Both the Han Chinese and the Romans made use of technology, and the ways the empires were affected and the way applied the technologies were of a vast spectrum. These societies valued innovation, and especially the Han would honour those culturally significant by attributing the creation of technologies commonly used under the Han to these culturally relevant figures. The effect of central-government and other forms of management on these technologies and their uses had both positive and negative effects. For the Han, a state-induced monopoly had a vastly harmful effect, and if the government had not interfered then the progress of the tools would not have been interrupted. The governing authorities again like to use culturally significant figures in the tales of innovation and invention and discovery.
This essay will explore the connections between history and memory and how they influence each other. It will show how personal experience affects both history and memory, how history relies on collective memory and also how history and memory become inseparably linked and intertwine over time. Personal experience is the most influential factor when history and memory are being considered. Personal experience changes a perception of events and creates emotional ties to certain stimuli. This prevents recorded histories, or memories being accessed impartially, as a subconscious biased will have already been formed.
This raises an interesting question and an intriguing premise for the people of these countries on what sort of societies they wish to build in place of the ones they overthrew, and at what pace. This essay will primarily examine the extent to which these new societies should protect individual rights to free expression and action, especially given their uniformly volatile and unstable political situations currently. To do this, we will examine it under the premises put forth by Artistotle, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill on the
This too, strengthens the reader’s understanding of the main themes. The themes that aid in the reader's understanding are how wars can bring either the best or worst out of someone and how war can leave such a lasting effect on a society that fallen victim to war. The well thought-out strategies created among the commanders and their confidants that the author writes in complex details can make one feel as though they were sitting down among the generals themselves, planning what the next step will be! Straying far from the historical book stereotype, McCullough writes 1776 what many others have written beforehand, but in a way that makes one be on the edge of their seats, continuing to turn the pages to know what happens next. The author goes straight into the point leaving no small details out, for what the objective the author desires from the reader, is to see how the wrong words or changes in weather conditions can be contributing factors to the outcome of
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” We put our faith and trust into our leaders to do the right thing, to act fairly and sensibly in its relations with other nations, and we expect them to treat those citizens and ours alike with the same fairness and sensibility. Yet their lust for wealth and power has driven them to abuse our trust as a means to malevolent ends. Who knows how many other false flags have occurred underneath our noses or how many
Also, a more specific type of person who could have read this could a historian. This is because; historians study many significant periods in history which would relate to the Cold War. On a personal level, the author wrote the text to show the tragedy that the Cold War was and how technology would move forward while humans do not. In a way, the story is directed to the audience to show what the future could be, without a doubt, if no one would take action to resolve a problem that can affect the future greatly, including mankind. This is all poop.
Van Evera focused on how there were numerous factors, such as structural, political/environmental, and perceptual factors in which nationalism was a main cause of war. I believe that this article is the more accurate of the two articles, and this is because he is able to take the constructivist/ideological views that Suny uses, and incorporate them into his article, and rather than only explaining to the reader the political and historical ideologies that a nation may have. Van Evera also explicates his hypotheses by explaining that although there are constructivist ideologies such as: mythical beliefs, like self-glorification,
Through news briefings and highly orchestrated press tours, both sides try to make the most of successes and minimize setbacks. This is done through methods that range from spin control to pure propaganda. Spin control gives a partial picture of the truth, to portray an event, such as the results of a battle, in the best possible light. Propaganda is a tricky term that is often misused to label opposition statements as untrue; in fact, it means any information spread deliberately to further your cause, or to damage your opponent's, such as the leaflets dropped by the B-52s. "They are trying to manipulate world opinion in a way that is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to us," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says of the enemy.
Root cause analysis is a method of problem solving that tries to identify the principal causes of problems because it is the best way to achieve complete prevention of recurrence. The American Revolution, and perhaps future revolutions as well, are caused for some core reasons. These are immensely important in analyzing the war and the future of America for they will turn out to shape the very democratic ideals that wrought our great nation. I think history is taught and learned for the hope of not repeating the atrocities, learning from the mistakes, and, in general, to learn from the past. That’s why the causes of the Revolution are most important, because they can be used to prevent more bloodshed and war.
My current stance on the topic of war is that I am affirmative of war because the purpose of war is something I believe truly in. The purpose of intent in war is to unify the country which is something that I find value in. In rare situations, war could sometimes be altered with a better alternative, which then would make the war at that time pointless. If my writing ability allows, this research paper could be one of the best that I have written. If not, it sure will be an adventurous one in the least.