Chaucer's Canterbury Tales
After reading explications of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, a student is likely to come away with the impression that the Franklin is the critics favorite punching bag. To the average reader in the modern English-speaking world, the Franklin comes across as surprisingly fair-minded and level-headed, noteworthy as the man kind and inventive enough to resolve the marriage cycle with a tale of decency and openness. The critics, however, often depict the Franklin as a man primarily concerned with upward mobility, finding in his tale a number of remarks intended to win over the nobility and subtly assert his own claim to a kind of nobility. The contrast between the fawning Franklin of certain critical approaches and the open-minded Franklin of the more pedestrian reader can probably be summed up in the word "bourgeois." Some critics find in the Franklin a good example of the less flattering qualities of the word, while modern American readers -- products of a society in which the bourgeois lifestyle is considered the norm -- tend to find in the Franklin an intelligence, style and tolerance often associated with the upwardly mobile or the middle class. His "everybody wins" approach to the problems of the romance might even be an example of what Marxists and anarchists used to decry as bourgeois liberalism.
It might be best to first clear up what exactly is meant when we speak of a Marxist critique. Marxist literary criticism is based largely on the Marxist paradigm of historical materialism: the idea that social and cultural institutions -- including art -- are the product of prevailing economic conditions (Murfin 157-158). Not only is the medium the message, Marxists argue, the medium is a commodity which...
... middle of paper ...
...served. Here, whether he likes it or not, the Franklin is forced to endorse the system of contracts which turns Dorigen into a commodity. The success of his story, and possibly the validity of the worldview which produces it, depends on the Franklin's ability to postpone the expression of his listeners doubts -- to postpone them indefinitely, if need be. Perhaps this is why the Franklin is so insistent, at tales end, on asking which character was most generous, and why he insists on hearing answers immediately. His tale of the elimination of maistrye has turned into a tale of people mastered not by each other but by a system of exchange. The best way to hide the maistrye of the marketplace is to offer the audience a chance to argue while directing them away from the shocking moment when the gentillesse of the marketplace tramples on free will and personal integrity.
Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
Is the upholding of the American flag as a symbol of the United States more important than the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Are there certain freedoms of expression that are not protected under the First Amendment and if so what qualifies as freedom of speech and expression and what does not? The Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson proves that the First Amendment and the freedom of speech are not limited to that of spoken and written word, but also extended to symbolic speech as well. Texas v. Johnson is a case in which the interpretation of the First Amendment rights is at the top of the argument. This case discusses the issue of flag burning as a desecration of national unity and that the flag of the United States should be protected under a law. Texas v. Johnson expanded the rights of symbolic speech and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and was presented as a precedence for future cases along with influencing the final decision on the revision of
Marxism is an economic and social system developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the mid-1800s (What is Marxism). A Marxist literary criticism deals with class consciousness and ideology.
Much history came within the Texas v. Johnson case. It all started during the 1984 Republican National Convention, this is where Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest what policies Regan was administrating (Brennan 1). A march was occurring throughout the city streets, which Johnson did take part in. Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted him on (Brennan 1). No person was specifically injured during this protest; although, many witnesses were severely offended (Brennan 1). Johnson was convicted of Desecration of a venerated object, which violated the Texas Statue. The state court of appeals affirmed Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and reversed the case stating it was a form of expressive conduct, so it was alright (Brennan 1). In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Johnson’s burning of the flag was protected under his First Amendment rights (Brennan 1). The court also found that although witnesses may have found it offensive, does not...
In the first amendment it states that there should be no law against the freedoms of speech. Protesting is one form of speech, also is the burning of the flag. Johnson was expressing himself as he was burning the flag. However, there is a limit though. If what you are saying, or doing, disturbs the peace, or puts harm in someone’s way, then it is not protected under your first amendment. . During court Mr. Kunstler stated, “Whether the actor knows or means that what he’s doing will seriously offend one or more persons, likely to observe or destroy or discover his particular act.” The Government, nor the person, cannot always know if the burning of an American flag would cause a riot every single time; furthermore, if someone burns an American Flag, and does not cause a riot, it would not be violating the first amendment the constitution sates “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Governme...
Frank Streir in his article “Do We Love Our Guns More Than Our Kids?” highlights how society’s children are being exposed to the used of guns and is involved in what is known as child gun violence. The article is presented from the standpoint of the United States of America society trends and happenings. Much statistics were evident in his research and findings on the issue. This issue is not present only in the U.S but is widespread in many nations across the globe and proves put our children at risk.
Can an individual be prosecuted for openly burning the American flag in a political protest? Gregory Johnson did this in a political protest outside Dallas City Hall. He was then tried and convicted of desecrating a venerated object under a Texas law (Penal Code 42.09), which states that "a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates a state or national flag" (317). The question of whether this Texas law is in violation of the First Amendment, which "holds that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (316), was brought before the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989). A divided court ruled 5 to 4 that the Texas law was in violation of the First Amendment. Using the same Constitution, precedents, and legal standards, the Supreme Court justices came to two drastically different positions regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting flag burning. To see how such a division is possible, we are going to compare and contrast both the arguments and the methods of argumentation used by both the majority opinion (written by Associate Justice Brennan) and the dissenting opinion (written by Chief Justice Rehnquist), which critiques the majority opinion.
More than 20,000 children and youth under the age of 20 years old are injured or killed by guns in the U.S. The easy accesses kids have to getting their hands on guns are a major reason why firearms are the second leading cause of death among the youth. The majority of deaths by guns in the youth are homicides. About one-third of them are suicides. Seven percent are unintentional. People living in urban areas such as, older teens, males, African American youth, and Hispanic youth are more likely to be involved in gun homicides. People in rural areas like males and Caucasian youth are more likely to commit suicide. There were 2,711 infant, child, and teen firearm deaths. That’s seven deaths a day.
It is argued that because flag burning can be viewed as expressive or symbolic speech, it falls under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, and therefore cannot be criminalized.
The court first found that Johnson's actions were protected under the free speech clause under the First Amendment. The court also found that since the action was not violent in nature and did not create a disturbance that it was not criminally sanctioned flag desecration. The case then went the U.S. Supreme Court to be argued on March 21, 1989.
Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the decision because the law was inconsistent with the first amendment to the Constitution. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. Burning American flags and other such actions are not treasonous and should no be treated as so, as long as these actions are done to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
When there is a negative, there will always be a positive. When youth go through those means of learning how to fully operate a gun, they can know what will not be in their best interest. Gun advocates generally believe that youth gun violence is a problem rooted in culture, not in access to guns.” (Public Perspectives) When you watch the news, more often than not, the misuse of guns is demographically placed in areas of the country that is focused on something
“Although the perpetrators of the school shootings at Littleton and other campuses have been surrounded by dangerous influences, such as television and the Internet, to which they do not know how to respond, they are responsible for their own behavior. The way to improve society is to improve individuals. Society, in particular parents, must take steps to ensure that children know the difference between right and wrong” (The Absence of Public Morality Causes School Shootings). While knowing the majority of shooters are strongly influenced by their surroundings, parents should be wise as to monitor what their children read, watch and view on the internet. The ability and ease to access a firearm should be sustained as well. Although guns will not directly harm anyone, if the weapon falls into the hands of an adolescent – whom has never handled a gun before – a very serious problem may arise. Parents need to learn to respect the age and development of their child and peach about gun safety, what is right and what is wrong, should their child start showing interest in
An interesting aspect of the famous literary work, "The Canterbury Tales," is the contrast of realistic and exaggerated qualities that Chaucer entitles to each of his characters. When viewed more closely, one can determine whether each of the characters is convincing or questionable based on their personalities. This essay will analyze the characteristics and personalities of the Knight, Squire, Monk, Plowman, Miller, and Parson of Chaucer's tale.