Is Changez's understanding of America a clear picture or is it distorted?

When he first came to this country, Changez's understanding of America was distorted. He says that when he came to America in order to go to school at Princeton, he thought, "This is a dream come true." Further, he says,

Princeton inspired in me the feeling that my life was a film in which I was the star and everything was possible.

He idealized the university, the professors, and even his peers, thinking of them as "philosopher-kings in the making." In other words, he saw America as glamorous and glittering, like a Hollywood movie. He felt himself to be the starring player of his life in this beautiful place, and believed that he could accomplish anything and everything here. He only saw the positive possibilities, all the good things that could happen, unable even to acknowledge that negative possibilities existed, and this is certainly a distorted view of America.
However, as he became subject to more and more racism, his view began to change. The way Erica's father talks to him, for example, "struck a negative chord" with him due to the older man's tone, and Changez must force himself to respond politely. In the Philippines, he experiences "an undisguised hostility in his expression" from a local, as Changez sits in a limo with his white American colleagues; he begins to feel as though he "was play-acting when in reality I ought to be making my way home, like the people on the street outside." He begins to realize how much America is distancing him from himself, from his own culture. By the time 9/11 happened, Changez felt "remarkably pleased" when the Twin Towers fell because he "was caught up in the symbolism of it all, the fact that someone had so visibly brought America to her knees." By this time, Changez had developed a much clearer view of America—with both its positives and its negatives—and this view continues to develop and grow more nuanced as time passes and he has more eye-opening experiences.

Whom did the poet meet at the close of the day in "Easter 1916"?

In "Easter 1916," the speaker mentions the rebels he used to meet at the close of day, or in the evening, after they presumably were leaving their workplaces. The rebels were part of an armed rebellion in Dublin that rallied together to oppose British rule and start a new Irish Republic. They were just normal people for the most part, as the speaker says in this first stanza: laborers, common workers, and passionate, political free thinkers. In the end, they were executed. As the first four lines of the poem explain, the speaker remembers their "vivid faces" emerging from behind "counters" or "desks" among the "grey, eighteenth-century houses" of Yeats's own Dublin neighborhood: "I have met them at close of day/Coming with vivid faces/From counter or desk among grey/Eighteenth-century houses." These normal, hardworking people, who soon became brave rebels, were not initially respected by the speaker.
The speaker explains that he never had any genuine, meaningful interactions with these rebels; they were insignificant to him. He reiterates this idea by saying that if he had conversations with them in passing, or if he stopped to talk to them at all, the conversations were filled with "polite, meaningless words," and he repeats this twice just to drive his point home.
The speaker seems to have been passing the rebels on the way to his club, where he would tell a "mocking tale or [take]a gibe/To please a companion/Around the fire at the club." Here, Yeats may be talking about meeting friends at his Dublin version of The Order of the Golden Dawn, because he had joined this offshoot of freemasonry in London and helped to found the Dublin Hermetic Order. He was in the order with another poet, Aleister Crowley, whom he is known to have feuded with.
The order can be described as a cult where men socialized and practiced alchemy, magic, seances, and other occult rituals. Such secret orders are oftentimes elitist, and witchcraft by nature assumes superiority by seeking to exert control and personal will over the world and people around it. The tone of this part of the poem definitely reflects Yeats's feelings of superiority. A "gibe" is a mocking insult, and "motley" refers to jester clothes. In a nutshell, at whatever club he was attending after passing the rebels, Yeats would talk about them as if they were a joke and mock them with insults.
Of course, their brave stand against British oppression may have shaken Yeats into thinking he underestimated these common people, as they later are referred to as immovable stones in a rushing river. The "terrible beauty" referred to at the end of this stanza is an oxymoron, most often read as a tribute to the beauty of their attempt to change the course of an oppressive history and the terrible end they met.

How does the scene in chapter 3 anticipate the plot development during the trial and conviction of Tom Robinson?

In chapter 3, Scout has a conflict with Walter Cunningham, whom she feels superior to because of her higher social status. Walter Cunningham is from one of the poorest families in town, and Scout is aware of that and considers herself better than him because of it. This foreshadows the lesson she learns during the trial—that people should be judged by their behavior, not by their social status or race or anything else. In this chapter, the Cunninghams are contrasted to the Ewells. The Cunninghams have honor and the Ewells do not, but they are both looked down on because of their poverty.
Atticus explains to Scout that the Ewells are dishonest people who live like animals and have no self-respect. However, he tells her that she should not judge the children for their parents’ behavior and that it is important to understand a person’s circumstances in order to understand how their behavior and attitudes develop. Atticus tells Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.” This foreshadows the understanding Scout gains during the trial of Tom Robinson, when she sees how both Tom Robinson and Mayella Ewell have been victimized by their circumstances.

How do populism and populist leaders fit in with the rise of illiberal democracies?

Populism and populist leaders fit in with the rise of illiberal democracies in that they are the agents of their creation. Recall that an illiberal democracy can be representative, can have checks and balances, has elections, and can function under a robust rule of law. The difference between illiberal democracies and others is in how populist leaders and their enablers use those democratic institutions. Discriminatory or restrictive laws or policies about immigration, racial or gender equality, citizenship and access to resources are hallmarks of illiberal democracies. These laws or policies are made in the usual way, by deliberative legislation, judicial review and executive implementation, but they have effects which in other democracies are considered corrosive to society.
The role of populism and populist leaders in all this is in the creation, the culture, and providing of leadership. They focus the energy of a movement to take over a government, to restrict immigration, to harass marginalized groups, or even to perpetrate violence. Consider that a set of ideas without anyone pushing them usually don't have much effect. However, even a small idea with a big champion, or one that's attached to a very popular movement, can have very large effects.
Populist movements now holding or contesting power in the US and Europe fit this mold. Without figureheads or entrenched movements, populism dies. If Donald Trump weren't President of the United States, there would still be populist and illiberal policies, but they wouldn't have national legitimacy. They wouldn't be "official" attitudes of the country, and it would be harder to turn them into real laws or policies. The same is true of Hungary without Viktor Orban, Italy without The League, France without Marine LePen, and Germany without the AfD.
Populist movements and populist leaders are the vehicles which bring illiberal democracy to societies which think they could never have it, and they're the lifeline which sustains illiberal politics in government.

Compare and contrast one social movement of the 1960s to continued reforms today.

The 1960s experienced several waves of social movements. The Black Power movement of the 60s embraced political and cultural autonomy and power for black people in America. The Black Power movement did not seek to ask for respect from white Americans, but boldly and proudly demanded respect and true equality. Black Panthers were the members of one particular Black Power political group, the Black Panther Party. Black Panthers organized several survival programs for black people, such as the free breakfast programs for black children and alcohol detox centers located in low income black neighborhoods. Black Panthers also trained with guns and refused to be terrorized by white vigilantes and racist police. The U.S. government considered the Black Power movement to be a great threat and heavily surveilled the movement through the FBI counter-intelligence program COINTELPRO. The Black Panthers were incredibly inspiring and contributed to the serious reduction of white vigilante violence against black people. While police and the state continued to be a source of oppression for black people in the U.S., individual racist white people no longer held the power to terrorize black people as they had done for centuries.
Today, this movement for black liberation is continued through the work of present-day black liberation movements, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, Black Youth Project 100, Southerners On New Ground, Assata's Daughters, and the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. The black liberation movements of the past and current day are similar in their absolute dedication to the freedom of black people. While black power movements of the past struggled with entrenched sexism, strict gender roles, and issues with homophobia, the black liberation movements of today tends towards a broader lens of liberation. The current movements seek to center black women and queer and trans black people, rather than an organization run by mostly men.
Both the movements of the past and present have heavily focused on the severe issue of police brutality against black people and the disproportionate incarceration of black people.

What characters influenced Daniel the most in the novel?

There are many characters who influence Daniel in The Bronze Bow, from the soldiers who killed his father to his grandmother and Leah to Joel and Malthace, but the ones who influence him the most are Rosh and Jesus. Daniel undergoes a fundamental change of character from the beginning to the end of the book; the influence of Rosh shapes his beginning character as a young man full of hatred who wants to use violence to change his circumstances. It was the Romans who planted the seeds of this hate, but it is Rosh who leads Daniel into violence and helps to shape the man that Daniel is becoming. Although both Joel and Malthace help to bring about the change in Daniel, it is Jesus who really makes Daniel rethink his commitment to violence. Daniel is drawn to his lessons and to his example. Jesus heals, while Rosh kills. Jesus shows compassion, while Rosh shows none. The key chapter where you can see that the balance of influence falls in Jesus's favor is chapter 18, when Daniel leads the boys to rescue Joel despite Rosh's dismissal. Daniel's realization that the hate Rosh is sowing is only going to bring ruin is reinforced by the death of Samson. Samson gives his life rescuing them. Daniel can see that the legacy of hate is death, but the legacy of love that Jesus is showing is life, as evidenced in the resurrection of Jarius's daughter in chapter 15. So, while Rosh is the young Daniel's strongest influence, Jesus is the one who turns the tide of his heart.

What is a quote that could demonstrate Jim Hawkins's maturity and bravery in the story?

Jim Hawkins displays considerable bravery and maturity throughout the story, but one particularly notable example comes in Chapter 12. The good ship Hispaniola is about to reach the fabled treasure island. Though it's been a safe and surprisingly uneventful journey, there's mutiny in the air. Jim has overheard Long John Silver's dastardly plot and tells Dr. Livesey about it at the first opportunity. There's nothing for it; the good men aboard ship have to be prepared to fight Silver and his men in the event of what seems like an inevitable mutiny. Unfortunately, they're heavily outnumbered; only six men and a boy—that would be Jim—stand in the way of Silver's scurvy band of cutthroats.
Although Jim's only a boy, Squire Trelawney clearly sees something in him, some real courage and maturity, which makes him a reliable partner in the fight ahead:

“Hawkins, I put prodigious faith in you,” added the squire.I began to feel pretty desperate at this, for I felt altogether helpless; and yet, by an odd train of circumstances, it was indeed through me that safety came. In the meantime, talk as we pleased, there were only seven out of the twenty-six on whom we knew we could rely; and out of these seven one was a boy, so that the grown men on our side were six to their nineteen.

Is the United States Constitution still taught in US public schools?

This question seems most like an argumentative one with no definitive answer, so I will present to you both sides of the argument.
One could certainly argue that the United States Constitution is taught in US public schools. To support this claim, you could discuss how the majority of school systems across the country include a required US History course to be taken in high school. Prior to that, US history is integrated into elementary curriculum at certain points within social studies classes that begin sometime in the upper primary grades. Most often, students are exposed to the preamble, the Bill of Rights, and the most significant amendments.
However, one could also argue that the Constitution is not really “taught” in US public schools but rather that students are merely exposed to its contents. Rather than learning about the Constitution in depth, the majority of students only receive a survey of the document.
Therefore, one could argue that while students have cursory knowledge of the Constitution, they do not actually receive much instruction on its purpose or application.

To what extent is the novel A Thousand Splendid Suns a condemnation of the misuse of power

In the novel, Khaled Hosseini shows the abuse of power on both personal and socio-political levels. The marriage of Rasheed and Mariam exemplifies personal abuses, while the post-Soviet occupation conflicts among the Afghan factions convey the wider-scale power struggles, leading to Taliban rule.
After Mariam is forced into an arranged marriage with an older man named Rasheed, her husband imposes his conservative views on her. This misuse of power ranges from the external coverings of her body, as he makes her wear the burka, through his insistence that she become pregnant again every time she miscarries, to his physical violence when she loses the babies. Mariam is denied autonomy over her own body and subjugated to patriarchal control. While this is exacerbated to some extent by Rasheed’s marriage to Laila, the female solidarity also drives a wedge that both enables their liberation and seals Mariam’s fate.
As the novel is set in late twentieth century Kabul, much of the political action concerns the chaotic situation created by the Soviet retreat after almost two decades of occupation. The effects of that occupation are still evident, such as through Tarik’s landmine-inflicted injuries. The constant conflicts among the Mujahedeen and other factions make the city unsafe, with frequent shelling and bombings.
Once the Taliban take over, the misuse of power becomes the norm. Both men and women must follow sartorial, religious standards. Education and employment are both denied to women, whose freedom to appear in public and to travel are denied. Higher education is also ended with the closure of the universities; cultural expression is severely restricted and artists considered to be not in compliance are imprisoned. Hosseini unblinkingly portrays the bleakness of life under fundamentalist rule in this phase of Afghan history.

What does Kiowa say to O’Brien? What is the effect of Kiowa’s repeated attempts at conversation? Why doesn’t O’Brien respond to him? What is he doing?

In the book, O'Brien relates how he killed a soldier when he threw a grenade at the feet of the soldier. O'Brien describes the massive injuries the soldier suffered.
After the soldier was killed, O'Brien noticed that one of the soldier's eyes was a gaping star-shaped hole. With horror, he also noticed that the soldier no longer had a neck, and in the gaping wound, thick blood had pooled.
Although Kiowa tried to convince O'Brien that he had no choice but to throw the grenade, O'Brien was speechless. Kiowa also told O'Brien to stop staring at the soldier's corpse, and he suggested that O'Brien lie down for a minute.
When O'Brien still didn't respond, Kiowa tried to tell him that he knew how terrible he felt. However, Kiowa soon retracted his comment after getting no response from O'Brien. What Kiowa was trying to do was to shake O'Brien out of his shock.
However, Kiowa had little success in getting O'Brien to speak. As for O'Brien, he didn't respond to Kiowa because he was shocked, grieved, and disgusted. Although he likely knew that war often led to terrible choices, he still saw humanity in the Vietnamese soldier he killed.

Should crimes committed long ago be forgotten?

One way to think about this question is from the standpoint of a particular moral theory. Most moral theories provide some sort of measure of correct action. For example, a consequentialist theory will tell you to take the action that will maximize good consequences. So, what you are asking in this case is what are the consequences, or the effects of forgetting crimes in the past vs. holding those who committed them responsible.
Some considerations that could be brought to bear might be whether or not there are victims that would benefit from seeing justice served, whether the one who committed the crime is likely to continue to harm others, or what impact this would have on society. You should also consider what harm would be done to the one who committed the crime if they were punished
Ultimately, consequentialism tells us to choose the action that maximizes good results. If their are no victims left, and the person who committed the crime is not likely to cause further harm, then punishment would not be warranted since this would cause harm, and no good effects would result. If, however, the victim would benefit from seeing justice served, and supposing that the punishment were not overly severe, then it would be right to punish the offender, even after a long time.

This sounds like a great debate topic and strong arguments can be made either way.
One of the focal points of this argument would have to be to think about what the crime was. There is a big difference between somebody stealing a purse 20 years ago and a serial rapist who terrorized a community 20 years ago.
A great example of this debate can be seen in South Africa, where government is currently trying to introduce a program called land expropriation without compensation. Politicians are claiming that when white people arrived in Southern Africa, land was taken forcibly by means of genocide. Generations later, their argument is that this land should be given back—at no cost. The people who would benefit from this program are, of course, in favor of it, while those currently farming the land are raising many objections.
In legal terms, this debate is what led to the statute of limitations on certain crimes. This statute (which varies between states and countries) lays down a maximum time period after a crime at which criminal proceedings may begin. It's important to note that there is commonly no statute of limitations on murder, which would imply that a murder committed long ago can never be forgotten.
https://www.biznews.com/sa-investing/2018/07/25/land-expropriation-risks-breaching-international-law

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-limitations.asp

What ideas does Shakespeare develop regarding the acceptable limits of ambition?

A paper that analyzes Shakespeare's development of ideas regarding the acceptable limits of ambition could begin with the contrasting reactions of Banquo and Macbeth when they hear the Weird Sisters' initial prophecies. Banquo is suspicious, while Macbeth's interest is piqued in a more profound way. It seems that by nature Macbeth is more ambitious than Banquo; this is why the goading of his wife is so quickly effective. The seeds of ambition are already within him. This idea is further supported by examining Macbeth's exploits in battle; he is unafraid of brutality and performs with zeal the execution of Macdonwald in service to his king and country.
A message in the play may be that the acceptable limits of ambition are inextricably linked to the cause to which characters align themselves. The actions of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are unacceptable because they violate the Great Chain of Being. They commit regicide and then other murders to maintain their unjust rule over Scotland. The actions of Malcolm and Macduff lay within acceptable limits because they seek to restore the Great Chain of Being. Malcolm is the legitimate heir to Scotland's throne and Macduff consistently displays loyalty to the legitimate king and his country. Their ambitions to attack Macbeth's forces and kill Macbeth are acceptable because their cause is just. Shakespeare draws a distinction between state-sanctioned violence and murder for personal gain.

What conditions does Matilda experience while helping the sick people?

Matilda catches yellow fever herself through treating the sick. It's a highly contagious disease, and anyone who comes into contact with it is in serious danger of getting infected. Thankfully, though, Matilda survives, unlike so many in Philadelphia during this terrible outbreak.
This gives her the empathy to treat others with dignity and respect. When she tends to the sick, she becomes all too aware of the primitive state of medical knowledge. After seeing how the French doctors at Bush Hill treated their patients by bleeding them, Mattie is understandably reluctant to call a doctor to see William, Robert, and Nell. She knows from first-hand experience that bleeding doesn't make the fever go away; it simply makes patients weaker, thus making it much harder for them to fight the disease.

How is Miss Brill a Cheerful Optimist?

This story by Mansfield encourages confusion about Miss Brill because of its loose-jointed, rambling psychological discourse. However, careful consideration of the text illuminates the character of Miss Brill. Two questions the text helps us focus on are "Is her life pathetic?" and "Why does she want to shake the lady talking pessimistically about eye glasses?"
Is Her Life Pathetic?
Miss Brill leads an unornamented life but maintains a cheerful optimism nonetheless. She takes delight in the simple pleasures available to her. She doesn't sit on her red eiderdown in her small room bemoaning her misfortune. Instead she ventures out; she enjoys what is available to her, even the chill of the air; she finds companionship of sorts where it can be found. Miss Brill's optimistic and cheerful life cannot be called pathetic.
There are a few things Miss Brill does that raise her existence above the pathetic. Living in France, she teaches English and chats with her students, creating relationships even though they are defined by the exchange of services and payments. She takes care of and takes pleasure in her modest possessions which, though reflecting an earlier epoch, signify a social class above her present one, similar to Miss Bates in Austen's Emma. She takes herself to the park on Sundays during the concert season to listen to the band and to "people watch," a time honored recreation. Though she doesn't know them, she takes a lively and imaginative interest in the other people who frequent the park concerts. She treats herself to the fun of a Sunday honey-cake to eat with her afternoon tea.
[When there] was an almond in her slice. . . [s]he hurried [home]. . . and struck the match for the kettle in quite a dashing way.
The joy, delight and optimism with which she undertakes each of these simple actions betells a life that is above the pitiable, above miserable, and above the pathetic. Her little fur necklet, then fashionable and equivalent in price to an autumn coat, and her eiderdown, an elegant type of feather comforter plucked from the breast of the eider duck, bespeak of a wealthier, happier earlier existence, but continue to give her cheer and courage rather than bitter regret. Miss Brill does not feel her life to be pathetic at all.
Why does she want to shake the lady talking pessimistically about eye glasses?
Miss Brill is an optimist. Miss Brill knows how to undertake action to gain what will benefit her. More importantly, she knows when something will benefit her, like fresh air, band music, a Sunday tea-cake, a soft fur at her neck. The eye-glass woman in the park needed a good shake, in Miss Brill's opinion, because she was a complaining pessimist; she could not take action for her benefit; she could not even tell what would benefit her. Miss Brill wanted to shake some sense into her so that she would see life as an offering of possibility rather than as a slough of brokenness; she wants the woman to take action and be a grateful optimist.

What was Alexander Hamilton’s argument regarding the bonds that were issued under the Articles of Confederation?

Alexander Hamilton had a strong interest in restoring the national credit. He wanted to buy back federal debt, as his training in political theory and economics taught him that important political leverage owed to good credit. In 1790, the prominent New York City lawyer issued a tripartite proposal to Congress, called the "Report on Public Credit." His first proposal was for Congress to redeem $55 million in bond debt held by foreign and domestic investors. Next, he proposed a national bank, which would be jointly owned by private stockholders and the national government. Hamilton's aim here was to restore stability to the American economy. The third element in Hamilton's plan was to promote the expansion of American manufacturing. In service of this, he proposed revenue tariffs on products that would help pay the national debt.
The first of these measures concerns bonds. Hamilton proposed buying these bonds (issued under the Articles of Confederation) at face value. Because these bonds had long been dismissed with respect to their value (as the public had little faith in them), Hamilton's plan to buy them back would result in awarding speculators (i.e., those who had already bought up the debt of others at a significant loss). Thus, some disapproved of Hamilton's plan as concentrating a large amount of money among a small, wealthy class. Nevertheless, his plans were ambitious and comprehensive, as he also proposed buying up the war debts of the individual states. Ultimately, Hamilton's ambitions and the scope of his financial program was successful, even in the face of opposition.

What role does Faith play in "Young Goodman Brown"?

An often overlooked theme in "Young Goodman Brown" (and in "The Minister's Black Veil," "The Birthmark," and other works) is the victimization of the female characters. For example, through no fault of her own, Goodman Brown's wife, Faith, who serves as the symbol of pure and uncomplicated Christian faith in the story, suffers not only the loss of her husband when Brown returns from his vision in the forest but also the loss of all future happiness. Brown's inability to reconcile the internal conflict created by a repressive belief system and normal human desires utterly destroys Faith's happiness for the rest of her life. An analysis of the principal women in "The Minister's Black Veil" and "The Birthmark" will uncover a similar fate.

What types of details does Eliot use to recreate the market scene in Romola? Which details are specific to the novel’s time and place? Which details provide clues about daily life in fifteenth-century Florence?

Chapter 1 of George Eliot's novel Romola is set under the Loggia de’ Cerchi in a venerable Florentine neighborhood. At the chapter's inception, the character of Bratti Ferravecchi, a local shopkeeper, encounters a young man who has spent the night outdoors on the pavement. The young man is a stranger to Florence, and it is difficult for Ferravecchi to figure out his origins, as he wears an expensive jeweled ring but a shabby tunic and stockings. The situation of the characters—that of an experienced native and a stranger, respectively—is one of the devices used by Eliot to enhance her depiction of the market scene. As readers, we see the market through the dual perspective of someone who knows the scene well and someone who is unacquainted with it.
In addition to characterization and narrative perspective, Eliot uses other resources to create a richly historicized context leading up to and including the market scene. For example, he uses explicit historical references, such as that illustrating Dante's place of birth: "Qui Nacque Il Divino Poeta." He also uses dates—Eliot refers to the "9th of April 1492" and to the period of time in which the date falls ("the early decades of the fifteenth century, which was now near its end"). Direct references to dates are a rather obvious but nonetheless effective means of creating historical context.
Additionally, he uses allusions to contemporaneous events, such as the Frata Minori, a group that opposed the concessions allotted to Jews in the mid-fourtenth century:

Let me tell you the Frati Minori are trying to make Florence as hot as Spain for those dogs of hell that want to get all the profit of usury to themselves and leave none for Christians; and when you walk the Calimara with a piece of yellow cloth in your cap, it will spoil your beauty more than a sword-cut across that smooth olive cheek of yours.

He also employs references to then contemporary figures of social and literary importance, as in the following example:

the Medici and other powerful families of the popolani grassi, or commercial nobility, had their houses there, not perhaps finding their ears much offended by the loud roar of mingled dialects, or their eyes much shocked by the butchers’ stalls, which the old poet Antonio Pucci accounts a chief glory, or dignita, of a market that, in his esteem, eclipsed the markets of all the earth beside.

Eliot also uses narrative description: the following passage is typical of Eliot's exceptionally vivid, adjective- and adverb-laden prose style:

A vendor of old-clothes, in the act of hanging out a pair of long hose, had distractedly hung them round his neck in his eagerness to join the nearest group; an oratorical cheesemonger, with a piece of cheese in one hand and a knife in the other, was incautiously making notes of his emphatic pauses on that excellent specimen of marzolino; and elderly market-women, with their egg-baskets in a dangerously oblique position, contributed a wailing fugue of invocation.

Finally, Eliot uses dialogue within the market scene, as in the following example:

"And that reform is not far off, Niccolò," said the sallow, mild-faced man, seizing his opportunity like a missionary among the too light-minded heathens; "for a time of tribulation is coming, and the scourge is at hand . . . Florence will be purged."

Eliot combines all of these devices to create a scene that is at once engaging as a spectacle of local, pictorial interest and suggestive of historically-situated, dramatic narrative conflict.

What is a good song that relates to The Killer Angels?

The Killer Angels was actually made into a film called Gettysburg, starring Jeff Daniels, which released a number of soundtracks. The first album, Gettysburg, was the music from the original soundtrack by Randy Edelburg. The second one, More Songs and Music from Gettysburg, included tracks by Edelburg and songs dating back to the Civil War period, including the "Bonnie Blue Flag," "Dixie," "Amazing Grace," and "Yankee Doodle." John Durant and Sandy Mitchell play American folk tunes, such as "Do They Miss Me at Home," and the American Brass Band, under the direction of John Hannan, plays more patriotic songs, such as "Bonnie Blue Flag," a Confederate marching song.
The rest of the soundtrack can be viewed by clicking on the link below. The album can be listened to on Amazon.
https://www.discogs.com/Various-More-Songs-And-Music-From-Gettysburg/release/4133453

Two songs dating to the period are logical choices here.
One of the songs most commonly associated with the Civil War has two names, "Battle Cry of Freedom" and "Rally 'Round the Flag." George Frederick Root, a professional songwriter, wrote it during the war, in 1862. He was responding directly to President Abraham Lincoln’s call for Union troops to quash the armed uprisings in Virginia. Quickly gaining in popularity, it became the song that Union Army bands most frequently played.
Another likely choice is "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," generally credited to Julia Ward Howe. While she wrote most of the war-related lyrics, William Steffe had written the tune and different lyrics around 1856. It had become popular as a church-related song, often sung at black Methodist churches. By the onset of war, it was already well known.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Remembering-the-American-Civil-War-1763580/Fighting-the-war

Describe the funeral of the Rajah.

The Rajah's funeral is quite a grand affair, as we might expect of someone who was such an important person in life. Unfortunately, it's also a potentially tragic occasion for his widow, Princess Aouda, who's about to be chucked on her late husband's funeral pyre in accordance with traditional Hindu custom.
When Phileas Fogg hears about this, he's absolutely disgusted at such a barbaric practice and resolves to step into the breach and save the young princess from the flames. However, that's easier said that done; Aouda is under guard and Fogg's attempts to free her by digging a tunnel come to nothing.
Thankfully, Passepartout is on hand to save the day. He disguises himself as the Rajah and switches places with his body. Just before the funeral pyre's due to be set alight, Passepartout slowly rises up before the assembled crowd, who are immediately terrified at what they perceive as the Rajah's coming back to life. In the ensuing confusion, Fogg whisks Aouda away to safety and the epic journey can continue.

Who is Master Peter?

I believe you're referring to Pietro Monte, a famous master of arms who's referenced by Castiglione in The Book of the Courtier. Monte was very much the typical Renaissance man—a soldier, a scholar, a gentleman, a skilled swordsman—a man of the world who showed excellence in a number of fields. Monte was particularly renowned for his extensive knowledge of military arts and strategy, and his expertise was greatly valued not just by Castiglione, but by none other than Leonardo da Vinci himself. Monte was also a courtier, and is presented by Castiglione as one of the many "noble talents" that filled the house of Elisabetta Gonzaga, Duchess of Urbino. The fact that Castiglione mentions him indicates that he must have made quite an impression in his capacity as a courtier.

In A Dog's Purpose, what is Bailey's favorite command?

Looking through the book, I can't actually find any evidence to suggest that Bailey has a favorite command. He does, however, have a least favorite command, which is "Stay!"
We find this out in chapter 15 when there's a fire at the home of Bailey's owners. Mom and Dad are safely outside in the snow, but their son Ethan's still inside, his young life in imminent danger. They urge Ethan to jump from the window, which he manages to smash using a number of objects, including a "flip" that Bailey instinctively catches in his mouth as it flies through the air.
Thankfully, Ethan eventually manages to jump to safety. He's a little beaten up—and he's coughing with all the smoke in his lungs—but other than that he's ok. Bailey wants to go over and help Ethan, but Ethan's dad commands him to stay. However, Ethan tells Bailey that he's a good dog for catching the flip and this makes the dog feel so much better.

How did Atticus Finch, Mrs. Dubose, and Calpurnia lead hidden lives?

Atticus Finch's hidden life is revealed when the dog goes mad and Atticus must put him down: he was once known as "the deadest shot in all Maycomb County," which was hidden since Jem and Scout had never before seen him shoot a gun.
Mrs. Dubose uses her harsh demeanor to hide her ill health and a serious addiction to morphine, which is only revealed to Scout and Jem by Atticus following her death.
Calpurnia's hidden life is revealed when she takes Jem and Scout to church with her. Before this event, both children saw a well-educated woman who spoke well and who was set apart from other blacks in the community. That is, until they see the way she behaves at her own church, and the way she speaks, which is far less polished than the way they are accustomed to hearing, making clear the divide between people in Maycomb County based upon race.
These so-called 'hidden' lives are not exactly secret to most, and simply may seem that way because of the identity of the narrator, Scout, a young girl who is still learning the ways of the world. These certain aspects of these characters' lives are not hidden from the rest of the community. Atticus is aware of Mrs. Dubose's illness, Miss Maudie and other residents of the town are aware of Atticus's marksmanship, and the members of Calupurnia's church see nothing amiss with her behavior. While these may not be actively shared between people, they seem to only be hidden due to Jem and Scout's ages.

Atticus Finch hides his skill as a sharpshooter. It is not until a rabid dog appears on the streets of Maycomb that Scout and Jem learn how skillful their father is with a gun. He is able to shoot and kill the dog with one shot. This is especially a welcome revelation to Scout, who has been feeling her father, an older parent, has nothing to offer against the seemingly more active and competent parents of her schoolmates. When she asks him why he kept his shooting skill a secret, he explains to her that he doesn't want to flaunt a talent that is a gift from God.
Mrs. Dubose is hiding a morphine addiction. The children think she is simply a mean old woman who criticizes them and tells them they will amount to nothing. Jem finally gets so angry at Mrs. Dubose that he uses Scout's new baton to knock the heads off her camellias. In response, Atticus has them spend time with her. It is only after she dies that Scout and Jem learn she was battling an addiction. Atticus says to them of Mrs. Dubose:

I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.

When Scout and Jem go to church with Calpurnia, Scout learns that Calpurnia has a life apart from their household. She is embedded in the black community and even speaks in black dialect at church, rather than the standard English she uses in the Finch home. Scout thinks:

That Calpurnia led a modest double life never dawned on me. The idea that she had a separate existence outside our household was a novel one, to say nothing of her having command of two languages.

What were Pip's first impression of his parents and where had he derived these from?

Pip never knew his parents. He was raised by his sister and her husband, the blacksmith Joe Gargery. Because he did not know his parents and had never seen even a drawing of either of them, he derived his impressions of them from the lettering on their tombstones. Because of the shapes of the letters on his father's tombstone, Pip determined that his father must have been square, stout and dark, "with curly black hair." Likewise, the inscription below this, which noted that "Georgiana Wife of the Above" was also buried in the grave, gave Pip a particular impression of his mother. He determined that she must have been freckled and rather sickly. Pip does not give any particular reason for these conclusions he has drawn—on the contrary, he seems to accept that they are childish notions born of little factual substance. There were also five small gravestones marking the last resting places of five of Pip's brothers, from which Pip determined that "they had all been born on their backs with their hands in their trouser pockets." In this determination, Dickens captures the sometimes inexplicable whimsy of the childish mind: there is no real reason for Pip to have drawn these conclusions, and as an adult he cannot really explain them, but nevertheless, these were his first impressions of his deceased family.

Since both of Pip's parents died before he could remember them, he derived his first impressions of them from their tombstones. The shape of the lettering of his father's tombstone caused Pip to imagine him as a "square, stout, dark man" with black hair. Because of the way “Also Georgiana Wife of the Above,” was carved on the gravestone, Pip thought of his mother as having freckles and being sickly. This shows how a child's mind, in the absence of information, will use whatever is at hand to fashion its ideas.
We learn too that Pip's parents died before photographs were taken, so he was not able to see what they looked like that way. Apparently his older sister, with whom he lived along with her husband Joe, never described his parents to him, leaving him to wander the marshy graveyard and conjure what ideas he could.

In Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee what is the theme and a quote from the book?

Go Set a Watchman is a coming of age story. Its theme or meaning is that as we grow up and become adults, we are confronted with the need to move from hero-worship of our parents to a realistic acceptance of their flaws. Maturity means loving people not because they are perfect but despite their imperfections. Scout struggles because she is faced with a deep imperfection in her father: does she reject her father because of it or accept him?
The adult Scout, in her mid-twenties, comes home from her job in the publishing industry in New York City to Maycomb, Alabama. She stays with her elderly father, Atticus, and her aunt Alexandria.
All her life, Scout has hero-worshipped Atticus as the perfect man, the man of honor. She thinks while she is at home that, unlike some of her friends, she has never had any contemptuous label for her father, such as calling him her "old man."
However, she comes across extremely racist literature in the house and finds out that Atticus is part of a racist organization that opposes the NAACP and racial integration. When she finally confronts him about it, she discovers he is a thoroughgoing racist who believes blacks are inferior and are not capable yet of sharing power with whites. She is utterly horrified, not only that her father is a racist, but that Atticus, a man she always admired as having the utmost integrity, the person who defended a black man unfairly accused of rape, could hold such views. A quote that describes her anguish is:

But a man who has lived by truth—and you have believed in what he has lived—he does not leave you merely wary when he fails you, he leaves you with nothing. I think that is why I’m nearly out of my mind.

Scout has to revise her view of her father from a paragon of perfection to a flawed man who she nevertheless can love.

What did Japanese Americans experience during World War II on the homefront?

Japanese-Americans faced a number of serious challenges on the home front during World War II. In the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, they immediately became the object of intense suspicion. Many believed that Japanese-Americans had dual loyalties and were potential traitors who would gladly assist in a Japanese invasion of the United States.
In actual fact, the overwhelming majority of Japanese-Americans were fiercely loyal to the United States, but in the tense atmosphere after Pearl Harbor, prejudices came to the boil. This resulted not just in discrimination and racial abuse but in the wholesale round-up of Japanese-American families, who were subsequently interned in specially-allocated camps.
Conditions in these camps were notoriously bad; the inmates were treated as criminals even though they were entirely innocent, and untried, of any crime. The government justified the policy of internment on the grounds of national security and believed that by removing Japanese-Americans away from strategically important areas such as the West coast, they were making it more difficult for them to act as a potential army of fifth columnists on behalf of Imperial Japan.

In the novel The Art of Racing in the Rain, what is an opinion of the idea that the characters' (Denny and Enzo) response to difficult circumstances shapes who they become in the future?

The mantra of Enzo in the novel The Art of Racing in the Rain is “That which you manifest is before you.” In other words, we manifest our own destinies. The premise of the novel is that Enzo is preparing himself to follow the Mongolian belief that if chosen and well educated a dog will be reincarnated as a human. In his quest to gain what it takes, he comes to realize the hardships humanity faces. His owner, Denny, is in the throws of a custody battle with his in-laws after his wife passes away. This plot line highlight how overcoming conflict is essential to determining our future.
In Enzo's quest to educate himself on human life, he watches television about race cars. Denny is an avid racer and Enzo wants to understand what his owner knows. As such, Enzo learns from his owner that “your car goes where your eyes go.” This ultimately comes to be an inspirational phrase as Enzo and Denny come across obstacle after obstacle. According to Enzo’s ideology, we have free will in the decisions we make. We choose our own destiny.
In Denny’s quest, he is in a custody battle with his in-laws, Maxwell and Trish. After his wife, Eve, passed, his in-laws felt that he was incapable of taking care of their daughter, Zoë. Maxwell and Trish pursue a lawsuit that consumes Denny’s life. He is forced to sell his home and stop racing. Concurrently, Denny is having to handle a false accusation of sexual assault hurled at him by Annika. Denny gets charged with sexual assault and is in court for this too. The metaphor of race car driving continues throughout the plot as Denny employs his ability to remain calm under stress. He “keeps his eyes on the road” and “hands on the wheel.” His ability to have faith and stay strong is what brings the lawsuit to an end as Annika admits her lie. Ultimately, this leads to his in-laws dropping their custody case. The reader comes to learn that better times come when we don’t give up.
At the very end of the novel, Denny is offered a dream job in Italy with his daughter. Enzo knows he is too old to travel all the way to Italy and accepts his destiny. He passes and the last scene is of Denny and his daughter in their new home. A boy name Enzo passes by and says to Denny, “your car goes where your eyes go.” The reader is left to believe that this must have been Enzo reincarnated as a human.

"I had to prove you could be a new kind of black man," Ali told me. "I had to show that to the world." Given the time period and the country where he lived, what did Ali mean by this quote?

In this quotation Ali is referring to the early 1960's, when the civil rights movement in America was gathering momentum in the face of entrenched and institutionalized racism. In the southern states of America the Jim Crow laws still legalized racial segregation. In 1963, between 200,000 and 300,000 Americans marched on Washington to demand equal civil and economic rights for African-Americans. Amidst this unrest, in 1964, Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali, and in so doing began to forge a new identity as a black man in America. Cassius Clay was Muhammad Ali's "slave name," and so in changing his name he was symbolically casting off the shackles of slavery which bound him to that past. He was forging his own identity as an independent man, and the first step was to cast off his slave name and take instead what he called his "free name." This, in part, is what Ali meant when he said that he "had to prove you could be a new kind of black man."
Ali is also referring in this quotation to the representation of black men in boxing in the early 1960s. The three most prominent heavyweights at this time were Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, and Muhammad Ali. Floyd Patterson was gentlemanly, softly spoken and was cast by many as "the good negro." He was an advocate of the civil rights movement but at the same time didn't advocate too loudly. Sonny Liston, on the other hand, was cast as "the bad negro." Liston had a criminal record and also had ties with the mob. He was portrayed as animalistic, monstrous, and threatening. He was, in short, cast as a personification of every lazy, racist stereotype of black men. When Ali said that he wanted to be a "new kind of black man," he in part meant that he wanted to break free of the stereotypes that Patterson and Liston had been saddled with.
It's reasonable to argue that Ali was successful in forging for himself a new identity as "a new kind of black man." He was neither deferential like Patterson, nor monstrous like Liston. In 1968, he demonstrated his independence when he refused to be drafted during the Vietnam War, declaring that, "I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality." Although at the time Ali was branded by many as a traitor, his stance on the Vietnam War has since been vindicated, and is now widely perceived as brave and virtuous. He is now, almost three years after his death, regarded as one of the most unique, most loved and most respected figures in all of America's sporting history.

What fee does Sherlock Holmes ask from the King of Bohemia?

As we can imagine, the King of Bohemia is very pleased at Holmes's ace detective work. (Not to mention rather relieved at being spared what would've been an almighty scandal). He expresses his immense gratitude by giving Holmes an expensive emerald snake ring. However, Holmes gracefully declines this generous gift, preferring instead a photograph of Irene Adler. Irene's clearly had a profound effect on the world's most famous detective. Although he prevented her from causing a huge scandal, she nonetheless managed to give old Sherlock the slip, and that's not something that many people can say.
It's fair to say that Holmes has more than a sneaking admiration for Irene. For one thing, he's never come across a woman as smart as her. (Or maybe he just hasn't been looking hard enough). In any case, in the figure of Irene Adler Holmes has finally met his match. From now on, he will always describe her, with great reverence, as "the woman," as if she's the only woman in the whole wide world. Indeed, to Holmes, that's precisely what she is.

In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, what was Harry’s first lesson at Hogwarts and how did it go?

In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry has his first lesson in chapter eight of the book. While Harry has many other classes before his potions lesson, that is the first lesson that is told in scene rather than summary. Chapter eight is titled “The Potion’s Master” and covers when Harry meets Severus Snape, the professor who teaches Potions.
The first potions lesson is a rude awakening for Harry. Just a few chapters earlier in the book, he found out that he is a wizard and that Lord Voldemort had killed his parents. Then, he found out that he was famous and experienced the wonder and joy of the Sorting Feast. His experience at Hogwarts until that point has been pretty good—especially when compared to life with the Dursleys.
The lesson with Snape, however, shows Harry that not everyone in the wizarding world is excited to meet him. Snape, for reasons unknown to Harry, seems to hate his guts. Snape begins the lesson by monologuing about the power of potions. He tells the students that if they aren’t stupid, he can teach them much about the subtle art of potions. Then he launches into questions directed at Harry.
Harry doesn’t understand why Snape is asking him these questions, but Snape is pleased that he can’t answer a single question. He says,

“Clearly, fame isn’t everything.” (Chapter 8)

This is the first time that Snape lets on that he dislikes Harry because of his fame, but that is a typical attack Snape levels at Harry for the rest of the series. It is one of the ways that Snape can get under Harry’s skin and make him angry.
After three questions Harry snaps back at Snape and Snape takes a point from him for “the cheek,” or sarcasm. Then things get worse.
Professor Snape has the class work on brewing a potion. Malfoy is praised when his potion turns out great, while Neville gets potion spilled on him and starts to get boils. Snape blames Harry for not helping Neville when he made a mistake, and Harry is angry that Snape would blame the error on him. Overall, it does not go well.
The first potions lesson introduces the reader to Severus Snape and sets up one of the most frustrating antagonists in the series. Snape is mean and cruel to Harry and other students throughout the series, but Dumbledore continuously protects him because of his position in helping to thwart the rule of Lord Voldemort. The hatred Harry feels for Snape will slowly build over the series, and this initial encounter sets it up perfectly for the reader to understand the animosity between the characters.

In Look magazine's "How to spot a Communist" (1947) and the "Enemies from Within" speech (1950), how did the onset of the Cold War redefine what it meant to be an American? What role do these documents suggest loyal citizens play in waging war against communism?

The Red Scare was an irrational fear of communism that gripped America after World War II ended in 1945. In 1947, the Hollywood Ten—screenwriters, directors, and producers—spent time in prison and were blacklisted by the film studios. The Red Scare became so farcical that the Cincinnati Reds baseball team actually changed their name to the "Redlegs" for a five-year period in the fifties. The paranoia in the film and sports industries was not an aberration; fear of communism gripped all segments of the American populace during this period.
Leo Cherne's 1947 article in Look was little more than propaganda. This is surprising because Cherne was a humanitarian for most of his career. The fact that a well-regarded man wrote such a piece shows that even many prominent people succumbed to illogical fears.
Joseph McCarthy (1908–1957) was a quintessential scaremonger. On February 9, 1950, McCarthy made his famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. He said,

I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.

The speech got headlines all over the nation and made McCarthy a national figure. Actually, he never had a list: it was an egregious lie. He did not produce any evidence to support his charges. Many careers—like those of the Hollywood Ten—were ruined in a subsequent witch hunt. McCarthy even said the US Army was "soft" on communism. Finally, he lost influence and died relatively early from the effects of alcoholism.
Cherne and McCarthy encouraged Americans to denounce each other. Their fearmongering fanned the flames of distrust and suspicion. Their impact on the nation was pernicious.

How do the characters undergo change in the Harry Potter series along with the plot development?

It's worth noting, the Harry Potter series is a coming-of-age story, tracking the growth of its characters from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood. As the characters grow up, so do the books, becoming more serious in tone and much darker in theme. As the characters grow up, they find themselves dealing with the turbulence of adolescence, and by the end, the complexities of adulthood.
For one example, there is Harry Potter, himself, who begins as a neglected orphan. Even in those earliest books, he displays a great deal of raw bravery, such as when he opposes Quirrel in book one and fights the basilisk in book two. At the same time, however, he does mature emotionally as he learns more about his parents (and the complicated history between the Marauders and Snape), and experiences loss (particularly with the death of Sirius). All the while, there is still his connection with Voldemort, which plays a critical role throughout the series.
A second notable example would be Draco Malfoy, Harry's rival, who begins the series as a privileged and spoiled child, raised by a Death Eater family. Things change dramatically for him with Voldemort's resurrection, particularly in the events of the sixth book: his family loses favor and he is assigned an almost impossible task while the full weight of Voldemort's psychopathic displeasure weighs down on him.
The examples are innumerable, and practically all of the central characters receive character arcs that run throughout all seven books. There's not enough room to do justice to the full complexity of that picture which Rowling weaves in the bounds of a format like this.

In Sizwe Bansi Is Dead, what does the term "ciskeians" mean?

In Athol Fugard's play Sizwe Bansi Is Dead, a man who says his name is Robert Zwelinzima but who is actually Sizwe Bansi ("sizwe" means "the nation" or "the county," and "bansi" means "large" or "broad"), comes into the photography shop of a man named Styles. Zwelinzima says the he wants to have a photograph taken of himself so he can send it to his wife, who lives in a territory of South Africa called Ciskei.
Ciskei was a bantustan ("bantu" meaning "people" in the Bantu language, and "-stan" meaning "land"), a supposedly independent and self-governing territory set aside for black inhabitants of South Africa. Ten bantustans were created in South Africa under apartheid as a means of separating black people from the white South African population.
"Ciskeians" refers to the residents of Ciskei and to residents of bantustans in general. "Ciskeian" is a derogatory term for the so-called "independence" of black people living in South African bantustans.

BUNTU: [To the audience]. Back there in the Shebeen a Member of the Advisory Board hears that he comes from King William’s Town. He goes up to Sizwe, "Tell me, Mr Bansi, what do you think of Ciskeian Independence?"
MAN: [interrupting]. Ja, I remember that one. Bloody Mister Member of the Advisory Board. Talking about Ciskeian Independence! [To the audience.] I must tell you, friend . . . when a car passes or the wind blows up the dust, Ciskeian Independence makes you cough. I’m telling you, friend . . . put a man in a pondok [a crude, barely livable hut or shanty] and call that independence?

Discuss the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States includes several provisions that remain highly relevant today. The text of this amendment is as follows:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The first part of this amendment—“no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of a Grand Jury”—ensures that the punishment for a finding by a jury of guilty would include lengthy periods of incarceration or life in prison or, in states that allow the execution of convicted prisoners, death, arise from the decision of what is known as a Grand Jury, a collection of citizens numbering as many as 23 who vet the evidence submitted by a prosecutor, including witness testimonies, and decide whether a jury trial should go forward. The significance of the requirement for a Grand Jury indictment for a prosecution to proceed is that a body of individuals representative of the public at large rather than the office of the prosecutor makes the decision whether to indict. Prosecutorial discretion, then, is limited as to whether to charge an individual or individuals for a crime.
The second element of the Fifth Amendment involves what is called “double jeopardy.” This means that an individual acquitted of a crime cannot be tried a second time for the same crime. Once acquitted, the defendant is free from further criminal proceedings. While the concept of “double jeopardy” seems straightforward, however, criminal charges can be adapted to changed circumstances so that the acquitted defendant can, in fact, be tried a second time. Additionally, the “double jeopardy” provision applies only to criminal charges. Civil charges can still be brought against the individual in question.
The third element of the Fifth Amendment is the most well-known: protection against self-incrimination. Defendants in criminal trials cannot be compelled to testify in their trials. Individuals subpoenaed to appear before congressional investigating committees cannot be compelled to make statements that admit criminal conduct. In such situations, witnesses or subjects of investigations routinely answer questions on the basis of this amendment by stating, “I refuse to answer the question because the answer could incriminate me.” “Taking the Fifth,” then, protects the targets of investigations, but it certainly leaves the pall of criminality on those who use it.
The fourth element of the Fifth Amendment—protection against punishment by the government unless or until the individual(s) in question has been officially entered into the legal process with the protections that entails—does exactly what it says: no citizen of the United States can be imprisoned or suffer seizure of assets without a finding of guilty by a jury (or, if a jury trial is waived by the defendant, by the presiding judge). This part of the amendment is the most nebulous, giving law enforcement the authority to do precisely what the amendment seems to prohibit: the seizure of assets. Civil asset forfeitures represent a huge grey area in this part of the law.
Finally, the Fifth Amendment provides protections—protections of questionable value in many instances—against seizure of property without compensation. Under “eminent domain,” governments can in fact seize property for the public good but are required to compensate those whose property is seized. Fair determinations of value can be extremely controversial, especially when lives are seriously disrupted, as when government seizes property in residential neighborhoods so that roadways can be expanded.

What are the political and social influences of Buddhism in Mauryan/Guptan India?

It was on account of the adoption of the Buddhist faith (dhamma) by Mauryan king Ashoka that Buddhism became the guiding principle of his political administration and policy. Through Ashoka's edicts, which were his means of communication in his empire, carved and chiselled on rocks and columns, social messages were also spread, calling for things like harmony between different faiths in society and respect for one another as social beings. Thus, politically Buddhism had the sanction of the state for the first time with the Mauryan empire. Embassies were sent propagating Buddha's message to other countries, most notably Sri Lanka.
The Guptas are not considered direct sponsors of Buddhism, yet being promoters of art and architecture, Buddhism saw a flouring of many different architectural style like the Mathura school of art. The Chinese scholar Fa-Hsein visited India during the Gupta period and noted that Buddhism was still a strong social presence, especially in eastern India. Samudragupta is also reputed to have had famous Buddhist scholars like Vasubandhu in his court.
Thus, Buddhism was a strong factor in the social and political landscape certainly with the Mauryans but also with the Guptas.
Source: Lamotte, E. History of Indian Buddhism (1988).

The Mauryan dynasty is most famous for the ruler Ashoka, who adopted Buddhism later in life, cultivating the religion’s spread throughout India. Ashoka was a patron of Buddhist artworks; throughout his empire, he erected pillars engraved with his political proclamations as well as Buddhist writings of compassion. These pillars suggest that Ashoka worked to spread his beliefs throughout the empire. In this way, religion and policy likely became intertwined among people living under Mauryan rule. Based on the pillars and their edicts, historians believe Ashoka to be a tolerant ruler, and they credit him with establishing Buddhism in India.
Though Gupta rulers were traditionally Hindu, some of them practiced Buddhism, a possible sign of their wanting to associate themselves with the splendor of the Maurya empire. In fact, artists in the Gupta period were the ones to create the canonical image of the Buddha with his monastic, clinging robe and softly sculpted body. That the government sponsored so many Buddhism-related artworks (which were, like Ashoka's pillars, located in accessible places) suggests that, as in the Mauryan dynasty, religion spread its influences into social and political life during the Gupta empire as well. Historians now view both dynasties as golden ages within Indian history, so perhaps the political embracing of Buddhism did bring temporary peace to the region.

Source: Kleiner, F. S. (2013). Gardner's art through the ages: A global history. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

How does Pat Mora use imagery to make a point about the woman's life in her poem "Petals"?

The primary images that Pat Mora creates are of flowers and the many colors in them. However, some of the flowers are natural and some of them are human-made. The poet uses size along with color to distinguish the crepe-paper flowers, which are large and bright, from the woman herself, who is small with gray hair and wears white. She also contrasts the paper blooms in the market from the “soft blooms” that were the wildflowers in the rocky hills, those that inspired the flower-maker. Mora also uses the sense of touch in her contrasting images. In the present, the flower-maker’s hands are calloused, but in her remembered youth, her fingers were smooth. Overall, visibility plays a strong role. The paper flowers attract the tourist buyers’ attention but the woman herself does not. The “tourist . . . see her flowers . . . but not her because she is hidden, like her memories of the wildflowers."
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybmOv6LgG8gC&dq=pat+mora+petals&source=gbs_navlinks_s

What is the poet unsure about as he watches the motionless butterfly in "To a Butterfly"? Why?

Wordsworth's speaker in "To a Butterfly" is unsure whether the butterfly he has been gazing at for half an hour is asleep or feeding. His confusion arises because the butterfly is so very still. The speaker is so impressed by the butterfly's stillness that he reinforces his sense of awe by repeating twice how "motionless" the butterfly is:

How motionless! . . . More motionless!

He also does this by using exclamation points to add emphasis and to convey emotion.
Wordsworth has his speaker directly address the butterfly while also engaging in some classically Wordsworthian moves. Wordsworth was fascinated by the way nature, because it is unchanging, becomes a backdrop against which humans can measure personal growth. Although he points to the butterfly's stillness, the insect's stillness is only made possible because the mature Wordsworth is capable of sitting still and observing it for a long period. He contrasts this to his boyish ways of chasing butterflies, but he also appreciates the presence of the butterfly in his garden for bringing back happy memories of bygone childhood days.

The speaker has been watching the little butterfly for a full half-hour as it sits upon the yellow flower. And in all that time, it hasn't moved. The speaker doesn't know why. Maybe the butterfly's fast asleep, or perhaps it's feeding on the flower. It's impossible to tell. But the speaker's sure about one thing: the butterfly's resting its little wings, as it often does among his sister's flowers.
When a butterfly feeds on a flower's nectar, it can keep perfectly still, giving the impression to the untrained eye that it's fast asleep. This helps to explain why the speaker's so unsure as to what the butterfly's actually doing. But whatever the case, there's little doubt that the speaker derives great pleasure from watching the delightful little creature as it rests its weary wings.
https://www.bartleby.com/145/ww198.html

Which countries could have tried to colonize America but didn't?

The answer to this question depends on what you mean by "America". You could be referring to North America, North and South America, or the United States of America. In the 15th century, England was the most prominent colonizer of what is now the United States. France had begun colonizing modern-day Canada, while Spain was the colonizing force in modern-day Mexico. The reason for using the language of "modern-day" is that this continent had many different names by different Indigenous tribes, and this land is only now known as the United States, Canada, and Mexico after brutal and genocidal colonization.
Spain could have certainly also been involved in colonizing the United States, and did have, for a period of time, colonial control over the land now known as Florida. However, Spain and Portugal had their sights on controlling Mexico, Central America, and South America as well as regions of Africa. Italy did certainly have the navigational power in the 15th century to travel to the Americas, as did the Dutch. The Dutch were much more involved in colonization of the East Indies, while Italy was much more involved in later colonization of regions of Africa. Germany and Belgium also became colonial powers later on during the 19th century in Africa, but they may have been able to be involved in the colonization of the Americas.

In the poem "God's Grandeur," how does Gerard Manley Hopkins express the sacramental principle of God’s presence in nature?

The sacramental principle refers to the idea that God's presence is everywhere and that God's grace is available to people through everyday interactions with others and with nature.
In his poem "God's Grandeur," Gerard Manley Hopkins writes that people destroy what comes from God through their activities. They tread on the earth and destroy it with their work. They even work the earth down to the soil. God's majesty is expressed in the way nature rebounds from this use and becomes fresh again. There is a perennial, God-given freshness that returns to the earth after humans tread upon it. Nature renews itself, and God reaches out to people through this renewal. Every morning, light arrives in the east through God's grace. In this way, the presence of God is expressed every day and is available to us.

Catholicism dictates that seven sacraments (visible signs of the grace of God) can be received by Catholics. These sacraments are baptism, Eucharist, confirmation, reconciliation, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony. These sacraments were dictated by Jesus and are based on various principles which prove their necessity in the world. Theologians believe that there were no sacraments until Adam sinned.
Before specific sacraments were dictated in the Bible, sacraments existed under the law of nature. St. Thomas said that people were guided internally by worshipping God and naturally exhibited acts of worship, which eventually led to the written laws of the sacraments.
Gerard Manley Hopkins's poem "God's Grandeur" discusses the beauty of God's existence and the amazing fact that men have never succeeded in ruining his grace despite their best efforts. Hopkins begins by establishing that God has imbibed himself into the world such that it sparks with his beauty and love. Hopkins laments the fact that men do not appreciate God's strength and grace and instead do whatever they can to ruin the world.
Hopkins's poem shows that the sacraments' principle that God exists in nature is proven through the very fact that centuries of destruction, hate, and selfish behavior have not ruined the world or even men:

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44395/gods-grandeur

How was Troy destroyed?

In ancient Greek mythology a long and bitter war took place between the Greeks—or Achaeans as they were also known—and the Trojans. It all started because Helen, the wife of King Menelaus of Sparta, fell in love with the Trojan prince Paris, and ran off with him. She had been bewitched by the goddess of love, Aphrodite, who had been chosen by Paris as the most beautiful of all the goddesses. Menealaus felt that his honor as king had been violated by his wife's desertion, and he and the other Greek kings set off to Troy with their armies to avenge the insult and get Helen back.
Largely because of constant interference by the gods, the Trojan War dragged on for ten long years, during which time the Achaeans lay siege to the city of Troy. The deadlock was finally broken when the Achaeans hit upon the brilliant idea of offering the Trojans the gift of a wooden horse in which a number of their troops were hiding. The Trojans foolishly accepted the gift, and once the Greeks were inside the city walls they set about slaughtering everyone in sight, sparing only a handful of women and children, who were subsequently sold into slavery.

What was Diamonds intent when he wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel?

In his Prologue to Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond clearly states his reasons for writing the book. The most important element of his motivation was to respond to a question asked to him by Yali, a native politician. Yali asked:

"Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"

Diamond became intrigued by the reasons for the differences Yali noted in material wealth and technological development between the indigenous cultures of New Guinea and the colonizing Europeans. From his personal experience, he knew that natives of Papua New Guinea and other "undeveloped" nations were just as smart and hardworking as Europeans and he realized that older racist claims were untenable and yet the fact of differences in wealth and technology still needed explanation.
Guns, Germs, and Steel reflects Jared Diamond's attempt to discover the original cause of this disparity, which he links to accidents of geography, including the presence of domesticable plants and animals in different regions and how this led to certain areas having earlier adoption of agriculture.

How does Augustine (in Confessions) establish his authority as a writer? What does he do to compel us to read and listen to him?

Aurelius Augustinus, commonly known as St. Augustine, was a fourth-century teacher of rhetoric, philosopher, and Christian theologian of Roman African decent. He was born and died in Algeria but spent the majority of his life in the Roman Empire. As his wise writings were thought to be the second most important writings after the Bible, Augustine was ordained and consecrated bishop of the city of Hippo and is considered one of the most influential Christian theologians, writers, and Church Fathers in world history.
Augustine wrote several books and texts which greatly influenced almost the entirety of Western philosophy and theology, metaphysics, ethics, and even politics. However, his most important writings of all time are his Confessions, the Christian book The City of God, and the theological text Of Christian Doctrine.
The Confessions of Saint Augustine (original title: Confessions in Thirteen Books) is essentially Augustine’s autobiography, and it is even considered the first autobiography ever written in Western philosophy and literature. The text is compiled of thirteen books written in Latin, in which Augustine writes about his wild and sacrilegious past and his later conversion to Christianity.
Unlike most autobiographies, The Confessions of Saint Augustine doesn’t follow a specific narrative; instead, the book seems to be written in the form of a chronological, retrospective memoir in which Augustine analyzes his life as he remembers it. Because of his masterful storytelling, his aphoristic language, and his wise and memorable quotes, Augustine managed to establish his authority as a notable and important author of Christian theology and Western philosophy.
Augustine may have influenced a lot of writers and philosophers; however, I must mention that he himself was influenced by many Ancient Greek theorists and philosophers, and the majority of his work is based on Plato’s philosophy. In fact, his most important writings, in which he discusses various subjects such as time, free will, the existence of God, faith, morality, and human nature, are infused with heavy Neoplatonism.
Augustine is among the most important Christian writers who believed that God does not have a shape, form, or body but rather exists as an infinite, ethereal, and incorporeal entity that influences everything and everyone in the universe. One of the main reasons why Augustine presents such attractive reading material is the fact that he was bold enough to combine analytical thinking and logic with religion and faith. Thus, in addition to being a prominent Christian figure, St. Augustine greatly contributed to the agnostic philosophy and community.
https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/augustinconf.pdf

How does Jo March change throughout the story?

Jo changes from an exuberant and sometimes hot-tempered teenager in the opening part of the novel to someone who becomes more somber due to changes in her family. As the first part of the novel ends, she exhibits personal growth, learning to better control her temper.
As Meg marries John and moves out, and Beth grows sicker and eventually dies, Jo suffers from depression over these losses and the subsequent loneliness she experiences. She is revived as she moves away from home and meets and falls in love with Professor Bhaer. He influences her to admit her shame at the kind of cloak and dagger thriller literature she has been earning money writing. He encourages her to use her gifts in a better way and offers her comfort and security.
As the novel ends, Jo has grown from a hot-tempered, passionate tomboy to a somewhat more feminine young woman who has matured through suffering to be able to accept the love of gentle older man.

I have two possible thesis statements for a paper on To Kill A Mockingbird: 1. "Encounters with injustice shape beliefs of morality by exposing its true wickedness." 2. "Justice is behavior or treatment that is morally right or fair. Encounters with injustice shape beliefs of morality by exposing its true wickedness. When we see something happen that we know and can feel just isn't right, we have to do something about it." Which one is the better thesis, and how can I improve it?

When it comes to a thesis statement, it's usually best to keep it to one or two sentences. Also, it should ideally be clear and precise. The second thesis you have is too wordy, but the first is too vague.
I would start by building upon your first thesis, specifically by giving it a greater connection to the novel you are discussing. Since the injustice you are talking about is being witnessed by the young Scout and Jem, I would include them in your thesis statement. This gives your thesis more clarity (how the themes of injustice and formation of morality present themselves in To Kill a Mockingbird) and makes it stronger so that you don't have to use more than one sentence to express it.
Your revised thesis might look something like this:

By showing the injustice done to Tom Robinson through the eyes of the young Scout and Jem, the novel shows how encounters with injustice can shape a young person's sense of morality.

Remember, a thesis does not need to lay out every argument—that's what your body paragraphs are for—but it does need to make it as clear as possible what you plan on saying.
Just make sure your final thesis accomplishes two things:
Clarity
Brevity

There is a significant tonal shift in "Cathedral" as the narrator and Robert begin to draw together. How would you describe the tone of Carver’s writing here? How does the change in tone affect the way we see the relationship between these characters?

Tone is defined as the author’s attitude toward the subject of the text. If the subject is the narrator’s attitude toward Robert, his wife’s blind friend, then one needs to describe it in two separate terms.
For the majority of the story, the narrator is annoyed at the idea of Robert, mostly because his wife has confided in the blind man for years. When he meets Robert, he observes with judgment several details of the blind man’s appearance that seem out of sync with the stereotypical idea the narrator had in mind prior to their meeting. These include Robert’s beard and the movement of his eyes. This tone suggests that the narrator didn’t really view Robert as a person equal to himself.
Once Robert and the narrator talk after the wife falls asleep, this tone shifts. The narrator feels a sense of responsibility for explaining what is happening on television, saying he felt like he was doing a bad job. He also eagerly answers Robert’s questions and even agrees to the drawing exercise. While drawing, the narrator feels powerful and happy. Overall, the tone could be described as open.
This tone shift affects the way readers interpret the relationship between the narrator and Robert. When the narrator feels disdain or irritation toward Robert in the beginning, the reader infers that the narrator may be jealous of the relationship Robert has with the narrator’s wife. By the end of the story, however, the narrator’s changed attitude indicates a feeling of trust and friendship, suggesting to the reader that perhaps the narrator just didn’t understand why his wife liked Robert so much.

According to Said, what does "double perspective" mean?

Edward Said mentions "double perspective" in the essay "Intellectual Exile: Expatriates and Marginals," included in his collection Representations of the Intellectual. Originally delivered in 1993 as six Reith lectures on the BBC, Representations was published in book form in 1994.
The exact sentence reads:

Because the exile sees things both in term of what has been left behind and what is actual here and now, there is a double perspective that never sees things in isolation. (60)

Said frames this within a discussion of the exile's way of life, comparing them to Marco Polo, someone with a sense of the marvelous, who is "a traveler, a provisional guest." The intellectual always sees each thing they encounter in the new country in relation to something they left behind. This juxtaposition usefully sheds new light on both things; here, Said gives the example of human rights when compared to any kind of religious fundamentalism.
A related consideration of this double perspective is that it impels the intellectual to reconsider what they might once have seen as “a simple issue of judgment against an approved enemy.” By putting that judgment into a wider picture, the intellectual may now be required to take a secular position in regarding “all theocratic tendencies.”

In the second stanza, the speaker is striding along at a normal pace. What does this indicate in "The Slave's Dream"?

In "The Slave's Dream," the enslaved person is dreaming of a life of freedom and joy back in his homeland. In the second stanza, the man dreams of striding along the plains of his homeland beneath the beautiful palm trees as the Niger River flows freely. The tone of the dream and of the "striding along" is one of peace and confidence. The enslaved man does not move with a fearful or angry gait, but with a confidence and ease of a free human being, who is able to move as he pleases. The tone of the dream is certainly in tragic juxtaposition with the life the man is forced to live under the brutal realities of slavery, in which he is unable to stride along happily.

What is the setting of Little Fires Everywhere?

Little Fires Everywhere takes place in the idealized town of Shaker Heights, a suburb outside of Cleveland, Ohio. It is a sort of utopia where the residents have chosen to seclude themselves from the perils of the outside world—Mrs. Richardson even says at one point that she "doesn't see color"—and the citizens prefer it to be this way.
However, when Mia and Pearl arrive, they evoke questions of what family, race, and stigma mean. The house which our main characters spend the most time in, the Richardson house, best encapsulates the emotions and feelings of the town on a small scale. While not as frequently visited in the book, the Warren house serves as a mirror image to the Richardson house, creating an intriguing juxtaposition to the town's ideals and values.

In the simplest sense, the setting of Celeste Ng’s novel is a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio called Shaker Heights.
On the outside, Shaker Heights is the picturesque epitome of American suburbia, with sprawling streets, friendly nieghbors, and upscale (albeit uniform) houses. The attraction of this glossy exterior is what draws working-class Pearl into the world of house parties and affluence.
However, there is more than meets the eye in Shaker Heights. The people in Shaker Heights are seemingly unaware of the privileges from which they benefit, including their whiteness and wealth. Despite the picture of perfection that Shaker Heights wants to project, it is instead a microcosm for the inequities of small town America—and the devastating effects that ignoring said differences can have.
Beyond this, the Richardson house is the primary location in which much of the novel’s action takes place. It’s an elegant, large home whose fragile serenity is disrupted after Elana Richardson invites Mia Warren to work as a housekeeper for the family.

Are any of the characters stereotypes?

"Mammon and the Archer" is an unusual type of story for O. Henry because he is dealing with the old rich and nouveau riche of the late nineteenth century. His main character, the protagonist Anthony Rockwall, is a stereotype common to fiction of the times. Rockwall is a self-made millionaire who admits:
"I'm nearly as impolite and disagreeable and ill-mannered as these two old Knickerbocker gents on each side of me that can't sleep of nights because I bought it between 'em."
The English must have had this stereotyped impression of wealthy Americans. Arthur Conan Doyle presents several such crude, aggressive characters in his Sherlock Holmes stories.
Rockwall can't get into high society, but he wants his son to do so. Why? His son will be a symbol of his own success, just like his house and his yacht. Rockwall actually hates the old rich. He refers to his snobbish neighbor, the aristocratic clubman, G. Van Schuylight Suffolk-Jones, another stereotype, as a "Stuck up old statuette of doing nothing!"
Young Richard Rockwall is another stereotype character, a boy who has been deliberately spoiled in order to make him into a gentleman, i.e., a person who never has to work with his hands. He has been sent to one of those all-male colleges where most of the time is spent drinking and playing rather than on studies. He is encouraged to be a fop and a wastrel. He doesn't have to worry about earning a living because his father will leave him millions and may get him a phony job as a stock broker or member of a board of directors just for the sake of appearances. A real gentleman should not really have to work. Contemporary fiction was full of such characters who had some vague connection with some firm in the city but never seemed to have to go there.
Naturally Richard has fallen in love with a society girl who is also a stereotype. She is always referred to as Miss Lantry, as if she is too superior to be called by her first name by such persons as Anthony Rockwall, Richard Rockwall, or Aunt Ellen. Miss Lantry is available as a bride to any young man who can offer her the lavish lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. She will be sold to the highest bidder, like so many of the upper-class girls of her time.
O. Henry seems to be illustrating the thesis that there is no such thing as real love, at least at the highest social level. His reference to "a fat boy without any clothes on shooting arrows around with a bow" is tantamount to saying that love is nothing but an illusion, a myth. This is in direct contradiction to the theme of his story "The Gift of the Magi," to name only one example.
Rockwall is proud of his son but doesn't appear to love him, and Richard doesn't appear to love his father either. Richard is mainly attracted to Miss Lantry because she symbolizes the upper class. He tells his father:
"For one thing...[money] won't buy one into the exclusive circles of society."
But his father knows better and proves him wrong by spending some of his money to create a traffic jam that will give his son the time to propose marriage to Miss Lantry and for her to accept. The marriage will probably endure as well as one based on "love" because both these spoiled young people will be able to live in luxury and move in the best circles for the rest of their lives.

What are some symbolism objects in the book? Explain them.

Bradbury uses many symbols in his novel. A few are as follows:
Fire: Fire is a symbol that works in two ways. In Montag's society it is used as an agent of destruction and a way to get rid of problems. As Beatty says: "A problem gets too burdensome, then into the furnace with it ..." This use of fire as a way to destroy problems is negative, but Montag buys into it at the beginning of the novel, thinking it "was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed." Later, at the very end of the novel, Montag has a changed view of fire. As he stands with other men around a fire, he realizes that fire can warm people and give life. It symbolizes both death and life.
The phoenix and the salamander: The phoenix and salamander are both creatures in mythology which were thought to resist flames. The phoenix would rise again from the flames. Both are symbols the fireman use to represent the way they cannot be destroyed by fire. The phoenix, however, also comes to symbolize the new society the book readers will build at the end of the novel. Granger says:

There was a silly damn bird called a Phoenix back before Christ: every few hundred years he built a pyre and burned himself up. He must have been first cousin to Man. But every time he burnt himself up he sprang out of the ashes, he got himself born all over again. And it looks like we're doing the same thing, over and over ...

The Mechanical Hound: This metal robotic device is fashioned to look like a dog. It can paralyze or kill a person with a hypodermic needle. It is the symbol of evil in the book, of cold, cruel technology acting without humane regard for life.
Hands: Hands are often mentioned and symbolize action. Montag sometimes, especially as he first starts to take books, looks at his hands as operating separately from his will or thoughts.
Books: Books, of course, are concrete objects in the novel, but they also symbolize thoughts and ideas. The novel makes the point that it is not the books themselves, but the knowledge they contain, that matters.
To find more symbols, look for concrete objects that are named repeatedly: that usually points to a symbol.

In Riders to the Sea, why does Maurya try to dissuade Bartley from taking the rope? Why do the girls send Maurya after Bartley?

Maurya tells Bartley that once Michael's body has been located, she'll need the rope to help lower his coffin into the ground. That's not the real reason, however; Maurya, ever mindful of the weather conditions, has noticed that the wind is rising from the south and west, potentially endangering Bartley's imminent journey.
But Bartley is insistent on going and on taking the rope with him. He says that he needs the rope as a halter for the red mare he's planning to take with him to the horse fair along with Michael's gray horse. There won't be another fair for a fortnight, so Bartley has no time to waste; he and the horses must head off as soon as possible.
Bartley leaves for the boat in such haste that he leaves behind his bread. Cathleen urges Maurya to go out and give it to him. Not only will he then have something to eat for the journey, but Maurya will be able to wish him godspeed, as she pointedly failed to do when he left the cottage. Cathleen believes that Maurya's wishing Bartley godspeed will break the curse of her not having said it the first time.

How did religion play a role in the novel? How did the characters in the novel resist oppression?

In The Parable of the Talents, the protagonist, Laura, forms a religious commune called Acorn based on her religious movement, "Earthseed." Laura's followers believe that they are meant to spread humanity across the universe through space travel. The Acorn community is attacked by a fundamentalist group called The Crusaders, who believe it is their duty to destroy any non-Christian groups in the country through torture and labor camps.
In terms of how the characters resist oppression, Lauren and others in her Acorn group revolt against the Crusader who have taken over their commune. After the Crusaders followers enslave, rape, and even murder homosexual Acorn members, the Acorn community retaliates by killing some of the Crusaders. To avoid punishment for murder, many of them go into hiding.

What does the black cross on Dr. Rank's cards represent?

The black cross on Dr. Rank's cards is what he told Nora Helmer his signal would be when he was sure that he was near death. Therefore, it represents his impending decease. He has tuberculosis of the spine, something that he evidently inherited or contracted as a result of his father's indulgent and licentious behavior. He tells Nora that, when he is sure that he is at death's door, he will bar his own door to Torvald, Nora's husband and his own friend, because he knows how much Torvald dislikes things that are ugly. He says to Nora that he will "send [her] [his] card with a black cross on it," and in this way she will know that he has reached the end of his life. He deposits two such cards in the Helmers' mailbox after he departs from their home on the night of the Stenborgs' fancy dress party (where Nora dances the tarantella, at Torvald's request).

Who is little Davy?

The people of this little town cannot keep killing some citizen every year without adding to the population. Otherwise they would eventually stone themselves out of existence. That explains the importance of the character called little Davy. He is the newest addition to the town and represents all the children who are being born to make up for all the people who are getting stoned to death. Little Davy is also significant because the author shows how he is being conditioned to believe in and participate in the annual death-lottery. He is too young to understand what is going on. Nevertheless, he is a full-fledged participant. He can get stoned to death himself if he draws the wrong slip of paper, and he will be shown how to take part in the stoning.
Mr, Graves took the hand of the little boy, who came willingly with him up to the box. "Take a paper out of the box, Davy," Mr. Summers said. Davy put his hand into the box and laughed. "Take just one paper," Mr. Summers said. "Harry, you hold it for him." Mr. Graves took the child's hand and removed the folded paper from the tight fist and held it while little Dave stood next to him and looked up at him wonderingly.
(It is a nice touch to have Davy's hand held by a man named Mr. Graves.)
Tessie Hutchinson is little Davy's mother. It is understandable that she should be making such a loud protest about the way the drawing has been conducted. She is in a lose-lose situation. If she doesn't get stoned to death herself, she will have to participate in stoning her husband, her son Bill Jr., her daughter Nancy, or little Dave. This part of the lottery seems the most insidiously sadistic. Once a family has been selected, then they have to choose one of their own members as that year's victim. It turns out to be Tessie herself who draws the slip with the black mark. Little Davy's indoctrination is complete when he joins his father, his older brother, his older sister, and all their friends and neighbors in stoning his mother to death.
The children had stones already, and someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles.
Davy is too young to understand what is happening. He must think it is all a game. But he will learn more each year--if he survives. In the meantime other children will be born to replace the townspeople who are stoned to death. Nancy Hutchinson is twelve years old, and she has some girlfriends about the same age. It won't be too long before they will be married and having children--if they survive the annual lotteries.

In the story Millionaires, what is meant by the last statement of the story: "We're rich."?

This is purely a subjective opinion, but I would argue that it means that Harry and Vince have finally realized the true value of their friendship. Both men have been emotionally hurt by venturing out into the real world and getting involved in messy relationships. Harry was hurt after Kim dumped him, and Vince hurt Harry by having an affair with Kim. In turn, Vince experienced hurt after the break-up of his brief marriage to Kim. Things were so much less complicated when they were roommates in their ice cold apartment in Pittsburgh, sharing their strange hobby of making toys out of bits of old bric-a-brac. Harry's latest toy, a treasure chest full of fake gold coins, is a reminder of a simpler, happier time in both men's lives. They had such great riches in their lives, and now they've rediscovered them.

Choose a passage from the Old Man and the Sea that uses imagery. Explain how the images support the understanding of theme or character in the story.

One central passage in The Old Man in the Sea takes place beginning on page 113, as Santiago reflects on the nature of sin. When he finally kills the marlin that he tracked and wrestled with for three days, Santiago perceives that the "breeze [is] fresh now," which can be read as an instance of pathetic fallacy, marking his hope for his future and self-preservation. But soon, he is taken up by an inner conflict in which his competing desires to survive and to protect the sanctity of life are called into question.
Having called the marlin a "brother" and learned to admire its intrinsic dignity as it fought for its life, Santiago draws the early conclusion that it does not deserve to be eaten. In the fight's aftermath, he fashions a more deterministic argument, concluding that organisms are destined to play out their roles, and he, therefore, has just as much right to eat the fish as the fish did to attempt to save itself. Conceiving of the answer to this moral quandary as commensurate with understanding the true nature of sin, Santiago concedes that he understands little about sin at all.
Santhiago begins to eat the fish, and Hemingway invokes rich imagery of its flesh, which is "firm and juicy... but not red," suggesting an intrinsic difference from the flesh of men. This image stands in for Santhiago's perceived difference in the two creatures' moral universes. Yet, he notes that there is "no way to keep its scent out of the water," implying a cost to his moral judgment: killing the fish incurs the cost of attracting more insidious predators. The end of the passage depicts the breeze as still uncannily steady, with no sign of sails or the "hull nor the smoke of any ship." The inertness of his geographical space suggests that in the lonely space of one's individual moral life, one has no moral authority to confer with or look up to.

Why does Captain Smollett wish to see Squire Trelawney?

Captain Smollett has a number of grievances he wishes to share with Squire Trelawney. For one thing, he feels like he's been left in the dark as to the Hispaniola's mission. Moreover, when Trelawney hired the crew, he placed way too much faith in Long John Silver. Thanks to this error of judgement on the Squire's part, the good ship Hispaniola is now infested with pirates. Smollett bluntly tells Trelawney that the doesn't like these men—and who can blame him? As well as being a murderous band of cutthroats, they owe their loyalty to Silver, not Smollett. Smollett is genuinely concerned that Silver's scurvy crew will stage a mutiny on the high seas.
In due course, Smollett will come to change his mind once the ship has safely reached the island, but for now he's not very happy at all. Although Trelawney—with a little help from Silver—hired the crew, it's still Smollett's ship, and he doesn't take too kindly to having his authority as captain undermined, whether it's by a respectable gentleman like Squire Trelawney or a notorious pirate like Long John Silver.

Who was Israel in Treasure Island?

In Treasure Island, Israel Hands is the coxswain on the Hispaniola. A coxswain is the person who is responsible for the steering of a ship. Israel is also Long John Silver's deputy.
In chapter 26, Israel and Jim Hawkins try to anchor the ship in a secure place off the island. At the same time, Israel tries to kill Jim. He asks Jim to go below deck to fetch him some wine, and when Jim agrees, Israel arms himself with a knife. Israel pretends to be incapacitated by an injury he sustained while fighting O'Brien, but while Jim is steering the ship, Israel attacks him with the knife. Eventually, after a prolonged fight, Jim kills Israel. Israel falls from the rigging and into the sea.
The character of Israel Hands is based on a real eighteenth-century pirate of the same name, who was second in command to the infamous pirate Blackbeard. In the novel, however, Israel Hands is only described as Captain Flint's gunner.