According to Fish, reasons for resisting the apology movement are very plain. Fish states “after so many years, an apology would be merely ceremonial and nothing more than a ‘feel good’ gesture” (469). Fish does not agree with the idea that just because no one is alive today that made the decision about slavery, that there should be no apology. Members of the Supreme Court are responsible for their predecessors’ actions as they carry on their work. According to Fish, it is the Supreme Court’s job to correct any wrong that was done in the past.
Studying the works of many noteworthy historians is shown to expose a story about the tendencies of their thought. It is a work of historiography tracing the development of the American historical profession, identifying the professional norms of their practice, and presenting a series of arguments about the profession's objectives and concerns over the "Objectivity Question". Novick asserts his work has no unifying thesis (17). While this and other efforts at full disclosure are considerable, his stated purpose divulges his goal to do more than merely enlighten the reader. "The book's aim is to provoke my fellow historians to greater self-consciousness about the nature of our work," Novick wrote of his motivation (17).
Golding does not use a leader to represent Piggy, When Golding created the book he made it so that Piggy was an outcast but he knew what was right. Golding creates three main leaders in his novel Ralph, Jack, and Piggy but they did not become leaders by birth they became leaders through the circumstances they were put through, Ralph became leader by votes but why did Ralph get voted leader? The boys ended up following Jack but why did they? Piggy did not follow anybody he made his own rules, why was Piggy a real leader all
Eventually, the citizens grew tired of this and forced Indians to do their labor for them. The Indians did nothing to provoke them, and the Spaniards could have learned from them. The Jamestown citizens were returning to their old ways, having slaves and all. They actually ran into more indians and forced them to work for them as well. Indian labor became a supply.
Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship. There appears to be no evidence of fraudulent intent. As a result, Davey Jones will have to plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. Since he appears to want to cancel the contract, he can plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. If he claims fraudulent misrepresentation and is unsuccessful, then Davey Jones will likely have to pay Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. its full legal costs.
This is the issue that is at stake with both readings of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and Garret Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics.” Hardin’s essay that is serious in tone, while Swift’s offers similar views appears to be poking fun by starting at in a serious tone at first glance but in reality is far from it. One illustration of this similarity can be found in the objections each makes in their actual quite differing arguments. Hardin argues against the ideas of “kind-hearted” and “well-meaning” liberals, and Swift says, “let no man talk to me of other expedients…” Jonathan Swift’s essay, “A Modest Proposal,” describes a satirically “fair, cheap, and easy method” to address the great amount of starving children in Ireland by fattening up these undernourished children and feed them to Ireland’s rich land-owners, but Garrett Hardin‘s concept is moral obligation is not a one way sacrificing to others; however, it is built on a foundation of sharing and cooperating. Throughout the article, Swift makes a motion for the prevention of the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their
The Problem James A. Field Jr. suggests that the “worst chapter” in American history texts deals with the end of the 19th century, largely because he believes the personalities and events from the 1860s to the early 1890s did not constitute “a preseason warm-up for imperialism and the projection of national power” by the United States. [Field, p. 660] However, Walter LaFeber in The New Empire argues precisely the opposite: that key American personalities and events did constitute a considered, even well-integrated, plan for the projection of U.S. national power into the Caribbean, the South Atlantic, and even into the Pacific and Asia in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s. Question: Which historian, Field or LaFeber, gets it right, and
Jason Campanile 4/8/11 Hist 400w Analytical Book Review Book Review of Resisting McCarthyism: To Sign or Not to Sign California’s Loyalty Oath McCarthyism in America included an era of suspicion, distrust and betrayal. During no other time period in the 20th century has so many of the basic democratic values of America been under threat. Many Americans found no hope in trying to stand up to the scrutiny they were put under during this time. With their jobs and careers on the line, most succumbed to the paranoia that forced them to give up their basic constitutional rights. Very few stood up to the McCarthy era’s witch hunts.
Independent Counsel Robert Ray found circumstantial evidence of perjury, tax evasion and obstruction of justice. He chose not to prosecute because he doubted he could secure convictions. In the final report, Ray denounced Clinton's attempt to label the entire process "bogus" -- historians should be more judicious,
Russell A. Berman in the article "America, Non!" writes about the new dimension of European anti-Americanism. The author states in this article an idea by implying his claim that anti – Americanism has a prejudicial character. He supports the idea that American foreign politics do not have an impact on anti-Americanism and, he states that it is wrong to assume that any changes in US policy would terminate intimidating positions. This article is about how anti-Americanism is more common in Europe, then the Islamic world.