Mary Todd and Abraham Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Mary Todd and Abraham - Essay Example The letter reveals that the First Lady was more than a wife to the President. During that time, she was also his adviser, assistant, and bearer of blessings for the people. Where Abraham cannot be, Mary Todd is there so that the people will have someone to talk to about their problems and woes. Mary Todd is given the liberty to act out on her own, but she does not abuse it and still calls to Abraham for the final say. Their relationship as a couple and as partners is a healthy give-and-take one. The letter reveals that Abraham Lincoln regards his family just like he would do his country. Mary Todd knows that Abraham is not accustomed to writing, yet she still writes to update him, and although no reply is imminent, she still intends to tell him what is going on with their family. In return, Abraham expresses his love for his family by making sure that they are well and that they have everything that they need. When Mary Todd asked for money, she assumed that Abraham will send it, whi ch means that Abraham tends to their needs just like he oversees the needs of everyone. After reading the letter, it can be concluded that the study of primary documents is important because it conveys a lot about the writer of the letter and the intended recipient.

Disney Movie Vs History Film Studies Essay

Disney Movie Vs History Film Studies Essay Are all Disney movies, which have the characters from History, have the same story as the actual History. If you ask this question to any historian, they will say, No. to find this out I decided to watch a Disney movie, which is based on history. The name of the movie is Pocahontas. I watched this movie and I realize that this movie has just the name of the characters right, but the story was very different from the actual history, which was interesting, and kept me interested until the end. I bet if the Disney had made this movie with the actual story; it would not be interesting as it was after making changes in the story. I decided to watch this movie, because it was Disneys first animated movie that was based on History among all the animated movies. It had a big success in movie theaters, even though; the story was different from the actual History. I am going to write what was happening in the movie and what actually happened in the history. Pocahontas was Native American. She was a daughter of Powhatan, who was the chief of the Algonquian Indians in 1607 (American Promise, 49). Her real name was Matoaka, which was the nickname of her childhood. As the Native American custom, when she was born, she was sent with her mother to live in her mothers village. When she grew up to be around 5-6 years she lived with her father, and her older brothers and sisters. Among the all children, Pocahontas was her fathers favorite child. She was famous for saving life of Captain John Smith (Pocahontas.org). Pocahontas was the first animated movie of the Disney, which was based on History. Although it had name of the characters from the history, but the story was not the same as it was in actual history. It came out in 1995. Disney movies are famous for fantasy and fairy tales. Disney movies have made many movies based on the history. Most of them movies have the real names from the history but their story is different from the actual his tory in many ways. In Disney movie it starts like this, in 1607, a group of settlers arrived in new world to start new life. Their captains name was John Smith. The journey was tough. They had to go through storm, and person whose name was Thomas and he was drowning and saved by Smith. They were all lucky enough to make to new world. For the meantime, there is a Native American tribe nearby which was led by Powhatan. There is a rumor that his daughter Pocahontas is going to get married with Kocoum, who is a warrior. However, Pocahontas was not interested in Kocoum. Pocahontas does not have many friends but there are some, which from animal world like Hummingbird and Raccoon. They all go to her grandmother and she was a tree that gave Pocahontas advice when she needed. She also tells them a story about the Englishmen. Smith was roaming in the countryside of that area, unlike other settlers, who were afraid to go out. Smith runs into Pocahontas. They both spend some time after that and fell in love. Howe ver, other natives were still fighting the settlers. Therefore, Powhatan orders natives to stay away from the settlers. Pocahontas disobeys her father, she continues to spend the time with smith, and she introduces him to her grandmother (Pocahontas, 1995). This was the story from the movie. In actual history, Captain John Smith arrived in their area. It was 1607 and there were more than hundred people. They build the fort in that area in order to survive from the attacks of the Native Americans. However, in the same year in December when Smith is out for hunting in order to get food to survive, Powhatans warrior captures him and takes him in their area. Powhatan and Smith had a long talk and after that when Powhatan was about to kill Smith, Pocahontas came there and saved Smith by laying herself on Smith while natives were beating smith (American promise, 49). When asked by Powhatan for a reason to save Smiths life, Pocahontas said she did not want any excuse to provoke settlers. Because she knew that settlers are capable of defending themselves, which can be dangerous for the natives in that area. Powhatan arranged for Smith to take him back to the settlement. Powhatan then realized that his daughter did not just saved Smiths life, but she saved lots of peoples life (f ilmprincesses.com). As we all know that Disney movies are incomplete without bad character. In this movie bad character is Kocoum; he started to spy on Smith and Pocahontas. Kocoum also tries to attack them but he failed because Thomas was around that area, when he saw that Kocoum is going to attack on them he kills him. When Powhatan came to know about them he declares war with the settlers. He plans to kill Smith at sunrise. When Thomas came to know about was he goes to the settlers and warns them. Another Captain whose name was Ratcliffe think that natives are hiding the gold, and they are trying to protect it from us, therefore, they declared the war. Ratcliffe and some of the settlers decided to go in natives place and get all the gold. Once again Pocahontas manages to save Smith from her father. At the same time, Ratcliffe shows up and he intended to shoot chief but the bullet hit Smith. Smith was not dead on the spot but it was not clear whether he would be able to live with the love of his life or not (Pocahontas, 1995). In actual history, after saving Smith, Pocahontas would regularly go to settlement and play with English boys. Colonist did not have enough food and they all were starving in the first winter. They cloud not even grow their food because it was so cold that growing own food was just not possible. Pocahontas regularly went to visit and taking the food along for some of her friends. She saved many lives in that first winter which known as, Starving Time (Pocahontas.org). When more ships arrived at Jamestown, Smith went to Powhatan to negotiate to sell him the land of Powhatan. Some Whiteman misbehaved and Natives thought they were dangerous. Smith tried to make a peace but he failed. He got badly injured in a explosion of gunpowder. Nobody knew if he would be able to live or not. There was rumors about Smith, which said he was dead, some said, he sailed away in one of the ship returning to Europe. Pocahontas knew that he was not there, and there was emptiness in her life. She was hoping that Smith would return( Pocahontas and Her World 60-61). In the movie, Disney has changed all the characteristics of Pocahontas and Smith, they made her look very cute, and Smith was handsome person, which was very different in actual history. In movie, audience can see a little affection between Pocahontas and Smith despite of having age difference, Smith was twice as her age. Pocahontas was about 13 years old and Smith was around 29 years (American Promise, 49). All Disney movies have this element in them. One more element that is common in all Disney movies is a man who can do anything for the love of his life, in this movie; man was Smith who could do anything for Pocahontas, love of his life. This movie had many elements, which were remarkable, for example, the animation, and the expression of the characters. Pocahontas was shown in movie talking with the mice and kissing the dogs. At one point where Powhatan is about to kill Smith, Pocahontas runs to save his life, and says, I love him, Father, and lays herself on Smith. But, we all know that is not the real story. She did not say that in real life, but she did saved Smiths life in order to avoid problems with the settlers. In the movie, we show Captain Ratcliffe as a villain, but in real life, Ratcliffe had nothing to do with Pocahontas. Finally, in conclusion, we can all say that this movie had the characterization right but they changed the story, which made the movie from fictional from the Historical characters. This movie mostly attracts the children who like animated movie and this movie has all the elements that children like to watch. However, this can have a big impact on their mind, because if they do not know what happened in actual history, than they may think that what they saw in the movie was true. Sometimes this kind of movies can be humiliating to the culture. After watching this movie, children may think that the colonial life was very easy and happy, even though we all know how the conditions were like during the colonial life. I personally think that Disney should make the movie, which is based on history with the real story, so children can also learn the truth about our history.

Themes of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure Revealed in Angelo’s Solilo

Themes of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure Revealed in Angelo’s Soliloquies Angelo’s soliloquies (2.2.161-186; 2.4.1-30) express themes of the tragicomic form, grace and nature, development of self-knowledge, justice and mercy, and creation and death as aspects of Angelo’s character. By the theme of the tragicomic form I mean that which â€Å"qualified extremes and promoted a balanced condition of mind [†¦] It employed a ‘mixed’ style, ‘mixed’ action, and ‘mixed’ characters—‘passing from side to side, it works amongst contraries, sweetly tempering their composition’.† (Guarini’s Compendio della Poesia Tragicomica (1601) cited in Lever lxi-lxii). I take Measure for Measure’s tragicomic form as its major theme, or perhaps meta-theme, because it reinforces the value of the via media, of moderation over zealotry. Angelo swings from one extreme to the other before, by the play’s conclusion, prompted by the orchestrations of the duke, he adopts a middle way. In Angelo’s first two soliloquies we see him transition from believing himself immune to earthly love (2.3.185-186) to believing he is ruled by his blood (2.4.15). This transition suggests a theme of development of self-knowledge. In the first soliloquy Angelo refers to himself as a saint (2.2.179) and speaks of physical love in a condemning tone (2.2.173). In the second soliloquy Angelo has adjusted his self-image (2.4.16) to be consistent with his experience, and he describes his experience of love without spending equal time condemning it. He realizes he took sinful pride in his severity (2.4.9-10), and now compares that quality with an idle plume in a cap—an aspect of appearance, not being. Development of self-knowledge does not show up clearly in other characters however... ...ing between them, was virtue. This signified a beneficent use of natural function which merited the gift of grace as a concomitant; correspondingly, it implied a ‘going forth’ of grace which might comprehend the conscientious payment of nature’s debt. [†¦] Throughout the main action, however, the properties of grace and nature are dissociated and juxtaposed. ‘Strict restraint’ and ‘immoderate use’, the distorted attitudes of convent and brothel, of precisian and libertine, are presented as jarring disparates inducing a process of psychic disruption. In the absence of virtue as a moderator, sexual function turns into the abuse of lechery [†¦] At the spiritual level, excessive zeal is corrupted to pride [†¦] Most alarming of all, there are the sudden slips from level to level, landslides of the soul which transform zealot into lecher and saint into sadist. (lxxii-lxxiii)

Participant Observation

Participant Observation Sports are important social mediums in our country, but basketball is the only sport where you can go to almost any park and play with complete strangers. While other sports involve diverse equipment and numerous amounts of players, basketball is a quick and easy game that only takes a court and a ball. While using the participant observation method, one can easily see how pickup basketball becomes a common stage for social interaction.While my original perspective of the sport was that of a friendly natured game among neighbors with a competitive aspect, my notes and observations revealed how diverse individuals who meet on the court can sometimes become aggressive to the point of hostility. As a gym member of 24 Hour Fitness, I regularly play basketball in their indoor gym. I chose the location in Hermosa Beach because of the diversity of players that attend there. Using the participant observation method, I was both observing and participating while taking notes (obviously not while playing, for that would be an incredible feat).In a time span of two hours, I ended up playing three games while observing six other games. The location I visited was crowded, while ten players were on the court (five against five), about twenty people were waiting on the sidelines throughout the night; however, this number changed as people grew either tired or impatient. On the sidelines was a list of names for people who wanted to play next. This called for a more organized system of who had next compared to parks where people keep track of who verbally called next.I found that about half of the players at the gym were African-American, while the rest of the players were mixed evenly between Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic. Certain players, based on body shape and skill level, were given different roles throughout the game. The ages of the players seemed to be mostly late twenties to early thirties, and at no point throughout my two hours being there did a woman enter the gym. Just as the demographics of the players were diverse, so was the gameplay.Some games were dominated by one key player, who scores most of the points, while other teams had strong team chemistry and relied on passing to the open player. I also noticed that when a team is dominated by one player that team usually ends up losing. The team that I played on was very pass oriented, while the team we played against was dominated by only two players. The other team assumed that since their other players were short and small, that they weren’t athletic enough to receive the ball, and because of this our team was able to double team the players who didn’t pass as much.Players match up to other players based on skill and body size, which is why I was guarded by someone very similar to me. I noticed that the biggest factor was height, meaning our tallest player guarded their tallest player while our shortest player guarded their shortest player. However, du ring almost every game players make switches according to skill level in order to have a more sufficient defense. Another important aspect of the game of pickup basketball is respect. When players call foul, even if they disagree with the call, the allow them to get the ball back.During game two, a person called foul but the player on the other team disagreed. As they began to argue about whether it was a foul or not, a teammate yelled out â€Å"respect the call†. After that he stopped arguing and gave him the ball. After I played, during the sixth game, a similar situation occurred in a more dramatic way. One player jumped and caught the ball, but flipped over another player, and landed straight on his back. After everyone saw he got up and was ok, the player through the ball â€Å"up top†, so they could check the ball out and play again.A player on the opposite team began to argue saying that he shouldn’t get the ball because his own player fouled him. After m uch hostile and loud arguing, I heard the injured player say, â€Å"if you really are that thirsty for the ball you can have it, if you really are that desperate for a win†. Everybody on the court agreed that the players allegation was a little too strict for a simple game of pickup basketball, and extreme competitiveness is frowned upon. Throughout the rest of the game the team did not pass it to him once, and before the game ended he quit.He became the focus of discussion for the rest of the night, as people began to criticize him behind his back. From my own personal experience, heated arguments over calls are not that uncommon in the sport of basketball, but usually from those with strong outgoing personalities. For the most part, the game is a civilized game where both teams compete for the win, and focus on teamwork and strategy. At the end of the day I found my perspective on this game had changed. The competitive nature of the game brought up the question: How importa nt is it to win? I observed that to some people the ules of basketball should be enforced strictly, so that the game is fair. However, the general consensus was that respecting other players safety and calls were more important. Nevertheless, I noticed that almost every game had some sort of argument that entailed. I concluded that there is a certain culture on the court that calls for a fair game and places winning as a priority. The sharp contrast to the other players who were only there for the fun and love of the game brings up questions on whether social or even economic backgrounds are what causes people to become so passionate about a seemingly frivolous game.

Philosophy: The Immortality of the Soul and Personal Identity

IntroductionThe Concise Oxford Dictionary defines â€Å"soul† as follows: â€Å"Spiritual or immaterial part of man, held to survive death.† This definition highlights the fact that the concept of life after death by means of a â€Å"soul† remains a matter of religious assertion. No authority can prove it. In contrast, the highest authority, the Bible, says: â€Å"The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.† (Eclessiastes 3:11)â€Å"The dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the true God who gave it.† In his Commentary, Wesleyan Methodist theologian Adam Clarke writes concerning this verse: â€Å"Here the wise man makes a most evident distinction between the body and the soul: they are not the same; they are not both matter. The body, which is matter, returns to dust, its original; but the spirit, which is immaterial, returns to God† (123).   Similarly, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scri pture says: â€Å"The soul goes back to God† (90). Thus, both commentaries imply that the soul and the spirit are the same.Through the birth of philosophical notion on the issue of people having an immortal soul, it could then be assured that through the different theories formed by early philosophers, many people were confused about the truth on the matter. Hence, to be able to clearly understand the issue, further studies were made and were formulated to answer the queries of people regarding a living soul. In the paragraphs to follow, the conversation of Miller and Weirob shall be examined as to how the two philosophers arePhilosophy: The Immortality of the Soul and Personal Identity able to clarify the issues of an identical self that continuously thrives even after a person’s death.The Dialogue and the ClaimIn John Perry’s â€Å"A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality†, there is an indication of a conversation that existed between Miller and Weirob. The latter person signifies the existence of a connection between the continuous events in a person’s life that is identified as a personal identity of an individual. According to Miller, the immortality of the soul is the indication that a person’s identity is rather passed on through the years of life of the individual.In the conversation though, it has been pointed out by Weirob that the continuity of a person’s identity does not necessarily depend upon the life and death transition of a person’s experience. However, Miller continues to point out that the continuity of identity that is referred to as â€Å"stage† [a bunch of mental and physical events that are glued together; a set of events that are casually interacting within a person’s life], occurs in a person’s life just once as he is living. The said casual relations are then ‘glued’ together, hence the identity of the person continues well with the years of his life, from the point of his birth towards the days of his old age. A person’s capability of remembering the earlier days of his life helps him identify himself as the same person as he was during the past years compared to who he is at present. Saying this, Miller came up with four major hypotheses about a person’s ability to remember. The said hypotheses are as follows:Philosophy: The Immortality of the Soul and Personal Identity.            If Something is imaginable, it is possible ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   It is possible that there will be someone identical with Gretchen Weirob in Heaven ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   If identity is imaginable then it is possible.          Survival is identity with a future personThe fact that there has to be a certain connection between the events and the physical experiences that a person passes through life makes the possibility of a life after death experience, or the idea of an immortal soul a poss ible matter at that. According to Miller, the identity of person could only be tracked down through memory. Hence, once an event is remembered by a person then he gains the old personal identity he once had during his earlier or first life. This identity, according to him is someone that exists in heaven. This could be referred to as a complete depiction of the person that is living on earth at present. Hence, this simply means that the person living in today’s world at the present time has an identical person counterpart in heaven, which enables him to remember his past life completely.Weirob however, further argues that even though there exists an immortal soul as other philosophers claim, the said factor of human life [soul] cannot account for identity unlike how people could do as they live. Hence, reincarnation as a way of branching one person’s identity is not at all possible, or someone undoubtedly identical with the person living at present is possible at all.à ‚  Weirob proves this argument by pointing out the differences between remembering and seeming to remember. According to her, there is a big differencePhilosophy: The Immortality of the Soul and Personal Identity between the two activities of the mind. Whereas remembering pertains to the ability of the person to recall the exact things as it all happened to him during an earlier part of his life. However, seeming to remember is to quite know what happened as it happened but not actually knowing the exact events that occurred. To support this claim, Weirob uses an example:  Ã¢â‚¬Å"if for a moment a person is hypnotized to remember as if he has talked to Miller, then another person actually talks to him, the result when asked may not be that easy to distinguish†Thus, a person could be able to remember something if it actually happened to him, however, at some point, some spirit testing and activities also enables a person to remember something that did not even happen. However , remembering in detail would not be that easy to copy as hypnotism does. Hence, here enters the idea of being able to ‘seemingly remember’ things.By stating the said claims, Weirob was also able to come up with her own hypotheses about the matter: ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Examining the content of what a person is thinking or saying cannot establish whether that person is identical with a person existing at an earlier time (14,21) ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Really remembering a thought or action is just ‘seeming to remember’ it plus having really thought or done it.Philosophy: The Immortality of the Soul and Personal IdentityClearly, Weirob points out that the argument of Miller is plainly proposing that  the real memory is a combination of apparent memory and identity. However, the circularity of the matter proves otherwise. As clearly discussed by Weirob, survival is possible for a person not through the plain ability of being able to rememb er memories but through continuous existence in life. It may not be through being reincarnated or things as such, but through the ability of the person to make himself be remembered by others even when after he dies through his works while he is still living.ConclusionThrough the proofs and the dialogue discussed in this paper, it could then be claimed that the existence of an immortal or immaterial soul is then raised as a questionable theory created by world philosophers. Historians point out that the teaching that man possesses a separate, immortal soul did not originate with the Bible but with Greek philosophy. The New Catholic Encyclopedia observes that the ancient Hebrews did not think of man as being composed of a material body and an immaterial soul. It states about the Hebrews’ belief: â€Å"When the breath of life entered the first man whom God formed out of the ground, he became a ‘living being’ (134). Death was not regarded as a separation of two dis tinct elements in man, as in Greek philosophy; the breath of life departs and man is left a ‘dead being’. In each case the word ‘being’ would be the Hebrew [ne ´phesh], often translated ‘soul’ but, in fact, virtually equated with the person.† That same encyclopedia notes that Catholic scholars recently â€Å"have maintained that the New Testament does not teach the immortality of the soul in the Hellenistic [Greek]Philosophy: The Immortality of the Soul and Personal Identity sense.† It concludes: â€Å"The ultimate solution to the problem is to be found not so much in philosophical speculation as in the supernatural gift of the Resurrection.† Hence, as Weirob and Miller have argued in their conversation, it could be noted that philosophers of both the later and the present era have failed in concluding that there is an immortal soul that continues to thrive after a person’s death to continue one’s identity. I n this regard, it could then be assumed, that as both experts such as Weirob and Miller have argued, there would still be some philosophers who would continue to prove and disprove the matter concerning the existence of a continuum of self-identity after death. However it would be, it would still help if a person tries to search in his own way to be able to find the truth about this theory.BIBLIOGRAPHYCatholic New American Bible. (1970). P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York.The Protestant Interpreter’s Bible. (1989). Blackwell Publishing Company.Concise Oxford Dictionary. (1987). Blackwell Publishing Company.Ralph Earle. (1997). Adam Clarke's Commentary. Nelson Reference.John R. Perry. (1978). A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality. Hackett Publishing Company  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Dangerous Road†. (July 20, 1990). Time Magazine. Volume 9 Number 5. New York.