The Language of Male Supremacy in She and The Sign of Four These days we have to be extremely careful when we write or speak. In fact, at times it seems as if we must communicate as if tip toeing through a veritable minefield of the dangerous misinterpretations of our words. Since many words and phrases can be construed or misconstrued as offensive, there is a heightened sensitivity to the use of language. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We certainly need to live in world where all people are treated with dignity and respect, and our use of language should reflect this ideal. Most of us would not intentionally offend a person from a different race, culture, or creed, but the problem today is that there is such a subsurface tension that rage occasionally erupts over anything that even remotely resembles the offensive. Where does this social extremism that condemns even ambiguous statements come from? Things were not always this way. If we were to look deeper into the history of the English language, we would typically find outlandish words and phrases that debased women and members of other cultures. These expressions may not necessarily have been malicious in spirit in all instances, but they were certainly demeaning and ranged from the subtle to the intentional. Certainly, some of the phrases that were commonly printed then would be socially unacceptable to print today. For example, any representative sample of late Victorian literature will reveal misogynistic and racist remarks by contemporary standards. In fairness to the Victorians, the world was going through a rapid state of change then, and England was leading the way. Part of the motivation behind the imperialistic ende... ... middle of paper ... ...winism dramatically changed the way many people thought then, our modern ideas of cultural diversity and gender egalitarianism have changed the way many people think today. Our modern language clearly reflects this change. We have come a long way in disregarding boldly offensive descriptions, to questioning the propriety of statements such as "You people." Some people have eager ears that are always ready to latch onto the next faux pas and have clenched fists that are ready to gaff their next victim. Therefore, a masked tension remains, but on a lighter note, the positive force that guides our present evolving world in which we are conscientiously laboring to temper our language with human dignity balances this tension. Yet, our language can only be truly dignified to the degree to which it preserves the dignity of all of whom it dares to describe.
On August 6, 1945, the first bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Three days later on August 9, the second bomb hit Nagasaki. Whether the United States made a moral and ethical decision is still an ongoing debate. President Truman was faced with a difficult choice. The U.S. chose to adopt a stance that seemed to limit the amount of casualties in the war, by significantly shortening it with the use of atomic weapons. It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take, since they had suffered the loss of more than thousands of lives, both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the death toll was worth it to prevent the “many thousands of American troops that would have been killed in invading Japan.” This was a grave
The first reason on why Truman made the right decision was because the atomic bomb ultimately helped to prevent the deaths of American troops. There would have been over 100,000 losses during the first stage of the attack against Japan, leading to over one million casualties of just Americans during the defeat of Japan(Tucker 1). Although there is no way to confirm the amount of predicted deaths, any amount of American deaths would have been avoided with the use of the atomic bomb. Comparing a million predicted deaths of Americans to the 140,000 (±10,000) that were actually killed in the Hiroshima bomb(Faragher 4), the decision implementing the bomb was executed in the correct way.
Truman was justified to drop the Atomic bombs because of the situation at hand, but it is arguable because he had several alternatives. Right after America declared war on Japan, Germany had also declared war on the United States. Thereby, causing a dilemma for the United States nation as a whole. If the US didn't finish the war with Japan quickly they would have trouble backing up the allied powers. However, Truman could have found another way to defeat Japan with a less violent tactic. While Truman had his reasons for using the bomb, there were people who agreed with him were the orthodox historians while the people who disagreed called revisionists.
This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. Excerpts from Truman’s memoirs and a variety of different titles were consulted in order to undertake this investigation. Section C will evaluate two sources for their origins purposes values and limitations. The first is a book titled The Invasion of Japan written by John Stakes in 1955. And the second is a book titled Prompt & Utter Destruction written by J. Samuel Walker.
When it comes to the Declaration of Independence, it affected not only the people of the colonies, but in fact, affected people around the globe and still affects people to this very day. This single document helped inspire nearly half of the 192 nations apart of the United Nations to have their own declaration of independence (Armitage, 2007). The Declaration of Independence is seen as one of our nation’s most prestigious document and this is because it is the document that declared our independence from Great Britain and the Royal Crown. It is essentially the marking of the United States’ birth.
All the presidents in the past have played an important part in shaping our country the way it is today. Either for better or for worse. James Madison is one of the presidents which made a difference for the better and probably did some of the best actions for our country. He did his job with pride for The United States of America and he did his job humbly with efficiency. That is why I look up to this American Hero.
The hero cannot progress without curiosity. However, curiosity can turn into a dangerous obsession. There are many good examples of this throughout Victorian literature. Literary works such as She by H. Rider Haggard and The Sign of Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, for example, reflect the curious mind at work using scientific exploration to achieve the goal of solving the mystery, but attempting to solve the mystery poses dangers to the protagonists that, at first, they are unaware of. The curious mind, seeking discovery, eventually sees the dangers but does not turn back. The mystery has become an obsession to the curious mind, and for the curious mind, solving the mystery has become more important than self-preservation. However, without the obsessive curiosity and without the danger that follows that curiosity, there would be no heroes in the story and, therefore, no story.
In the essay, “You Are What You Say”, by Robin Lakoff, she explains how certain words can be used to degrade an individual. Lakoff makes clear that a girl is someone “. . . who is . . . too immature and too far from real life to be entrusted with responsibilities or with decisions of any serious or important nature” (Lakoff, “You Are What You Say”, pg.3). A girl is someone who cannot be taken seriously. A girl is simply incapable of running a women’s errand, because they are incredibly immature. Yet, women are still referred to as girls, since calling someone a woman is “embarrassing”. She also elaborates on being called a “lady” and how that is degrading as well. She used the example of calling a woman doctor a “lady doctor”, which is extremely degrading since no one calls a man doctor a “gentleman doctor”. Being called a “lady” also implies that she is helpless and not someone to be taken seriously. So, language can and is used to degrade
All of us have heard generalizations about the opposite sex. Most of us have said our share of them when the phone does not ring at the appointed hour or the love of our life mentions those dreaded words: “open relationship.” Men have trouble understanding women, and women have trouble understanding men. This problem is universal, extending through different cultures and time periods. The Egyptian folktale “The Promises of the Three Sisters” reflects the division between the sexes, a theme which is as relevant in our modern society as it was then.
In Conclusion this Document was written to bring Independence to the United States of America. This document clearly stated the claim and supported it overwhelming good. They continued to give reasoning on why the country was at risk and why they are fighting for their freedom. Every claim made within the document is supported thoroughly by facts from credible educated sources. This document brings to life the citizens of the thirteen states at that time because it was arguing for their freedom. Still to this day we look back at the Declaration of Independence and see it as a back bone to our country’s freedom. Therefore, this is why we celebrate our freedom every 4th of July due to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
During the late 16th century and into the 17th century, European nations rapidly colonized the newly discovered Americas. England in particular sent out numerous groups to the eastern coast of North America to two regions. These two regions were known as the Chesapeake and the New England areas. Later, in the late 1700's, these two areas would bond to become one nation. Yet from the very beginnings, both had very separate and unique identities. These differences, though very numerous, spurred from one major factor: the very reason the settlers came to the New World. This affected the colonies in literally every way, including economically, socially, and politically.
Dropping the atomic bomb was a decision that no man would want to take on. Truman went with all the facts and his gut feeling. There was Great loss for Japan but even some of the Japanese soldiers were happy that the United States dropped the bomb. For it most likely saved their lives the emperor was willing to sacrifice everyone so he wouldn’t have to surrender. Whether you decide to agree with the bomb dropping or not it wasn’t about the bomb it was about ending the war. The atomic bomb is what ended the war quicker than any other options the United States had making it the best choice.
People tend to take the concept of freedom of speech in another way or to another level. According to Jeremy Waldron, in his famous book “The Harm in Hate Speech” he expresses his opinion about how the ‘harm’ in hate speech isn’t associated with what the speaker wants to say, instead it has everything to
On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was an extremely controversial military strategy in the United States. Was the United States justified in the dropping of the atomic bomb? The U.S. feared the rise of communism and gave aid to any country against it. The U.S. also fought countries threatening the spread communism. One of these countries was Japan. We began a harsh and brutal war against Japan and against communism. This war was killing many soldiers and Japan was not backing down. President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb when things were getting worse. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a difficult one and many people wonder if it was the right choice.
Why is it, that people’s feelings seem to be more important than free speech in today’s society? Is “hate speech” not covered by free speech? this frightening trend present in society – the idea that words cause harm, and should therefore be limited.