It highlights financial gain in terms of ‘profits’ for the King. Although source I does not directly reject the motives of a belief in corruption as it does not provide a royal viewpoint, it implies that the King and Cromwell were driven by greed and anger. Perhaps Source I also provides a more useful account as Aske would be expressing his perspective under the knowledge that he was soon to lose his life, although he was clearly going to accept this forceful view because of his position as the leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace and representative of the opposition to the dissolution of the monasteries and the
Wolsey was the dominant figure due to his sometimes false relationship with Henry. In source 7 we see how Henry puts Wolsey back into his rightful position as a servant but we then find out as Polydore Vergil puts it “he soon returned to his old ways” this shows how Wolsey would do want ever he wished to do but appeared to Henry as a loyal servant, showing how Wolsey could mislead Henry making him believe something that wasn’t true. Wolsey also “refused to speak to Henry” showing he was doing his own bidding doing what he wished and not going by the orders of Henry himself. In source 8 Wolsey is also shown as a dominant figure by being called, by Keith Randall “the head of the country’s legal system” showing he had a lot of power and responsibilities over many things within the country. Not only this but Wolsey’s domestic policies concentrated mainly on punishing the nobility especially when it came to justice and the enclosure issues of land being used for farming instead of housing.
Poverty may mean that crime is the only way that the working class can survive, as crime may e the only way that they can obtain the consumer goods encouraged by the capitalist advertising, resulting in utilitarian crimes such as theft. However, it isn’t always utilitarian crime that the working class commit as sometimes the alienation and lack of control over their lives may lead to frustration and aggression which results in non-utilitarian crimes such as vandalism and violence. Marxist’s sometimes argue the state and law-making are a cause of crime because they believe that all laws serve the ruling class, most law is based on protecting private property. The crimes of the working class and ethnic minorities are punished harshly while crimes of the powerful go unnoticed. The ruling class also have the power to prevent the introduction of laws that would threaten their interests.
This just tells us that The Boss, who's a character of high register and of a much higher social ranking excludes Crooks and gives him 'hell'. By that, Steinbeck might mean that the Boss takes his anger out on Crooks, and because of his low status due to his race, he can be treated in whichever way by those who are of a higher status and have more power. This also tells us that the Boss has a lot more power than Crooks and that's the reason why he can 'give him hell'. In my opinion, Crooks has the lowest social ranking and the most negative judgements than all of the other characters who are excluded as even Candy refers to him as simply just a 'nigger' which a highly offensive term to use nowadays, which goes on to say that during the time Steinbeck wrote the novel, referring to someone as a 'nigger' wasn't classified as big of a deal as it would be if it happened now, and
‘It is easier to be one of the crowd than to display your individuality.’ Does On the Waterfront show this to be true? ‘Selling your soul to the mob for a day’s pay’ was only one of the many views Father Barry had on why you shouldn’t be one of the crowd and why it is better to display your individuality. It takes the protagonist of the film Terry Malloy a long time to learn this though; being ‘the one who set Joey Doyle up for the knock off’. But to his credit he thought that the mob would just ‘shake him up a bit’, Terry had no intention to kill Joey. The black and white film “On the Waterfront” directed by Elia Kazan shows the importance of standing up for what you believe in; even if there are consequences.
He believes that the purposes of these societal norms are only present to get rid of each person’s inner intuition. Just because a man’s feeling in his heart does not conform with the rest of society does not mean he is in the wrong. “Under the domination of an idea, which possesses the minds of multitudes, as civil freedom, or the religious sentiment, the powers of persons are no longer subjects of calculation (Emerson, 352).” It is impossible to say concretely whether the politics of the United States, including its citizens, are all about “me”, but there are many ideas and theories as to whether this is truthful. These various authors displayed their opinions and sentiments throughout history, all which to be debated for generations to
Whitman wroted that the governments role was to be "... not of an officious intermeddler in the affairs of men, but of a prudent watchman who prevents outrage," that is strengthened by his underlying logic that "... although government can do little positive good to the people, it may do an immense deal of harm." (Whitman) Simply put, if the governemnt has less has to do with meddling in peoples affairs and rights then society will be better off. Also that the role of the government is to act as a protector of smaller groups and individuals from bigger groups so everyone will be happy. The basis of laissez-faire is that the bigger the government factor, being it’s rights and powers, the worse of the country is. William Graham Sumner was another supporter of the laissez-faire idea.
Even with the restrictions, the issue is still torn with pros and cons. Founding father James Madison said, “If men were angles no government would be necessary.” However, men are not angels so we have governments with laws and systems to enforce those laws. Without punishment laws would be useless. James Madison also said, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Is the United States government right for utilizing the death penalty as a means to enforce the laws? Another great mind, philosopher Immanuel Kant, founded the theory of categorical imperative; a theory used to determine a good reasonable act.
George is a character who doesn’t take advantage of Lennie’s misfortune. “Huh?” This implies that the point made by the boss is absolutely absurd and that he has never considered taking Lennie’s money away from him. The boss says that “what stake you got,” which implies that the boss thinks that George is a cunning character. The fact that George doesn’t take his money shows that George is faithful to Lennie and that their friendship is very strong. George considers Lennie to be his cousin.
In comparison to a court decision one cannot use personal feeling towards the final decision in a case, but Huck felt otherwise. Huck is being disciplined for his beliefs and he does not want to be part of a lifestyle that does not support his ways. For example, his choice not to turn in Jim because he knows of what he did shows that Huck understands why Jim is escaping and feels for him rather than just to do the right thing according to society. Huck sees Jim as a friend, a companion whom he finds close not as a slave. With that said he truly is able to see that society's way of treating Jim is completely wrong.