What did Anne's mother suggest to her about sex?

Anne's mother advised her not to discuss sex with boys and not to answer them if they brought up sex-related matters. This suggests that Mrs. Frank assumed boys would discuss sex with girls in a joking or lewd way.
At the time, Anne agreed with her mother wholeheartedly. She had noticed that even her parents and girlfriends were "mysterious or obnoxious" when they talked about sex. So she assumed sex-related discussions between boys and girls would be intolerably awkward or disgusting.
But when Anne tells Peter his cat can't be male, Peter invites her to come and see for herself. His manner is so calm and polite that she ignores her mother's warning and accepts his offer.
When Anne comes to "have a look," Peter turns the cat over on its back and points out its "male sexual organ." He speaks in a straightforward tone, and he continues talking about the cat's sexuality "in a normal voice."
Peter's matter-of-fact manner puts Anne at ease and gives her the courage to ask him what the "male sexual organ" is called. He says he doesn't know but will ask his parents.
After describing this incident, Anne writes that she had never discussed sex with another girl so normally. She is sure her mother wasn't trying to warn her not to talk about sexual matters with a boy who could discuss them in such a frank, natural way.
Mrs. Frank's advice and Anne's discussion with Peter appear in Anne's diary entry for Monday, January 24, 1944.

Why did the 1848–1849 German rebellions fail?

The German Rebellions of 1848/1849 were rooted in popular discontent with German autocratic rule. Multiple rebellions erupted across the states within the German Confederation as people sought to unify the states under pan-Germanism and create more democratic structures of governance. Within the rebellions existed distinct liberal, middle-class factions, as well as more radical, working-class factions. While the groups originally coalesced together in a popular front, the two classes fell apart as it became increasingly clear that most of those in the liberal, middle-class faction were not interested in supporting the radical demands of the working-class, who sought to radically transform society in order to improve their material conditions. When this split occurred, the German aristocracy quickly defeated the rebellion through divide-and-conquer tactics.

Do you feel sympathy for Curley’s wife in Of Mice and Men? If so, why?

Probably the perspective of readers toward Curley's wife has changed during the decades since Of Mice and Men was published. Steinbeck draws her character in an unsubtle way, so that she might have been seen by many as a stereotype of a troublemaking young woman. We see little of the backstory of her marriage to Curley, but we see enough that the basic situation is made clear. Interestingly, the film versions of the novel, including even the first one from 1939, show her character in a more sympathetic light than the book itself does.
Curley's wife feels neglected and bored. It's clear that her husband is a typically arrogant, domineering man of that time who treats her more as a possession than as a wife. Under these circumstances it's impossible not to feel empathy for her. By paying what would be considered, especially at that time, inappropriate attention to the ranch laborers, she is trying to fill the emptiness resulting from her isolated position on the ranch and an unhappy marriage. That her attention to Lenny precipitates the tragedy is an accident rather than a deliberate act. Steinbeck's symbolism is often, and rather obviously, derived from the Bible, and perhaps he intended Curley's wife as an Eve-figure, destroying the incipient paradise George, Lenny and Candy wish to create. Yet she herself is at least as much a victim of the dynamic of that time and place as the men on the ranch are.

Despite the fact that Curley's wife comes across as hostile and racist in chapter four, she is certainly a sympathetic character and one of the loneliest individuals on the ranch. Curley's wife is married to a pugnacious, arrogant man who is depicted as controlling and overbearing. Curley is extremely insecure and constantly worries about his wife's whereabouts. As the only female on the ranch, Curley's wife has no one to relate to and struggles to carry on conversations with the workers, who fear that Curley will fire them if they talk to her. Curley's wife also resents marrying her husband and tells Lennie that Curley "ain’t a nice fella." She also regrets not leaving town and taking advantage of the opportunity to be in the movies.
The only person who gives Curley's wife the time of day is Lennie, who is also an outcast on the farm. Tragically, Lennie snaps Curley's wife's neck on accident after she panics while he is petting her hair. It would be difficult not to sympathize with a lonely woman who is married to an extremely aggressive, hostile man and does not have a bright future.

I do feel sympathy for Curley's wife. She is a very young woman—a teenage girl—and the only woman on the ranch. She feels isolated, and she says the following to Crooks, who tries to shoo her away when she visits for fear Curley will be jealous:

Think I don’t like to talk to somebody ever’ once in a while? Think I like to stick in that house alla time?”

She is dissatisfied with Curley, a man she married because of a lack of alternatives. He bores her with all his talk about the fights he has been in and his blow-by-blow descriptions of them. She tells Lennie she is glad he roughed Curley up and says she would like to do the same sometimes:

I’m glad you bust up Curley a little bit. He got it comin’ to him. Sometimes I’d like to bust him myself.

Curley's wife feels she could have been in the movies, a story she keeps going back to. She says:

An’ a guy tol’ me he could put me in pitchers.

Curley's wife insults the ranch hands by calling them bindle stiffs and threatens Crooks with lynching, but it is clear she is lonely, bored, and unhappy in her marriage to a jealous and self-centered man. When she talks to and flirts with Lennie out of boredom by having him touch her hair, she does not appreciate the danger of her actions.
Like the ranch hands, Curley's wife is trapped by circumstances. Her attempts to reach out, however misguided, lead to her death. It is hard not to feel sympathy for her given how lonely she felt on the ranch and because she died so young.

Was the breakdown of the global multi-polar distribution of power during WWI through WWII highly probable? Why or why not?

The political and social upheaval that occurred in Europe during the last half of the nineteenth-century led to the collapse of power distribution, and this collapse led to the bloodiest wars in human history.
Leading up to the World Wars, the face of government changed drastically. There was a bitter divide between conservatives and liberals in many nations; one group wished to restore European society to the way it was prior to the French Revolution, while the other strove for progress. This political tension led to the creation of new political ideologies: socialism, communism, and anarchism. These new parties played a major role in the disruption of the balance of power. Socialism and communism were favored amongst the working class, and the lines between social classes began to blur. The goal of anarchists was to dismantle the government by creating fear through assassinations and random attacks.
The most powerful countries of Europe were going through great changes. Great Britain was in the midst of an industrial revolution, with which came social progress. However, its conflicts with Ireland and the Boers of South Africa created a negative opinion regarding Britain's foreign policy, initiating an era of isolationism.
France experienced a great defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, during which Napoleon III was captured and exiled. A new French government called the Commune was created. The Commune was radical, and class warfare resulted. Many failed efforts to reestablish the monarchy led to the creation of democratic France by default.
After winning the Franco-Prussian War, Prussia united a series of Germanic states, creating Germany and the Second Reich. Under the rule of the Prussian king Wilhelm II and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Germany was considered moderately democratic due to its policy of universal male suffrage. However, the wealthy controlled the parliament, and a series of crusades were led against Catholics and socialists.
The changes mentioned above, as well as others, indicate a change in the balance of power throughout Europe was inevitable. Many monarchs and autocrats were no longer in power, and the political environments changed completely. These upsets led to the World Wars, which further changed the face of European politics.

How is it that Frankl survived while so many others did not in Man's Search For Meaning?

Viktor Frankl attributes his ability to survive to one simple thing: Hope. He believes that he was able to find hope even when things seemed insurmountable. Rather than focusing on the horrendous living conditions and atrocities being committed all around him, Frankl focuses on his wife, the work he wishes to complete when he is released, and the most subtle of kindnesses. He finds the human spirit is still alive among the prisoners who have been starved and tortured, and this is enough to keep him going. Frankl found that those prisoners who thought only of their misery and suffering lost their will to live. He focused on teaching others not to expect things from life. Rather, he taught them that life expected things of them, so they needed to focus on what they could give to others and to life itself, no matter how small the gift.

Why did the US become a world power after 1865? What were the major turning points?

Probably the most important reason that the United States became a world power after 1865 was that it became an industrial power. For many imperialists at the time, this offered a powerful incentive to expand American influence—the desire to gain and protect markets for American industry around the world. By the end of the nineteenth century, the United States was among the world's leading economic and industrial powers, so it sought to become an imperial power as well. The most important turning point in this process was the Spanish-American War. This brief conflict, which took place in 1898, ended with the United States in possession of multiple territories formerly belonging to Spain, including the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Due to promises made before the war, Cuba became independent (if only as a US protectorate), but the other territories became part of an American empire. Other important turning points in American imperialism include the following:
The purchase of Alaska in 1867.
The annexation of Hawaii in 1898.
The "Open Door Notes" by Secretary of State John Hay asserting that the United States should have equal access to markets in China.
https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/spanish-american-war

What is a summary of "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses"?

In this very famous essay, Althusser is primarily concerned with demonstrating how the various apparatuses that constitute the state are concerned with reproducing ideology that is friendly to the state. For example, schools, which are responsible for imparting "know-how" to young people that will give them the ability to make a living, do so in ways that, Althusser writes, "ensure subjection to the ruling ideology or the mastery of its 'practice."
In short, Althusser is really arguing for the importance of ideology to the subjection of working-class people. Marx had viewed ideology as "superstructural," a characterization that Althusser does not reject. But the fact that it is dependent on material realities does not mean that it is less significant. He categorizes the various state apparatuses as "repressive" and "ideological." So-called "repressive" apparatuses, like the police and even the family, primarily function by disciplining people in ways that reinforce the prevailing social structure. "Ideological" apparatuses inculcate the people with ideologies that do the same thing. Althusser especially implicates education as a mechanism, or "apparatus," of ideological repression, but the state does so in other ways, especially mass communication. These ideologies, Althusser claims, "always express class positions" in that they represent the material relations in any given society. Thus, they can only be understood, and their repressive mechanisms unpacked, by understanding them in their broader social context.

Karl Marx notes that every modern, industrialized society has a base, or infrastructure, of economic activity, and a superstructure that is not directly related to economic activity but supports, and is supported by, the economic system. The base is comprised of all things related to means of production (for example, tools and factories) and the relations of production (for example, private property and capital). The superstructure contains everything from art to law, encompassing any and all things that shape the ideology of the state. Both Marx and Althusser agree that the state apparatus, or superstructure, is designed to repress the working class. and that the proletariat (or working class) must seize the state apparatus and radically restructure it so that it no longer exists. But how, exactly, does the superstructure work? This is where Althusser comes in.
Althusser breaks the superstructure into two useful categories: the repressive state apparatus, or RSA, and the ideological state apparatus, or ISA. While the RSA tends to be seen as public (meaning state-controlled), the ISA can be considered private (meaning available within the state, but not controlled by it). However, Althusser tells us that neither fit these categories neatly.
Let's break these two categories down further.
The Repressive State Apparatus would include things like the government, the army, and the police. Think anything that dictates and reinforces the law. They are repressive because they largely determine what you can't do. If the government passes a law saying you can't steal from your neighbor, that is something that will be legally reinforced, and there will be an assigned punishment for anyone who breaks that law. Fairly straight forward, right?
The Ideological State Apparatus is a little trickier to unpack. This will include things like religion, education, the family, and so forth. While the ISA appears to be independent from the RSA, Althusser tells us that this is not true. Why? Because those in power (who, in many cases, we would associate with the RSA) tend to dictate the given ISA of the time. Ideology, he says, creates a representation of an imaginary relationship of the individual to their conditions of existence. In other words, our ideology gives us a way of understanding our place within our state.
This is probably still confusing, right? Here's a quick example, borrowed from Althusser, himself:
When we go to school, we learn facts (which, as we know, tend to be swayed in a direction that favors our state's history). But we also learn things like obedience within power relations. We learn that we must obey our teachers, we must show up to class on time, and we must complete our assignments if we don't want to be punished. This, Althusser says, will translate into our lives as workers. We learned in school to do what is asked of us by our superior, and we will probably carry that attitude over when we get a job. This isn't government-enforced, exactly, but we have learned that this is what we must do to function in our society.
The RSA is much easier to identify, and it's much easier to understand what we are rebelling against, if we so choose. The ISA is more subtle. It can easily change in the face of an uprising, but it may change in a way that simply supports the new ruling class and works to suppress the new subordinate class. Thus, to have a real revolution that will lead to some sort of economic equity, as Marx desires, the ISA has to be dismantled entirely.
Unfortunately, even Althusser doesn't seem to have an answer for how we would go about doing that. In fact, reading this essay, it seems that he might not believe it's possible, at all.

To understand Althusser’s essay you must first have a grasp on Marx. Marx created a theory for understanding how Western society functions according to class. He argued that the superstructure was an umbrella-like, overarching body of rule. It includes direct forms of government and also ideology, such as, religion and law. Below the superstructure is the economic base. According to Marx changes can be made relatively easily to the economic base. However, he argues that it is much more difficult to impact the superstructure. This is why it is very hard to influence society as a whole.
Althusser builds off of Marx’s theory by expanding on how ideology functions. He breaks down ideology into two parts. The first is the ideological state apparatus. This accounts for intangible places of thought creation and reproduction. For example, family, church, television, sports, and politics are all sites of the ideological state apparatus. The ideological state apparatus is diverse and expansive. It comes from all angles and works persuasively.
Conversely, state apparatuses are more obvious, very tangible spaces of ideology. For example, police and prisons are agencies of the state apparatus. Althusser believes that the state apparatus is differentiated in its more apparent and direct use of violence and force. In addition, the state apparatus is invasive and has access to the private lives of citizens. For example, the police can enter our homes with a search warrant. He believes that the state apparatus targets the working class due to their vulnerabilities. While the state apparatus uses force, the ideological state apparatus requires buy in from the public. This was a ground-breaking theory because it highlights the two ways in which the state has influence. One is obvious, while the other is more covert but pervasive.

In his essay, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” Louis Althusser applies his theory of ideology to the Marxist theories of the State and the conditions of production. He explains how “the ultimate condition of production is the reproduction of the conditions of production.” What he means by this is that in order to perpetuate capitalism, ideology, which is “the system of the ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or a social group,” needs to carry it forth.
In capitalism, the reproduction of labor power by the proletariat is required for the system to work, and for this reproduction to happen, there needs to also be reproductions of the “world views” of both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Only under ideological subjection can the reproduction of the skills of labor happen sufficiently.
Althusser proposes a thesis regarding two apparatuses he believes are used: the repressive State apparatus and the ideological State apparatus. Repressive State apparatuses are easy to explain – they are State institutions like the Army and the Police which function by repression. ISAs, on the other hand, are the real power in securing reproduction. State Repressive apparatuses are to secure ISAs. Furthermore, Althusser argues that the ISA which is in the dominant position to protect capitalist interest is the educational system, which replaced the ecclesiastical system.

Analyze Mink Snopes's death.

Some of Faulkner's most beautiful, and most characteristic, writing is found at the very end of The Mansion, which is the third novel in the "Snopes Trilogy," the other two being The Hamlet and The Town, in that order. Mink Snopes is lying on the ground drying of old age, malnutrition, and just being tired of living. The following stream of consciousness becomes gradually more complex, evidently because he feels himself becoming a part of all the other dead people who have been buried here before him and whose thoughts seem to mingle with his own. This would explain why his stream of consciousness would contain thoughts and words that would have been totally unknown to the ignorant sharecropper and long-term prison-farm convict Mink Snopes.

But he could risk it, he even felt like giving it [the earth] a fair active chance just to show him, prove what it could do if it wanted to try. And in fact, as soon as he thought that, it seemed to him he could feel the Mink Snopes that had had to spend so much of his life just having unnecessary bother and trouble, beginning to creep, seep, flow easy as sleeping; he could almost watch it, following all the little grass blades and tiny roots, the little holes the worms made, down and down into the ground already full of the folks that had the trouble but were free now, so that it was just the ground and the dirt that had to bother and worry and anguish with the passions and hopes and skeers, the justice and the injustice and the griefs, leaving the folks themselves easy now, all mixed and jumbled up comfortable and easy so wouldn’t nobody even know or even care who was which any more, himself among them, equal to any, good as any, brave as any, being inextricable from, anonymous with all of them: the beautiful, the splendid, the proud and the brave, right on up to the very top itself among the shining phantoms and dreams which are the milestones of the long human recording--Helen and the bishops, the kings and the unhomed angels, the scornful and graceless seraphim.

How were the Carolina Colonies named?

The Province of Carolina was named after King Charles I of England and his son, Charles II. Carolina derives from "Carolus," which is the Latin for Charles, and it was King Charles II who, in 1663, granted the royal charter establishing the Province of Carolina to a group of English noblemen called the Lords Proprietors as a reward for their help in restoring the monarchy.
An earlier settlement, known as Carolana, had been established over thirty years previously by Sir Robert Heath, an English judge and politician who'd been awarded a patent for the land by King Charles I. However, the claim of Heath's ancestors to the Carolinas was invalidated by Charles II, who wanted the new territory to be used as a strategic bulwark against Spanish territorial expansion.

Why are men and women different in their views on sex?

Men and women tend to be more similar in their views of sex than many realize or acknowledge. The biggest contrasts tend to be more due to social pressure than innate differences.
Typically, for men, sex is an achievement and something to be proud of, according to society, whereas women are ostracized for enjoying sex too much. These are due to perceptions of sex being more typical of a man and being more desirable for a man, when in reality women desire and enjoy it equally, but are pressured against it. The differences in genders is not inherent and should be understood in the context of societal taboos and morals that pressure the different genders into disparate roles. There are many negative results that come from these social expectations, including entitlement towards sex and pressure to have it, which would lessen were the genders treated equally in regards to these issues.

What is the author's style in this story?

Considered one of the four pillars of Chinese literature, Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a historical epic that is about 800,000 words long. The novel is attributed to Luo Guanzhong and was written about the end of the Han dynasty and the subsequent Three Kingdoms era in Chinese history. Luo Guanzhong wrote the novel in the style of a historical narrative. By writing in the style of a historical narrative, Luo Guanzhong was able to blend historical fact with imagined characters and fictional situations. The story ends up being an epic novel that is made of historical fact, legend, and myth. Guanzhong was also known for his colloquial style of writing, which lends itself to being more informal and conversational in its tone. His works, including Romance of the Three Kingdoms, remain incredibly popular, despite the fact that the original novel was published in the fourteenth century.

Why does Beverley Naidoo choose The Other Side of Truth as the title?

One possible explanation is that Sade and Femi's father always insists on the importance of the truth. He's a fearless journalist renowned for his critical articles on the hypocrisy and corruption of Nigeria's political leaders. It's a dangerous business as many in similar situations to Papa have paid for their lives by speaking out against the regime.
And it's that other side of the truth that Uncle Tunde emphasizes in trying to dissuade Papa from writing articles attacking the government. Papa believes he's doing the right thing, but Uncle Tunde regards him as selfish and stubborn, risking not just his own life but the lives of his children.
What the central conflict between Papa and Uncle Tunde illustrates is the inherent complexity of truth. The truth can be liberating, but also dangerous for those brave enough to seek it.

What media source provides the least biased coverage of politics?

Today, Americans are inundated with coverage of politics. There are almost too many news sources, and typical Americans often fail to grasp key political concepts.
In my opinion, the best way to follow politics is through newspapers. A second way to follow politics is to use reliable websites that are not too flashy. In other words, reading news is almost always better than watching news or listening to a political commentator on the radio. Why is this true? Well, a good newspaper or website gives the consumer options to read some articles carefully while just skimming or omitting others. Also, by reading, you gain a deeper understanding of political issues.
America has many great newspapers. Small-town newspapers, however, typically cover mostly local news, so they do not give you enough coverage of national political news. Also, the editorial pages of newspapers have important political news, and they provide contrasting views. If you prefer magazines, Time has been around for nearly a century.
Time and other reputable news outlets have websites. AP, UPI, and Reuters are all excellent websites with a great deal of political coverage. Access to these four websites is free.
https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top-media-outlets/top-15-daily-american-newspapers/

This is an excerpt from Edmund Burke's "Of the Effects of Tragedy" from his book On the Sublime and Beautiful. Can someone please explain what he is saying in this paragraph, especially the first sentence? I believe that this notion of our having a simple pain in the reality, yet a delight in the representation, arises from hence, that we do not sufficiently distinguish what we would by no means chuse to do, from what we should be eager enough to see if it was once done. We delight in seeing things, which so far from doing, our heartiest wishes would be to see redressed. This noble capital, the pride of England and of Europe, I believe no man is so strangely wicked as to desire to see destroyed by a conflagration or an earthquake, though he should be removed himself to the greatest distance from the danger. But suppose such a fatal accident to have happened, what numbers from all parts would croud to behold the ruins, and amongst them many who would have been content never to have seen London in its glory? Nor is it either in real or fictitious distresses, our immunity from them which produces our delight; in my own mind I can discover nothing like it.

Your question refers to an excerpt pulled from the fifteenth chapter of part one of a much larger philosophical treatise. It's worth noting that this fifteenth chapter, "Of the Effects of Tragedy," is itself closely intertwined with its preceding chapter, entitled "Of the Effects of Sympathy in the Distresses of Others." In fact, Burke himself begins this fifteenth chapter with the words, "It is thus," referring to patterns he'd already outlined in that earlier chapter. With that in mind, to recognize what Burke is arguing in this chapter, it's useful to be aware of what he argues in that earlier one.
The fourteenth chapter is ultimately focused around the claim that human beings actually tend to feel some quality of pleasure in the suffering of others. (Indeed, before going any further, it should also be noted that Burke tends to focus a lot on pleasure and pain: these are, for him, the cornerstones of human emotion.) That being said, this pleasure is not actually sadistic—in fact, for Burke, it's a constructive quality, because the alternative to this is, for Burke, a state of general apathy. In Burke's own words, "the delight we have in such things hinders us from shunning scenes of misery," which in turn gives opportunity for sympathy and empathy to do their work.
From here, we come to the fifteenth chapter, which builds upon this theme. For Burke, as we already pointed out, suffering draws peoples' interest. Note, at the end of this section of the passage you've provided, the example Burke provides: by which London is devastated by fire or earthquake. No one wants to see the city burn down, just as no one actually takes great pleasure in the suffering of others should they directly witness it, but as soon as these sorts of incidents have happened, that tends to draw interest. This is what Burke means when he writes, "we do not sufficiently distinguish what we would by no means choose to do, from what we should be eager to see if it was once done." While people don't wish these kinds of tragedies and disasters on other people, once those tragedies have happened, they tend to draw interest. The experience of real suffering, compared to what one might perhaps label a representation of suffering (whether it be tragedy in its dramatic sense or whether it be instead an awareness of real-life tragedy which is occurring at a distance): for Burke, I'd suggest that there is a qualitative difference between the two in terms of how people tend to respond emotionally to them.

In his childhood and early youth, how does Richard Wright react to the submission of other black Americans to white authority?

In his early years, Richard is quite naive and does not understand race relations in society. He attempts to understand by asking questions which fall on deaf ears. No one can really explain to him what is happening in society.
Richard learns to fear white authority figures because of what happens to other black Americans. For instance, when he runs away from the orphanage, a white police officer brings him back. Instead of trusting in his help, Richard fears the officer because he remembers a story about a young man who was beaten by a white officer. Thus, what he hears and what he does not understand combine in Richard's mind to create great fear and mistrust of whites.
As he grows older, Richard and his classmates continue to piece together what is happening in society and fall into a pattern of fighting each other. It becomes important to the boys to show how tough they are: "the first trial came not in books, but in how one's fellows took one, what value they placed upon one's willingness to fight." Showing their toughness among their circle of friends gives the boys some kind of control over their lives, which are governed by a racist society that dehumanizes them.
As Richard grows and begins working, he faces more racism from employers. The white woman who asked him "Do you steal?" is a perfect example of this attitude. Richard answers honestly "if I was a thief, I'd never tell anybody" and laughs off her ignorance. When reprimanded unfairly, he learns to play the game and remain silent rather than suffer the wrath of authority. He says, "I faced a wall in the woman's mind, a wall that she did not know was there."
Richard is not always able to contain his thoughts as he grows up and realizes the severity of the unfair society. He changes as he hears stories of brutality and unfairness. As he encounters more authority figures and asserts himself, the naive boy is gone.

What was the government like in the Middle Colonies?

The Middle Colonies were governed similarly to the other colonies. Each colony was governed by a governor and a legislature. Legislatures were generally elected by the residents of the colony, and they could enact laws governing the conduct of colony members. These laws could be far-reaching and even regulate public religious conduct or private behavior. The governor could overrule these laws as the governor of a colony was not elected by the residents of the colony but was installed by the King. The colonies also had court systems, though these were different than what we would expect today, as many settlements were too small to have permanent court houses and judges. Traveling could be difficult for many citizens, which led to the use of traveling courts for the settlement of some crimes and civil complaints.

How does his father's absence from much of his life affect Obama in the text?

Based on Obama's anecdotes and personal thoughts in Dreams from My Father, his father's absence affected him negatively when he was younger, but later became a source of motivation. Obama had to learn his identity before he could create it, since he was a biracial child who grew up with his white grandparents. The absence of his Kenyan father made it challenging for him to connect with this African/black roots.
Obama also grew up with his Indonesian stepfather, whom he had pleasant relations with up until his stepfather's death in 1987. This made Obama even more curious about his own biological father. Obama also articulated what it was like to bear his father's surname while not having connections to the side of his family. It forced him to work harder to overcome obstacles without assistance from his biological father. Additionally, despite his father's absences, Obama became closer to his African roots due to his acceptance of being biracial in America.

How are Dally and Johnny similar?

Though outwardly they seem to be polar opposites, Dally and Johnny share important similarities in The Outsiders that link them together throughout the novel. First, both came from abusive, neglectful families. Dally never mentions his mother, and the only time he mentions his father, he says,

Shoot, my old man didn’t give a hang whether I’m in jail or dead in a car wreck or drunk in the gutter.

Johnny says he prefers it when his father hits him, because then he feels recognized:

I walk in that house, and nobody says anything. I walk out, and nobody says anything. I stay away all night, and nobody notices. . . I ain't got nobody.

For both boys, then, the Greasers serve as a surrogate family. Johnny is the gang's pet, without whom he "would never have known what love and affection are." He is described as a "puppy," a soft and gentile soul who shouldn't be caught up in a gang. Dally, on the other hand, is a hardened street kid who has earned the gang's respect as its roughest, toughest member. He is described as having eyes "cold with hatred of the whole world." Johnny looks up to Dally as a kind of role model because of his ability to adapt without any family. Dally, conversely, takes Johnny under his wing and tries to toughen him up.
Each boy, in his own way, remains true to his character. This leads each of them to their deaths. Johnny, a sensitive lad who reads poetry with his best friend Ponyboy, is killed when he goes back into a burning church to save children, and the church roof collapses on him. Dally, who grew up on the "wild side" of New York and was first arrested at age 10, now distraught with grief over Johnny's death, consequently commits suicide by robbing a store and then provoking police officers into gunning him down. When Johnny is killed, Dally loses the one person in the world whom he truly loves. He cannot handle this, and with no parents to offer support, he reverts to what he instinctively knows: crime. The police can be seen as parental figures in this light. Dally is upset, and he wants to be punished for not being able to protect Johnny. Lacking a real parent/father to punish him, he turns to the only symbol of authority he knows.

Is A Tale of Two Cities primarily a social critique or a theological vision (or a ghostly mixture of both)?

I would argue that it's primarily a social critique. In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens compares British and French society and finds the former, for all its many faults, superior. In the sedition trial of Charles Darnay, for example, Dickens highlights the toxic atmosphere of paranoia that existed at that time in Britain while revolution raged on the other side of the English Channel. Yet despite that, Darnay is acquitted of the trumped-up charges laid against him; the rule of law has prevailed (with a little help from Sydney Carton).
Compare this with the system of revolutionary tribunals that exists in France and which almost sends Charles to his death. Once again, Sydney saves Charles's neck, but only by putting his own on the block, both literally and figuratively. Whatever faults British society may have, Dickens appears to be saying, at least it has some measure of order and stability. This is more than can be said for Revolutionary France, with all its chaos, turmoil, and bloodshed.

Who is the "willowy woman" on the last page of A Gentleman in Moscow?

The "willowy woman" in the tavern at the end of A Gentleman in Moscow is not identified, but the adjective "willowy" alone is enough to suggest very strongly that this is Anna, Count Rostov's former inamorata and the only woman in the text who is identified with this epithet. Given the tone of the ending, in which so much is left ambiguous, it would be surprising if she were identified any more clearly.
The word "willowy" most obviously refers to Anna's figure, but there is also an expression in Central and Eastern Europe (of which someone from Count Rostov's background would almost certainly have been aware): a hollow willow is one in whom secrets may be confided. This metaphor was widely used from the middle of the nineteenth century onward—for instance in the poem Král Lávra (King Lear) by Czech poet Karel Havlíček Borovský. It is clearly apposite both for Anna herself and for a conclusion to a book in which secrets abound.

The "willowy woman" described on the final page of A Gentleman in Moscow is most likely the Count's beloved partner, Anna. Throughout the book, Anna is described several times as being willowy. Using the term "willowy woman" rather than using Anna's name can serve to add to the tenuous and underground nature of Count Rostov and Anna's existence as people who are in opposition to the Russian state.
While the Count and Anna have chosen to stay in Russia rather than live as exiles away from their beloved homeland, they are choosing to do so knowing that political persecution is still completely possible. The couple, by choosing to stay in Russia, must continue to live in an underground nature in which they can not reveal their true identities. Using the description of "willowy woman" reflects this reality.

The identity of the gray-haired "willowy woman" Count Rostov sees at the end of A Gentleman in Moscow is left ambiguous. However, context clues throughout the book indicate it was almost certainly Anna: she is the only character described using that particular adjective (many times, in fact). Other clues in the scene suggest that Count Rostov has fled home in Russia at his family's residence to stay, at least momentarily, with his grandmother. Nina's absence suggests that she met an unfortunate fate during Stalin's period of control over Russia.
It is possible Rostov feigned his lost passport in order to evade identification by the ruthless KGB. Persecution, imprisonment, and conviction without trial were all unfortunate features of the KGB's operations. Collectively, these clues suggest that Count Rostov and Anna, unable to fully relinquish their homeland, have decided to hide out in rural Russia and take on new identities.

On the last page of A Gentleman of Moscow, Count Rostow sees the "willowy woman" in a tavern. The "willowy woman with the graying hair" is the actress Anna, his girlfriend. The author, Amor Towles, has previously described her person, hair, and writing as willowy nearly a dozen times throughout the book.
The Count ultimately decides to return to his beloved homeland of Russia for good despite the well-known risks for someone like himself (he had run afoul of the new revolutionary authorities of the Soviet Union). The unnamed Kremlin official that decides to "round up the usual suspects" has apparently decided to overlook him, and we are led to believe that he plans to live out a quiet life in the Russian countryside with Anna rather than live the life of an exile in Paris. The Count has done his duty by giving his daughter, Sophia, a chance for a life outside Russia, and he decides to run the risks that come with staying in his beloved homeland.

What is an analysis of "Of Marriage and the Single Life"?

"Of Marriage and the Single Life" is a short essay by Francis Bacon. Bacon begins the essay by proposing that married men and fathers stifle their own creativity and usefulness to the world when they decide to marry or when they have children. He writes that marriage and children are "impediments to great enterprises."
However, he then offers various arguments against the above proposal. He proposes, for example, that fathers "have greater care of future times." The implication here is that fathers have a greater impact upon the world, in the form of their children, than do childless men in the form of their "great enterprises." Although childless men may have the time and the freedom from responsibilities to undertake such enterprises in the present, the impact of these enterprises will be less significant, in the long term, than the impact of those men who have fathered children.
Bacon also proposes that "wife and children are a kind of discipline of humanity." He argues that while single men might be able to afford to be more charitable because "their means are less exhaust," they are nonetheless "more cruel and hardhearted . . . because their tenderness is not so oft called upon." In other words, married men and fathers need to practice tenderness more often and so become, by habit, more tender and charitable than single men.
The conclusion that Bacon comes to is that although single, childless men have more freedom to, as it were, make their own way in the world, married men and fathers have the overall advantage because they have a greater impact on the world in the long term, and because they become more tender, patient, charitable people.

What is the role of Tiresias in Oedipus?

In their 1678 version of Oedipus, John Dryden and Nathaniel Lee retain much of the central plot, which revolves around the fate of Oedipus as predicted by an oracle. However, Dryden and Lee changed the ending fromthe classical version, Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. Not only does Oedipus die, but another act details the trial of Adrastus for killing Laius, the previous king of Thebes and father of Oedipus. Adrastus is trying to shift the blame away from Laius’s and Jocasta’s daughter, Eurydice.
Tiresias, the blind prophet, plays a prominent role in this version as in the earlier play: it is he who tells Oedipus that he has caused the plague. Rejecting this idea, Oedipus accuses Tiresias of siding with Creon, Jocasta’s current husband. While Sophocles places this exchange at the beginning, in the Dryden and Lee play, Tiresias learns this information near the end from the ghost of Laius. His confrontation with Oedipus in Act III contributes to the king’s suicide.

What symbols does Yeats use in "Easter 1916"?

Yeats uses stone to symbolize the hard, flinty resolve of the Irish rebels in rising up against their British overlords. In stanza 3, he compares the rebels' hearts to an enchanted stone, with "one purpose alone / Through summer and winter . . . ." Everything else around the stone is changing rapidly, such as the splashing of the horse-hooves in the water and the diving of the moor-hens. But the stone stands still in the midst of it all, firm and unchanging, just like the Irish rebels doing their duty against the British in Dublin.
Note that the rebels are not just symbolized by a stone, but an enchanted stone. It's as if a spell—in this case, the spell of Irish nationalism—has been cast upon them, giving them the strength and the determination to stand firm despite the enormous turmoil surrounding them.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43289/easter-1916

What are some examples of personification in chapter 2 of Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief?

When Percy is studying for his Latin exam, he is rather stressed, not only because of the exam but also because he has recently been told that he won't be returning to the academy next year. He is also confused and preoccupied with the mysteriously sudden disappearance of Mrs. Dodds. In this stressed state of mind, the words on the page in front of him seem to do odd things:

Words had started swimming off the page, circling my head, the letters doing one-eighties as if they were riding skateboards.

In this quotation, the words are personified. They are given the capacity to swim "off the page" and perform "one-eighties" on a skateboard, while "circling" Percy's head. Personifying the words in this way makes it easier for the reader to imagine that they have a life of their own, just as we do, and this in turn emphasizes how Percy has lost control of the words. He is no longer active but has become passive. He feels like the world is swirling around him, refusing to follow the basic laws of the universe as he knows them.
Later in the chapter, Percy overhears his friend Grover talking to Mr. Brunner about him. The talk seems ominous and ends with Mr Brunner insisting that they worry only about keeping Percy alive "until next fall." Percy, understandably, becomes anxious and retreats down the hall, where he sees an ominous shadow.

A shadow slid across the lighted glass of Brunner's office door, the shadow of something much taller than my wheelchair-bound teacher, holding something that looked suspiciously like an archer's bow.

In this quotation, the shadow is personified as an archer, seemingly towering ("much taller") over Percy. The shadow is personified simply to suggest that its owner is some sort of conscious being, stalking Percy from the shadows. The "archer's bow" implies that perhaps the owner of the shadow is hunting Percy, which only serves to exacerbate his current confused, anxious state of mind.

How will Prince Escalus deal with future brawls?

Prince Escalus is understandably fed-up with all the bloody street brawls that have brought so much disorder to the city of Verona. Whatever the Prince has tried in the past to increase the peace simply hasn't worked, so a whole new approach is needed. From now on, it's no more Mr. Nice Guy; Prince Escalus intends to get tough with brawlers no matter who they are. After breaking up a potential scrap between Montague and Capulet, he lays it on the line in no uncertain terms:

If ever you disturb our streets again,
Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace. [Act I Scene I]

In other words, anyone who gets involved in street brawls from now on will be executed. These are fighting words indeed (no pun intended), but unfortunately they turn out to be completely hollow, as Prince Escalus is roundly ignored by the warring families and their partisans. The fighting will continue and so will the bloodshed. And even when Romeo kills Tybalt, he'll be punished with exile, not death.

What president was the most influential and helped the United States to prosper during the the years of 1920–1924?

Warren G. Harding, elected in 1920 and inaugurated in early 1921, had the most influence over the nation's economy and development in the early 1920s. In the aftermath of World War I, the American economy was faltering, and a recession was spreading throughout the country.
Harding was elected and enacted aggressive federal spending cuts and numerous tax reductions. Additionally, he encouraged private industry, especially the burgeoning technology sector, infusing much-needed funding into the new automotive industry and spreading the use of electricity nationwide. This influx of new industry and lower taxes massively impacted the overall economic climate, dropping unemployment to its lowest levels in quite some time and infusing wealth back into the Federal Reserve. His actions and strict conservative economic policies brought the country back from the brink of financial ruin and prevented a widespread economic recession from occurring.

What information is revealed about the crime to the reader before the first vote?

We don't know a lot about the defendant at first. It's only later on, as the play progresses, that we come to learn more about him through the reactions of the jury members to the evidence that has been presented to them.
Before the first vote, we discover that the defendant purchased a switchblade which he claimed to have lost through a hole in his pocket. This seems rather suspicious, to say the least. The defendant has been charged with stabbing his father to death, and so his admission that he bought a switchblade would appear to point towards his guilt.
That being the case, it's no surprise that the first vote ends with all but one of the jurors—juror number 8—voting guilty. The judge has required a unanimous verdict, and so because there's a hold-out on the jury there'll need to be a full-blown discussion of the case.

In what way does a play like Medea help the cause(s) of women? Does a woman like Medea hurt the cause(s) of women in any way?

Medea helps the cause of women by showing that, even in a male-dominated society, where women have no rights whatsoever, a woman can still show the strength of character to take control of her destiny. Abandoned by Jason, and having left behind her own family, Medea is effectively a non-person, a stateless refugee. As a woman without a family support network to fall back on, she's quite literally on her own.
This would be a huge challenge for anyone, let alone a woman living at a time when women were totally dependent on their male relatives. Yet Medea rises to the occasion, channeling her rage at Jason's betrayal into taking control of her life in a way that would be unthinkable for most of her female contemporaries.
However, the way that Medea chooses to do this is problematic, to say the least. This is because exercising control over her life revolves around causing death and suffering to others, most notably her own children. It says a lot about ancient Greek society that a woman can only act independently by engaging in such murderous acts. Medea's transgressions against society's norms may not exactly redound to her credit, but they don't say a lot for society either. In that sense, Medea's actions may undermine the cause of women, but they also lay the foundations for successive generations of women to take control of their lives, albeit without necessarily resorting to murderous violence and infanticide.

Euripides's Medea is often analyzed when discussing gender studies and Greek tragedies because of the actions of its central character. Medea is a woman who has been betrayed by her husband, Jason, and enacts revenge on him by killing his new wife and father-in-law, as well as her two children.
Feminist critics have applauded Medea's actions as a symbol of what a liberated woman can accomplish in the face of male adversity. Certainly, we see independence in Medea; despite Jason and Creon's best attempts, they aren't able to stop her from accomplishing her goals. From that perspective, Medea could be seen as a role model for women, as she doesn't merely stand around as her husband acts against her will.
But where people might draw the line is the severity of her actions. Medea murders her own children, who had no part in the devastation that Jason has brought to her. It's easier to sympathize with Medea's lust for revenge against Jason and Glauce, but murdering her children is a whole other ballpark. Some would say this hurts women more than helps them, as it shows Medea being just as destructive as her husband.
Medea deals with injustices placed on her in extreme ways. Should women take inspiration from her actions, or see them as an example of what not to do? You be the judge.

How would you describe Elrond?

There is a very evocative description of Elrond in chapter 3, when Bilbo and his company arrive at the Last Homely House, Elrond's residence at Rivendell.
Elrond is described as being exemplary in numerous ways, being as "fair in face" as an elf-lord, wise like a wizard, venerable like a dwarf-king, as strong as any warrior, and "as kind as summer"—which Tolkien gives last in his list, as if to indicate that this is the most important thing about Elrond and the resounding impression with which Bilbo is left. Elrond and his house are a matched pair: in the house, no matter what kind of person you are, you feel refreshed and renewed. Tolkien states that not only clothes and bruises were tended to and fixed at Rivendell, but also "tempers and hopes."
Elrond is somebody who has been a fixture in many stories in Middle Earth, and his house has heard many tales and welcomed many travelers. Gandalf is already very familiar with him. Elrond is very old, but at the same time he is ageless; he has a great and very useful knowledge of almost everything, specifically maps and runes.

Write a response of Cinder 29–38 that connects Cinder to real life situations using one direct quotation and signal phrases.

The novel Cinder by Marissa Meyer reaches its peak and comes to a close in Chapters 29 through 38, when Cinder gains resolve, purpose, and independence. Instead of focusing on only her own problems, and instead of attempting to rescue only herself by running away, Cinder resolves to stay, to fight the Lunar invasion and Queen Levana, and thereby to save the citizens of the Eastern Commonwealth. Cinder’s eyes are opening to the chaos around her, an awakening heightened by her realization of her own true identity. She is Princess Selene.
(For more details about the events that transpire in Chapters 29 through 38, please refer to our chapter summaries.)
It’s true that the fantasy world in which Cinder takes place bears little resemblance to our own on its surface: a lunar colony is established, an intergalactic conflict is raging, Cinder is a cyborg, and a cybernetic interface implanted in her body feeds her relevant real-time information in a steady stream of green text. As readers, we find ourselves immersed in her story, hearing how it echoes the old tale of Cinderella even as it unfolds in a fabulous, technologically advanced future.
Still, the story itself is deeply relatable. For a cyborg, Cinder is remarkably human. Her struggles, her feelings, her reactions, her hopes and wishes—these characteristics shape her into someone we can all identify with, and so it’s easy to draw connections between Cinder’s situations and real-life situations.
Let’s explore some examples.
In Chapter 29, Adri punishes Cinder by grounding her, confining her to the apartment, and lecturing her on how her behavior has shamed the family. Cinder fumes: “[She] dug her fingers into her thighs, too incensed to argue.”
Here, we’re witnessing an angry, rebellious, fiercely determined teenager being grounded by her guardian—and roiling with resentment, hating the confinement, needing freedom and independence. We identify with Cinder. We feel that her anger is justified. We sympathize, because we are her. We’ve been there. By my estimation, this same situation has played out in most American households.
Let’s skip ahead to Chapter 30, where we’ll see another situation that connects to our real lives.
Kai visits Cinder to offer her a gift. Secretly thrilled, but ashamed to be missing one of her feet, Cinder stays behind her desk, hiding her deformity from him. Watch what happens when Kai leans closer to Cinder: “Her heart jolted.” And, a few minutes later: “Cinder’s entire body tingled at his words, but she gulped, forcing the giddiness away.”
What do we see in this exchange that’s relatable, that’s easy to envision as a real-life situation? We have a teenager in love, or at least with a raging crush. We see her eagerness and excitement to receive her crush’s attention, and yet her giddy elation is tempered by fear and shame: she doesn’t want her crush to see her flaws. She’s hiding parts of herself, letting her crush see only the parts of herself that she finds acceptable.
Every teenager does this—and so do most adults.
So far, we’ve seen how Cinder’s day-to-day life lines up with our own lived experiences. Let’s finish off this exploration by taking a broader view. What grander scheme is playing out in Cinder’s world that reminds us starkly of our own world?
In Chapter 36, as Queen Levana faces off against Cinder, we see how frightened and powerless Cinder behaves. The queen intimidates and controls Cinder, nearly forcing her to commit suicide. Here, notice how Cinder’s heart thuds, how her vision flickers, how she squirms, pleads, gasps, collapses, and slumps. We’re witnessing a citizen at the mercy of the government who controls her.
Sadly, Cinder’s suffering and powerlessness in this scene mirror hundreds of real-life situations across the world and throughout history. Think of the news, how we’ve seen videos of police abusing and even killing unarmed citizens, using their power, authority, and superior weaponry to scare, control, and harm those citizens. And think of our nation’s recent past, when, for example, in the 1960s, the authorities wielded their dogs and fire hoses against peaceful protestors. A government controlling and committing violence against its citizens: it’s a theme that’s as pervasive and real as it can get, and it pervades the fictional world of Cinder, too.
But let’s end on a high note.
In Chapter 38, as the novel ends, Cinder feels calm, resolved, and even powerful, ready to rise up and defeat the queen. Let’s hope that Cinder’s optimism and sense of empowerment prove deeply relatable to readers today.

Was there a contradiction in fighting for unalienable rights when not everyone’s rights were taken into consideration?

The Declaration of Independence declares that there are certain "unalienable rights," which include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are rights that cannot be taken away and that are due to everyone. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, took this idea from Locke, Hobbes, and other philosophers who believed that people had certain inherent rights that the government had to abide by. This idea is referred to as the Social Contract.
There was a definite contradiction between the idea of unalienable rights, for which the American Revolution was fought, and the way in which some people in the American colonies lived at the time. For example, enslaved people did not have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, as their movements were controlled by their masters. They were not free to choose their own paths or even to marry the person they choose. They were definitely not free to choose a path towards happiness, and they could not vote or hold public office. Native Americans were also denied these rights, as their lands were often taken away from them. Women's liberties to work and choose their own paths were also curtailed. Therefore, the Founders only extended these rights to white men.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson writes the following words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable writes, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

It's a famous statement, but as your question suggests, the historical realities fell far short of the ideals Jefferson espoused. Indeed, one of the critical themes of social and political reform across United States history has been the drive to bring reality more closely in line with the ideals the country would claim to have been founded on.
When the United States was founded, the agrarian south was a slave-based society. (Furthermore, with the invention of the cotton gin, slavery would only proceed to become more entrenched in that part of the country.) This history of slavery is the most infamous example by which the United States' political reality fell far short of its ideals. In addition to slavery, you can also discuss the subject of women's rights. If you look back towards the early history of the United States, you'd find that women were unable to vote, and were kept in a state of economic dependency. This history of inequality would inspire the creation of the Women's Rights Movement.
To conclude, the United States has been a country beset with a great deal of inequality across its history. The struggle to bring reality more closely in line with its ideals has been one of the critical themes which runs across United States history.

There is no question that the Declaration of Independence’s statement that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” was not immediately realized in the final draft of the Constitution of the United States. One can argue that, consequently, there did exist a contradiction between these documents’ assertions and the realities that existed in the decades following their adoption. I would argue, however, that such an assertion gives short shrift to the depth of divisions among citizens of the newly established country regarding the issue of slavery and the extent of the struggle by abolitionists among the country’s founders to both forge a new nation and resolve that the practice of slavery was antithetical to the nascent nation’s ideals.
As students of American history know, the issue of slavery was the single most contentious debated during the country’s founding. Serious geographical, cultural, and economic differences existed between the northern and southern halves of the republic. The South, of course, was an agrarian society heavily dependent upon slavery as a source of labor. Southern politicians and wealthy plantation owners fought tenaciously to preserve the right to own slaves, and Northern politicians decided that their higher immediate priority—independence and the forging of a viable nation-state—would have to be subordinated, at least temporarily, to the South’s demand for the right to continue the practice of slavery. Easy resolution of that issue was, of course, elusive, and the issue was ultimately decided by the outcome of the Civil War.
That some of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners has tarnished their image among many Americans. Clearly, such a record is a blight on one’s historical record. At the same time, it is interesting that even many of these slave-owners, particularly Benjamin Franklin, understood that the institution of slavery was anachronistic and destined to go away (though this does not excuse their participation in the institution). The division between North and South, however, was borne of the bitter differences between regions regarding the future of slavery, and the country’s histories of both slavery and institutionalized segregation marked a distinct and unfortunate contradiction between ideals and practice—a phenomenon that we would see repeated in the issue of women's suffrage.
https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/how-understand-slavery-and-the-american-founding

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/founding-fathers-and-slaveholders-72262393/

What passage in the book Shoeless Joe (needs to be half a page) would be a good passage to analyze in terms of literary devices and the significance of character, setting, and themes?

My answer might strike you as a bit radical, but because theme, setting, character, and literary devices absolutely pervade this book, I’d say, pick any passage you enjoyed reading and analyze that one in terms of its significance. Just make sure the passage shows characters talking or thinking about ideas.
For example, perhaps you were captivated by the passage that starts with the description of “moonlight butter[ing] the whole Iowa night.” That passage is a gold mine for analysis.
Again, though, almost any passage will do. After all, if a section of the text doesn’t advance a theme, present a meaningful setting in time or place, show the characters interacting and changing, and/or abound in interesting words and phrases, then why does the passage even belong in the novel? This book is only a few hundred pages long—there’s no time, or space, for pointlessly divergent passages.
What happens if you liked a passage, but it didn't include people talking or thinking about ideas? Well, it might not work. That is, some passages in the text might not be ideal for exploring all of the elements you’re seeking to explore (again: theme, setting, character, and literary devices). Let’s say you find a passage you enjoyed reading, but all it really does is set a scene; no characters enter that scene yet. Or perhaps all the passage does is relate a conversation between two characters—a conversation that, when you think about it, doesn’t bring up any particularly profound ideas. In those cases, perhaps the passage is not ideal for your purpose. No worries: just discard that passage and hunt up another.
And, of course, if you’re aiming to focus specifically on passages with thematic importance, you’d need to zero in on the passages in which the narration brushes on the book’s themes, where the author, Kinsella, has “[sneaked] in something profound or symbolic” (as he has professed to do in his books, according to Beacham’s Encyclopedia of Popular Fiction). For example, you could focus on this passage from the first chapter:

Was it really a voice I heard? Or was it perhaps something inside me making a statement that I did not hear with my ears but with my heart? Why should I want to follow this command? But as I ask, I already know the answer. I count the loves in my life: Annie, Karin, Iowa, Baseball. The great god Baseball.

Above, the passage reveals a great deal about the narrator and how he thinks. It touches on major themes: destiny, purpose, and the power of love.
Let’s look at another example of a passage ideal for analyzing. Here’s one of my favorites from the first chapter:

Building a baseball field is more work than you might imagine. I laid out a whole field, but it was there in spirit only. It was really only left field that concerned me. Home plate was made from pieces of cracked two-by-four embedded in the earth. The pitcher’s rubber rocked like a cradle when I stood on it. The bases were stray blocks of wood, unanchored. There was no backstop or grandstand, only one shaky bleacher beyond the left-field wall. There was a left-field wall, but only about fifty feet of it, twelve feet high, stained dark green and braced from the rear. And the left-field grass. My intuition told me that it was the grass that was important. It took me three seasons to hone that grass to its proper texture, to its proper color. I made trips to Minneapolis and one or two other cities where the stadiums still have natural-grass infields and outfields. I would arrive hours before a game and watch the groundskeepers groom the field like a prize animal, then stay after the game when in the cool of the night the same groundsmen appeared with hoses, hoes, and rakes, and patched the grasses like medics attending to wounded soldiers.
I pretended to be building a Little League ballfield and asked their secrets and sometimes was told. I took interest in the total operation; they wouldn’t understand if I told them I was building only a left field.

Above, you’ll find a rich variety of literary devices, including similes, imagery, repetition, and more—plus, you could argue that the entire process of building the field is symbolic. The passage shows us exactly how the narrator thinks and behaves, even how he phrases his ideas. And it touches on themes—consider the key words “work,” “unanchored,” “intuition,” “pretended,” and “interest.”
(Notice that I’ve pointed very generally toward the devices, characters, and themes on display in the passage above; I’ve not actually told you what to write or how to analyze those elements. That will be up to you, should you decide to pick this exact passage—again, I recommend picking one that appeals to you, personally, so that you’ll be excited to analyze it and write about it.)
To sum up, make your selection because you just really enjoyed the passage, because it touched your heart or mind in some way—and just make sure it shows one or more characters talking or thinking as well as one or more ideas being discussed.

What quote shows that Scout is naive concerning racism?

Throughout To Kill a Mockingbird, the reader sees growth and change in Scout, the narrator of the story. She learns many lessons about school, what it takes to be a "lady," and rules about class and society. As her views on Boo Radley evolve, so does her understanding of racism. By the end of the story, Scout's experiences lead to a deeper understanding and awareness of what it means to be racist. However, one can argue that there are several quotes by Scout that show her naivety concerning racism. By examining these quotes, one can better understand how and why she may appear naive.
One of Scout's first encounters with racism occurs at school. She finds herself defending her father when Cecil Jacobs claims that Atticus "defended niggers." Scout clearly feels that Atticus has been insulted, yet she asks Jem, "What’d he mean sayin‘ that?" This demonstrates that Scout is unsure of exactly why Cecil's words are insulting.
Another example of how Scout shows that she is naive occurs when she is with her cousin, Francis. Francis refers to Atticus as a "nigger-lover." Again, Scout seems to understand enough that she should be upset, but she says, "I don’t know what you’re talkin‘ about, but you better cut it out this red hot minute!" Scout admits later to Uncle Jack that although she doesn't know what Francis means, it was "the way Francis said it" that upset her.
In chapter 12, Scout and Jem attend church with Calpurnia. After church, Scout asks, "Cal, can I come to see you sometimes?" Scout requests to visit Calpurnia at Calpurnia's home, and her question shows her naivety. Aunt Alexandra delivers an emphatic "You may not" when she hears of Scout's request. This provides evidence that Scout, according to Aunt Alexandra's rules, should know better than to make such a request. However, by doing so, Scout shows that she simply sees Calpurnia as she would see any other person. Unlike many in Maycomb County, she has not yet learned to be a racist.
During Tom Robinson's trial, Scout again displays her lack of knowledge when it comes to racism. As Tom is being questioned by Atticus, Scout admits that "Until my father explained it to me later, I did not understand the subtlety of Tom’s predicament." Scout has difficulty understanding why Tom would run away from Mayella and Mr. Ewell if he was innocent. Tom couldn't stop Mayella's advances because he didn't want to place his hands on her. It is only after Atticus explains the situation that Scout understands.
These examples show the innocence of a child that has not yet taken on the actions and beliefs of a racist community.

How were Dantes's ideas of justice and vengeance shaped by his imprisonment?

When Dantes is imprisoned in The Count of Monte Cristo, he spends eight years in the company of and learning from Abbe Faria, an Italian priest. As they work together to dig an escape tunnel, Dantes learns how to read and write, as well as how to fight and reason.
His education drives him in this time, as does his isolation and desire for revenge. Through the education, he decides to better himself if he ever escapes, but he also plans elaborate revenge. The gift afforded him by his time in solitude, as well as his time working with Faria, is a great sense of patience. He spends a total of around fourteen years in Chateau d'If, training, learning, and digging. This patience encourages his vengeance to grow and gives him time to deduce who betrayed him. As he grows stronger, so does his desire for revenge, and his plans grow more cruel and exacting, as he plans to inflict corresponding punishments onto everyone who has wronged him, according to what they have done—in essence, truly an "eye for an eye".

What is Brown Girl Dreaming about?

Brown Girl Dreaming is an autobiographical account of Jacqueline Woodson's childhood. She writes stories of her childhood as free verse poems, using the fewest words possible to tell the story of what life was like for her family living in the South in the 1960s and 1970s. Woodson begins with her birth in Ohio in 1963, during the civil rights movement. She talks about being raised by her mother's family in South Carolina. She later moves to Brooklyn, New York, and she tells about feeling like she only half-belonged to each place. Throughout her poems, she reflects on her growing awareness of civil rights and women's rights, her immediate and extended family, her youth surrounded by the Jehovah's Witness religion, and her various communities. The poems also reflect on her discovery of her own writing abilities, which is a gradual process aided and encouraged by one of her teachers in Brooklyn who announces, "You're a writer," and sets the course of her life in that direction.

Beginning in the late 1800s, America began to consider expanding its influence through imperialism. What were four reasons for this change?

In the late 1800s the United States began the process of overseas imperialism. One of the major reasons the United States began to imperialize overseas was the fact that they had already conquered all of the available territory across North America. Having expanded the country from the East Coast to the West Coast, the only way to continue expanding and achieving national goals would be to turn to territories overseas. Now that we know the U.S. had no choice but to look overseas if they wanted to continue expanding, we will look at the factors that motivated the United States to continue expanding.
The first factor we will look at regarding American overseas imperialism deals with military needs and their relation to geography. As the United States grew larger and more powerful, it became more important to protect the United States and its overseas trade interests from attack. In order to do this, the United States began to develop a strong navy. With the development of a strong navy it became necessary to have an infrastructure in place to support the navy. This would involve overseas bases where navy ships could refuel, resupply, and be repaired without having to return all the way to the United States. By colonizing foreign territories, particularly in the Pacific (Hawaii, Guam, etc..) the United States would have these necessary bases in strategic locations.
The second factor we will look at is economic. The United States, much like the European colonizers of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, engaged in imperialism for economic benefits. By colonizing a territory, the United State would be able to extract valuable raw materials that could be used in American manufacturing in the United States. The manufactured goods could then also be sold by American companies to new markets in American colonies. This situation means cheap sources of raw materials and a larger base to sell manufactured goods to. When these two factors are combined, it means greater profit. The ultimate result is a tremendous economic benefit for the United States (or any country that engaged in colonization).
The third factor we will examine is Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was a popular socio-political theory of the late 1800s. The belief held that just as only strong animals and species survive in the wild due to the characteristics they have developed through evolution, nations and societies would also survive or die out due to their national development. To put it simply, strong nations will thrive and dominate weak nations that will cease to exist. This belief was popular in industrialized and imperialistic nations such as the United States at the end of the 1800s.
The fourth factor we will examine deals with racial and cultural superiority. In the second half of the 1800s, it was a popularly held belief in the United States and England that Anglo-Saxon culture was superior to other cultures around the world. It was believed that English-speaking nations had superior thoughts, views on government, religious practices, and ideas. These ideas and beliefs were supported by writings on the topic by individuals like Josiah Strong. In 1885, Strong published a book titled Our Country. In his publication, Strong argued for Anglo-Saxon supremacy and that it was God's will that Anglo-Saxons would dominate the world. This belief can also be closely linked to the idea of Manifest Destiny that was so central to Westward Expansion across the United States. This belief also stressed the importance of spreading Christianity around the globe. Many in favor of imperialism saw non-Christians as savages in need of saving, which could be done through colonization and conversion to Christianity.
It is my belief that the four factors I have listed played the largest roles in encouraging American Imperialism and justifying the actions of imperialists. When combining these factors with the lack of available land on the North American continent, it is clear to see how this led to a shift in American Imperialism to overseas targets.
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppennock/doc-JStrong.htm

Why did the Jeffersonian world view (that of the yeoman farmer as the bedrock of American democracy and the American economy) disappear by the mid-nineteenth century?

Jefferson's worldview did not weather the industrial revolution and rapidly changing United States. The idea of a farming republic could not survive a rapidly growing international economy. While agriculture was important to the young country, dynamic trading networks and growing metropolitan centers quickly dominated. Most students of United States history are aware of the movement of populations from rural landscapes to increasingly densely populated urban centers. As such, power flowed to cities with populations.
But it was not simply that industry pushed out farming—rather, values changed. Value and pride no longer resided on the plantation, and urban denizens were seen as valuable, trendy, and powerful. European fashion flourished, as did foodways and language patterns. So, as social capital moved to cities, the power dynamics of this country changed, reducing the influence of farming. It became untenable for farmers to be powerful, because the urban class was on the rise. Cosmopolitanism and travel were increasingly valued. Being the lord of one's plantation could not compare to trans-Atlantic travel, mercantile economies, and cross-cultural interaction. Ultimately, Jefferson's vision was unable to endure these demographic and social capital changes.

I would suggest the answer to this question lies at least partly in the fact that Jefferson's worldview was formed before the Industrial Revolution began.
In 1782, when Jefferson wrote his Notes on the State of Virginia, it was still possible to believe that a major country's economy could be based primarily on agriculture. Moreover, Jefferson was an idealist, a man whose thinking was not always realistic. This perhaps accounts for his inability to see the contradictions in his own life and his worldview. In the Notes he denounced the institution of slavery in the strongest terms, yet he never took any action to further the cause of abolition: he freed only a handful of enslaved people in his long life, and did not take the action—as George Washington did, for example—of liberating all of his enslaved people in his will. During the French Revolution, he refused to believe that abuses were being committed by the revolutionary government and even became angry at William Short for reporting to him from Paris on the facts. He went massively into debt, leaving it to his daughter to pay off his creditors after his death by auctioning off his estate and his enslaved people. While all of this may be seen as personal failure, it relates to his lack of realism concerning the economic basis for modern society.
By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution was invalidating the ideal of yeoman farming that Jefferson cherished. The South began to fall behind the industrialized North, where manufacturing created wealth and eventually created a huge disparity in economic power between the states on opposite sides of the Mason–Dixon line. The fact of Jefferson's own enormous prestige and stated ideals may have actually impeded the progress of the South, both in terms of the slavery issue and the South's lagging behind in technological advancement. By 1850, the agrarian basis of the South was essentially obsolete, a relic of the past.

In the book Rules of the Game, what happens early in the story when Waverly asks for a bag of salted plums?

When Waverly's out shopping with her mom one day, she asks for a bag of salted plums. A perfectly reasonable request, one might think. But Waverly's mother flatly refuses. At this, Waverly throws a huge tantrum, a hissy fit of epic proportions. But her mother still won't back down. Waverly's mother wants to teach her a lesson: the importance of exercising self-control, and of biting your tongue.
And Waverly seems to have learned her lesson, because the next time she goes shopping with her mom she bites her tongue and says nothing. This time Waverly's mother buys her the salted plums; this is a reward for Waverly's good behavior. She's clearly learned how to control herself, bite her tongue, and in the process began to understand the power of invisible strength.

Through out the play in King Oedipus, Sophocles makes repeated reference to the notions of light, sight, darkness and night. How does this use of literal and figurative language help to reveal his message about life and society?

In broadest terms, light and darkness correspond to knowledge and ignorance or concealment of it. Sight is particularly important in reference to the metaphorical acknowledgment of confrontation of knowledge, and literally in reference to Oedipus’ final act of blinding himself. Several characters take deliberate actions to conceal information or not to face the consequences of actions, while others are affected by their lack of knowledge.
Tireisias, who is physically blind but gifted as a prophet, embodies the contradictions of light/dark, sight/blindness. He deliver the lines that tie together these themes:

But I say that you, with both your eyes, are blind:
You cannot see the wretchedness of your life….

Oedipus, who is unaware of having fulfilled the prophecy, is likewise ignorant of the consequences of his actions. In refusing initially to believe Tireisias, he uses a “lost in the night” metaphor for physical blindness and his apparent lack of knowledge. Nevertheless, as a noble heroic figure, he accepts responsibility and finally blinds himself and voluntarily goes into exile.
Jocasta is in the light because she is knowledgeable about the prophecy, but lives in shadow because she abandons her child. Her enlightenment comes at the cost of her life, as she bears the burden of trying to avoid what the gods ordained.

How does the author of A Farewell to Arms show the character's loss of faith in the war effort?

Frederic loses faith in the war in various places rather than as a single revelation.
Working on the ambulance in contact with the wounded and dying sharpens his awareness of the limited effects of the combat. War is nothing sacred, despite what the leaders say; soldiers were treated like cattle.

The things that were glorious had no glory and the sacrifices were like the stock yards at Chicago if nothing was done with the meat except to bury it.

Getting wounded himself and being away from the fighting gives him time to reflect, which further undermines his faith.
A marker that faith is involved is Frederic's meeting with the priest, who had "always known" what he is learning.
Deciding to desert is a clear marker that his faith was already gone. Reflection on the cost of war for all involved, not just the combatants, confirms this attitude.

People bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places.

What are the details of the Maycomb County Halloween festivities?

For Halloween, the schools combine to hold a pageant in the high school auditorium. While it is festive and educational, it also offers a way for the parents to supervise their children so that they don’t pull any “tricks.” Organized by a teacher, Mrs. Grace Merriweather, the central part is a play about Maycomb County’s past and future. In addition to the children’s performance of the play, the events also include the House of Horrors.
The children have roles playing agricultural products (plant and animal) that are important in the local economy. Scout’s role is a ham, which requires her to don a cumbersome wire-and-cloth costume. Other roles include a cow, a peanut, and a butterbean. Following the national anthem, the pageant begins with Mrs. Merriweather’s speech about Colonel Maycomb, for whom the town was named. This boring speech almost puts Scout to sleep, but she recovers in time to perform.

Discuss how American imperialism and Manifest Destiny impact US workplaces today.

The United States workplace has largely benefited from the expansionist policy known as Manifest Destiny. The West has yielded many natural resources such as minerals, farmland, and timber that have proven to be vital to the United States' economic interests. US expansion has also fueled growth, as the availability of cheap land was a major enticement to immigrants during the nineteenth century. Imperialism has also fueled economic growth, as American colonies in the Pacific allowed steamships access to vital Asian markets long before the United States largely abandoned steam travel. Expansion to the Caribbean has also fueled American demand for cheaper agricultural commodities such as sugar.
American imperialism made its businessmen think globally. This led to their need to produce more goods at cheaper costs in order to send them overseas. Demand on the world market has been quite good for American business. In the twentieth century many businesses have moved outside the country in order to find a cheaper workforce and less restrictive conditions. While American expansion has fueled American markets, it has also led to the awareness that goods can be produced cheaper overseas. Expansion has been largely a benefit to the workforce, but for unskilled laborers this expansion has come with a price.

American imperialism refers to the attempt to expand the power of the United States through military or economic control or interference in other countries. Manifest Destiny is the idea that it is the right of the US to expand abroad, militarily and economically. The United States has expanded its economic and military reach into many nations. For example, the US currently has many troops and an economic foothold in Asian nations, including Japan and South Korea. Both of these nations are important trading partners with the US.
Our imperialist policies of today and of the past affect the American workplace because we have access to certain products from other nations because of our military and political importance to those countries. Therefore, because we have access to products such as cars from Korea and Japan, fewer American cars are needed and fewer are produced. We also produce goods, such as agricultural goods, that other nations such as Korea and Japan import. Our economic and political connections to other countries affect what we produce in the US.

In order to answer this question, one must first be clear on the definitions of imperialism and manifest destiny. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, imperialism is defined as “a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force” and manifest destiny is defined as “a future event accepted as inevitable.” In the context of US history, manifest destiny refers to the commonly accepted belief in the 18th century that settlers in the Colonies were destined by God to continue to expand westward across the United States, to the Pacific Ocean. Historically, the concept of imperialism in this context can be taken to mean the expansion of a country’s power by means of acquiring additional lands.
When considering the impact of imperialism and manifest destiny in today’s US workplaces, the inevitable expansion of power and influence does not so much refer to the expansion of territory or land; although it could reference the desire to extend the US business market internationally, and create international business partners. It is more likely, however, that these concepts refer to the economic expansion of US businesses. The US government seeks to influence global markets in a variety of ways, although no longer through the use of military force as was more common in the westward expansion referred to above.
On the local level, a small business may wish to expand their hold on their geographical area’s market. On a much larger level, a nationwide company would seek to extend their market overseas.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/american-imperialism/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifest%20destiny

Why did the colonists oppose the Stamp Act and other taxes?

The Stamp Act was issued in 1765 by Britain on the America colonies. It required that all printed matter—newspapers, wills, deeds, pamphlets, playing cards, and dice—receive a stamp which must be purchased from an authorized stamp distributor. Although the actual financial burden of the stamp was relatively low, the colonists protested the tax so vehemently that it was repealed in 1766.
During the first half of the eighteenth century, Britain had allowed the colonies a great deal of autonomy. But after incurring a large debt from conducting the Seven Years' War against France, Britain decided to raise funds by levying this tax on the colonies since the war had been fought in America. Colonists didn't object to tariffs on trade, but the obvious scheme to raise money by levying a tax over which the colonists had no say raised their hackles. Colonists believed that taxes should only be levied by duly elected representatives, and America had no voice in Parliament. Another provision of the Stamp Act that bothered colonists was that offenders could be tried without juries.
Some colonial leaders viewed this tax, which was the first direct tax Britain had imposed on the colonies, as an open door to further tyranny from Britain. If Britain could tax them on anything at any time, and if they had no voices in Parliament to defend them, they could soon find themselves oppressed. Stamp Act revenue was used in part to pay for British troops stationed in the colonies, and having a peacetime army on their soil gave the opportunity for more oppression. The colonists protested the act and even threatened the stamp distributors—so much so that within a year, almost all the stamp distributors had resigned their posts. Britain repealed the tax, but more of the same type would follow. Colonists would object to those on the same grounds. They insisted they would allow "no taxation without representation."
https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/stamp-act

The Stamp Act was particularly injurious to American colonists because of the ubiquity of the items to which it applied. All printed matter, including but not limited to stamps, all publications, playing cards, ships' papers, and licenses were subject to taxation. In addition to its widespread applicability, colonists were very concerned that it opened the door to other tax schemes, and that the money it generated was being used to fund things that the colonial legislatures were not allowed to vote on, such as the massing of troops to defend the frontier and protect Britain's financial interests in America.
Colonists did not have representation in Parliament, and opposers of this and other taxes not approved by their local legislatures felt that the taxes were therefore unjustifiable.

The Stamp Act of 1765 was a new form of taxation that required colonists to pay an extra charge on every piece of paper they used. British Parliament stated that this new tax was required in order for England to finance defending the American frontier, bordering Appalachia. This rationale for levying a tax marks the first time that Britain cited revenue increases instead of commerce regulations as the impetus for new taxes. Because this decision to generate revenue in the colonies was made without working with government officials in the colonies, cause for concern rose among those who felt this tax was establishing a dangerous precedent. If the the British were allowed to impose this regulation in order to raise funds, what regulations might come next, and at what cost?

"Where there is a will there is a way"—show this with an example from the story The Swiss Family Robinson.

According to the online Cambridge Dictionary, "where there's a will there's a way" is a saying that means "if you are determined enough, you can find a way to achieve what you want, even if it is very difficult." The adventurous novel The Swiss Family Robinson by Johann David Wyss tells the story of a Swiss family—composed of a father, a mother, and four sons—who are shipwrecked on an island in the East Indies and then have to learn to survive. The novel is full of examples of determination in the face of adversity.
One of the most amazing examples of "where there's a will there's a way" occurs at the beginning of the novel right after the shipwreck. After a fearsome storm that lasts many days, the ship is breaking up within sight of land. The captain and crew take to the lifeboats and abandon the family on the sinking ship. Not all of the family members can swim, so it looks as if they are lost. However, instead of despairing and giving up, the family works together to find a means to get everyone safely to shore. They find four large wooden casks which they saw in half and then bind together with planks to form a raft. They fill the resultant tubs with passengers and essential supplies and in this way are able row themselves to land.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/where-there-s-a-will-there-s-a-way

What was everyday life like in the Southern Colonies?

The Southern colonies were North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Maryland.
Of the three colony regions (New England, Middle, and Southern), the Southern colonies were located in the warmest part of the United States.
The sunny weather and easy access to land helped the Southern colonies prosper economically. Many people who paid their way to the New World were given land for homesteading. As a result, plantations flourished.
Rich and poor, however, enjoyed different standards of living. The rich were able to provide their children with good educations, while the poor often had little means to provide similarly for their own children.
Farmers in their own right were able to raise their own cows and sheep. They also grew wheat, barley, rye, corn, and oats. Some farms also had fruit orchards. All in all, food was plentiful in the Southern colonies.
With the plantation system came the scourge of slavery. Although many slave owners treated their slaves well, others inflicted horrific abuse upon those under their authority.
As for everyday life, most people worked in one capacity or another on a farm. Fully 75% of commerce resulted from farming in the Southern colonies. First, a farmer had to clear the land; this usually took about a month. Next, the crops had to be planted. Besides farming, the people also built brick houses to live in. This type of labor was usually done by men. Meanwhile, women took care of the affairs of the household. They made clothing for their families (by hand), cooked, raised the children, and did the laundry. The latter was done by hand if the family was poor. Meanwhile, wealthy families had servants to tend to the laundry.
On the plantations, slaves worked in both the fields and owners' mansions. Indoor slaves did all of the cooking and cleaning. Meanwhile, field slaves grew and harvested the crops. For more on everyday life in the Southern colonies, please refer to the links below.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/life-in-the-southern-colonies-part-1-of-3/

https://m.landofthebrave.info/southern-colonies.htm

https://www.ushistory.org/us/5e.asp

Consider the distinct fates of the Eastern and Western Roman empires. What allowed the East to persist while the West did not?

The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, with the last emperor Romulus Augustulus deposed by the barbarian king Odoacer. At the same time, the Eastern half of the Empire, Byzantium, whose capital was Constantinople, continued for almost a thousand years before being sacked by the Ottomans in 1453. So why did the East survive while the West did not?
One of the main reasons was the mass migration of Germanic tribes into the West. A large number of such tribes had been formally Romanized in the process, speaking Latin and fighting against rival tribes as part of the Roman army, where they gained a fearsome reputation as warriors. In return for their military service, they demanded their fair share of land, but for one reason or another successive emperors were either unwilling or unable to grant it to them. It was the deep, smoldering resentment caused by land hunger that was the primary cause of the many barbarian invasions, including the one that finished off the Western Roman Empire once and for all.
In the East, however, the situation was completely different. The Byzantine Emperors had much greater control over their military forces than their counterparts in the West, who tended to rely on the loyalty of Germanic generals out in the field. As we've seen in the case of Odoacer, such loyalty was not always forthcoming, not least because these generals were powerful men in their own right, with vast legions to command. If they didn't get what they wanted from the Emperor, they were always ready to descend upon Rome and take it for themselves.
The geographical separation of the Eastern half of the Empire from Germanic lands saved Constantinople from a similar fate to Rome. Furthermore, Byzantium only had to defend two active borders from potential attack, placing it in a much more strategically secure position than the West, which had to contend with aggressive tribal coalitions all along the full length of its vast northwestern frontier.

In chapter 7 of Animal Farm, how do the animals react to Squealer's lies about Snowball?

In chapter 7 of Animal Farm, Squealer, Napoleon's propagandist-in-chief, attempts to convince the animals that the exiled Snowball was a traitor, working in cahoots with the hated human oppressor to overthrow Animalism and restore Mr. Jones to power. It's all lies, of course; Snowball was one of the heroes of the Animalist revolution, playing a lead role in the epic Battle of the Cowshed. But Napoleon has always been insanely jealous of Snowball, not least because he himself was notably absent when the battle was raging.
Since banishing Snowball from the farm, Napoleon, with the able assistance of Squealer, has systematically set about rewriting history, trashing Snowball's reputation and making Napoleon out to be the real hero of the revolution. The other animals are quite stunned to hear that Snowball was really a traitor all along. They vividly remember the important role he played in driving Mr. Jones from the farm; he even received a medal for his actions. What Squealer's saying about him just doesn't make any sense.
But eventually, the animals come around to Squealer's way of thinking. He's so skillful at describing Napoleon's (entirely fictional) heroism at the Battle of the Cowshed that they convince themselves that it really did happen. Animal Farm is a political allegory about the Soviet Union under Stalin, and this episode shows that the animals' susceptibility to lies and propaganda closely resembles that of Soviet workers.

What Is Shabbat?

Shabbat, or Sabbath, is the day of rest in Judaism. Traditionally, Shabbat was the last day of the week. According to the book of Genesis, in the creation account, God designed the Earth and created everything in it during 6 days. On the final day of the Creation week, God rested. Because of this, God instructed his followers to rest on the final day of the week.
Jews have followed this tradition for millennia, observing the Sabbath by doing no work and resting. In Biblical Times, the Israelites were forbidden from even plowing their fields or, during their exile in the desert, collecting manna. During the New Testament, Christ was chastised by the religious elite for performing a miracle on the Sabbath, at which point he stated that “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” implying that the law of the Sabbath was meant as a benefit, not a restriction, and has since been followed more loosely.

Why does the poet repeat the word "break" three times?

"Break, Break, Break" is one of the poems that Alfred, Lord Tennyson wrote after the death of his close friend Arthur Henry Hallam. In it, Tennyson expresses the grief that he feels at the loss of his friend. Hallam was also a poet. He and Tennyson spent a lot of time together, and Hallam became engaged to Tennyson's sister Emily. However, Hallam died during a trip to Vienna at the age of 22.
The elegy "Break, Break, Break" is inspired by a lonely seaside vigil. Tennyson uses the word "break" three times to demonstrate the monotony and rhythm of the waves breaking upon the shore, one after another. As he observes the fisherman's boy playing, the sailor lad singing, and the stately ships reaching port, Tennyson laments that he will no longer feel "the touch of a vanished hand" or hear "the sound of a voice that is still." The waves of the sea will continue to beat endlessly against the shore, says Tennyson, but "the tender grace of a day that is dead will never come back to me." In other words, he longs for the days when he could experience the companionship of his friend, but he will never know those times again.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/alfred-tennyson