Even though (A) and (B) present Napoleon’s regime in a rather cynical light, neither claim he solely introduced a “Police State”. (C) further disagrees with the claim that Napoleon introduced this form of governing, instead arguing that it was a development from the Directory. This is significant as it clearly highlights that Napoleon could not possibly introduce a “Police State” as a more restrictive regime was already in place and so comparatively, Napoleonic France placed less control on the population. The biggest debate between the sources is what to label Napoleon’s form of governance. (A) and (B) support the title of “Police State”.
Sources from the time of John describe John as a poor leader and that he was greedy for money. For example Mathew Paris who was a monk living near London writes, “John lost Normandy and many other lands because of his own laziness.
I feel like there were places were they jumped to conclusions instead of going through the motions of how things were formulated. An example of this is an excerpt from Hummel’s the Civil War and Reconstruction where he talks about the various American parties saying, “… each was unique, all were American manifestations of the worldwide thrust toward classical liberalism. Now it may just be me but that seems a rather steep conclusion considering that there was no analysis of other governments and economies in this book to claim it was a worldwide thrust towards classical liberalism and even if there was he never really described what he considered classical liberalism. Lets assume that it would have been sophomoric for him to have gone through the a global approach of what classical liberalism is in order to come to that conclusion, did he didn’t even describe the parties in a thorough enough method for us to relate to this
His shaky relationship with vice president Thomas Jefferson is weakened by Adams defense of the French and the signing of the alien and sedition acts. Adams disowns his so Charles and loses the election of 1800. He leave the white house (then known as the presidential palace) to his retirement in Massachusetts. Adams retirement life was filled with grief and sorrow with the death of his daughter and wife. He lives to see his son john Quincy become president, although he is plagued with illness.
5. The story is important because it shows how horrible the immigrants were treated in the detention center. Danticat’s uncle medicine got taken away from him and later led him to die. The time framed contributed to the tragedy of the story because Danticat’s uncle died in a matter of five days. If his medicine would not have been taking away Danticat’s uncle would still be
“Overzealous officials” grill suspicious foreigners “to the point of near panic” (Khan 559). In worst cases, death has occurred Haitians seeking refuge, a man was not allowed to keep his medication while he was put in Krome (Danticant 569). The profiling does not only happen with officials, but many Americans often profile foreigners. Americans heightened suspicion on not only non-Americans, but on Americans with Middle Eastern traits. Americans know “racial profiling is both morally wrong and ineffective”, but they rather be safe than sorry (Chavez 563).
Human beings write history and no matter who they are they cannot be fully objective. Trained historians try and bring as much objectivity as they can into their work but nobody can remove all amounts of bias from his or her work. (270) - How does Henry Kissinger define history? What is Howard Zinn’s approach to history, and how does his differ from the description of Kissinger’s type? Be Specific!
For decades, scholars have insisted that what most of us know instinctively to be true -- is false. Mocking the belief that individuals such as Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill make history, experts focus on social forces. They explain the past with statistical studies and abstract theories, dismissing stories about individual initiative or heroism. While powerful economic, social and ideological movements dwarfing any individual do shape history, be it the high-tech boom, feminism or the rise of conservatism, we cannot underestimate the way a leader's action and inaction can change the world. Especially when assessing the American presidency and modern America, individual character -- and contingency -- count.
The famine had a disastrous effect all over Ireland and with the failure of the then British rulers to help with the food shortage and the exporting of grain to pay landlords their rent Ireland became practically unlivable which was the main reason for Irish immigration in the 1800’s. The famine left over a million people dead of starvation and others who survived with diseases such as cholera and typhus. Making them flee to the United States and Canada as well, as the living conditions were harsh in Ireland, the ship they traveled in to America was poorly as well, it was know as the “Coffin Ship”. The conditions were so poorly that many Irish died during the trip to the United States and Canada, never having the chance to live the better
They came into light when one of their own, Alfred Redl died in 1913 by committing suicide for being identified as one of them. In the past, they were considered as sinful in the society and nobody could associate with them. They face also of health risks in the society and their main goal is social equality in the society. They have not been able to secure jobs from the past because people had been looking down upon them. This group is looked into as a minority group in America.