Was the US formed as a democracy or a republic?

This is a good question as the term democracy and republic in modern days are used to describe many different political organizations. Often they were used interchangeably. The Pew Research Institute survey in 2017 concluded that six of every ten countries are some form of democracy. The United Nations reports of the approximately 192 countries that are members, 123 of the countries claim to be democratic. When we examine the term democracy as pictured by the American public, it differs in form from our close ally in Great Britain. Let's examine the question from a historical perspective.
Democracy and democratic is a Greek term that literally means rule by the people. Recall that in the earliest days of colonial America, Great Britain was beginning a transition from the absolute rule of the monarchy to a parliamentary form of government. The American colonists were considered under the authority of the monarchy though white male property owners were allowed to vote on matters concerning the administration of the colony. Early in the founding of the colonies was the notion that people most affected by the government should have a say in how the government was run and who was in charge. As the Americans began to move towards independence from Great Britain, a great deal of thought went into how to best achieve rule by the people in a pragmatic and practical way.
Democracies are characterized foremost by free elections without interference by the government. Direct democracy is when citizens vote on every issue affecting them. While voting by citizens in town halls and local community meetings worked when the colonies consisted of a few hundred people, holding a vote on every issue of government was not practical. As the colonies enlarged, so did the need for a bureaucracy that could act on behalf of elected representatives without the necessity of a citizen vote for every single matter. The founders were keenly aware and able to observe what was happening in Europe as monarchs began giving way to democratically formed governance. It is not a coincidence that many of the founders were fluent in Greek and Latin as well as being educated in world history, in particular, the history of the Roman and Greek empires. They were equally familiar with the philosophers from Great Britain and France that predicted the decline of monarchies and the rise of democratic institutions.
The word republic is a Latin word meaning a public thing. A republic is a form of government whereby citizens have a say in the government, and the head of state is not a monarch. The key to a functioning republic is the confidence citizens have in their elected leaders to represent and act on issues impartially. Keep in mind in our current time; many countries claim they are democratic or republics. For example, North Korea and China use the word republic to describe their states. Neither is democratic. In the historical context of the founding of America, there is no comparison to what is currently termed a republic or in some cases termed as democratic.
When the founders began thinking about how to completely banish the notions of a monarchy and retain the democratic ideals expressed by the town hall meeting whereby citizens input was coveted, the form of American democracy took a turn different from Great Britain's parliamentary government. In America, the founders were able to combine the ideals of democracy with the practical elements of a republic. A republic form of government is one made up of elected officials acting on behalf of an active voting citizenry. A democracy is a form of government where citizens express their views through voting for elected officials to act on their behalf. The term representative government is also used to describe how the colonists wanted to be governed. Principles found in the republic and direct form of democracy are evident in the historical writings of the founders of America.
From a historical perspective and there is a great deal of debate as to which position is correct because initially (As evidenced by the Declaration of Independence.) the primary interest in the founders was to disassociate the colonies with a monarchy form of government, the idea of a republic form of government may have been the first organizing principle. However, since voting was a key component of colonial life, it is hard to fathom how democracy was not the cornerstone of the republic. Reading the writing from the early founders leads to the conclusion America evolved into a democratic republic, and the United States is the realization of the vision of the founders.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/10/01/democracy-or-republic/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/

What are two words that describe Margo after her encounter with the dead man in Paper Towns?

There are many ways we could describe Margo, and over the course of Paper Towns, the book builds two divergent portrayals of her. If I were to describe her based only on the prologue in which she meets the dead man and what we see of her immediately afterwards in the first few chapters of the book, I would stick to the author's words and describe her as mysterious and unprecedented. The prologue closes with the line that " . . . maybe [Margo] loved mysteries so much that she became one," and the opening paragraph of chapter three claims that "[s]he was absolutely unprecedented in every way." A close third choice could be "vindictive," as we see her dragging Quentin into a complex revenge scheme against her ex in the early chapters of the book.
However, over the course of the book, we are asked to question whether this framing of Margo as mysterious, fascinating, unprecedented, and adventurous is a fair one or if it is an example of Quentin being an untrustworthy narrator and romanticizing Margo. A tension develops between Q seeking to find meaning in Margo and wanting to be important to Margo and Margo living her own life, sometimes interested in Q and sometimes not. She is busy with her own search for meaning and never content to live her life for someone else. Based on this perspective, we might describe her as solitary, independent, or determined.

Define "industrial capitalism." How was industrial capitalism a global phenomemon in the late nineteenth century?

Industrial capitalism is a form of economic sustainability during the 19th Century. Prior to the expansion of industry, such as transportation and trade, the primary economic unit was a family-based economy, where the family was primarily responsible for the production and distribution of local society's goods and services. With the expansion of huge manufacturing plants, major modes of transportation, and mass production of goods, families as a source of production was replaced by the need for males to work in the newly established factories, and created a gender-based division of labor between work and household.

Industrial capitalism is the economic system that the US has; trade and the economy is controlled and operated for a profit, and is usually controlled by private individuals rather than the government.
In the 19th century, the rise of industrialism introduced machinery and standardization to the global economy. This made goods easier to come by and cheaper, which increased mass consumerism, which in turn fueled more industry. As a result, there was a shift from mercantile economies to capitalist ones. Industrial capitalism also occurred as a part of and in conjunction with the Enlightenment in Europe, when new ideas about laissez-faire, free market, capitalist economies spread throughout the Western world.
One key proponent of industrial capitalism was enlightened philosophe and economist Adam Smith, who argued that in a mercantile system, the state will only profit at the expense of another state. With industrial capitalism, the people could profit and benefit the global economy by engaging in business and industry.
Worldwide, we see the decline of handicraft, non-industrial economies such as weaving. Instead, machine based industry takes over, and countries are either major producers or major suppliers. This in turn changed social classes, introducing a large working class to the Western world.
This is also the period of time where Western nations begin imperial projects in the global South, most notably in Africa and in South, Southeast, and East Asia. Right as Latin American colonies gained their independence, and Europe could no longer rely on sugar plantations for mercantile profit, African and Asian nations were turned into imperial colonies and used as sources of natural resources or raw materials as well as markets for European goods. The turn towards industrial capital also impacted the social and political relationship of many of the world's nations, in addition to the obvious economic relationships.

How do we know Désirée is not the biological daughter of the Valmonde family?

In Kate Chopin’s short story “Désirée’s Baby,” the main character, Désirée Valmonde Aubigny, is found when she is just a baby by Monsieur Valmonde on the edge of his Louisiana Plantation. The Valmondes do not have any children of their own, so Désirée is raised as their own child. Because she was abandoned, her family history is unknown, but since she has light skin, the family believes she is white. Years later, Armand Aubigny travels by the plantation and falls in love with her at first sight. The two marry, and she soon becomes pregnant. However, once she gives birth, the baby has a darker skin tone. Since her husband knows his family history—or at least believes that he does—everyone assumes that it is her family line contains African American blood. Embarrassed, Désirée takes the baby and runs away.
The plot twist comes at the end of the story. As Armand burns all trace of his wife’s existence, he finds a note written in someone else’s handwriting. In it, he learns that his own mother was actually black.

I thank the good God for having so arranged our lives that our dear Armand will never know that his mother, who adores him, belongs to the race that is cursed with the brand of slavery.

Why did the United States intervene in World War I?

World War I began on July 28, 1914 and lasted until November 11, 1918. Many historians and analysts argue that there are various reasons that led to the start of the First World War. However, the majority agree that it all began when a young Bosnian Serb and member of Young Bosnia (an organization seeking to end the Austro-Hungarian rule over Bosnia and Herzegovina) by the name of Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. As a result, Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia.
During the conflict, Austro-Hungary, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria (the Central Powers) fought against France, Russia, Great Britain, Italy, Romania, Japan and the United States (the Allied Powers). Because of the new technologies and weapons, the war had a tremendous impact on the world’s social, economic, cultural, and political climate and saw unparalleled levels of chaos and destruction. By the time it was over, nearly 17 million people, both soldiers and civilians, were dead, and countless structures were destroyed and damaged.
In the end, the Allied Powers claimed victory, and the war went down in history as “The Great War.” However, because of the unresolved issues between the participants, a Second World War, much greater and deadlier in proportion, would follow twenty years later.
At the outbreak of the war, the USA decided to remain neutral and ‘observe from the sidelines,’ which was a policy suggested by then-US president Woodrow Wilson. The US government and military continued to collaborate with Europe business- and politics-wise and maintained a stable relationship with both sides, mainly supplying food, money, weapons, and raw material for the Allied Powers.
However, the majority of the population disagreed with President Wilson’s neutrality strategy and believed that the US should enter the war. They became especially enraged when Germany started to attack neutral ships that carried cargo and passengers, declaring the British waters a war zone. This kick-started the campaign known as the U-boat Campaign, in which German U-boats resumed unchecked submarine warfare and attacked several vessels from the Allied Powers and the US, including those carrying passengers.
The turning point happened in May 1915, when German U-boats attacked and sunk the British ocean liner RMS Lusitania - the world’s largest passenger ship at the time. It was traveling from New York to Liverpool, England and had hundreds of American civilians on-board. After this tragic event, the US began preparing for war, with Congress passing a $250 million arms appropriations bill in February 1917.
Meanwhile, German U-boats sunk four more American vessels. Fueled by the American people’s protests, President Woodrow Wilson made an official public appearance, on April 2, calling for a declaration of war against Germany. Thus, on April 6, 1917, Congress voted to declare war on Germany, which marks the official entry of the United States in the First World War.

Discuss any poem or set of poems from William Blake's Song of Innocence and of Experience. Focus on the various literary and/or pictorial elements that Blake employs to convey his ideas or themes. Explore what Blake means by the "contrary states" of innocence and experience, drawing on your own as well as Blake's understanding, but in particular seek to show how Blake conveys his thinking about any theme or combination of themes: childhood, protection, suffering, creation, divine humanity, sexuality, spirituality, encroachment, slavery, social inequality, solidarity, authority, Christianity, etc. Focus on how literary/pictorial elements support your argument.

"The Chimney Sweeper," a title shared by corresponding poems in Blake's Songs of Innocence and of Experience, portray the lot for chimney sweepers, children subjected to child labor in order to escape poverty. In the version thematically addressing innocence, both Tom Dacre, the chimney sweeper whose dream is recanted in the poem, and the narrator, share a puerile wishful thinking that takes the form of blind acceptance and faith in the doctrine prescribed by the Church.
Here, Tom Dacre, despite suffering the ills of his work, escapes the woes of child labor by keeping in mind what the angel in his dream professes: that 'if he'd be a good boy / He'd have God for his father & never want joy," as he gets up to work. In the cold of the winter, he is 'happy & warm. / So if all do their duty, they need not fear harm.' Tom Dacre's innocence comes through in his passive acceptance that his worldly pain will transform into eternal life and salvation in the next realm.
In stark contrast, the version on experience paints a vastly different picture. Here the chimney sweeper soberly identifies the folly of his parents who 'are both gone up to the church to pray,' and who 'think they have done [him/her] no injury' are 'gone up to praise God & his priest & King / who make up a heaven of our misery.' In an honest account of the abuse perpetrated by the parents in their passive acceptance of suffering as a vehicle to salvation, the chimney sweeper begrudgingly identifies the sham of organized and institutionalized religion. Suffering is no longer understood as a means to achieving eternal life, but rather as a tool for the subjugation of the people by the Church.
Thus, these two poems present two opposing viewpoints on the lot for chimney sweepers. In the first, a hopeful innocence is conveyed through the passive acceptance of suffering as a way to eternal life. In the second, experience has brought forth the understanding that suffering is caused by the organized religion itself as a means of control.

"The Lamb" and "The Tyger" are two often-contrasted poems in Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience, because both contain themes of good and evil as well as the nature of God the Creator. Both poems have certain parallels, even down to individual lines—with the lamb's wool described as "softest clothing wooly bright" and the tiger described as "burning bright." The brightness of the lamb comes from its innocence while the tiger's brightness is from its feral majesty.
"The Lamb" reads like a childish catechism. The speaker's diction evokes that of a small child speaking to an animal. The speaker explains how the lamb was created by a loving, kind God who seeks to make sure it is cared for. This is as pure an image of God the Father as one could ask for: paternal and protecting.
However, "The Tyger" paints a different image. The rhythm and diction are more urgent here, describing the tiger as a fearsome beast, as frightening as it is inspiring in its sheer power. The tone here is also questioning, but here, the speaker has no answer for any of the inquiries he poses, lacking the childlike confidence of the speaker of "The Lamb." The question, "Did he smile his work to see? / Did he who made the lamb make thee?" is almost despairing in its tone. It is as if the speaker from "The Lamb" has grown up and come to question his or her original beliefs about the nature of the Creator. If God created both the gentle lamb and the violent tiger, then what does that say about God?
So, by combining these two poems, we can see a journey from an unquestioning, innocent trust in a benevolent God to the ambiguity and uncertainty which arises from adulthood musings on morality and faith.

Why does T. S Eliot matter in the twenty-first century?

As with all great artists, the appeal of T. S. Eliot is timeless. More than any other poet of his day and age, he pushed back the boundaries of what poetry was capable of, showing us a different world, written in a completely different poetic language, that influenced successive generations of poets and still influences many of them today.
Eliot's contributions to poetry, not to mention drama and literary criticism, are many and various. But one of his most important was the notion of the dissociation of sensibility. This is a complex idea, but what it amounts to in basic terms is that, at some time in the seventeenth century, at the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, thought and feeling, which had previously been unified in Western culture, began to split apart. In relation to the arts, especially literature, this meant that artists increasingly chose to express only one part of themselves, either speaking through the heart or the head but not both together.
For Eliot, this was a dangerous development. Great art, he believed, can only come from a unification, a joining together, of the sensibilities, so that in writing poetry, a poet thinks his or her feelings and feels his or her thoughts. In other words, a poet should write with both the head and the heart. And that's precisely what Eliot sought to do in his own work. Even in works of great religious devotion, such as Four Quartets, there is not simply emotion, but also a profound intelligence at work, drawing on several centuries of Western intellectual heritage to give shape to Eliot's burgeoning Christian faith.
Though many critics have challenged Eliot's ideas, they have also acknowledged the suggestiveness of the dissociation of sensibility thesis. Certainly if one applies this idea to an art work, be it a painting, a poem, or a piece of music, it's striking just how many of the very greatest pieces exhibit exactly the same kind of unified sensibility that Eliot recommends. Whatever the truth of Eliot's most notable contribution to literary criticism, there can be no doubt that it does at least make us pause and think more deeply about what constitutes a great work of art. And for that, at least, we owe Eliot a profound debt of gratitude.