational positioning is also related to organizational vision and trust. Bennis and Nanus suggest that trust within an organization depends upon being able to predict outcomes with a high degree of probability. Trust is maintained through a clear, attractive vision and through leadership's positioning: (a) leadership's position "in relation to the organization" and (b) how leadership positions the "organization relative to the environment" it relates to. The Global airlines case study illustrates organizational positioning being identified, prioritized and maximized using the QUEST method (Quick Environmental Scanning Technique).Identifying changing organizational positioning needs by using QUEST and cross-impact matrix charts led Global to make action decisions such as changing Global's route structure, acquiring a chain of travel agencies, increasing government lobbying to attain preferential fuel allocation, and redesigning Global's aircraft fleet to increase passenger capacity.A conclusion regarding Global Airlines that might be drawn from their case study is that Global's decision making, as a prioritized response to the most radical future impact scenarios facing them, led to significant actions that successfully altered Global's continuing profitability. We can conclude also that had Global not identified and taken action steps, the impact of the changing environments would later have confronted Global Airlines with "radically changed futures" from which Global would not have had time or means to productively recover.

Is it a mistake for Hamlet to trust in the Ghost?

Before discussing this topic, it’s important to realize the Roman Catholic teaching about ghosts that would have been prevalent in Hamlet’s time. During Hamlet’s time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that any kind of specter or ghost could be one of two things:
A soul that wasn’t quite able to make it to heaven due to past sin and is therefore unsettled enough to roam the earth with a mission until achieving the “State of Grace” possible for the Beatific Vision. This kind of soul, then, needs to be “purged” of former sins and is spending this strange time on earth as its Purgatory.
A demon that has no desire for the good of humanity and whose sole purpose is damning souls to hell. In regards to the first idea, Hamlet does admit at one point that this strange ghost might be in fact “a spirit of good health.” It isn’t long after that that Hamlet admits the ghost could also very well be “a goblin damn’d,” therefore admitting the second possibility.
To assume that Hamlet’s trust in the ghost is, in fact, his tragic flaw is to believe precisely in the second Roman Catholic teaching mentioned above: that the ghost is demonic and wants to damn Hamlet to hell. All of the examples above point to that theory. While most are self-explanatory, the fifth and sixth examples need some evidence attached. Hamlet has already revealed a few things to his friends and then asks them to “Never make known what you have seen tonight." All of Hamlet’s friends are in the middle of promising him not to tell when everyone hears the ghost chime in with the word “swear” three times. In regards to the last example, we must note the stage directions. When the ghost first asks Hamlet and all his friends to swear, the stage directions are non-existent: "Ghost. Swear." The next time, the stage directions become more specific: "Ghost. [Beneath] Swear." The final time, the stage directions damn the ghost as well as give more specific direction: "Ghost. [Beneath] Swear by his sword." It’s the word "[Beneath]" that should perplex the reader. Does Shakespeare mean that spirits are simply meant to be unseen? Or could this mean that instead of being from “above” in heaven, this ghost is really from “below” in hell?

What is the order of events in "A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner?

William Faulkner makes a deliberate choice to begin this story at the end in order to build and maintain suspense. It is up to the reader to unpick what is going on and establish what the true order of events might be. Essentially, however, it goes something like this:
Emily Grierson lives with her father, who thinks no man is good enough for her.
Emily's father dies. She at first refuses to let anyone dispose of the body. For a while, after this period, she ventures out very little, and employs a "Negro man" to keep her house for her. A dispensation is granted for Emily, on the death of her father, saying she need no longer pay taxes.
Emily is sick for a while. Then, about two years after Emily's father dies, she cuts her hair short and reappears. A construction company arrives with Homer Barron as foreman. Emily begins to be seen with Homer Barron, and it is thought that she might marry him.
Emily goes to the druggist to buy some poison. Emily says it is for rats and people think she is going to kill herself with it. However, she doesn't—instead, she begins to order items for Homer, including clothes and a toilet set.
Then Homer Barron disappears.
A strange smell is observed coming from Emily's house. Rather than challenging Emily about it, some men cross Emily's lawn and put down lime to get rid of the smell.
Emily hides herself away and is little seen for six or seven years, when she begins to give lessons in china painting.
The city authorities come to Miss Emily to tell her she needs to pay taxes. Emily sends them away.
Emily dies, and the old black servant lets the people into the house. The body of Homer Barron is then found in a bed in her home.
We can infer, then, that Emily kills Homer before the smell is detected.

One of the things that makes William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” intriguing and memorable is its enigmatic plot. Events are not related in linear order; rather, the story travels back and forth in time. The reader is yanked in and out of spaces and across years, making Emily’s crime hard to immediately discern.
While the plot can be a fun puzzle, it can also be frustratingly difficult to follow at times. Here is a list of what occurs in the story in chronological order:
Emily’s father dies
Colonel Sartoris pays Emily’s taxes
Colonel Sartoris dies
Homer comes to town
Emily purchases arsenic
Homer goes missing
A smell emerges and becomes stronger
Aldermen try to collect taxes from Emily
Emily dies and Homer's body is discovered

Who is the antagonist in "The Passing of Grandison"? Explain why the character is the antagonist. Use evidence from the story to support your answer.

The antagonist of the story is Colonel Owens, the father of Dick Owens. He attempts to thwart his son's goals and is ultimately unsuccessful.
While Dick's actions in the story aren't exactly noble, he is still working to do something good—give a man his freedom. He's only doing this to impress the woman he loves; ultimately, he ends up with her for other reasons. His father, however, attempts to stop Dick from helping a slave go free. His character is one that has a positive attitude toward slavery. This is shown when he hesitates to let the slave of Dick's choice—Tom—travel north with him.
Charles Chestnutt writes:

"I don't think it safe to take Tom up North," he declared, with promptness and decision. "He's a good enough boy, but too smart to trust among those low-down abolitionists. I strongly suspect him of having learned to read, though I can't imagine how. I saw him with a newspaper the other day, and while he pretended to be looking at a woodcut, I'm almost sure he was reading the paper. I think it by no means safe to take him."

He does this in several ways:
Colonel Owens chooses a slave he believes to be satisfied with his life in the South.
He offers Grandison, the slave, the right to marry the woman he loves when he returns home.
He makes Grandison promise that he won't run away when Grandison and Dick go on their trip together.
Chestnutt writes:

"What's the matter with Grandison?" suggested the colonel. "He's handy enough, and I reckon we can trust him. He's too fond of good eating, to risk losing his regular meals; besides, he's sweet on your mother's maid, Betty, and I've promised to let 'em get married before long. I'll have Grandison up, and we'll talk to him."

When Grandison comes home after Dick stages his escape by having him kidnapped, it seems that Colonel Owens is vindicated. He gets his comeuppance in the end when Grandison escapes with multiple other slaves in tow.

What is the meaning of the final stanza in "The Road Not Taken"?

In the final stanza, the speaker seems to regret the choice he made, to take the road "less traveled by." The roads are, of course, metaphorical, and they represent choices made or not made. The speaker recalls the choice he made "with a sigh," implying that in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Ostensibly, this seems to mean that the speaker regrets going his own way rather than making the popular choice.
If we look back at the three previous stanzas, however, we can see that there were really no significant differences at all between the two roads. In the second stanza, the speaker acknowledges that one road was "just as fair" as the other, and that both roads had been worn "really about the same." With this in mind, the speaker's sigh in the final stanza is perhaps not because he chose the road that he later told himself was the "less traveled by," but simply because he made an arbitrary choice that didn't work out. He tells himself that he made an informed, even noble choice to take the "less traveled" road as a way of justifying his actions and making himself feel better about a random choice that didn't work out. A wrong decision is, after all, easier to accept if we can convince ourselves that it was at least a noble decision.

In the final stanza, Frost reflects on the fact that when he came to a metaphorical crossroads in his life, he chose a path or decision that was, for whatever reason, uncommon, unique, or unaligned with what most people would do in a similar situation. The author uses the diverging roads as a literal representation of this dilemma. The woods surrounding the crossroads also represent the unknown, as the speaker cannot foresee what the results of each choice will be.
The reader can infer through the poem's last two lines that choosing the unfamiliar and less commonly chosen option had remarkable and life-changing results, as he says that this road "made all the difference." Because of the positive note on which the poem ends, Frost seems to be encouraging his audience to be bold enough to follow desires, trains of thought, and passions that the majority might shun.

The last stanza of Robert Frost's famous poem reads as follows:
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
The "sigh" is represented by the dash after "and I" and the repetition of the word "I" at the beginning of the next line. We could interpret this poem as being about Robert Frost himself (although it is important to remember that poet and speaker are certainly not synonymous). It might be supposed that the poet is sighing because he is still wondering what would have happened to him if he had chosen that other road, "the road not taken." On the other hand, he may be sighing because he remembers the road he did take. The road not taken is only an imaginary road, but the road taken was a real road, and the poet can remember what a steep and precarious road it was. The real road was far more likely to cause that deep sigh than the illusory road.
Frost had to travel a long, grueling road before he finally achieved some recognition as a poet. When he was an old man, he was world-famous. He was invited to read one of his poems at the presidential inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961, a singular honor. But it was a cold, windy day in January, and the white-haired poet's eyes were watering so badly that he couldn't read what he had written.
In "The Road Not Taken," the poet is probably not sighing because he thinks he might have chosen the wrong road; he is probably sighing because he chose the right road but it turned out to be far longer and steeper than he could have imagined when he was an aspiring young poet.

Moving forward, how will you apply what you have learned in Ethical and Legal Issues in Human Services? Are there things you can use in your personal life? Professional life? Future courses?

Central takeaways when considering ethical and legal issues in human services revolve around adhering to the fundamental values of the profession. A human services professional should always respect others and their dignity, work to make the lives of others better while also promoting autonomy and self-reliance, embrace diversity of cultures, and encourage equality and fairness. All of these things must be undertaken with integrity, honesty, and objectivity.
These tenets of the profession must play a role in decision-making for all human services workers. Furthermore, although they are central to working in human services, the principles of respecting the dignity of others, embracing diversity, and encouraging equality and fairness are positive behaviors and beliefs to apply in personal life as well. However, the emphasis hereunder will deal with adhering to ethical and legal standards while working in human services, which is paramount.
Human services professionals have to balance ethicality and legality alongside workplace policies, different cultures, and personal beliefs. Those working in human resources may play many different roles in dealing with their clients while working to identify the strengths of the clients and the community. Additionally, while working with clients, obtaining informed consent is of paramount importance, as is maintaining client’s privacy and confidentiality.
Confidentiality and privileged communication are both important parts of human services, especially for people who work in social work, counseling, and other sensitive careers. Someone who works in human services must know what parts of their client’s information must or can be released to third parties. In some cases, confidentiality restricts the information a human services professional can share with third parties without the client’s consent. Confidentiality is more of an ethical term, whereas privileged communication is a legal term. Privileged communication is a protection to both the human services worker and the client that allows the person working in human services to legally avoid divulging any information that is not necessary to a court, lawyer, or other agency. It is important to note that confidentiality also extends to all client records, which must be kept secure. When using technology, it is important to take special care to maintain confidentiality and comply with laws such as FERPA and HIPPA.
Both confidentiality and privileged communication are important to those working in the field and their clients. While working in human services, it is mandatory to be educated on both ethical and legal terms concerning client information. However, someone working in human services would also be considered a mandatory reporter, so there could be instances that would require the professional to break the confidentiality agreement if danger or harm could come to the client or others.
Finally, rules surrounding relationships with clients are an important takeaway when it comes to legal and ethical issues in human resources. While someone who works in human services may become a confidant or a comforter, they must never become is a sexual partner to their clients. There should not be any type of sexual or romantic relationship with a current client. Ethically, someone working in human services also should consider the ramifications of having any sexual or romantic relationship with any member of a current client’s family or their client’s romantic partners, as that could put the client at risk and impair the judgment of the human services worker.
Ultimately, the issues described here will be important to all human services workers as they move forward in the field, take more classes in human resources, and grow in their role personally and professionally as someone who serves the needs of others.

What does Sarny feel about Waller in Nightjohn?

Sarny doesn't like Clel Waller at all. And it's not hard to see why. He's the plantation owner and she's a slave. And like most plantation owners, he's a brutal man, a truly nasty piece of work who treats his slaves worse than animals. (The slaves are even forced to eat from a trough like pigs.) Moreover, Waller uses dogs to hunt down runaway slaves, allowing them to tear flesh and inflict terrible pain. In his cruel and degrading treatment of the slaves, Waller shows that he regards them as less than human.
Sarny witnesses at first hand just how vicious and nasty Waller can be. The man has no redeeming features whatsoever, and so the only appropriate emotion toward him from any slave is one of hate. And Sarny expresses her hatred of Waller using such colorful insults as "nothing," "dog droppings," and "pig slop."

Provide quotes from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein that show the creature longing for love and acceptance

"They loved and sympathized with one another; and their joys, depending on each other, were not interrupted by the casualties that took place around them. The more I saw of them, the greater became my desire to claim their protection and kindness; my heart yearned to be known and loved by these amiable creatures; to see their sweet looks directed towards me with affection was the utmost limit of my ambition."

“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.”

"There is something at work in my soul which I do not understand. I am practically industrious — painstaking, a workman to execute with perseverance and labor — but besides this there is a love for the marvelous, a belief in the marvelous, intertwined in all my projects, which hurries me out of the common pathways of men, even to the wild sea and unvisited regions I am about to explore."

"I admired virtue and good feelings and loved the gentle manners and amiable qualities of my cottagers, but I was shut out from intercourse with them, except through means which I obtained by stealth, when I was unseen and unknown, and which rather increased than satisfied the desire I had of becoming one among my fellows."

"I swear to you, by the earth which I inhabit, and by you that made me, that with the companion you bestow I will quit the neighborhood of man and dwell, as it may chance, in the most savage of places. My evil passions will have fled, for I shall meet with sympathy! My life will flow quietly away, and in my dying moments I shall not curse my maker."

"My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy, and when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture such as you cannot even imagine."

"Sometimes I allowed my thoughts, unchecked by reason, to ramble in the fields of Paradise, and dared to fancy amiable and lovely creatures sympathizing with my feelings and cheering my gloom; their angelic countenances breathed smiles of consolation. But it was all a dream; no Eve soothed my sorrows nor shared my thoughts; I was alone. I remembered Adam's supplication to his Creator. But where was mine? He had abandoned me, and in the bitterness of my heart I cursed him."

In his talks with Victor and with Walton, the creature tells of his longing for love and acceptance. These desires include communication, partnership, and inclusion.

When he looks into a peasant's home, the family scene moves him.

[The man] smiled with such kindness and affection that I felt sensations of a peculiar and overpowering nature; they were a mixture of pain and pleasure, such as I had never before experienced.


On his own he learns to read, so he can learn what others know, and to talk, so he can communicate with them.

By great application, . . . I discovered the names that were given to some of the most familiar objects of discourse.



He approaches people in his desire to fit into their world, but must face the fact they think he is ugly and fear him. He has to stay away from them despite his feelings.

I admired virtue and good feelings and loved the gentle manners and amiable qualities of my cottagers, but I was shut out from intercourse with them.



Asking Victor to make him a female to be his mate, he trusts Victor, who lets him down again.



With the boy William, he feels he might find nonjudgmental companionship, only to find this is yet another Frankenstein and feels compelled instead to kill him.



As I gazed on him, an idea seized me that this little creature was unprejudiced and had lived too short a time to have imbibed a horror of deformity.



With the lovely Justine, merely looking at her asleep reminds him of the rejection humans mete out based on physical appearance. Assuming she would be no different, he frames her for William's death.



After finally avenging himself on Victor, the creature tells Walton of his loving heart and that he never wanted to go down that path.




My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy; and, when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture.




Sadly, he took into himself one of his maker's fatal flaws, always casting blame and not taking responsibility for his own actions. Unable to endure his lonely life, he ends it.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm