Machiavelli came up with the idea to write his book ‘The Prince.’ He wrote all the things that he observed from studying leaders during his time. This was something new that happened to him. This leads to skepticism. He wondered on how a ruler should rule to become a more successful leader. Furthermore, he began to study different rulers like Francesco Sforza, Lorenzo de Medici and Cesare Borgia.
More specifically, this paper will examine the rhetoric of President Jimmy Carter, and the effect his discourse ultimately had on his time in the White House. The historical backdrop of Carter’s presidency is of course instrumental in understanding his rhetoric. However, before examining the speech within the context of history, this paper offers an alternative analysis of his inaugural address. THE GENERIC INAUGURAL: The content of all presidential speeches, inaugural addresses in particular, are inherently subject to the politics that govern the moments in which they are given. These particularities have resulted in much variability in the content of these speeches, and thus make generalizations about them difficult.
The first is the bais that is show in American History textbooks, and the second is historiography, or the study of the development of how history is written. “Lies My Teacher Told Me” facilitates its process of depicting the writing of American History. Bias is one of the major problems in not only American textbooks, but throughout the world. Am example of bias that is a continuous through “Lies My Teacher Told Me” is heroification. In the book, Loewen decribes it as, "A generative process that makes people over into heroes.
4. Why history is included in the curriculum? As the great philosopher G. Santayana once said, “those who do not understand history are destined to repeat it.” History teaches us not only facts but also the concept of self-examination of our own history, behaviors and proclivities. History teaches us that those in power tend toward corruption and that those who possess absoloute corruption. History teaches us that long,drown out,protracted wars accomplish little,other than mass suffering, and tend to bleed all nations (involved in such wars) of their treasure,often setting them back decades, or even centuries.History teaches us that if we do not
Big Brother is the example of all the ideals of the totalitarian party. In compare to Big Brother, Winston Smith keeps the idea of democracy underlines freedom; he has to hide his own thought because the Big Brother's party will punish him by death if the party finds it out. George Orwell evaluates of Big Brother's society by describing it as a dark and a gloomy place. It warns that people might believe that everyone must become slaves to the government in order to have an orderly society, but at the expense of the freedom of the people The super-country of Oceania is in a constant state of war in which the novel 1984 is set in, and bomb explosions are omnipresent. The living conditions are poor – very poor – with the buildings broken-down, the food artificial and rationed out, wages poor, and clothing cheap.
One theme that we can see in The Prince is a sense of History. As a scholar himself, Machiavelli specifically writes “a prince should read history and reflect on the actions of great men.” He refers to this as an exercise for the mind. Machiavelli makes an argument that in order to be successful, one must study the leaders of it’s past. You must study the successes but mainly the failures of the leaders to know what not to do. A famous quote in the book is “the presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of sound laws.” With this a relationship is built between the development of states and war.
Both King and Thoreau discuss civil disobedience and when it is just to break unfair laws. Another topic they discussed is the merit of authority, and how they were disappointed by the action the majority takes towards certain issues. Henry Thoreau mostly emphasizes on how civil disobedience is important because he believes that governments should consider everybody's opinions. Both have the same common logic, but they express their views in a completely different manner. King uses better emotional appeals so that his audience feels compelled to his cause, King also uses figurative language to create a powerful tone that provides his essay with a meaningful effect; while Thoreau uses more ethos and common logic.
On the one hand, it indicates that Mead is concerned with the historical locus of philosophy and its tasks in his time. On the other, he defines the task of contemporary philosophy as taking seriously ‘the proposition that reality exists in a present’. How are we supposed to understand this proposition?” (Joas, 1985, pg168). As Joas (1985) points out, maybe one the main problems arising from an examination of Meads theories in Philosophy of the Present is the confusion created by Mead skipping from one theory to the next and his disconnected arguments. This is due to the fact that Mead only intended his manuscript to be used as an aid to his lectures.
Gwyneth Roberts says in her article about Nineteen Eighty-Four that, “Some of Orwell’s Newspeak vocabulary (Newspeak itself, Big Brother, doublethink) has entered the English language; certainly his vision of a drab totalitarian future has entered the general consciousness, although it is difficult to know whether his warning [have] been fully understood” (Roberts). George Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, presents his defeatist perspective on modern society formed by his experiences in life, his experiences in the historical wars which he participated in, and his knowledge of Joseph Stalin. Many characteristics of Nineteen Eighty-Four put it under the dystopian genre, but two continuously stand out: a worshipped figurehead and a dehumanized state. Big Brother, the worshipped figure of Nineteen Eighty-Four has a, “is [always] watching you” (Orwell 6) every citizen of Oceania with a strong, “black mustachio’d face” (Orwell 6) and, “dark eyes” (Orwell 6) that look deep into the soul. This more symbolic than physical leader represents the face of the party, also the antagonist group of Nineteen Eighty-Four, who ultimately control Oceania.
When opening up the speech, Faulkner describes the type of writer he is by incorporating antonyms. Because of the occasion, Faulkner saw the importance of telling the audience his true intentions of writing. He does this not only to state that winning the Nobel Prize was not a goal to him, but an honor that has been “trusted” upon him, but so he can clearly relate to his audience. By incorporating antonyms, such as when he says “Life’s work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for the glory and least of all for the profit,” he creates juxtaposition between his character and the inimical character of other authors. There are writers who write for the pure satisfaction of writing and there are writers, who write for the fame and