He is always giving more evidence stating that the Indians were not being taken care of unless the British needed them for war. His evidence all points back to his thesis, saying that the Indians fought really well and so the British would always try to make them happy when they knew they might be going to war soon. He really only has one primary source that he uses throughout the essay, and that is previous writings by
The Disdain of Total Equality Total equality may seem fair and justifiable in the eyes of some people, but in many cases it turns out to be little more than a form of oppression, in which a group of people limit the abilities of others. Throughout the story Vonnegut speaks of this necessity for equality and the means that the government goes to achieve it by using devices called ‘handicaps’; one example of this is George’s earpiece, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.” Vonnegut’s simile here creates a sort of loud diction, which expresses the sheer discomfort invoked by these restraints on the person wearing them. The governing body in this society views this as the solution to a problem, one that happens to be relatively impossible to solve, this is how Vonnegut incorporates satire into his story. He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story.
Mussolini’s position as prime minister in October 1922 was by no means secure, the king was still able to at any time dismiss him if any opposition to the fascist party was high and people wanted an alternative government. From the start Mussolini intimidated his opponents and rivals. In 1922 November the 16th he held his first speech as prime minister, he claimed he could with 300,00 black shirts behind him create a fascist government if he wanted to, the parliament responded to his disguised threat by giving the government new votes of confidence. Ex prime ministers Giolitti and facta voted in favour, and he was granted emergency powers. He also had to strengthen his position in the party he created a fascist
He also lets everyone know that Caesar was “ambitious” and he had to “slew” him because of it. He says this because he thought everyone in town thought Caesar was an honorable man. When Anthony came up, he knew that he had to work harder to gain the crowd’s attention, so he begins with saying, “I come to bury Caesar, not praise him.” (Act 3 Scene 2; 72) He says this because he knows people don’t want to hear a speech about how “amazing” Caesar was, so he says he’s not there to praise him. In saying this, he gets people’s attention. Both start off with trying to get their credibility first, Antony wins in doing a better job because he worked harder in trying to get it.
• The executive branch held too much power. All these are valid points and I would say that they were right in resisting to sign the Constitution, specially with no limits on the rights the government would have over states. They wanted to make sure where the states would still have power over some of their issues. They had just faced having to take care of soldiers, being prosecuted without trials, not being able to talk
A plan that involved avoiding bigger battles and fighting smaller battles to ware down the will of Hannibal's Carthaginian army. His level in developing strategies is like a bomb that never ticks down. These brutal strategies were the reason they had won this war and they had required industrious people to think like George. Continuing George Washington had been so inspiring to the world. So much that his picture is on $1 bill.
And after Napoleon, the monarchy was actually restored, although it was a constitutional monarchy and not the absolutist monarchy that France had known before the revolution. France only got worse because of the revolution. Also the in- and export transactions and political relations with other European countries stagnated because no other European court wanted anything to do with the violent French who had decapitated their monarchs and tens of thousands of other innocent victims. It took France years and years until the country was recovered from the revolution. The fact that they still celebrate the 14th of July shows the rest of the world that they haven't learned of their mistakes.
With firefights, life and death situations, and the mourning of their fellow soldiers, Restrepo showed that when it comes to war, even when we win, everyone still loses. At war, winning is the main goal. Defeating the opposing side and fighting for your country is what soldiers sign up to do. However, even when the soldiers accomplish their goal, and survive the war, a part of them still dies. They will never be the same person they were before they left for war because what they see, experience and feel will change them no matter how tough they are.
There are some great examples of characterization in the two brothers. “ No story would be complete without some sort of conflict, it could be small or large. The conflict could be as simple as an argument over a blanket, like in “Everyday Use,” by Alice Walker. “quote goes here.” (Walker). It could also be a chivalrous gesture against an evil tyrant, even if it is not sincere like in “A & P” by John Updike.
Action is a principle the oppressors’ hold dear to their heart. These oppressors, in using action, become a majority and if that majority is not met with action from the minority, tyranny will be displayed in the streets, for Gods and man alike to witness. Surely you can relate to this, cramped in a jail cell like a mind stripped of all learned knowledge. What good are great minds like yours and mine if we cannot express our thoughts without fear from the laws of man? I humbly bow to your attempt to challenge man to think beyond their own beliefs by simply questioning just what their beliefs are.