She had adopted the name to distance herself emotionally from her bloody work of killing. Arrow was a courageous character, as she put her life in jeopardy to protect the civilians. Arrow became the “defender of hope” when she was told her new task to protect the cellist. At first Arrow became skeptical because she had become tired of the constant killing, but decided the cellist was an important asset to the town and agreed to take the task. Therefore even though Arrow was being hard on herself for the killings, she did what was best for the people around her.
The Queen’s purpose was to memorialize Dianna but also use this travesty to unite the British nation. She adopted a supportive tone in order to comfort her kingdom but create a sense of unity as well. The Earl Spencer, in his Eulogy to Dianna, emphasized what a great person Dianna was but also ridiculed the media for their vicious ways toward her. The Earl’s purpose was to honor Dianna and shame the media for their unforgivable actions. He adopted sentimental and angry tones in order to have the audience sympathize for Dianna while still placing blame on the paparazzi.
Since he obeyed and enforced British law he was rewarded by the English government with higher titles (Hollitz 57). Adams on the other had opposed English rule, and how they were taxing the colonist without consent of the people (Hollitz 54). Adams said in “Instructions of the Town of Braintree to the Representative” that the Acts the British Parliament laid upon the colonies were “restricting, and burdening and embarrassing our trade” (qtd in
This furthered the Indian’s desire for independence but they were still faced with the challenges of overcoming the divisions within India. Members of Congress were appalled by this high-handed action, although they also sympathized with Britain’s fight against Fascism. As shown in throughout the war. The main opposition to India’s independence from the British came from one faction of the Conservative Party which later formed itself into the Imperial Defense League. As told in source 16.
Trebreh Baaheth On Racist Speech Summary On Racist Speech, written by Law Professor of Georgetown University, Charles R. Lawrence III, talks about the problem of the First Amendment and its issue about freedom of speech and how it is being abused through racial prejudice speech. He acknowledges Georgetown’s leaders to take action and create a policy that protects the rights of the people who are antagonized by racial comments without ejecting the right of the First Amendments freedom of speech. Lawrence also points out the things that the first amendment was founded upon, mainly equality. He explains that we have gone after protected and unprotected speech with little results. Charles Lawrence uses the case, Brown v. the Board of Education, as an example.
Anna Funder articulates the stark contrast which existed between the lives of the East German Stasi and the ordinary civilians. Her exposé, Stasiland, depicts the totalitarian and oppressive regime which inflicted extreme levels of not only physical, but psychological damage upon its own citizens. Funder's use of a journalistic style and narrative elements works to cultivate our sympathies and encourage us to envisage a "topsy-turvy" landscape where it is "sentence first - verdict afterwards." Funder naïvely believes that through the power of story telling will bring a sense of closure to those who have told. Whilst other individuals resorted to other methods to escape the trauma of those years behind the wall.
20th Century American History 12 August 2014 Rosie and the Propaganda This particular documentary is probably one of the best films that really shows the home front during World War II and women in particular endured during it. What really sparked my interest however was the use of propaganda during these times, and how it evolved from the beginning of the war up until when the war was over. Propaganda itself was used in a way to motivate the American people during the war to up their efforts to helping the cause and even at some points to guilt trip people into thinking they were not doing enough. Women in particular were used as a primary target of this into taking over for men in factories and other jobs while the men were fighting the
“Savages”: An Unmerited Misnomer During the colonist era, Indians were prejudiced, treated unjustly and discriminated. They were called savages because their customs differed from those of the Europeans, when at times they proved to be exactly the opposite. Indians were patient, understanding, and very civil, sometimes showing more courtesy than the Europeans themselves. However, because their culture and beliefs diverged from European customs, Indians were labeled as a lesser race and treated unfairly. In his essay, “Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America”, Benjamin Franklin defends the idea of Indian civility in a very persuasive manner with the use of several rhetorical strategies.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
Orwell discloses the true motives of colonialism through the figure of Flory; an important character in Burmese Days as Orwell uses him to criticize the social behavior of the colonial society present in Burma at that time. During Flory’s debate with his friend Dr. Veraswami, he clearly reveals the true intentions of the British by saying that the “British Empire is simply a device for giving trade monopolies to the English” (p40). Flory believes that the British are not there in Burma to improve the country but for monetary gain. Therefore, the British use racism during colonialism to hide their true intentions. Through this conversation, we can realize the incredible influence that social code has had over people.