The British Indian Empire was declared as a belligerent against the Axis powers by the United Kingdom without consulting prominent Indian leaders. Several leaders of the Indian independence movement, including Mahatma Gandhi, expressed strong opposition against Nazism and Fascism but termed Britain's "war to save democracy" as hypocrisy since it was denying democratic rights and individual liberties to Indians. The British, under Churchill, were critical of the Indians, with Churchill at moments describing them as “vile creatures”. Churchill did not want to offer them anything. In 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps on his first mission to India made on behalf of the British Government his offer of independence after the war in exchange for cooperation, but the Indian political parties rejected his proposals.
When he was asked whether he would favor the prohibition of the bilingual ballot, he simply stated, “Of course not.” Wills’ continues in the next section stating that our national identity and our federal laws are being weakened by immigration that is influenced by these bilingual ballots. He also uses this anecdote in the fourth section by showing how our laws are weakening. That these illegal immigrants are able to ask for bilingual ballots because the law is weakening and they are able to immigrate into the country in illegal ways without knowing how to speak English or know anything about our politics. Although the chief rhetorical aim of the article appears to be to inform Americans rather than persuade them as to why the bilingual ballot should be prohibited, why is Will not taking up a more serious tone if he felt so strongly about the
In addition, Source M accuses the British of “terrorism, racial humiliation, subordination and frightfulness”. This suggests that Edwin Montagu challenges the view of the Raj given in sources P and R as he presents the Raj as a horrible rule. Edwin Montagu sets a question to the House of Commons at the end of his speech “Are you going to keep your hold on India by terrorism, racial humiliation, and subordination, and frightfulness, or are you going to rest it upon the growing goodwill of the people of the Indian Empire?” This question raised by the secretary of state for
In Act 1 of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Cassius, a noble Roman and acquaintance of Caesar's, uses persuasion techniques to persuade particularly Brutus into joining the conspiracy against Caesar. During scene 2, Cassius convinces Brutus that Caesar is not a good ruler, which shows Cassius is jealous of Caesar's overall rise to power. The tools of persuasion that Cassius uses are the following: he provides evidence, asks rhetorical questions, and gives false information. Cassius uses specific evidence to persuade Brutus that Caesar needs to be killed for the good of Rome. In order to do this, Cassius needs to persuade Brutus that Caesar is no better than any of them; consequently, Cassius criticizes Caesar's impression of immortality by telling Brutus a story of how one day he and Caesar went for a swim.
In "Fashionable Anti-Amercanism," Dominic Hilton considers the villainous identity America has taken on by foreign countries. He discusses whether these countries are legitimately angry, or if they have a Freudian complex involving the fear to look look at themselves cynically and discontinue the blame towards America. There is strong focus on anti-Americanism being seen as fashionable and uneducated. Hilton questions whether it would matter what America did, because the discrimination would most likely continue. He uses examples, and quotes to demonstrate the irony of foreigners lack of condolence towards America.
The rise of Christianity would have been a festering wound to the Senate that just wouldn’t go away but that they couldn’t ignore. To conclude, the rise of Christianity contributed the destruction of the Roman Empire by undermining the Roman Senate. Jesus of Nazareth and his follower’s beliefs contradicted the common Roman law and caused a rift in the Empire. Although by no stretch was this the sole cause of the declination of
The rise of Christianity would have been a festering wound to the Senate that just wouldn’t go away but that they couldn’t ignore. To conclude, the rise of Christianity contributed the destruction of the Roman Empire by undermining the Roman Senate. Jesus of Nazareth and his follower’s beliefs contradicted the common Roman law and caused a rift in the Empire. Although by no stretch was this the sole cause of the declination of
Subliminal Imperialism George Orwell immediately opens Shooting An Elephant by first laying down his perspective on British Imperialism. He states that it is corrupt and that he is against the British oppressors. Although a British officer himself at the time in Burma, he feels a obligated hatred and guilt towards not only himself, but his empire, and the “evil-spirited little beasts,” that inhabit it. Because of this, Orwell burdens only hostile feelings toward the British, Imperialism, and Britain's supposed justification for their actions in taking over Burma.In the essay he writes not only of his personal experience and the elephant, but also how metaphorical the experience is to Imperialism. The mood of the piece is set when Orwell renders the setting as a “cloudy, stuffy morning at the beginnings of the rains.” His tone of speech in turn is thought to be weak and discomforting.
What is Zinn’s basic criticism of historian Samuel Eliot Morison’s book, Christopher Columbus, Mariner? e. Zinn, I believe, would criticize Morison for his Eurocentricity, for ignoring the native perspective, and for ignoring the impact that the European discovery and subsequent exploitation had on the indigenous population. He'd say Morison went overboard in his praise of Columbus. For Zinn, Columbus was a bad guy. 6.
Assess the changing roles and responsibilities of the Senate during the reign of Tiberius. INTRODUCTION Although characterised as the reign of terror in the Tacitean tradition, Tiberius was very effective in maintaining the dyarchy with the Senate established by Augustus. Due to his conservative Claudian background, Tiberius wished to see the Senate act as an autonomous body and even extended its role to incorporate judicial and legislative functions whilst consulting it on matters regarding foreign policy. Ancient historians are generally negative in regards to Tiberius’ relationship with the senate due to their inherent political bias led by the Tacitean view. Modern historians however provide a more balanced perspective attributing the loss of the Senates power largely to their subservience rather than the tyrannical nature of the principate.