Write down the TWO most important things he says about the writing of history. The two most important things he says about the writing of history are: * He said that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. The history of any country conceals violent conflicts of interest between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers. * But to think that history-writing must intent simply to repeat the failures that control the past is to make historians traitors in an endless cycle of conquest. 1.
We do know that religious beliefs causes war, but I do not think that relgious beliefs justify war. Some beliefs believe that war is a sin, that you shouldn't do it. Some religions believe that war isn't a sin and you will be pinished if you do not go fight for your god. Document 1 (Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu song of God) , document 4 (Haji according to the Quran 4:74-74) , and document 5 ( Pope Innocent 3 in Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) are grouped together because they believe that you will be punished if you do not participate in war for your god. In documnet 1, they were disgraced they didn't fight.
He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur. The grounds for his premises are weak, as he does not provide concrete and reliable information to support his cause. Scott’s basic premise is that laws encourage the violation of smokers’ rights. He begins his argument with, “The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a host of anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding...” With that commencement, Scott proves that he does not understand the concept of discrimination. He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility.
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
Wyndham himself is witnessing how evil the world is becoming through the arms race and build up of new more powerful weapons. His direct links to what happened in the cold war make us, the readers, believe he is writing this book as though predicting the future of our world. As far as the town of Waknuk is concerned, there is no need
They are not able to escape its “ominous thunder” it’s “howling madness’ nor it’s “senseless volcanic fury”. Harrison describes scenes where the war takes on human characteristics and speaks to the soldiers. As the novel progresses the war become more and more humanised, and seemingly parallels the dehumanisation of the soldiers. Harrison describes the ‘howl of the bombardment’ and machine guns as “coming to life.” The assigning of human characteristics to war impresses up the reader it’s power. We also see that war was created by humans, but we are unable to control to it.
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
There is no proof that this story has any truth. There is something no one has considered, the danger to our own soldiers when they are captured. Here again I quote: “Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq.” (Applebaum) It undermines the work of our soldiers that are helping make Iraq into a country ruled by its people instead of a dictator.
Harry Williamson Response Paper Letter from a Birmingham jail In the article Disagreements About Civil Disobedience Divide America's Anti War Movement we are presented with several views of civil disobedience present in todays society. The sole goal of these organizations is to end the war in Iraq because the members believe what is happening overseas is unjust and immoral. The feud between the organizations is simple; what are the best steps to help end the war? The cultural relativism aspect of this situation is that America (our current day society) wants war with another country, these two organizations are attempting to change that view. On one side you have people like Patrick Reinsborough who is an Organizer of Direct Action Against the War.
Can War Ever be Justified Can war ever be justified? Some people believe it can be in exceptional circumstances, whilst others believe that it can never be justified and there is no circumstance in which it can be justified. ‘In the west there is a long standing culture of differentiating between “just” and “unjust” wars’( taken from an unknown author on about.com.) This is a good example because it shows that even in the same culture people believe different things and that different thing makes war just whilst other things make war unjust. The strongest argument is that war is acceptable if it’s in self defence or in the defence of a weaker power incapable of defending its self against a stronger power; in liberating people from an oppressive dictatorship or government; finally where the conflict will save more people than it kills.