Why did the boys return the horse?

The boys in the story, Aram and his cousin Mourad, always intend to return the horse. At the beginning of the story, about two pages in, we learn that Mourad has been taking the horse for early morning rides "for some time", and, afterward, returning it to its owner before he, the owner, awakes.
The only reason the boys don't return the horse straight away, as usual, is because the horse runs off after throwing Aram from its back. The boys don't catch the horse again in time to return it before the "whole world is awake."
The boys then agree not to return the horse until Aram has learned to ride without being thrown off, but this plan is frustrated by a chance encounter that the boys have with the horse's owner, John Byro. John Byro sees the horse and remarks that it is "the twin" of the horse that was stolen from him. Byro also then says:

I would swear it is my horse if I didn't know your parents. The fame of your family for honesty is well known to me.

John Byro here is not explicitly accusing the boys of stealing his horse, but he is letting them know that the game, as it were, is up. He acknowledges the boys as "sons of my friends," and does not explicitly accuse them of stealing out of respect for, and to preserve the reputation of those friends. He is also deliberately reminding them of the reputation of their family for honesty as a kind of reprimand. In this way he shames them into returning the horse, and, out of respect for their family, who are his friends, he decides not to expose them as thieves.

In this story, Aram and Mourad eventually return the horse to its rightful owner, John Byro, and there are a couple of reasons why they do this.
First of all, the boys never intended to permanently keep the horse. This is made clear early in the story when Aram has had his turn riding the horse. Mourad says that they will either return the horse or hide it until the morning. In fact, it is Aram who convinces Mourad to keep the horse for longer, so that he might learn how to properly ride it.
Secondly, the boys return the horse because John Byro knows that they have taken it. When he comes across them and the stolen horse towards the end of the story, Byro swears that it is his. Although he does not directly accuse the boys of stealing, this encounter with John Byro prompts the boys to return the horse. After all, their tribe is well-known for its honesty. If they did not return the horse at this point, they would sully their tribe's reputation.

Which Huron chief is held in higher regard by the tribe in The Deerslayer?

In The Last of the Mohicans, the most important Huron (also called Iroquois in the novel) chief is Rivenoak. Although he primarily appears as Deerslayer’s adversary, the author stresses his leadership qualities and commitment to his people, who recognize his effectiveness. He can use both military tactics and diplomacy with equal ease, and he exercises restraint or prudence more often than he acts in the heat of anger.
Rivenoak’s talents in negotiation are shown through his knowledge of chess. He also sees many qualities to admire in Deerslayer, such as his hunting skills and stamina. In fact, he believes Deerslayer would be an asset and suggests that Deerslayer become a Huron himself. Despite the ongoing antagonism with the British, Cooper also shows Rivenoak in a positive light. The British recognize the danger he presents and arrest him.

What is abstract painting?

To define abstract art is a bit like trying to define that which seeks not to be defined. You have to love artists, right? Here's one way to consider it:
An abstract painting seeks to distance itself from a strict visual representation of something you would typically see. This typically falls into one of two categories.
The first category involves a representation that is drastically simplified. Imagine a typical painting of a cat, which looks quite similar to any typical cat you could see. In an abstract painting of a cat, there may only be an outline of the cat. Perhaps it has a long tail and pointed ears. Maybe it has purple stripes and its body shape is a triangle. By examining it, you can tell that the basic figure at its simplest form is that of a cat, but the painting does not seek to strictly represent a cat. There is both a simplification of the cat's most basic qualities and perhaps some creative liberties taken as well in how it is represented.
The second category seeks to represent nothing physical. Instead of capturing images seen in a physical landscape, the painting uses shapes, colors, forms, and space to convey an emotion or an idea. Check out the painting Alpha-Phi by Morris Louis or Yellow Islands by Jackson Pollock for examples of this type of abstract painting.

What type of colony was Pennsylvania?

The founding of Pennsylvania was influenced by the Quaker sect. The Quakers were an English Protestant group of believers who had the "inner light" and were pacifists. Known as the Society of Friends, the Quakers were persecuted. The Quakers, to their credit, were proponents of religious freedom. They also gave women more status than elsewhere in the colonies.
William Penn (1644–1718) was the proprietor and founder of Pennsylvania. A Quaker, Penn inherited large tracts of land in America from his father. Penn had been imprisoned for his religious beliefs, and he was determined to create a "holy experiment" where people could worship freely. He also believed that religious toleration helped spur economic development. He recruited settlers of various faiths and nationalities for his colony by offering both religious freedom and abundant land. The colony grew rapidly and had more than one thousand settlers by 1681.
One reason for the colony's success was its cordial relations with the Indians. The Quakers lived in peace with them and bought land titles. Penn even learned how to speak an Indian language.
Pennsylvania thrived for decades after its founding. Delaware was added to the colony in 1682. Pennsylvania's tranquil history made it one of the more successful colonies.

Did Atticus think that Tom had a chance?

While Atticus had come to realize that Tom was innocent, he also was aware that actual innocence would not be sufficient for Tom to be acquitted, since there was a larger force in play than justice. The mere fact that Tom's skin was a different color was sufficient–in the minds of the jurors–to determine guilt; they were not particularly interested in sitting on a jury where justice might be had for a "colored" man. Atticus believed in his own abilities as an attorney, but he also recognized the depth of the racial prejudice throughout the community in which he worked and did not believe his skills would be sufficient to overcome the prejudice. He knew Tom would not be tried by a jury of his peers, rather, he could only be tried by a white jury with a profound racial prejudice, and that racial prejudice absolutely outweighed any and all other considerations. As a consequence, Atticus knew Tom didn't have a chance–but he tried valiantly anyway.

No, Atticus Finch knew Tom Robinson did not have a chance in the court trial. Atticus is a seasoned lawyer; this was not his first court trial. He understands the law but he also closely understands the people of Maycomb, Alabama. While Atticus is preparing for the case, Scout asks him if they will win it. Atticus replies:

"No, honey."

Atticus is confident he will lose. It doesn't matter how hard he will try, he knows the jury--the people he sees on the streets every day--and he knows they will never acquit a "poor" black man accused of raping a white woman. Atticus knows Tom is innocent and is being wrongfully accused, but he also knows the racism in Maycomb is far too deep to change anything.
Accepting this knowledge, however, doesn't mean Atticus won't try his best to defend Tom. He tells Scout:

"Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win."

Atticus knows Tom's story and he believes his client's case. He defends him well in the trial, but Atticus never loses his confidence. He knows he will lose before the trial even begins, but he will try his best anyway. Unlike his surrounding society, Atticus Finch at least tries to be fair to everyone, regardless of their skin color.

No, Atticus does not think Tom Robinson has a chance. He says this to Scout when she questions him about the case. Scout asks:

Atticus, are we going to win it?

Atticus replies:

No, honey.

Atticus goes on to say that knowing you can't win a case is no reason not to do the right thing. Even though Robinson will be convicted, Atticus knows he is innocent and will do his best to make sure he gets a fair trial. As Atticus puts it:

Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win. . . .

Scout learns that living with integrity is as important as winning, if not more so. After the trial, when Jem is upset that the jury ruled against Robinson, despite Atticus making it evident he couldn't have raped Mayella, Miss Maudie tells Jem that some whites in Maycomb secretly sided with Atticus. Change happens slowly, she says, and in increments. Even though Atticus didn't win, he made an impression on the community simply because he tried, and that helps lead to change.

How does Steinbeck present men in The Grapes of Wrath?

Steinbeck, a careful linguist, repeats one word in connection with the character of Pa Joad a total of five times in Chapter Eight. This is no accident, but seemingly a deliberate association with the "power" men often exercise in the world:

His face, squared by a bristling pepper and salt beard, was all drawn down to the forceful chin, a chin thrust out and built out by the stubble beard which was not so grayed on the chin, and gave weight and force to its thrust.
His eyes were brown, black-coffee brown, and he thrust his head forward when he looked at a thing, for his bright dark eyes were failing.
Pa's chin thrust out, and he looked back down the road for a moment.
The old man thrust out his bristly chin, and he regarded Ma with his shrewd, mean, merry eyes.
The word “thrust” is often used to describe males who are having sex; being able to participate in sexual activity is frequently seen as the mark of a man. Sexual relations, of course, often lead to procreation.
Before Pa must leave his home, he feels in control of his life: virile, able-bodied, and the head of his household. However, just as the tractors churn up the land they claim, social roles are being overturned and upended as well. The more Pa becomes disassociated with the roles he had previously embraced, the more impotent, helpless, and dependent he will become.

What does Peeta like about himself?

I would say that the times when Peeta Mellark likes himself best is when he is helping to keep Katniss Everdeen alive.
Peeta isn't a boy with much self-confidence—this is seen early on in the first book in the Hunger Games trilogy, when he tells Katniss that while she might win the games, he has no chance whatsoever. This is despite the immense strength that he displayed from all those bags of flour he had spent his life carrying as a baker's son.
It is made clear at the beginning of the second book that Peeta would never have forgiven himself if he had allowed Katniss to go back into the arena without him—again implying that he likes himself best when he is protecting the woman he loves.

In "The Glories of Our Blood and State", why does the poet say that "There is no armour against Fate"?

The first stanza of the poem is about how titles, ranks, and symbols have no inherent “substantial” meaning. The poet is criticizing the prevailing idea in Renaissance England that one’s value as a person is determined by one’s position, or rank in society, and one’s title, or the symbols that one displays to project one’s wealth or supposed importance. The poet says that these ranks, titles, and symbols are “no armour against Fate,” meaning that disease, death, or general misfortune will befall everyone regardless of whether they happen to be a king, or a lord, or anybody else of high social rank. A king cannot use his crown to fend off death, nor his scepter.
The next lines after the given quotation are,

Death lays his icy hand on kings:
Sceptre and Crown
Must tumble down,
And in the dust be equal made.

In other words, whether a king or a peasant, we are all equal in death. Our bones will all turn to dust, as will any symbols of status like scepters and crowns. We will all, if buried, be food for the worms, and the worms won’t care if they feed on a king, a lord, a peasant, or a beggar.

In Paul Laurence Dunbar's selected poems, is there a theme of music/songs? If so, how does Dunbar incorporate it into his poetry?

Paul Laurence Dunbar uses rhythm to make his poems themselves into music. Though his poems cover a large range, many of them do rely on poetic rhythms to make them sound more musical. Some of the poems in this collection are written using anapests, meaning the stress is on every third syllable. This mimics a galloping horse and speeds up the poem, making us want to chant or sing the words.
Dunbar's poems also include a lot of well placed rhymes, which make them sound more musical and make the reader think of songs and chants.
You can also see Dunbar's musical theme just by scrolling through the titles of his poems. We see several music-related titles, such as "A Banjo Song," "Song of Summer," "A Negro Love Song," "When Malindy Sings," and "A Hymn."
As you read through Dunbar's poems, you will also see that many of his poems include a lot of details about sound. Some of these are about music or songs; others are just rich details of noises that add to the poem. This shows that the poet was conscious of sound and its impact on a reader. He wanted poems that elicit memory of sound.
For example, in his poem "Ships that Pass in the Night," Dunbar includes several different sounds: "I can hear a solemn booming gun," "cry aloud," and "out of sight and sound." Though these descriptions are not of music, they encourage the reader to imagine the sounds and, in this poem, to be aware of the absence of music.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/paul-laurence-dunbar

What is the significance of the nove's title the serpent and the rope?

The serpent of the title can be interpreted as the temptations of Western life to which Rama has been attracted at various key moments in his life. All of these temptations lead to problems of one sort or another for the protagonist, illustrating the difficulty of effecting a meaningful reconciliation between the respective cultural values of East and West. The serpent represents the phenomenal world, the material world, the world inhabited by most Westerners, including Rama's French wife, Madeleine.
Yet for the deeply spiritual Rama, this is ultimately an unreal world, a place where he can never achieve fulfillment. It is only by separating from his wife and returning to live in India that he can once more reconnect his spirit to his imminent surroundings, achieving the kind of spiritual enlightenment that he could never find in the West. What for Hindus is the real world, the world behind the painted veil that we wrongly perceive as the sum total of reality, is symbolized by the rope. In Hinduism, a rope is used by the elephant-headed god Ganesh—the Lord of Beginnings—to pull us towards our goal of spiritual realization and fulfillment. And it is only by returning to his spiritual and ancestral homeland after his wanderings in the materialistic West, that Rama is finally able to take the first meaningful steps on the path towards reaching that goal.

y=-0.2x + 3

Given y=-0.2x+3 :
This is a linear function in slope-intercept form (y = mx + b, where m represents the slope and b represents the y-intercept.)
The slope is -0.2, or -1/5. Thus, as the independent (input) variable, x, increases, the dependent (output) variable, y, decreases. Graphically, for every 5 units we move to the right, the graph falls one unit.
The y-intercept is 3—this is where the graph crosses the y-axis. We can also think of 3 as the "initial" amount (i.e., the value of y when x is 0).
The graph of this function is a line, since the function is linear. We know that it is linear since the variable is in the first degree (x has an "implied" exponent of 1).
We can build a table of values to plot this line. Using convenient values for x, we find the following points on the graph: (0,3); (5,2); (10,1); and (15,0). From this last point, we find that the x-intercept is 15.
The graph of this equation looks like this:

We can also rewrite this function in other forms:
We can rewrite y = -(1/5)x + 3 as 5y = -x + 15, or x + 5y = 15, which is in standard form.
x + 5y - 15 = 0 is the equation in general form.
x/15 + y/3 = 1 is in the equation in intercept form.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LinearFunction.html

What is Italian futurism?

Futurism was an artistic and intellectual movement of the early to mid-twentieth century. Its development in Italy is associated with broader European modernist currents, including cubism.
The futurists embraced technological advances, locating within them the possibilities for positive growth and change that they found lacking in turn-of-the-century Italy. In 1909, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti published a manifesto in the Parisian Figaro magazine. Advocating not only abandoning but actually destroying the obsolete past—including its repositories in museums and libraries—futurists embraced everything that was novel in all art genres, from music to fashion.
Notable futurist painters and sculpture include Umberto Boccioni, Luigi Russolo, and Giacomo Balla, who issued their own manifesto in 1910. Despite similarities to Cubist works shown in 1912, they maintained their movement originated independently.
Patriotism impelled their support for Italy in World War I and, more problematically, for fascism and Mussolini from the 1920s onward. Even as a new generation of futurists arose, the political associations with the dark side of nationalism and, finally, Axis defeat, both brought an end to the movement and tainted its legacy.
https://smarthistory.org/italian-futurism-an-introduction/

Why did Jane Eyre attack John Reed?

Jane Eyre, the poor relation disliked by her Aunt Reed, was exposed to daily abuse from John Reed for years. Her aunt, his doting mother, turned a blind eye to it and would do nothing to protect Jane from her spoiled, sadistic son. The servants saw what was going on but were afraid to interfere. Jane, four years younger and smaller than John, had no good way to defend herself from this older boy, so she tolerated the abuse. As Jane explains:

He bullied and punished me; not two or three times in the week, nor once or twice in the day, but continually: every nerve I had feared him, and every morsel of flesh in my bones shrank when he came near.

In this instance, he finds her behind a curtain on a window seat reading a book about birds that he considers his own. He belittles her for being a poor relation and then throws the heavy book at her as a punishment for touching his property. When it hits her, she falls and cuts her head against the door. As she stands up, in pain and over her first wave of terror, all the anger that has built up inside her explodes. She thinks of John as a cruel tyrant and a slave driver and, for the first time, fights back against him in a frenzied way until she has to be pulled off.
In short, the anger she had stuffed down for years erupts. She can bear his abuse no more.

How does Tita describe the loss of Nacha?

On the day of the wedding, Tita finds Nacha "lying dead, her eyes wide open . . . a picture of her fiancé clutched in her hands." This description, particularly of the "wide open" eyes, implies that Nacha did not die peacefully. The word "clutched" also implies something like desperation or anguish. The fact that Nacha was clutching a picture of her fiancé also suggests that at least some of Nacha's pain was perhaps sentimental. Tita also describes "medicinal leaves" upon Nacha's temples, which suggests that she died in the grip of a severe sickness. It is also implicit in the text that Nacha died alone. Indeed, Tita "found" Nacha's dead body, implying that she was the first to do so.









After Nacha's death, Tita is promoted to the position of official ranch cook. Tita is pleased, "in spite of the sorrow she felt at losing Nacha." Tita is also described as "in a very deep depression" and "completely alone" without Nacha. Tita feels "as if her real mother had died," and for the rest of the novel, she hears Nacha and feels Nacha's presence, indicating that Nacha will always remain with her, at least in spirit.

Tita is in deep sorrow at the death of Nacha. Although Nacha was an elderly lady and her passing away wasn't much of a shock, her death is no less devastating for Tita. It has left her feeling depressed and alone. It's almost as if she's lost her own mother. Tita and Nacha enjoyed a very close, special relationship, and it was Nacha, the family cook, who effectively raised Tita and passed on to her the numerous recipes she'd acquired over the years. With Nacha's passing, Tita now takes over as ranch cook. This allows her to put her troubled emotions to good use, channeling them into making ever more elaborate dishes. The first of these is an indigenous dish involving rose petals, its recipe seemingly dictated to Tita by the voice of Nacha.

What is the significance of the “six kings” in chapter 26?

Two of the major themes of Candide are the arbitrary nature of fortune and the universal nature of misfortune. Chapter 26 represents perhaps the strongest statement of this theme, as it carries these observations across to the most privileged subset of the eighteenth-century socio-political order: kings.
In this chapter, Candide and Martin are dining with six strangers, all deposed monarchs, who have come to Venice for the Carnival. We see here the former Grand Sultan, who previously deposed his own brother and has now been deposed by his nephew. Next, there is Ivan of Russia, who was dethroned as an infant and raised in a Russian prison. Then, we meet a former king of England, two former kings of Poland (though the second of those two has succeeded in winning a different kingdom for himself), and finally, the former king of Corsica, who now lives in a state of utter poverty, dependent on charity. As the scene ends, we learn that four more deposed monarchs have arrived at the same location, also looking to attend the Venetian carnival.
Here we have Voltaire taking his attack on social and political privilege to its logical conclusion. Even royalty is in no way immune to those twists and turns of fortune. In this respect, even the mightiest of kings is no different than anyone else. All are equally human—they must all face the uncertainty of the future, and their circumstances can change dramatically. Indeed, it's worth noting that at this point in the story, Candide (who, as we saw in the book's initial chapter, was driven out of Thunder-ten-tronckh for lacking sufficient noble status to enter a romantic relationship with the noble Cunégonde), after all his suffering and humiliations, is by far the wealthiest person at the table. In this, Voltaire has stretches the absurdity of the world (according to the expectations of the early moderns) to its ultimate endpoint, where even kings have been reduced of royal dignity, brought to the level of common men, even beggars.

How will the speaker have peace at Innisfree?

In the poem "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" by William Butler Yeats, an anonymous narrator relates what appears to be a recurrent daydream. He imagines living on the isle of Innisfree and longs for a small cabin built of slender poles and clay. Outside, the cabin would be rows of beans and a beehive. The only sounds would be the buzzing of the bees and the lapping of waves on the shore of the island.
One source of the narrator's peace on Innisfree would be the solitude. He says he would "live alone" in the cabin in the glade. Another source of peace would be the quietness besides the natural sounds of the honey bees and the waves. Additionally, whether it was morning, noon, evening, or midnight, he would see the beauty of natural landscapes and colors.
In the last stanza of the poem, the narrator confesses that he longs for the cabin on the isle while he stands "on the roadway or on the pavements grey." In other words, he is somewhere in a town or city where he does not have access to these things that will bring him peace. That's why he dreams of them "in the deep heart's core" and imagining the lapping waters of the lake makes him want to "arise and go now."

In Birth of a White Nation by Jacqueline Battalora, what is the general idea about colonial laws and the cult of the Lost Cause?

The thesis of Birth of a White Nation is that "'white,' like 'race,' is a historical imposition given content and form through the proliferation of ideas imposed and claimed through law." In other words, the meaning of "whiteness," and in fact whiteness as a concept, has a history; that is to say, it has changed over time for a number of different reasons. Both colonial laws and the cult of the Lost Cause played a role in the development of the concept of whiteness.
The "colonial laws" in question were developed in British colonies in the Chesapeake and in the Caribbean. Battalora focuses on the Chesapeake, where she shows that concepts of race developed along with labor systems in Virginia. At first, the law did not really distinguish between races, but throughout the seventeenth century, as the flow of servants from the British Isles began to dry up, and the demand for labor increased with the expansion of the cultivation of cotton, the Virginia Assembly began to pass laws tying servitude to race. One major focus of the propertied classes in Virginia was the establishment of anti-miscegenation laws that banned sexual relations between the races. The child of a white man and an enslaved woman of African ancestry would be considered a slave. Over time, slavery became racial, hereditary, and permanent, and whites began to define themselves in opposition to their black workforce, using legislation to create legal categories of "blackness" and "whiteness" that did not really exist before.
The "Lost Cause" myth was a set of beliefs that emerged in the South after the Civil War. On the one hand, it glorified the Confederacy (the Confederate monuments that are so controversial these days are very much relics of the Lost Cause) and on the other, it erased slavery, and therefore African Americans, from the story of the causes of the war and of Reconstruction afterwards. This was deliberate—the South was held to be a white man's country, and the experiment in racial democracy that was Reconstruction was framed as a horrible, oppressive period. In short, it had a bearing on the definition of whiteness inasmuch as it was used to prop up the new Jim Crow society that was beginning to emerge, complete with very strict racial laws that defined blackness and, by extension, whiteness. Whites were held up as the only legitimate political actors and citizens of the United States.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Birth_of_a_White_Nation.html?id=M_e2WLcxvFgC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

What is a charter colonial government?

In the context of American history, a charter colonial government was one that had been formally granted by the English king. Although English settlements in the New World such as Jamestown were funded and organized by private companies, they still needed official permission from the authorities to establish colonies. Such permission would come in the form of a Royal Charter, a formal legal document setting out the rights and responsibilities of those undertaking colonial ventures.
Most charters gave settlers a great deal of leeway in running their own affairs, though of course it was always understood that they still owed their primary allegiance as English subjects to the king. Nonetheless, English settlers took advantage of the relative freedom they enjoyed under the terms of the Royal Charters, using them to build their own communities from scratch, far from the day-to-day control of the king and his government.

What groups or institutions offer significant support or resistance to Trujillo both within and beyond the borders of the Dominican Republic? (In the Time of Butterflies)

The key group which challenged Trujillo within the Dominican Republic was known as the Fourteenth of June Movement. This is the group with which this book is primarily concerned, as it was organized by the Mirabal sisters, the so-called "butterflies" who were ultimately silenced as a result of their involvement with the campaign. The vast majority of the members of this movement were students, but their tireless campaigning, and the violent response to it, drew support from other arenas—namely the Catholic Church. Having once supported Trujillo's regime, the Church took a political stance against him because of his treatment of the rebels.
Another major external force which switched sides in terms of Trujillo was the United States government, which ceased to recognize Trujillo's government as legitimate. Previously, the US's "Good Neighbor" policy had meant they took a non-interference approach to Trujillo and allowed his dictatorship to rise.
Venezuela also strongly condemned Trujillo's dictatorship and led the Organisation of American States, which included most of the Dominican Republic's South American trading partners, to embargo the country in protest against Trujillo.

What are some similarities and differences of the technology of 1902 and that of 2019?

In terms of countries like the United States and Great Britain, in many ways the technological contours of the modern society we know today were already in place, at least among the upper classes. Wealthy people had indoor plumbing, flush toilets, telephones, and electrical wiring in their homes. The difference between then and now was that a very small percentage of the population could afford such amenities.
The automobile had been invented by 1902, though again, only the wealthy could afford to own one, and these were primitive and dangerous vehicles by our standards. However, large cities such as London and New York had or were soon to have subway systems (London's Underground in 1863 and New York in 1904) as well as electrified trolley car lines, which were widespread in the United States by 1902, leading to the urban sprawl along these tram lines. Trains also crisscrossed industrialized countries, making travel much swifter and less perilous; people could travel, though not by air, in many of the ways possible today.
Fresh food was also readily available in ways not too different from today with the advent of refrigerated train cars (chilled with actual ice). Many canned foods were also readily available.
What people did not have in 1902 were the forms of mass media common today: there was no radio, television, or internet. Many medicines we have today were also unavailable, meaning that today's treatable illnesses could lead to institutionalization or death. There were no antibiotics, and tuberculosis was therefore still a major killer. As mentioned earlier, the indoor plumbing and electricity that a large number of people now enjoy were only available the wealthy in 1902.

What impact did Mikhail Gorbachev's ideas of glasnost (openness), perestroika (restructuring) and demokratizatsiia (democratization) have on Communist society? Were these principles compatible with collectivization and a command economy? Did Communist leaders favor these principles or did they feel that their hand were tied once they were introduced into Communist society?

By the time Mikhail Gorbachev ascended to the top position in the Communist Party hierarchy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the nation’s economy had thoroughly ossified, as had the economies of most of its satellite nations in Eastern and Central Europe. How much of an impact on the Soviet Union’s final collapse could be attributable to the policies of U.S. President Ronald Reagan will be debated for years to come, but it is reasonable to conclude that the challenges to Soviet foreign and military policies Reagan posed did influence the thinking of Soviet leaders, including Gorbachev. Reagan’s extensive military build-up stood in stark contrast to the diminishment in U.S. military power that had preceded his election to the presidency. The Soviet Union’s anemic economy strained to keep up with America’s rejuvenation, which represented a reversal of the post-Vietnam/post-Watergate malaise that Reagan’s predecessor, President Jimmy Carter, had illuminated in his famous July 15, 1979 speech in which he referred to the “crisis of confidence” that had permeated American politics and culture.
President Reagan’s presidency and the threat it posed to Soviet calculations coincided with the demise of the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party. Long-time dictator Leonid Brezhnev passed away and his immediate successors, Yuri Andropov (whose rise to the leadership seriously worried Americans given his long tenure as chief of the Soviet intelligence service and secret police, the KGB) and Konstantin Chernenko, each died within around one year of assuming the chairmanship of the Party. The deaths within rapid order of three elderly Communist Party chairmen fed into the ennui that had taken root among many Russian citizens. Into this emotional vacuum stepped Gorbachev, a young, vibrant Party member whose youth and vitality contrasted tremendously with the infirmity of his predecessors.
Gorbachev understood very well that the state of the Soviet economy (as well as the economies of important satellites like East Germany and Poland) and perceptions among Russians of a calcified, unresponsive, and hopelessly corrupt government would invariably lead to the empire’s collapse. The new leader believed that, absent serious reforms to the economy and culture of the Soviet Union, the entire empire could conceivably fail. Stark contrasts between the quality of lives on each side of the Berlin Wall, for example, could no longer be hidden or explained away. Television radio broadcasts from the West provided the captive populaces of the Soviet Bloc with alternative realities to the often-clumsy propaganda that emanated from official government media sources. Gorbachev’s answer to these challenges were labeled “glasnost” (openness to outside, mainly Western, influences as well as to more honest reporting within the Soviet Union regarding the state of the empire), “perestroika” (restructuring of the failed government institutions) and “demokratizatsiia,” a process of democratizing the historically autocratic system of government that dominated Russian and Soviet histories.
The effects of Gorbachev’s policies were profound. The instruments of state power—the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Armed Forces—were chastened and held up to ridicule and contempt. Government-dominated economics began to give way to open displays of capitalism, thereby rejuvenating the economy while simultaneously further weakening the government’s control of society. The concept of free elections was introduced, thereby giving hopeful Russians and others a newly-inspired taste of political freedom. The effects, while hopeful at first, proved calamitous. A people who had never in their long history known freedom were suddenly experiencing it, and they had little notion of how to respond. As the Communist-controlled government weakened, a vacuum emerged into which stepped avaricious businessmen and former KGB and Communist Party officials eager to reap the dividends of unregulated capitalism. Important industries were sold to wealthy investors few of whom held in high regard the welfare of the broader society.
On top of the anarchy that was emerging in the wake of the government’s restructuring was an open display of contempt and armed resistance that became known as “the August Putsch,” an attempt by military and Communist Party hardliners in 1991 to overthrow Gorbachev and restore communist rule. The coup failed, but Gorbachev was seriously politically weakened and the whole of the Soviet Union collapsed.
The principles that guided Gorbachev’s brief but momentous term in power were entirely incompatible with communist principles and policies. Once Gorbachev weakened the government’s role in the economy and opened the political process, the ideological foundation of the ruling party was effectively destroyed. Free markets and elections are incompatible with communist rule, for which complete control of a society is a prerequisite.
How much Communist Party officials favored Gorbachev’s principles was answered with the attempted coup against Gorbachev. Sides were clearly drawn, and the rise of Gorbachev’s successor, Boris Yeltsin, was born of that tumultuous event. Yeltsin and Gorbachev supporters in the military and among the public were able to defeat the coup attempt, and the last nail in the Party’s coffin was applied. Unlike when the Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, and Poles had sought to throw off the shackles of Soviet control in preceding years, this time there was no overwhelming military response to anti-Communist fervor. The Soviet Army was as divided as the country writ large, with the preponderance of power favoring change.

Ever since his daughter, Susie, was born, Mr. Jones has had aspirations for her to be an outstanding athlete. As soon as she was old enough, he spent countless hours in the backyard teaching her how to throw and catch. Susie was enrolled in private swimming and gymnastics lessons at age 3. By the time she started kindergarten, she was able to bat, use a modified tennis racquet to hit balls off the backboard at the neighborhood courts, swim proficiently, and execute many gymnastics skills. Because he was so interested in athletics, Mr. Jones questioned Susie carefully about what she did in her physical education class. Mr. Jones figured that with expert instruction, Susie would learn sports even faster. Susie reported that she really enjoyed gym class. Her teacher, Ms. Smith, asked the class a lot of questions and encouraged them to explore different ways that their bodies could move. They tried a lot of different activities. “What activities?” asked Mr. Jones. Susie replied, “We do balancing, make different shapes, follow different paths, and learn to move in different directions, like going over a bar, under a hurdle, and through a rolled up mat. We learn about our personal space, how to make ourselves smaller and larger, and to move at different levels. Ms. Smith calls it movement education. It’s a lot of fun.” After a month of listening to what Susie was doing in physical education class, Mr. Jones became concerned because she was not learning any sport skills. After all, he did not want the time he had spent with Susie in the backyard teaching her skills or the large amount of money he spent on private instruction to be wasted. He decided to meet with Ms. Smith to find out why the children were not being taught sports. He knew that to be a star athlete, you had to start young and dedicate yourself to being the best. He arranged a conference with Ms. Smith. At their meeting, Mr. Jones, voiced his concerns to Ms. Smith about what the children were learning in physical education class. “Why aren’t they taught gymnastics or basketball or tennis? Why are they doing all these silly activities?” Read and examine the case thoroughly. Identify the relevant facts and underlying key problems. Focus your analysis. Identify 2-5 key problems and why the reasons exist. Identify the ethical issues in the case study. Identify possible solutions. Present your recommendations.

There are really two ways to approach this case study. One side of the case study could be told from the teacher's perspective, the other from the perspective of the parent. In education, in general, there are always more than one way to approach any given situation. Since your question asked for identifying a variety of issues; I'll try to propose three.
The first major issue that I see here is one of communication. Obviously, the parent is having a hard time seeing the connection of the instructional method to that of sports. The teacher should be aware always that they need to be able to justify why they are offering whatever instruction that they are; in this case the "movement education." The teacher needs to find a way to convey to the parent that this type of instruction is beneficial to the overall well-being of the student.
The second issue that I see is a general misunderstanding on the part of the parent. The study of movement and basic kinesiology is central to success in any sport. This is what the educator should try to impart onto the parent during their conference.
The third issue that I see that should be raised here is the pre-judgement of the activities on the part of the parent as "silly." The educator should take care to address this issue during the conference; keeping certain to tread lightly in talking with the parent. If parents are better educated as to why an instructor is using a particular method, then many of the communication breakdowns that sometimes happen in education could be helped.
I could probably also do several paragraphs on the psychological underpinnings of trying to make a three-year-old into a star athlete and the ethics therein; but that would be a different question, I am afraid.

“Economic factors were the major reason for the expansionist foreign policy of the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.“ To what extent was this idea supported by the actions of the United States government?

Before the United States engaged in the first-ever international war against Spain in 1898, the federal government claimed they had to secure Cuba's freedom because that would create markets for American goods. It was this story that was sold to the public, even though the real goal of the expansionist foreign policy was to increase America's influence on the global scale and acquire more territories in line with what was done by the European nations at the time. Shortly after defeating Spain and freeing Cuba, the United States annexed Puerto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands, and the Philipines. President McKinley, in trying to maintain the economic argument, addressed the public by stating that America had been forced to annex these regions against its will. He further stated that the annexed Filipinos were going to be taught the American way of life and be removed out of poverty through civilization.
After the "liberation" of Cuba, the expansionist foreign policy strategy was implemented to the fullest. America engaged in other international wars—the federal government sent troops to China to topple the Boxer Rebellion. The argument was that this group hindered economic development in China by restricting free trade. Using the same argument, the United States also went to war with Japan, North Korea, and Vietnam. Interestingly, the idea of economic development in the expansionist foreign policy program was supported through direct foreign aid to these countries after the fighting was over.
The United States government also believed that once these countries had a democratically elected government, economic progress would follow out of free trade. Unfortunately, that did not happen in North Korea.
Additionally, the United States passed laws to support the economic factors reason for foreign policy expansion. The McKinley tariff was introduced to protect American firms from international competition. As a result, American goods were affordable both domestically and abroad.
http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1345

https://dukeclass.weebly.com/topic-1-united-statesrsquo-expansionist-foreign-policy-political-economic-and-ideological-reasons.html

What are the parallels between "The Little Black Boy" and "The Chimney Sweeper"?

Both "The Little Black Boy" and "The Chimney Sweeper" are from Blake's Songs of Innocence. In both poems, small boys are exploited and have been conditioned to believe that they will one day be rewarded by God for their suffering in life.
The boy in "The Little Black Boy" is a slave. His mother has convinced him that he is dark because he is close to God in all his brilliance, like a sun. The whites who enslave him are not as close to God, which accounts for their light skin. But in the end, the black boy believes, white boys and black boys will be loved alike by God.
In "The Chimney Sweeper," the boy has been sold into servitude as a chimney sweeper. Traditionally, poor children were pressed into this kind of work because they were small enough to fit into chimneys. The poem implies that his parents have done this to him and do not recognize that they have made his life a misery. They are people of faith and apparently don't recognize their own inhumanity.
In both cases, children are exploited and are in the care of parents who try to make their miserable lives more endurable by vague promises of an eternal reward.

Both of these poems are concerned with children, specifically male children. Both are written in the first person, and both speakers refer to their mothers at the beginning of the poem. The relationship between the mothers and their sons, however, seem to be very different. The speaker in "The Little Black Boy" tells an extensive story of consolation offered to him by his mother, while the speaker in "The Chimney Sweep" lost his mother at a young age and was "sold" by his father.
Both poems refer to English boys with "white" hair, who are secondary to the speaker. In "The Chimney Sweep" the boy is named Tom Dacre. In "The Little Black Boy," the white-haired child is hypothetical, an imagined English boy whom the speaker will meet in heaven.
Both poems also show children looking forward to a lifetime spent with God in which the "black" elements of this life will be lifted from them. For the boys in "The Chimney Sweep", this blackness is the blackness of soot, the darkness visited upon them by life in an industrial town. In "The Little Black Boy," the child looks forward to escaping his physical blackness—his black skin—and becoming pure. Both poems strongly associate whiteness with purity and cleanness.
In both poems, the struggling in this life seems alleviated by the thought of things to come. The chimney sweeps feel "warm" at the thought of doing their duty and returning to God, while the little black boy anticipates being filled with "joy" like a "lamb" when he meets his "white" friend with God in heaven.

There are many parallels between “The Little Black Boy” and “The Chimney Sweeper.” The speakers of both poems are victims of oppression who see the world from an “innocent” point of view. Both narrators cling to a promise of joy with absolute confidence. Yet there is a hint of dramatic irony in both stories—the experienced reader knows these children are being oppressed, but the children do not know this. The chimney sweeper’s axiom at the end—“So, if all do their duty, they need not fear harm.”—can be read from both the innocent and the experienced perspectives (24). There is the straightforward moral, but there is also an undercurrent of eerie indoctrination. There is an implication that the ignorance of the victims is a part of the problem, but the impossibility of escape is also evident. If the innocence of the child creates ignorance of oppression, then it seems like creating experience would be the solution. On the other hand, the victim cannot do anything about his own situation, so unveiling his eyes isn’t the answer either.


The black/white binary is also explored in “The Chimney Sweeper.” The speaker tells his fellow sweep, little Tom Dacre, that the sacrifices of the sweeps, such as their heads being shaved, are actually blessings: “Hush Tom! Never mind it, for, when your head’s bare,/You know that soot cannot spoil your white hair” (7-8). The speaker is unwaveringly optimistic, although the experienced reader can see how society has completely failed these children. The whiteness of Tom’s hair, symbolizing his innocence, contrasted with the blackness of the soot, symbolizing their severe experiences, embodies their oppression as a whole. In Tom’s dream, the black/white binary remains in the expected classification. He sees “thousands of sweepers […] were all of them locked up in coffins of black” (11-12). Then an angel comes to save them and “set them all free,” and the joy of heaven is represented by the sweeps becoming “naked and white” (14, 17). The blackness of death and exploitation transmutes into the whiteness of joy and freedom. However, this typicality is subverted by our experienced perception.

What are some of the recurring symbols or patterns of imagery?

Spiders are a recurring symbol in Obasan. They represent memory, an important theme in the story. It's notable that when Aunt Aya—the Obasan of the title—goes up to the attic to find a box of journals and letters, that she disturbs a spider's web. As she rouses a couple of spiders from their slumber, Aya is also dredging up painful memories of her experiences during the War. As for Naomi, her own painful memories suddenly appear in her mind almost out of nowhere, just as the spiders themselves scuttle out when their web is disturbed. It's only when she looks up at the ceiling that Naomi realizes the full scale of the spiders' infestation of the attic. And as the traumatic memories of her childhood come flooding back, Naomi also comes to realize just how thoroughly those memories have infested her mind all these years without her being aware.

What myth Bierce wants to debunk in "chikamague" ?

In "Chickamauga," Ambrose Bierce sets out to debunk the persistent myth that war is glorious. In the story, a little boy plays a game of soldiers, cutting down imaginary enemies with his toy wooden sword. But not far from where the boy's playing a real-life battle is raging, the Battle of Chickamauga, the second costliest battle in the Civil War, with over 34,000 casualties.
The boy is deaf and so cannot hear the intense rumble of battle in the near distance. Blissfully unaware of the horrors of war, the boy has a romanticized view of conflict, seeing it as nothing more than a big game. Even when he stumbles across the bodies of dead soldiers, he still persists in his fantasy world, seeing himself as the fallen men's commander.
It takes the burning of his house and subsequent death of his mother to make the boy realize what's really been happening. But even then, he cannot express his horrified response. As a deaf child unable to speak properly, he's reduced to making "wild, uncertain gestures" and uttering "a series of inarticulate and indescribable cries."
"Chickamauga" is generally thought to be a political allegory. The young boy represents a romantic attachment to war, all too common in a young nation whose very identity has been forged by conflict. The boy is literally deaf to the sounds of battle in much the same way as too many of Bierce's contemporaries were figuratively deaf to reason, willfully ignorant of the immense suffering and destruction that war brings in its wake.

"I hear it in the deep heart's core." What does this line from "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" show? Explain.

What the speaker "hears" in his deep heart's core is the sound of the lake water lapping against the shores of the lake isle of Innisfree. This line shows—or suggests—that the isle home he thinks about in the middle of the lake is imaginary. We know he is imagining the sound of the water because he says he hears it

While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey

In other words, he hears it while he is the midst of the city and a trafficked roadway. By saying he hears it in his "heart," he means he doesn't literally hear it; he can't really hear the sound because he is too far away from that peaceful setting. It is something he remembers or imagines that gives him comfort and peace amid the busy pace of life.

What is causing conflict in Charlie's relationships with Miss Kinnian, Dr. Nemur, and Dr. Strauss?

Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes tells the story of a mentally impaired young man with a very low IQ named Charlie Gordon. He receives the opportunity to participate in a surgical experiment to dramatically increase his intelligence. The relationship conflicts with Miss Kinnian, Dr. Nemur, Dr. Strauss, and other characters all stem from Charlie's change after the experiment is successful. Before the experiment, Charlie is easy-going and compliant, with the eagerness to please of a young child. After the experiment, Charlie becomes a fully-functioning highly intelligent adult with a mind of his own.
Before Charlie's dramatic intelligence improvement, Miss Kinnian is his teacher at the Beekman College Center for Retarded Adults. Their relationship is strictly student-teacher. She recommends Charlie for the experiment because of her sympathy for his strong desire to improve. After the operation, Miss Kinnian continues to mentor Charlie, but as his mental prowess and self-awareness increase, he realizes that he has romantic feelings for her. This along with Miss Kinnian's desire to keep their relationship professional creates conflict. Further conflict is generated as Miss Kinnian begins to yield, but Charlie realizes that he will soon revert to the low level of intelligence that he had before the experiment.
The conflict in Charlie's relationships with Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss stem from the fact that the scientists are unable to see Charlie as anything other than a compliant laboratory subject. Their condescension prevents them from acknowledging Charlie's humanity and distinctiveness as an individual after the experiment drastically improves his mental and emotional acuity. This conflict continues even as Charlie's intelligence surpasses theirs, and he is able to discover a flaw in the hypothesis that led to the experiment which proves that he will eventually revert to his pre-enhanced state.

After the operation, as Charlie becomes more and more intelligent, he begins to view Miss Kinnian, Dr. Strauss, and Dr. Nemur in a less childlike way. This causes conflict in all three relationships. Miss Kinnian is no longer the adult, maternal figure, but now an equal who Charlie realizes he is falling in love with. As for Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss, Charlie begins to realize that they have not had his best interests at heart. They care more for their scientific work than for him. He grows to understand that, for them, he is little more than a lab mouse like Algernon. He also comprehends how very risky the operation was for him. As he realizes the experiment in enhancing his intelligence has failed, and that he will revert back to a mentally handicapped state, conflict with the three people who enabled the operation—Miss Kinnian, who recommended him, and the two doctors—increases. Charlie grows very angry at them as he understands what was done to him and what the results will be.

What was an unsuccessful attempt at American imperialism in the late 1800s?

When looking at American imperialism in the 1800s, we see only a few notable examples of failure. I would argue that the most notable failure of the United States came regarding the island of Cuba. In 1854, for example, Southern slaveholders in the U.S. hoped to expand slave territory. By expanding slave territory this would give them greater power in the federal government, and they hoped to utilize this power to maintain the institution of slavery. By acquiring Cuba from the government of Spain, they hoped to bring it into the Union as a new slave state.
The U.S. Secretary of State in 1854, William Marcy, sent a delegation to Belgium to negotiate with the European powers of France, Britain, and Spain regarding the acquisition of Cuba by the United States. The American delegation created a document called the Ostend Manifesto. The Ostend Manifesto explained the importance of Cuba to the United States and stated that forcefully taking Cuba may be necessary if a deal could not be reached. This attempt would ultimately fail and the United States would not realize its goal of gaining Cuba. It would also serve to complicate relations between the United States and the European powers as it reinforced their vision of the United States as an aggressive nation seeking to carve out an empire of their own.
Cuba would eventually gain independence through the Spanish-American War in 1898. After gaining independence, however, Cuba was under American supervision for decades. Although it served a supervisory role, the United States did not achieve their goal of gaining full control over Cuba.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/ostend-manifesto-1854

https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2692.html

When and how did colonial America begin?

This question is a bit tricky, depending on whether one considers failed colonies.
The earliest of the Spanish colonies, San Miguel de Gualdape, was established in 1526 on land that is now either in Georgia or South Carolina. The next year, Spain tried again, near St. Petersburg, Florida. Spain established a colony at St. Augustine in Florida in September of 1585. In the west, Spain tried to colonize in 1598 what is now Santa Fe, NM.
France tried to establish colonies at least three times in Maine, South Carolina, and Florida in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.
The English had a failed colony at Roanoke in 1585 and tried again in 1587. England founded two American colonies in 1607, in Popham, Maine and Jamestown, Virginia. Popham was a failure, but Jamestown survived, barely. In 1620, The Mayflower brought English to Massachusetts, and the subsequent Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies would grow quite large and prosperous.
It can be said, then, that attempts by European countries to colonize America began in the early sixteenth century. Reasons for colonization are generally for two reasons: to gain economic and geographic power for the European nations and to seek a respite from religious persecution in Europe.

Why is Henderson such a mess?

Eugene Henderson is a man completely possessed by what is going to happen next, or what his next trial might be. In fact, he is frequently compared in the novel with the mythical hero Odysseus. His soul is possessed by an indomitable thirst for adventure and new experiences, this is comically evidenced by his short lived attempt to become a pig farmer before he embarks upon his quest to Africa. With regard to Henderson, being a millionaire and a father of five, most people would assume or expect of him to settle down and turn his thoughts towards resting after a successful life. However, Henderson cannot stop his adventures. He has a thirst for life experiences that cannot be satiated, and whether this is a blessing or a curse is up to interpretation. He also often humorously blunders his way toward success, evidenced by his experiences with the tribes of Africa, certainly giving him the appearance of a figurative "mess."

Based on descriptions of the bird, what can the Raven symbolize?

The narrator of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven” describes the bird at length in stanzas seven and eight. He describes the raven as “stately . . . with the mien of a lord and lady.” The bird exudes calm as well as power. The raven also has a “grave and stern decorum” and chooses to perch on a bust of Pallas, meaning Athena, the ancient Greek goddess of wisdom. These descriptions and references indicate that the raven is there to say something both honest and important. The raven brings knowledge, specifically a form self-knowledge for the narrator through memory.
After the raven enters the room, the narrator begins thinking about Lenore, about missing her and whether she is in a better place. The raven triggers the narrator’s memory as well as his regret. Yet the narrator later describes the bird as a “prophet” at the same time he calls it a “thing of evil.” By the end of the poem, the raven’s eyes “have all the seeming of a demon.” Think about what Poe might be suggesting about memory and self-knowledge by connecting all of these descriptions together. Does the raven make the narrator think about things that help him or hurt him in the end? Is the narrator better or worse off after exploring his memory and feelings?
Poe also includes other descriptions that may seem brief or obvious. Yet remember that Poe chose to include these terms, so it is worth thinking about them further. For example, the first time we hear about the raven it is “gently rapping, rapping” at my chamber door. Why would Poe pair a description like “gentle” with repetition of the forceful word “rapping?” Also, the raven may enter gently, but does it still have a gentle presence by the end of the poem? Poe also makes sure to describe the bird as “ebony,” meaning dark. The reader could have assumed that a raven would be dark, so why does Poe deliberately remind the reader of this fact? What does darkness symbolize, especially in the context of the narrator remembering someone he loved who has died late at night?

Prove something about the work you are analyzing. Select one basic idea from the work, and then find quotations in the poem that prove that what you are saying about it is correct. Find three or more quotations that support your position about the work. Make sure the ideas in the three or more body paragraphs are related in some way. Thomas Hardy “The Man He Killed” Had he and I but met By some old ancient inn, We should have set us down to wet Right many a nipperkin! But ranged as infantry, 6. And staring face to face, I shot at him as he at me, And killed him in his place. I shot him dead because— 10. Because he was my foe, 11. Just so: my foe of course he was; 12. That's clear enough; although 13. He thought he'd 'list, perhaps, 14. Off-hand like--just as I— 15. Was out of work--had sold his traps— 16. No other reason why. 17. Yes; quaint and curious war is! 18. You shoot a fellow down 19. You'd treat, if met where any bar is, 20. Or help to half a crown.

A basic idea in this poem is that war is dehumanizing by causing us to kill people we would normally treat with friendly compassion. We kill these people, who are just like us, because we are told they are the enemy. However, the poem stresses the common humanity of the men who oppose one another in war.
Three quotes that support this idea are as follows. First, the narrator says in the first few lines that if he and the man he killed had "but met / By some ancient old inn," and not on the battlefield, they would not have killed each other. Instead, they would have had drinks together:

Wet [their tongues with] / Right many a nipperkin.

In lines 10 and 11, the narrator says he shot the man because he was his "foe," but he then goes on in lines 13-15 to stress the commonalities he imagines he and his dead foe shared: he says the man was probably unemployed like he was and then decided to enlist:

He thought he'd 'list, perhaps, / Off-hand like—just as I— / Was out of work

Finally, the narrator expands the idea that he killed a man like himself for no good reason by noting that it is "curious" that in war,

You shoot a fellow down / You'd treat, if met where any bar is, / Or help to half a crown.

In other words, all three quotes show how war warps the ordinary human tendency of people to do good for one another.

Why is football so important to Wes in The Other Wes Moore?

Football is so important to Wes because playing for the Northwood Rams makes Wes feel like he belongs and gives him a feeling of pride.
Wes was a defensive end for the Northwood Rams, which he says were "one of the best rec football teams in the nation." He even wears the jersey when he's just out playing with his friends because it makes him feel so good. He's a talented player and a natural at the sport. It's a way for him to spend time with his friends as well.
However, Wes's love of football and preoccupation with it hurts his academic performance. He was still able to pass from one grade to the next, but he wasn't getting much out of it.
Wes wants to be either a rapper or a professional football player. Though he doesn't achieve these goals, the memory of his time playing football still makes him happy. For example, when he arrives at the Job Corps, he sees goalposts and smiles because he thinks they mean that there's a football field there.

Tell how the Main character in "The Yellow Wallpaper" is a dynamic, round character by examining her development over the course of the story.

The main character of "The Yellow Wallpaper" can easily be called a round, dynamic character. In fact, the entirety of the story revolves around her dynamic change, a miserable slip into madness. In the beginning, the narrator seems reliable enough. She harbors some animosity towards her husband, who has placed her on a rest cure after she shows symptoms of a "temporary nervous depression."
The narrator has very little stimulus in her room other than the wallpaper, over which she slowly begins to obsess. It is here that we begin to see the dynamic change occurring within the protagonist. She begins to attribute strange characteristics to the wallpaper, such as a "breakneck pattern." Her psychosis peaks when she begins to believe that a woman is lurking behind the pattern of the wallpaper.
The narrator reaches the climax of her dynamic change on the last day of her rest cure. She believes she must free the woman in the pattern and strips away all the remaining wallpaper. Her husband faints when he finds her circling the room, asking if she "got out at last." The dynamic narrator ends her transformation as the personification of the woman trapped in the wallpaper.

Explain whether the cost accounting system primarily supports internal or external reporting.

A cost accounting system is used by organizations—particularly those that sell products or services—to evaluate the cost of their products in order to understand their profitability and overall value.
The cost accounting system also assists companies with controlling the pricing of each product in relations to supply-and-demand. Therefore, the cost accounting system is used in internal reporting, whether that's via memos, company meetings, or audits.
However, there are times when the data from a cost accounting system is used in external reporting. For example, stakeholders and investors could be given access to the product inventory's pricing scheme. This is usually done as a form of transparency to stakeholders, who have invested in the company's stocks and therefore could get a big picture of the company's return on investments (ROI) or possible future trends regarding certain products and markets.
https://xplaind.com/360325/cost-systems

How is parenthood portrayed in The Distance Between Us?

The Distance Between Us was written by Reyna Grande. It is a story about a Mexican girl's upbringing in both Mexico and in the United States (as an undocumented immigrant). The story centers around a strange family unit that is missing its parents, who move to the United States to try to make a better life for themselves. They leave their children behind. One of those children is the main character in the novel, which is written as a memoir.
As a result of their parents' departure, the children feel unappreciated and disliked. They feel abandoned by their parents. Parenthood is portrayed as an unwanted burden in the sense that the parents feel like they need to neglect their duty to raise and care for their kids to free themselves in the United States to pursue their own dreams.
This sense of neglected parental duties becomes most pronounced in the memoir when the father announces that he will not be returning to Mexico to raise and care for them ever again. So the promise of opportunities in the United States was more valuable to the parents than their own parental duties, and the novel makes parenthood seem like an unwanted burden.

In The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, who killed Wellington and why? What does the killer's confession reveal about his family situation and the community's perception of the disabled?

In Chapter 167, Christopher learns that it was his father who killed Wellington. His father comes clean, telling Christopher that he will always be truthful with him from now on. He tells his son that after his mother left, he got really close with Mrs. Shears. They formed a relationship and he had hoped that Mrs. Shears might become part of their family. However, their relationship led to lots of fighting. After one really bad fight, Mrs. Shears throws Christopher's dad out of the house. That's when the dog went after him, and Christopher's dad killed it with a garden fork.
This incident shows us that Christopher's father wanted to form another relationship after his wife left. He was hoping to rebuild his family with Mrs. Shears. However, it is implied that they fought about Christopher. Mrs. Shears, it seems, said some very unkind things about the boy. She seemed to care more for her dog than for her neighbors. Christopher's father admits that he acted impulsively out of anger when he killed Wellington.

What does James ask Kate to be for him in The Miracle Worker? Whats is Annie’s advice to James?

In The Miracle Worker, James is Captain Keller’s son by his first wife; Kate is his stepmother. As James reaches adulthood, he is at loose ends. Captain Keller is rather tyrannical in his approach to his family—except for letting Helen run wild. James feels neglected and misunderstood by his father, and although he struggles against his feelings, he is jealous of Helen for the indulgence with which everyone treats her.
Feeling that his father is treating him harshly and dismissing his opinions, James hopes that Kate will stick up for him. He tells her that he wants her to be his friend. She replies that she is his friend and recommends that he try to be more a part of the world. By this she means he must figure out how to be his own person as an adult and that her friendship would not really make a difference in his father’s treatment.

Explain the roots of the Civil War in the sectional crises and conflict over slavery in the 1850s. Was war inevitable at that point, or were other resolutions possible?

The roots of this crisis ultimately can be traced back to the dramatic territorial expansion which the United States underwent in the 1840s, along with the rapid growth of California, which, even as early as 1849, was already seeking to apply for statehood. In the process, long-standing tensions concerning the future of slavery in the United States were reawakened.
Ultimately, these arguments and tensions concerning slavery evolved and escalated across the decade (and indeed, these tensions can be traced further back into the Missouri Crisis and the Missouri Compromise). Ultimately, however, you should be aware of the stakes and nature of this argument. It was at its core a Constitutional argument, and both sides were motivated by strategic calculations: abolitionists were aware that if they could gain a majority among the states, they could move to ban slavery by Constitutional amendment, and slaveowners were well aware of this fact. This question of the status of slavery within the territories posed had significant long-term ramifications when you factor in that, eventually, those territories would be turned into states.
These tensions were reawakened when California applied for statehood, outlawing slavery in its constitution, which would have upset the balance of power between free states and slave states. This initial crisis was managed via the Great Compromise, but it was a compromise neither side was truly happy with. This compromise would include the harsh Fugitive Slave Act to pacify slaveholders (much to the anger of abolitionists) and would also introduce the concept of popular sovereignty as an answer to the question of whether slavery should be legal or illegal in the territories.
This crisis escalated over the course of the 1850s. The Fugitive Slave Act would intensify tensions and outrage within the North, and the concept of popular sovereignty would create turmoil, especially when it was applied to the Kansas and Nebraska territories, with pro-slavery and anti-slavery advocates pouring into Kansas to influence the decision and engaging in sectarian violence against one another. The newly formed Republican Party would gain prominence (and the later election of Republican Abraham Lincoln to the presidency would prove to be the final straw which spurred secession), while the Dred Scott ruling would further increase tensions and divisions with its sweeping defense of slavery (and this is to say nothing about the impacts of the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin or John Brown's attack at Harper's Ferry would have within the South). When looking at this tumultuous decade, you might get the sense that you are looking at a series of escalating moments in which these tensions and divisions continue ratcheting up towards higher levels of intensity.
Now, your major question here, with this in mind, is whether the Civil War was inevitable, and this is actually a deeply difficult question (and one which I'm honestly of two minds about). First of all, it's important to note that history is contingent. In that sense, it's hard to say anything is truly inevitable. That being said, the real question which must be asked is this: is compromise possible? To that question, I actually think the answer has to be no (or at least, I can't think of any realistic compromise that could be reached).
Ultimately, for both sides in this argument, the question of slavery was a question on which they could not afford to lose. Among abolitionists, it was a profound moral outrage. (Indeed, even if many among them may have advocated for a more gradual, more conservative path to abolition via Constitutional means, that's still far removed from total capitulation.) As for the pro-slavery side of this division, they understood slavery as part of the guaranteed rights to property and a fundamental part of Southern society. With that in mind, I'm not sure either side could afford anything less than a complete victory, where this question was concerned.

How did Christopher Columbus convince his crew to keep going?

Great question! There are many myths regarding Christopher Columbus and his voyage. For example, there is the the myth that sailors in the late 1400s still believed the world to be flat and if you sailed far enough, you could sail over the edge. By the time of Columbus's voyage, while the myth persisted in some sailor's minds, seasoned sailors had concluded this was not the case.
So, how did Columbus keep everyone onboard in this journey? One way was to constantly remind his crew they would be financially rewarded upon the discovery of gold and other valuable spices. For most sailors, exploration was not the primary reason they signed on to long and dangerous voyages.
However, as the logs of Christopher Columbus indicate, the dreadful unpredictable weather, low provisions, and lack of discovering riches quickly dissipated the initial enthusiasm of the voyage. At one point the crew threatened a mutiny! Columbus, recognizing the potential danger of the voyage ending prematurely, did something which probably many sea captains did during his time; he showed them his log and journal. What the crew didn't know was Columbus kept two logs. He kept one for show and the other an accurate record of his journey. This probably did not persuade everyone to continue the journey, but it was probably enough encouragement to mollify the crew wanting to return home.
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/columbus.html

How did the founding of cities by Alexander ensure that Greek ideas and influence would continue on, even after his death?

Alexander the Great didn't just conquer vast swathes of territory; he wanted to leave behind a cultural legacy that would endure for centuries. And founding large cities was a very useful way of doing this. Most societies at that time were predominantly rural, but those cities that existed tended to be the prime transmitters of culture. So Alexander knew that if he could establish cities throughout his empire, he could set the tone of its cultural life long after his death.
As a proud inheritor of Hellenic culture, Alexander wanted to see that culture spread far and wide. And the way he did this was by establishing cities ruled by ethnic Greek elites. Using their enormous power, these rulers would enforce what they regarded as a superior culture on the indigenous people they'd conquered.
Probably the most famous example of this policy comes from Egypt, which was ruled by the Ptolemaic dynasty for almost three hundred years. The Ptolemies were, like Alexander himself, ethnic Greeks, and they brought Hellenic culture with them into their newly acquired territory. The Egyptian royal family spoke Greek rather than the native Egyptian language and actively disseminated Greek culture and learning, while at the same time they consolidated their rule by presenting themselves as heirs to the ancient pharaohs. It was this astute mixture of Greek and indigenous culture that ensured the Ptolemies' survival until the defeat of Cleopatra and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE.

What are three examples of independence in The Joy Luck Club?

The struggle for independence is woven into many of the memories revealed by the characters in The Joy Luck Club. The following anecdotes from various chapters of the novel demonstrate a desire for and seizing of independence.
In "The Red Candle," Lindo Jong describes her arranged marriage with Tyan-yu Huang, made miserable by the blame he and his abrasive mother attribute to her for not bearing children, despite Tyan-yu's refusal to consummate the marriage. Envious of a kind servant girl's freedom and aiming to protect Tyan-yu's honor, Lindo devises a plan to escape by having the Huangs declare the marriage contract invalid. This assertion of her independence concludes perfectly, Lindo noting that

Huang Taitai got her grandson. I got my clothes, a rail ticket to Peking, and enough money to go to America . . . But I'll never forget . . . I remember the day when I finally knew a genuine thought and could follow where it went.

In "Without Wood," Rose Hsu Jordan is confused and hurt when Ted abandons their marriage. After a lifetime of listening to others rather than thinking for herself, she is overwhelmed with the decisions that must be made, and she debates how best to respond to Ted's betrayal, desertion, and audacious plan to divorce her and keep the house she loves. The chapter concludes when Rose finally expresses her own desires to Ted, noting the fear in his eyes upon learning her plan to stay in the house and serve him with divorce papers. "You can't just pull me out of your life and throw me away," she announces, at last finding and using her own voice.
In "Waiting Between the Trees," Ying-Ying St. Clair describes her brief marriage in China to "a man so bad that even today I cannot speak his name." After the marriage fails, she spends years quietly waiting and watching for the right opportunity to begin anew, and turns a stint as a shopgirl into a new life with Clifford St. Clair. Although she is full of shame, listlessly accepting new American ways and hiding much of herself, her strong inner spirit persists. Ying-Ying is revitalized at last by the desire to protect her daughter, and is determined to push and fight for Lena to take control and assert independence.

What are the literary devices used?

Chopin primarily uses stark, simple prose to tell her story. Some of her literary devices, however, are as follows:
Alliteration: In this literary device, two or more words that begin with the same consonant are placed close together. Chopin writes: "She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment." The alliterative "w" in "wept" and "wild" creates a sense of rhythm and puts emphasis on the words wept and wild.
Imagery: Imagery is description that uses any of the five senses: sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. In the following passage, we can visualize what Louise sees, smells, and hears:

She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air. In the street below a peddler was crying his wares. The notes of a distant song which some one was singing reached her faintly, and countless sparrows were twittering in the eaves.

Simile: Simile compares two items using the words like or as. Chopin likens Louise's will to her hands in the following: "she was striving to beat it back with her will—as powerless as her two white slender hands would have been."
Repetition: Chopin only needed to use the word free once, but the repetition emphasizes the importance of freedom to Louise: "free, free, free!"
Dialogue: Chopin primarily narrates what happens, but the brief dialogue puts us in the scene and adds dramatic intensity to the story, as in the quote below:

Josephine was kneeling before the closed door with her lips to the keyhole, imploring for admission. "Louise, open the door! I beg; open the door—you will make yourself ill. What are you doing, Louise? For heaven's sake open the door."

Analyze how The Great Gatsby challenges the established values of its time.

In many ways, The Great Gatsby is a quintessential example of life in the 1920s, the era in which the novel is set, but Jay Gatsby, one of the main characters, challenges the values of the era with his approach to wealth.
Gatsby shares his wealth by throwing extravagant parties and welcoming everyone. He makes everyone feel as if he is fond of them and wants them around. Gatsby wants to be liked more than he wants to be rich but has no problem using his wealth to make people like him. Later in the novel, we see that he is willing to go to extremes to be loved as well.
Compare this to the stiff, reserved representations of "old money" in the novel, like Tom and Daisy. They aren't nearly as welcoming to Nick as Gatsby is, even though they've known Nick longer. While they invite Nick to their home, they aren't nearly as hospitable or welcoming as Gatsby is. Tom and Daisy are used to the idea of being wealthy, and while they know their money can be used to their benefit, they're reserved in regard to their lifestyle and privacy, keeping secrets of their marriage from even those close to them.
Gatsby, on the other hand, makes a show of his wealth by throwing parties and treating his friends to outings. While Gatsby keeps secrets, he does so to make himself more amiable, and he feels that he has more to lose if his friends stop liking him. Essentially, The Great Gatsby challenges the 1920s values of conservatism and wealth.

Socialism, anarchism, communism, and syndicalism all emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What accounts for the rise in these movements and how was Progressivism at odds with these movements?

The Industrial Revolution was a huge factor in the rise of anarchism, socialism, communism, and syndicalism (which can interact with all three of the above mentioned political ideologies). The industrial revolution led to the sharp rise in wealth disparities, higher populations of disenfranchised people, disillusionment with the "American dream" and other liberal concepts about capitalism, and a higher concentration of people in urban settings who could come together over social, political, and economic oppressions. The working class became a much more solidified and easily defined group of peoples through industrialized labor. While anarchism, socialism, and communism have distinct ideologies, people who identified with any of these ideologies in the above mentioned time period tended to be involved in labor movements, with some movements being more radical than others. This involvement in labor movements by all three ideologies and political practices is how syndicalism was rooted in many aspects of 19th and early-mid 20th centuries anarchism, communism, and socialism. Anarchists, for example, are actively against rulers and hierarchical power relations/systems. Therefore, anarchists responded to the industrial revolution by working to free themselves from the shackles of being used as a source of profit for rich bosses. Anarcho-syndicalists of this time period encouraged wildcat strikes, in which workers participated in strikes regardless of bureaucratic labor union support, and attempted to free themselves from the capitalist system by creating worker-owned collectives, in which no one was the boss/manager. Communists and socialists also strove to improve the conditions of working class through addressing unequal power relations. Socialists tended to look towards building large, bureaucratic labor unions as a solution to labor inequality. Communists tended to form educational political groups that encouraged workers to rise up and take factories over from their bosses. Some communist organizations were comprised of workers who actually organized in work places, while others remained more educational/political clubs that advocated for revolt from the sidelines.
Progressivism was at odds with all of these movements because it is not a radical ideology. Radical means "to the root." To get to the root of oppression and power dynamics, one must be willing to analyze the very fundamental basis of how power is concentrated and how governments and businesses operate. Progressives did not seek to radically transform or shift power relations. They sought to simply make reformist changes to the system without challenging the existence of the system itself. Progressives tended to be apart of the bourgeois middle class who were comfortable, and perhaps held liberal ideals, but were not interested in radically shifting power dynamics by eradicating the very existence of class-based societies.

What is the publication and background information?

The Ministry of Fear is a novel written by English author Graham Greene (1904 – 1991). Greene was born to a prosperous family, graduated from Oxford University, worked as a journalist, and was employed by MI6, a British intelligence agency, for several years. Two factors influencing The Ministry of Fear are Greene's experience as an intelligence agent and his Roman Catholic beliefs, which form the moral framework of his fiction. The Ministry of Fear was published in 1943, at the height of World War II, and reflects life in England as it was affected by wartime shortages and the Blitz (bombardment by the Nazi air force). In 1944, The Ministry of Fear was made into a film directed by Fritz Lang.

During Okonkwo’s exile, Obierika proves to be his friend. How do Obierika’s actions show true friendship?

Despite Okonkwo's embarrassing punishment and loss of titles, Obierika demonstrates his true friendship by visiting him in Mbanta during the second year of his exile in chapter 15. Obierika reveals his friendship by taking care of Okonkwo's business affairs in Umuofia and selling his yams. When Obierika arrives at Mbanta with his two sons, he presents Okonkwo with several bags of cowries, which are the profits from the sale of his yams. The two men then discuss the terrible fate of Abame, and Obierika confirms the rumors of the destructive white men. Obierika then explains to Okonkwo that he sold his seed-yams to sharecroppers and will continue to do so every year until Okonkwo returns to Umuofia permanently. Obierika visits Okonkwo once again during his exile to inform him about the white colonists encroaching on Umuofia and tells him about Nwoye's conversion to Christianity. Overall, Obierika proves his friendship by taking care of Okonkwo's business affairs during his exile and keeping him informed about the changing environment in Umuofia.

Why does Hamlet get upset with the gravedigger?

Hamlet is upset with the gravedigger because the gravedigger does not seem to treat his task with the proper gravity. Hamlet asks Horatio, of the gravedigger, "Has this fellow no feeling of his business? He sings in grave-making" (5.1.67-68). Having recently lost his father, Hamlet is especially aware of the real-life tragedy of dealing with the death of someone one loves. When the gravedigger digs up a skull, Hamlet says, "That skull had a tongue in it and could sing once" (5.1.77-78). He considers the lives of the people whose bones the gravedigger digs up, thinking about what they might have been like during their lives, humanizing them in a way that the gravedigger does not. He becomes a bit philosophical as a result.
Once Hamlet begins to converse with the gravedigger, he becomes a little irritated at how literal the man is in his speech. The gravedigger says that the grave is not for a man, and is not for a woman, but it is for a person who used to be a woman during her life. "How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us" Hamlet exclaims (5.1.140). The gravedigger's speech is so literal that it is difficult to actually have a conversation with him.

Hamlet's upset with the gravediggers because they're not treating the dead with the respect that they deserve. The gravediggers are comic characters, a couple of clowns who spend most of their time joking, singing, and engaging in witty word-play. Hardly the attitude we might expect from someone entrusted with such a solemn task. The gravediggers have become so used to being in close proximity to the dead that they've almost become immured to the sordid details of their work. Horatio understand this:

Custom hath made it in him a property of easiness. (act 5, scene 1)

But Hamlet is less understanding. That skull that one of the gravediggers is throwing about while he cheerfully sings once belonged to someone. It once had a tongue inside it; the person it belonged to also sang once upon a time. Nevertheless, Hamlet soon catches the infectious spirit of the gravediggers' gallows humor and begins to make jokes at the expense of the dead, musing aloud on whether one of the skulls once belonged to a greedy, grasping lawyer.

What is the speaker in "Death, Be Not Proud" saying about the nature and strength of death? What is the importance of the rhymes in the poem?

The personification of Death in this poem is the conceit around which the poem revolves. Capitalization has long been used in poetry in tandem with personification. By capitalizing Death, it becomes more than simply an abstract idea; it has become a proper noun, like a person's name. Capitalizing Death, as one may capitalize God, gives the word more prominence and supports the imagining of Death as a sentient being with motivations and understanding.
Ultimately, however, although Donne characterizes Death as engaged in an ongoing attempt to "overthrow" humanity, the point of this poem is that the speaker thinks Death is not "mighty and dreadful" at all. While Death can certainly take away our lives unexpectedly, it is actually a "slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men." Donne is saying that we ourselves can summon death, by way of poison or war. All death really does is put us to sleep, after which "we wake eternally," so, therefore, how is death any stronger than "poppy or charms" (meaning drugs, or spells to induce sleep)? Just as we wake from an ordinary sleep, we wake from the sleep Death puts us into, and so Death himself is vanquished by the hope of eternal life.
A note on the concluding couplet: it is almost certainly by chance that these two lines no longer rhyme in modern English. Remember that Donne was writing in the early seventeenth-century, when the pronunciation of English was different. "Eternally" would originally have rhymed with "die." In certain parts of northern England and Scotland, this is still true—the word "die" is pronounced "dee." In Donne's case, it's likely that he pronounced "die" in the modern way and pronounced "eternally" as "eternal-lie," based on the part of the country he was born in and its regional accent.

How can "The Emperor of Ice-Cream" be understood as advocating an appreciation for the "here and now"?

“The Emperor of Ice Cream” is a poem that can be read on several levels and is probably best understood as an existential commentary on the fleeting nature of life and so a testament to the rationality of a certain Epicureanism. However, to reduce the poem to a statement of values, we can also argue that “The Emperor of Ice Cream” is a poem simply advocating an appreciation of the “here and now.”
The dead woman of the second stanza and her cold, protruding feet make a contrast to the lively and animated figures of the first stanza. The poem suggests that the light of the lamp illuminates this stark difference between the insensible dead and those who celebrate life and enact it.
In the command, “Let the lamp affix its beam,” the narrator demands that this contrast be recognized, directly and clearly, so that there is no confusion as to who rules the day, who commands the riches of life.

Was Franklin Pierce a strong president?

Franklin Pierce was elected as the fourteenth president of the United States in 1853. Pierce assumed office at a time when sectionalism was becoming a more significant issue in United States politics and when the expansion towards the west was a priority for many of the leaders in government. The Compromise of 1850 had quelled some of the storm caused by the pro-slavery movement to expand in western territories. Pierce had resolved to maintain a course that would not inflame either side. Underestimating the passion of the two sides to maintain a semblance of peace, Pierce promoted policies that several historians believe pushed the country in the direction of secession from the Union by Southerners and, ultimately, Civil War.
From this perspective, historians say Pierce was a victim of the times unable to project an image of a strong leader and without Congressional support flowed with the tides of the times. Democrats were far more invested in compromise as a means to unite the Northern and Southern factions into one party to win national elections. Their rivals, the Whig Party, nominated candidates unable to generate Southern enthusiasm. Further weakening the Whig Party in national elections were the deaths of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay in 1852, eliminating the Whig's major national leaders capable of uniting the country in elections.
Pierce's leadership was probably impacted by personal problems, which may have affected his judgment and his public persona. Jane Pierce did not support his candidacy for president. Pierce's wife did not want him to be elected and wrote to friends expressing her hope for his defeat. Washington, in her mind, was not the place she wanted to live, and undoubtedly, the lack of support of his wife in a national election created a tense situation between the two.
It was a freak accident and tragedy that drove the final wedge in their relationship. Just a few short months before taking office, Pierce and his wife were devastated by the death of their eleven-year-old son, who died in a tragic train wreck. Pierce, his wife, and son were riding in a train car that derailed, barreling down an embankment and killing his youngest son. Pierce and his wife had already suffered from the death of two children earlier in their lives. Reports indicated that his son's skull was crushed by falling wood. When Pierce went to provide medical aid to his son, removing the cap from his son's head, a shocked Pierce saw the wood had penetrated through the skull and into the brain.
Witnessing the death of his youngest son took a toll on Franklin Pierce. Historians believed he was suffering from depression before he took the oath of office, and witnessing the death of his youngest son only made the problem worse. At his inauguration, Pierce refused the tradition of taking the oath of office by swearing on the Bible. Both he and his wife believed God was angered at them for campaigning and that the death of their son was evidence of God's anger. Compounding the immense guilt and grief from the death of his son, Pierce was known to be a heavy drinker and an alcoholic. At the time of his leaving office, Pierce was reported to have told reporters, "There is nothing left but to get drunk."
Personal problems before being elected, alcoholism, and a strained marriage contributed to the persona of Franklin Pierce as a tragic figure in American politics. Some historians refer to him as America’s saddest president. Pierce cannot be characterized as a strong president, but it easy to sympathize how the tragedies in his life were hard to bear and to understand how his leadership abilities were compromised during his time as president.
http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/triumph-tragedy-franklin-pierce/

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/franklin-pierce

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/franklin-pierce/

Under General Grant, how was the Union military strategy in 1864 successful or unsuccessful in the eastern and western theaters of the war?

Grant's strategy, formulated with Sherman, was an enormous success. The plan was for Grant to tie down and wear down Confederate General Robert Lee's army in Virginia. Sherman would enter Georgia from eastern Tennessee, liberate it from the Confederacy, and then march to the Atlantic Ocean, cutting the Confederacy in two again. (It had already been split by Grant and Sherman taking the Mississippi River and its ports.) Then Sherman would march to the north through the Carolinas, coming up on Lee's rear.
The plan worked remarkably well, proving Grant to be superior as a general and strategist to Lee. Grant was able to outfight and outmaneuver Lee from the northern part of Virginia to the peninsula on the coast and then pivot west to Richmond, from which Lee was expelled and the Confederate capital taken.
Sherman took Atlanta in a siege; the Confederates then ordered Atlanta burned down, only partly succeeding. Sherman then marched to the sea—with Confederate General Wheeler ordering everything in his path destroyed. To this day, the Lost Cause and other Confederate apologists blame Sherman for what Confederates did. Sherman only destroyed military targets like railroads and mills and gave Georgians receipts for the food taken to be later reimbursed by the US government. By the time Sherman reached North Carolina, Lee had already surrendered to Grant.
The main criticism leveled at Grant was that his victories were too costly—an opinion articulated mostly by those same Confederate apologists. Lee actually lost a proportionately higher number of men and ultimately didn't win against Grant.

Find the mean absolute deviation for the numbers 30, 45, 52, 48, 100, 45, 42, 45.

Given numbers
30, 4s, 52, 48, 100, 45, 47,45
Step 1: find "mean"
= (30 + 45 + 52 + 48 + 100 + 45 + 42 + 45) / 8
= 50.875
Step 2: Find absolute value of each result,Here result is difference between eachvelue in the date and mean.
(30 - 50.875) = 20.875
(45 - 50.875) = 5.875
(52 - 50.875) = 1.125
(48 - 50.875) = 2.875
(100 - 50.875) = 49.125
(45 - 50.875) = 5.875
(42 - 50.875) = 8.875
(45 - 50.875) = 5.875
Step 3: Find the average of step 2 result's
(20.875 + 5.875 + 1.125 + 2.875 + 49.125 + 5.875 + 8.875 + 5.875) / 8
= 12.5625
The mean absolute deviation is 12. 5625

To find the mean absolute deviation, you have to take several steps. The mean absolute deviation is the average distance away from the mean value of a dataset of each datapoint.
First, you need to find the mean of the data by summing them all and dividing by the count: (30 + 45 + 52 + 48 + 100 + 45 + 42 + 45)/8 = 50.875
Then, subtract each number from the mean and take the absolute value of each result:
abs(30 - 50.875) = 20.875
abs(45 - 50.875) = 5.875
abs(52 - 50.875) = 1.125
abs(48 - 50.875) = 2.875
abs(100 - 50.875) = 49.125
abs(45 - 50.875) = 5.875
abs(42 - 50.875) = 8.875
abs(45 - 50.875) = 5.875
Finally, take the mean of all these values in the same way as before.
(20.875 + 5.875 + 1.125 + 2.875 + 49.125 + 5.875 + 8.875 + 5.875)/8 = 12.5625

Share your experience in reading "A Rose for Emily": did the foreshadowings give away the ending for you?

I really was not expecting the ending, though I started to become suspicious when Emily purchases the arsenic and refuses to say what it was for. Although people in the town think that she is going to use it to take her life, Emily seems far too proud to do anything that would make it appear as though she has been defeated or weakened by her situation. In addition, learning that Emily held on to her father's body for so long after his death, that she did not seem to fully process his death or accept its significance, also throws up some red flags. In short, there are certainly warnings, but the clever way in which the story's events are ordered goes a long way to keeping us from connecting the dots.

The practice of agriculture for thousands of years in the New Guinea highlands led to significant problems with deforestation in more heavily populated areas. How has the casuarina tree proved to be an important part of their efforts to deal with this problem? What are its advantages?

Casuarina is a genus of tree that contains various species of evergreen shrubs and trees. Some of these species have become very useful in the New Guinea highlands. These trees were first introduced there in the 1950s; since then, the people have continued to grow the plants in an attempt to cultivate landscapes affected by deforestation. The locals also use casuarinas to provide shade and rejuvenate soils for their coffee plants, which are extremely important as they are a valuable source of income.
The advantages of casuarinas are numerous. This is a plant that is resilient to heat, pests, diseases, moderate drought conditions, and low soil fertility. As stated above, casuarinas can repair soil (because they are nitrogen-fixing); additionally, they can stabilize areas susceptible to erosion (dunes or hill slopes) and aid in the remediation of marshy areas affected by increased salinity or waterlogging. Moreover, these plants are good colonizers and able to withstand and actually thrive in areas that are overgrown with invasive grasses, like Imperata, which can cause economic and environmental damage. Ultimately, because of their hardy physiology, which allows them to grow and flourish in unfavorable conditions, casuarinas are good candidates for restoring barren areas like those created by deforestation.

What power does the individual hold/yield in society in the novel 1984 by George Orwell?

The individual in 1984 has no power, as Orwell intended it. The people of 1984 live under a totalitarian regime with "Big Brother" as the head of state. The often-quoted "Big Brother is Watching You" slogan plastered throughout the novel emphasizes that individuals have no privacy, and no control over this fact. Everything about the 1984 society is aimed at subjugating the masses--instilling in them an unparalleled sense of fear, loneliness, and powerlessness. By doing so, the government is able to control the individual--their marriage, their children, their lifestyle--all while leaving the individual as a helpless pawn of society.
The theory behind it being that frightened citizens are unable to unify and overthrow the government. If everyone believes (and has it instilled within them) that they are unable to make their own choices and are continuously monitored, they are essentially trapped and unable to escape--just like mice in a maze.

The individual has no power whatsoever in the dystopian world of 1984. The state of Oceania is a brutal, one-party dictatorship in which basic human rights are routinely and flagrantly disregarded. Every aspect of life is controlled by the Party, including the inner life of its citizens. The regime uses various methods of mind-control to keep the population firmly in check. It's not enough that the Party controls what people do and where they go, but also what they think. In Oceania, your life is not your own; it belongs entirely to the Party.
That said, the Proles enjoy some measure of freedom, relatively speaking. The regime doesn't regard the Proles as having much in the way of revolutionary potential, so they're pretty much left to their own devices. Unlike the rest of society, they don't have to have intrusive telescreens in their homes to keep them under surveillance. They can also engage in sex whenever they like and are free to get a divorce, a privilege denied the rest of society.
The Party cynically believes that if the Proles are kept in a state of ignorance, fed on a constant diet of cheap booze, mindless entertainment, and pornography, they won't get any ideas about overthrowing the regime. This may not sound like much of a life, but it's the nearest that anyone gets to freedom in this totalitarian society.

What does Eddie do to Mr. Yellow shoes?

Eddie relates the story of how his cousin Jesús was murdered in a nightclub bathroom by a young man wearing yellow shoes. It would appear that Jesús said something about the shoes and the young man took offense. He responded angrily, plunging his knife blade into Jesús's heart, killing him instantly. Eddie doesn't know for certain precisely what happened that night as he's simply reporting what was told to him by Angel.
In any case, Eddie comes under a lot of pressure from Angel as well as his Aunt Dolores to avenge Jesús's death. And so he spends a lot of time looking for the mysterious man with the yellow shoes. But try as he might, he just can't find him. Although he does approach a startled youth in the college parking-lot one day who answers to the description of the alleged murderer. Eddie gets right up into the young man's face, threatening him and stepping on his yellow shoes. But Eddie walks off when the campus police approach before he can do something he might regret.
Eventually, Eddie begins to suspect that maybe the man with the yellow shoes doesn't really exist; that maybe Angel was responsible for Jesús's death and has sent him off on a wild goose-chase to deflect attention from his own guilt.