Christopher Columbus :: Christopher Columbus Essays

Christopher Columbus, conceived in 1451, was the most established child of Domenico Colombo. A dubious figure accused for the destruction of the locals in the island he â€Å"discovered†, Columbus in any case ought to be credited with opening Europe’s eyes and ears to the Caribbean. All through his lifetime Columbus made 4 journeys to the New World.      On the primary stumble on Aug. 3, 1492, Columbus cruised from Palos, Spain, with three little ships, the Santa Marã ­a, directed by Columbus himself, the Pinta under Martã ­n Pinzã ³n, and the Niã ±a under Vicente Y㠡ã ±ez Pinzã ³n. Subsequent to ending at the Canary Islands, he cruised due west from Sept. 6 until Oct. 7, when he changed his course toward the southwest. On Oct. 10 a little uprising was controlled, and on Oct. 12 he arrived on a little island (Watling Island; or San Salvadort) in the Bahamas gathering. He took ownership for Spain and, with intrigued locals on board, found different islands in the area. On Oct. 27 he located Cuba and on Dec. 5 arrived at Hispaniola. On Christmas Eve the Santa Marã ­a was destroyed on the north bank of Hispaniola, and Columbus, leaving men there to establish a province, rushed back to Spain on the Niã ±a. His gathering was everything he could wish; as indicated by his agreement with the Spanish sovereigns he was made â€Å"admiral of the sea sea† and senator general of every new land he had found or ought to find.      On the second excursion fitted out with a huge armada of 17 boats, with 1,500 pilgrims on board, Columbus cruised from Cã ¡diz in Oct., 1493. His landfall this time was made in the Lesser Antilles, and his new revelations incorporated the Leeward Islands and Puerto Rico. The chief naval officer showed up at Hispaniola to locate the primary settlement crushed by Native Americans. He established another state close by, and afterward cruised off in the mid year of 1494 to investigate the southern bank of Cuba. Subsequent to finding Jamaica he came back to Hispaniola and found the homesteaders, intrigued uniquely with regards to discovering gold, totally confused; his endeavors to uphold severe control drove some to hold onto vessels and come back to Spain to grumble of his organization. Leaving his sibling Bartholomew in control at Hispaniola, Columbus likewise came back to Spain in 1496.      On his third undertaking, in 1498, Columbus had to ship convicts as homesteaders, in view of the terrible reports on conditions in Hispaniola and in light of the fact that the curiosity of the New World was wearing off.

Cute Breakup Quotes - Overcome Negative Feelings

Charming Breakup Quotes - Overcome Negative Feelings The fire has long subsided. Love has gone poof! Just the perishing ashes of the has-been sentiment remain. What do you do? At the point when love turns into a weight, it might be insightful to give up. A little agony is superior to a lifetime of bargains. Let these charming separation cites mitigate your sentiments, assist you with getting conclusion or possibly give a transitory distraction.â George Bernard ShawA broken heart is an extremely wonderful objection for a man in London on the off chance that he has an agreeable pay. Alexander HamiltonA guarantee should never be broken. Albert CamusBlessed are the hearts that can twist; they will never be broken. Fanny CrosbyChords that were broken will vibrate again. Langston HughesHold quick to your fantasies, for without them life is a messed up winged feathered creature that can't fly. Lucinda WilliamsI surmise you could compose a decent melody if your heart hadnt been broken, yet I dont know about anybody whose heart hasnt been broken. Sally FieldI think that is pitiful, that I havent permitted my heart to be broken.I have broken a couple. Otomo No YakamochiBetter never to have met you in my fantasy than to wake and reach for hands that are not there. SocratesThe most sweltering adoration has the coldest end. Oscar WildeHearts live by being injured. Kahlil GibranEver has it been that adoration knows not its own profundity until the hour of detachment. Robert BrowningTake away love and our earth is a tomb. Oscar WildeThe heart was made to be broken. Marcus AureliusReject your feeling of injury and the injury itself vanishes. Richard WilburWhat is something contrary to two? A desolate me, a forlorn you. Rupert BrookeAnd I will discover some young lady maybe, and a superior one than you, with eyes as astute, however kindlier, and lips as delicate, yet obvious, and I daresay she will do. Graham BellWhen one entryway shuts, another opens; yet we regularly look so long thus remorsefully upon the shut entryway that we don't see the one which has opened for us. LamartineSometimes, when one individual is feeling the loss of, the entire world appears to be eradicated. Robert FrostFamilies separate when individuals take insights you dont expect and miss clues you do plan. Master ByronThe heart will break, however broken live on.

Why ?ultur?l Relativism Is Wrong

Why ?ultur?l Relativism Is Wrong “Relativism, the id?? th?t truth i? a hi?t?ri??ll? ??nditi?n?d n?ti?n th?t does n?t transcend cultural b?und?ri??, has ?xi?t?d ?in?? the Greek ?r?, ??m? 2400 ???r? ago. R?l?tivi?m ??nt?nd? that ?ll truth i? r?l?tiv? ?x???t f?r th? claim th?t “truth is relative”. Dr. Edw?rd Younkins LET’S START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING: WHAT IS CULTURE?M??t tim??, when th? ?u??ti?n ‘what is culture’ is ??k?d, it’s almost certainly diffi?ult t? ?n?w?r because w? probably have an idea wh?t culture is all about, but we are n?t just ?bl? to put it in exact w?rd?.So let’s g? like thi?W? ?ll kn?w that man is a ???i?l ?r??tur?, coming together to form communities in ?rd?r t? ?urviv?; even ?? far back ?s the Homo ???i?n? whi?h was n??rl? 250,000 ???r? ?g?.As a result of living t?g?th?r, they f?rm common habits ?nd b?h?vi?r? ranging fr?m specific m?th?d? of ?hildr??ring t? ?r?f?rr?d t??hni?u?? to obtain f??d.For example, in m?d?rn-d?? P?ri?, many ????l? ?h?? daily ?t ?utd??r m?rk?t? t? ?i?k u? wh?t they n??d for th?ir ?v?ning m??l, buying cheese, m??t, ?nd v?g?t?bl?? fr?m diff?r?nt ????i?lt? ?t?ll?.And in Canada, m?j?rit? of ????l? shop ?n?? a week ?t ?u??rm?rk?t?, filling l?rg? ??rt? t? th? brim. Every human b?h?vi?r, from shopping t? m?rri?g?, t? the ?x?r???i?n ?f f??ling?; i? l??rn?d.In Canada, people t?nd to vi?w marriage as a choice b?tw??n tw? ????l?, based ?n mutual f??ling? ?f love.In some ?th?r nations and in ?th?r tim??, m?rri?g?? h?v? been arranged thr?ugh ?n intri??t? process of int?rvi?w? ?nd n?g?ti?ti?n? b?tw??n ?ntir? families, or in some ?????, through a dir??t ???t?m such ?? a “m?il ?rd?r bride.”To ??m??n? raised in Winnipeg for instance, th? marriage ?u?t?m? of a f?mil? fr?m Africa m?? seem strange, or ?v?n wr?ng.C?nv?r??l?, ??m??n? fr?m a traditional K?lk?t? f?mil? might b? perplexed with the id?? of r?m?nti? l?v? ?? th? foundation f?r the lif?l?ng ??mmitm?nt ?f m?rri?g?.In ?th?r words, th? way in whi?h people vi?w m?rri?g? d???nd? largely ?n wh?t they were t?ught. R?l?nd Barthes di?d?infull? r?f?rr?d to thi? ?? “th? h??t? ?t??king up” ?f a “m?r? mechanical ?iviliz?ti?n”.B?h?vi?r b???d on learned ?u?t?m? is n?t a bad thing. Being familiar with unwritt?n rul?? h?l?? people f??l ???ur? and “n?rm?l.”M??t ????l? w?nt t? liv? th?ir d?il? liv?? ??nfid?nt th?t th?ir behaviors will n?t b? ?h?ll?ng?d ?r disrupted. But ?v?n ?n ??ti?n ?? ???mingl? ?im?l? as commuting t? w?rk evidences a gr??t d??l of ?ultur?l diversities.Take the ???? ?f going t? w?rk on ?ubli? tr?n???rt?ti?n. Whether commuting in N?w York, Dublin, Cairo, Mumb?i, or V?n??uv?r, some behaviors will b? the ??m? in ?ll l???ti?n?, but ?ignifi??nt differences exists b?tw??n ?ultur??.T??i??ll?, a ?????ng?r in New York w?uld find a marked bu? stop ?r ?t?ti?n, wait f?r th? bu? or train, pay ?n ?g?nt b?f?r? ?r ?ft?r boarding, ?nd ?ui?tl? take a ???t if ?n? i? ?v?il?bl?.But wh?n b??rding a bus in Cairo, ?????ng?r? might h?v? to run, b???u?? bu??? th?r? often do not ??m ? t? a full ?t?? t? t?k? ?n patrons.Dublin bu? rid?r? would b? ?x???t?d t? ?xt?nd ?n ?rm to indicate th?t th?? w?nt the bu? to stop f?r th?m.And when b??rding a ??mmut?r tr?in in Mumb?i, ?????ng?r? must ??u??z? into ?v?r?tuff?d cars ?mid a l?t ?f pushing and shoving ?n the crowded platforms. Th?t kind ?f behavior would b? considered th? h?ight ?f rud?n??? in C?n?d? or th? U.S, but in Mumbai it r?fl??t? the daily ?h?ll?ng?? ?f g?tting around on a train ???t?m th?t i? grossly over utilized.In thi? example ?f ??mmuting, ?ultur? consists ?f th?ught? (?x???t?ti?n? ?b?ut ??r??n?l space, f?r example) ?nd t?ngibl? thing? (bus ?t???, tr?in?, ?nd ???ting ?????it?).M?t?ri?l ?ultur? r?f?r? to th? objects ?r belongings ?f a group of people. Metro passes ?nd bu? t?k?n? ?r? ??rt ?f m?t?ri?l culture, ?? ?r? automobiles, ?t?r??, ?nd th? ?h??i??l ?tru?tur?? where ????l? w?r?hi?.Nonmaterial culture, in contrast, ??n?i?t? ?f th? id???, ?ttitud??, ?nd b?li?f? of a ???i?t?. Material ?nd nonmaterial ????? t? of culture ?r? link?d, and ?h??i??l ?bj??t? often ??mb?liz? cultural ideas.A m?tr? ???? i? a m?t?ri?l ?bj??t, but it r??r???nt? a form ?f n?nm?t?ri?l ?ultur?, n?m?l?; ???it?li?m, ?nd th? acceptance of ???ing for transportation. Cl?thing, h?ir?t?l??, ?nd j?w?ll?r? ?r? part ?f m?t?ri?l ?ultur?, but th? ???r??ri?t?n??? ?f wearing ??rt?in clothing f?r ????ifi? events reflects nonmaterial culture. A ??h??l building b?l?ng? to m?t?ri?l ?ultur?, but th? t???hing m?th?d? ?nd ?du??ti?n?l ?t?nd?rd? are ??rt ?f ?du??ti?n’? n?nm?t?ri?l ?ultur?.These m?t?ri?l ?nd n?nm?t?ri?l ?????t? of ?ultur? ??n v?r? ?ubtl? from r?gi?n to r?gi?n.A? ????l? tr?v?l f?rth?r away from home, m?ving from diff?r?nt regions to ?ntir?l? diff?r?nt ??rt? of th? world, ??rt?in m?t?ri?l ?nd n?nm?t?ri?l ?????t? ?f culture become dr?m?ti??ll? unf?mili?r.Wh?t happens wh?n w? ?n??unt?r different ?ultur???A? w? int?r??t with ?ultur?? ?th?r than our ?wn, w? become more ?w?r? ?f th? differences and commonalities b?tw??n ?th?r w?rld? and our own.How d? we then judge these other diff?r?nt cultures? What becomes our justification for accepting theirs?MoralityM?r?lit? is th? ?u?lit? ?f b?ing in accord with standards of right ?r g??d ??ndu?t or a system ?f id??? th?t fall int? those ??m? categories. We often h??r w?rd? ?b?ut r?ligi?u? m?r?lit? ?r the ?hr??? Chri?ti?n m?r?lit? in ???i?t?. Items th?t f?ll int? th? m?r?ll? ??und ??t?g?r? are ?u?liti?? lik? g??d, g??dn???, rightn???, virtu?, ?nd right??u?n???.Wh?n talking about a m?r?l quality involving a course ?f ??ti?n, w? think ?f ?thi??. T? d?fin? m?r?lit?, a ??r??n will use th? rul?? or habits with r?g?rd to right ?nd wrong th?t he ?r she f?ll?w?.It is a ??m?l?x ???t?m ?f g?n?r?l ?rin?i?l?? and particular judgm?nt? b???d on ?ultur?l, r?ligi?u?, ?nd ?hil????hi??l ??n???t? and b?li?f?. Cultur?? and ?r groups r?gul?t? and g?n?r?liz? th??? ??n???t?, thus r?gul?ting behavior.Wh?n ??m??n? conforms t? th? codification, ??u ??n?id?r this ??r??n t? b? m?r?l.And yet , th? notion ?f h?w w? ?ught t? b?h?v? ?nd the r??lit? ?f h?w we d? b?h?v? ?r? varied ?nd r??l morality b?h?v?? in ????rd?n?? with ?n?? ??r???ti?n ?f m?r?lit?. Oft?n, d??trin?? ?r m?r?l duti?? th?t support the quality of an ??ti?n whi?h r?nd?r? it g??d, i? moral.And so a ???t?m ?f standards used t? ?r?du?? honest, d???nt, and ?thi??l r??ult? ?r? ??n?id?r?d m?r?l.Cultural ?b??luti?mMoral or cultural absolutism asserts th?t th?r? ?r? ??rt?in univ?r??l m?r?l principles by which ?ll ????l??’ actions m?? b? judg?d. It i? a form ?f deontology.The challenge with m?r?l absolutism, however, is th?t there will ?lw??? b? ?tr?ng di??gr??m?nt? ?b?ut whi?h moral ?rin?i?l?? are ??rr??t ?nd whi?h ?r? incorrect.F?r ?x?m?l?, m??t ????l? ?r?und the w?rld probably accept th? idea th?t w? ?h?uld tr??t ?th?r? ?? w? wi?h to b? treated ?ur??lv??. But b???nd th?t, ????l? fr?m diff?r?nt countries lik?l? h?ld varying vi?w? about ?v?r?thing fr?m th? m?r?lit? ?f ?b?rti?n ?nd capital ?uni?hm?nt t? n???ti?m ?nd brib?r?.M?r?l ?b??luti?m ??ntr??t? with m?r?l r?l?tivi?m, whi?h d?ni?? th?t th?r? ?r? ?b??lut? m?r?l v?lu??. It also diff?r? fr?m m?r?l pluralism, whi?h urg?? tolerance ?f ?th?r?’ m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? with?ut concluding th?t ?ll vi?w? are equally valid.S?, while m?r?l ?b??luti?m d??l?r?? a univ?r??l ??t ?f m?r?l v?lu??, in reality, m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? v?r? gr??tl? ?m?ng n?ti?n?, ?ultur??, and r?ligi?n?.CULTURAL RELATIVISM“If anyone, no matter wh?, w?r? giv?n the opportunity of ?h???ing from ?m?ng?t all the nations in th? world th? set ?f b?li?f? whi?h he th?ught b??t, h? w?uld in?vit?bl? ?ft?r ??r?ful ??n?id?r?ti?n? ?f th?ir relative merits choose th?t of his ?wn ??untr?. Everyone without exception believes his ?wn native ?u?t?m?, ?nd the r?ligi?n h? w?? br?ught u? in, to be th? b??t”. Herodotus, The Hi?t?ri??W? h?v? almost extensively t?lk?d ?b?ut ?ultur? and h?w it v?ri?? ?v?r ?????.The m?r? farther w? tr?v?l fr?m wh?r? w? call h?m?, the m?r? th??? cultures becomes ?li?n? to us .S? philosophers’ ??k?d a ?u??ti?n:  If a ?ultur? fr?m far ?w?? ??ntr?di?t? ?ur?, d??? it make it wr?ng?Thi? ?u??ti?n g?v? birth t? cultural relativism.Cultur?l moral r?l?tivi?m i? th? th??r? th?t m?r?l judgm?nt? ?r truths ?r? r?l?tiv? to cultures, in ?th?r w?rd?, ?v?r? ?ultur? i? right.Consequently, wh?t is right in one society m?? b? wr?ng in ?n?th?r ?nd vi?? versa. You could think ?f culture as nation; ???i?t?; gr?u?, sub-culture, ?t?.This i? ?n?th?r th??r? with ancient r??t?. Herodotus, the f?th?r of hi?t?r?, d???rib?? th? Gr??k? ?n??unt?r with th? Callatians who ?t? their d??d r?l?tiv??.N?tur?ll?, th? Gr??k? found this ?r??ti?? r?v?lting. But th? Callatians w?r? ??u?ll? r???ll?d b? the Gr??k ?r??ti?? ?f ?r?m?ti?n ??u?ing Herodotus t? ??n?lud? th?t ethics i? culturally relative.Th? world lit?r?tur?: diff?r?nt ?ultur?? h?v? diff?r?nt m?r?l ??d??, ?n insight ??nfirm?d by th? ?vid?n?? of cultural diff?r?n???. Th? Incas practiced hum?n sacrifice, E?kim?? ?h?r?d th?ir wiv?? with st rangers ?nd killed newborns, Japanese samurai tri?d ?ut hi? n?w ?w?rd ?n an inn???nt ?????r-b?, Europeans ?n?l?v?d masses of Africans, and female ?ir?um?i?i?n i? ??rf?rm?d t?d?? in parts of North Afri??.D?riu?, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued b? the v?ri?t? ?f ?ultur?? h? met in hi? travels. H? h?d f?und, for ?x?m?l?, th?t th? C?ll?ti?n?, wh? lived in India, ate th? b?di?? ?f th?ir d??d f?th?r?. The Greeks, ?f ??ur??, did n?t do th?t th? Gr??k? ?r??ti??d cremation ?nd regarded th? funeral ??r? ?? the n?tur?l ?nd fitting w?? t? dispose ?f th? d??d. D?riu? thought th?t a sophisticated ?utl??k ?h?uld appreciate the diff?r?n??? b?tw??n cultures. On? d??, t? t???h thi? l????n, h? ?umm?n?d some Gr??k? wh? happened t? b? ?t hi? court and ??k?d wh?t it would t?k? f?r them to eat th? b?di?? ?f their d??d fathers. They w?r? ?h??k?d, ?? Darius knew they would b?, and replied that n? ?m?unt of money ??uld persuade th?m to d? such a thing. Then Darius ??ll?d in some C?ll?ti?n? and, whil ? the Gr??k? li?t?n?d, ??k?d them wh?t it w?uld t?k? f?r th?m t? burn th?ir d??d fathers’ b?di??. The C?ll?ti?n? w?r? h?rrifi?d and told D?riu? not t? ????k ?f such thing?T? a l?t of ????l?, th? idea “Different ?ultur?? h?v? different moral ??d??” w?uld b? the perfect w?? t? und?r?t?nd m?r?lit?. The idea is th?t th?r? ?r? no universal m?r?l truths; the ?u?t?m? ?f different societies are ?ll th?t exist.T? call a ?u?t?m “correct” ?r “in??rr??t” would imply th?t we can judg? th?t ?u?t?m by ??m? ind???nd?nt ?t?nd?rd ?f right ?nd wr?ng. But n? such ?t?nd?rd ?xi?t?; ?v?r? ?t?nd?rd is culture-bound. The ???i?l?gi?t Willi?m Gr?h?m Sumn?r ?ut it lik? thi?:Th? “right” w?? i? th? way whi?h th? ancestors u??d and whi?h h?? b??n h?nd?d down. Th? notion of right i? in th? folkways. It is n?t ?ut?id? ?f th?m, ?f ind???nd?nt origin, ?nd br?ught t? t??t th?m. In the f?lkw???, wh?t?v?r is, is right. This i? because they are tr?diti?n?l, ?nd th?r?f?r? ??nt?in in themselves th? auth ority ?f th? ?n???tr?l gh??t?. Wh?n w? come t? th? f?lkw??? we ?r? ?t th? ?nd ?f our ?n?l??i?.This lin? ?f th?ught, m?r? than ?n? other, has ??u??d people t? be ????ti??l ?b?ut ?thi??. Cultur?l Relativism says, in ?ff??t, that there i? n? such thing ?? univ?r??l truth?; th?r? ?r? ?nl? the various ?ultur?l ??d??, ?nd n?thing m?r?. Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m ?h?ll?ng?? ?ur belief in th? objectivity ?nd universality ?f moral truth.“The notion ?f right i? in th? f?lkw???. It is n?t ?ut?id? ?f th?m, ?f ind???nd?nt ?rigin, and br?ught t? t??t th?m. In th? f?lkw???, wh?t?v?r i?, is right”.   William GrahamTh? following claims have all been made by cultural r?l?tivi?t?:Diff?r?nt societies h?v? diff?r?nt moral ??d??.The moral ??d? ?f a ???i?t? determines wh?t i? right within th?t society; that i?, if the moral ??d? of a ???i?t? ???? that a ??rt?in action i? right, th?n that ??ti?n i? right, ?t least within th?t ???i?t?.Th?r? i? n? ?bj??tiv? ?t?nd?rd th?t can be used t? judg? ?n? ???i?t?’? ??d ? ?? b?tt?r than ?n?th?r’?. Th?r? are no moral truths that h?ld for ?ll people ?t all tim??.Th? m?r?l code of ?ur own society h?? no special ?t?tu?; it i? but ?n? among m?n?.It is arrogant f?r u? to judge ?th?r cultures. W? ?h?uld always b? tolerant ?f them.Th??? five ?r????iti?n? may seem t? g? together, but th?? ?r? ind???nd?nt ?f ?n? another, meaning th?t some ?f them m?? be tru? even while ?th?r? ?r? false. Indeed, tw? ?f th? ?r????iti?n? ?????r to b? inconsistent with ???h ?th?r.Th? ????nd ???? th?t right ?nd wr?ng ?r? d?t?rmin?d b? th? n?rm? of a society; th? fifth ???? that ?n? ?h?uld ?lw??? b? tolerant of ?th?r ?ultur??.But wh?t if the n?rm? ?f ?n?’? ???i?t? f?v?ur int?l?r?n???For ?x?m?l?, when th? Nazi ?rm? inv?d?d P?l?nd ?n S??t?mb?r 1, 1939, thus b?ginning World W?r II, thi? w?? an int?l?r?nt action of th? first order.But what if it ??nf?rm?d t? N?zi ideals? A ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, it ???m?, ??nn?t ?riti?iz? the Nazis f?r b?ing int?l?r?nt, if ?ll they’re doing i? fol lowing th?ir ?wn moral ??d?.Giv?n that cultural relativists take ?rid? in th?ir t?l?r?n??, it would b? ironic if th?ir theory ??tu?ll? ?u???rt?d th? int?l?r?n?? ?f w?rlik? ???i?ti??.H?w?v?r, their th??r? n??d n?t do th?t.Pr???rl? understood, Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m holds th?t the n?rm? ?f a ?ultur? r?ign ?u?r?m? within the b?und? of th? culture it??lf.Thu?, once th? German ??ldi?r? ?nt?r?d P?l?nd, th?? became b?und by th? n?rm? ?f Polish ???i?t? n?rm? th?t ?bvi?u?l? ?x?lud?d th? mass slaughter ?f inn???nt Poles. “When in R?m?,” the old ???ing g???, “d? ?? the R?m?n? do.” Cultur?l relativists agree.Cultur?l relativism i? b???d on tw? b??i? ideas or thesis:1.  Th? div?r?it? idea ?r th??i?: m?r?l beliefs, ?r??ti???, ?nd v?lu?? are diverse ?r v?r? fr?m one ?ultur? t? another; and2.  Th? dependency idea ?r th??i?: m?r?l ?blig?ti?n? d???nd? u??n ?ultur??, since th?? ?r? th? fin?l judg?? ?f m?r?l truth. In short, cultural relativism im?li?? th?t n? cultural v?lu?? h?v? ?n? ?bj??tiv?, univ?r??l v?lidit?, ?nd it would b? ?rr?g?nt f?r one ?ultur? t? m?k? moral judgm?nt? ?b?ut ?th?r ?ultur??.Th??? th??i? ?f div?r?it? is descriptiveThese th??i? of div?r?it? are d???ri?tiv? in that they describe th? w??? thing? ?r?. M?r?l b?li?f?, rules ?nd ?r??ti??? in actual fact, d???nd upon facades of ?ultur? lik? ???i?l, ??liti??l, religious, ?nd economic institutions.B? contrast the th??i? ?f d???nd?n?? i? prescriptive; it describes how things ?ught to b?.M?r?lit? ?h?uld d???nd on ?ultur? b???u?? th?r? i? n?thing else u??n which it i? based.N?w we might argue for cultural r?l?tivi?m ?? f?ll?w?:Argument 1 â€" (fr?m th? div?r?it? th??i?)Different cultures h?v? diff?r?nt moral codes;Thu?, th?r? is n? morality ind???nd?nt of ?ultur?.The weakness ?f thi? argument i? th?t th? ??n?lu?i?n d???n’t f?ll?w fr?m th? premise. Th? f??t th?t cultures di??gr?? ?b?ut m?r?lit? doesn’t ?h?w th?t morality is r?l?tiv?.Aft?r ?ll, ?ultur?? disagree ?b?ut whether ?b?rti?n i? moral ?r imm?r?l, but t h?ir disagreement d???n’t m??n th?r? i? no truth ?b?ut th? m?tt?r. It might be that one culture i? ju?t mi?t?k?n.C?n?id?r h?w ?ultur?? might di??gr?? ?? t? wh?th?r th? earth ?r ?un i? at th? ??nt?r ?f ?ur ??l?r system. Th?ir di??gr??m?nt doesn’t m??n there is no truth ?b?ut th? matter.Th?r? i? a ?r?v?n fact b??k?d by science th?t ?h?w? the ?un is th? ??nt?r ?f ?ur ??l?r system. Thi? ?im?l? m??n? whether you b?li?v? it or not, it remains a f??t.Simil?rl?, ???i?ti?? might di??gr?? ?b?ut wh?th?r they ?h?uld put their ??ung t? d??th, but th?t di??gr??m?nt ?r?v?? n?thing, ?x???t th?t “???i?ti?? di??gr??”. So cultural disagreements ?r? n?t ?n?ugh t? ?r?v? ?ultur?l relativism. C?n?id?r another ?rgum?nt:Argum?nt 2 â€" (fr?m th? d???nd?n?? th??i?)Wh?t i? often regarded as th? m?r?l truths depends on ?ultur?l b?li?f?;Thu?, th?r? i? no m?r?l truth independent of culture.The ?rgum?nt ??mmit? the f?ll??? that l?gi?i?n? ??ll “b?gging the ?u??ti?n.”This ???ur? wh?n you assume th? truth of wh?t ??u ?r? tr?ing t? prove. (For ?x?m?l?, if you ??k m? wh? I think abortion i? wrong ?nd I say, b???u?? it’? bad, I’v? b?gg?d the question.)In argument 2, one i? trying to ?h?w th?t right and wr?ng d???nd ?n ?ultur?. It b?g? th? ?u??ti?n t? ??? th?t right ?nd wr?ng d???nd ?n ?ultur? b???u?? th?? d???nd on ?ultur?.We might w? m?k? a ?tr?ng?r case f?r th? r?l?tivi?t if we ?ut th? two th???? t?g?th?r?Premise 1 â€" Right ?nd wr?ng v?r? b?tw??n ?ultur?? (div?r?it?).Pr?mi?? 2 â€" Right ?nd wr?ng depend u??n a ?ultur?l ??nt?xt (d???nd?n??).C?n?lu?i?n â€" Thu?, right ?nd wr?ng ?r? relative t? ?ultur?.Critique of Cultur?l M?r?l R?l?tivi?m â€" Pr?mi?? 1Let’s ??n?id?r th? first premise (div?r?it?). Nothing ???m? m?r? ?bvi?u? th?n the f??t ?f cultural diff?r?n???. E?kim?? b?li?v?d in inf?nti?id?; m??t Am?ri??n? d? n?t. Most Am?ri??n? b?li?v? ?x??uting ?rimin?l? i? m?r?ll? justifiable; most Fr?n?h find th? ?r??ti?? b?rb?ri?. Clearly, th?r? are diff?r?nt ?ultur?l m?r??. But m??b? the diff?r?n??? b?tw??n ?ultur?l v?lu?? ?r? not ?? great as they ???m.C?n?id?r th?t Eskimos liv? in harsh climates wh?r? f??d is in ?h?rt ?u??l? ?nd m?th?r? nur?? th?ir b?bi?? for ???r?. There ?im?l? i?n’t ?n?ugh f??d f?r ?ll their ?hildr?n, nor enough b??k? upon which nomadic people can ??rr? th?ir children. S? Eskimos w?nt their ?hildr?n t? liv? ju?t lik? we d?, ?nd it i? th? h?r?h and unusual condition th?t f?r?? th?m t? m?k? diffi?ult ?h?i???.S?m?tim?? th?? kill a weaker child so th?t both th? ?tr?ng?r ?nd weaker children won’t di?. W? m?? di??gr?? with th? ?r??ti??, but w? can im?gin? d?ing th? ??m? in similar circumstances. Thu?, th? underlying principle life i? v?lu?bl? h?? b??n ???li?d differently in diff?r?nt contexts. M??b? ?ultur?? ?r?n’t so diff?r?nt ?ft?r ?ll.C?n?id?r that there i? m?r? ?rim? in America th?n in France. Most Am?ri??n? seem t? b?li?v? that criminals deserve to b? ?uni?h?d for th?ir ?rim??, th?t ??v?r? ?uni?hm?nt brings ????? t? th? vi?tim’? f?mil?, that ???it?l punishment i? a d?t?rr?nt to crime, ?t?. Th? French ?r? m?r? lik?l? to renounce r?tributi?n ?r doubt that ???it?l ?uni?hm?nt bring? vi?tim’? f?mili?? ????? ?r d?t?r? crime.But notice ?g?in. B?th ?ultur?? ?r? steered b? a ?rin?i?l? ??t ju?tl? ?v?n th?ugh th?? ???l? the ?rin?i?l? diff?r?ntl?. So u??n closer in????ti?n, th?r? d???n’t ???m to b? as much di??gr??m?nt as it fir?t ?????r?d. So th? diff?r?n??? in ?ultur?l values might be more ????r?nt th?n real.N?w ?u????? w? ??uld ?h?w th?t there ?r? m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? that ?ll ?ultur?? ?h?r?? Wouldn’t that ?h?w that morality w?? not r?l?tiv? t? ?ultur?? Many ??i?nti?t? ?l?im th?t there are moral ?rin?i?l?? common t? ?ll ?ultur??.For in?t?n??, ?ll ?ultur?? ?h?r?: r?gul?ti?n? ?n sexual b?h?vi?r; ?r?hibiti?n? ?g?in?t unju?t killing; r??uir?m?nt? ?f familial obligations and ?hild care; emphasis ?n truth-telling; and r?w?rd f?r reciprocity and ?????r?ti?n.If w? take th??? two id??? t?g?th?r ?ultur?l moral diff?r?n??? arenâ €™t as great ?? they appear, ?nd all ?ultur?? ?h?r? ??m? moral v?lu?? th?n th? diversity thesis is f?l??. And if th? fir?t ?r?mi?? i? f?l??, th?n th? ??n?lu?i?n ?f the cultural relativist’s argument d???n’t follow.However n?ti?? th?t even if th? first ?r?mi?? is f?l??, that d???n’t ?r?v? that m?r?l objectivism i? tru?. Cultur?? th?t ?h?r? the same m?r?l v?lu?? ??uld ?ll be wr?ng! So the ?m?iri??l evidence concerning ?imil?riti?? and diff?r?n??? b?tw??n moral codes i?n’t r?l?v?nt t? the ?u??ti?n ?f whether m?r?lit? is absolute ?r r?l?tiv?.And that m??n? that whil? w? h?v?n’t ?r?v?n th? truth of ?ultur?l absolutism, w? have und?rmin?d th? cultural r?l?tivi?t.F?r the ?vid?n?? ?b?ut diversity of ?ultur? is irr?l?v?nt, then w? h?v? undermined th? r?l?tivi?t’? fir?t ?r?mi??, and with it the conclusion ?f hi?/h?r ?rgum?nt.Criti?u? ?f Cultur?l M?r?l R?l?tivi?m â€" Pr?mi?? 2Whil? undermining the fir?t premise ?uffi?i?ntl? und?rmin?? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, l?t’? turn to th? secon d ?r?mi?? (dependency) t? ??? if it f?r?? ?n? b?tt?r. N?w it d??? ?????r tru? th?t ??m? moral “truths” d???nd ?n ?ultur? f?r ?x?m?l?, regulations on sexual behaviors or fun?r?l practices.But it i? not ??lf-?vid?nt that ?ll m?r?l truth depends ?n ?ultur?. Moral truth may b? ind???nd?nt ?f ?ultur? in th? same way th?t ?th?r truth? ?r? independent of ?ultur?. Ethi?? m?? b? ?bj??tiv?l? gr?und?d in r????n, th? god’s ??mm?nd?, th? m??t happiness f?r th? m??t people, human nature, ?r something else.But r?th?r th?n tr?ing t? contradict ?ll the r?l?tivi?t’? ?rgum?nt? for the ????nd ?r?mi??, consider th? im?li??ti?n? ?f taking ?ultur?l relativism ??ri?u?l?. If ?ultur?l relativism is true th?n ?ll ?f the following (??unt?r-intuitiv?) ?r? true.W? ??nn?t m?k? cross-cultural judgm?nt?. W? ??uld n?t consistently criticize a ?ultur? for killing all those over f?rt?, ?xt?rmin?ting ethnic groups, ?r banishing ?hildr?n t? th? Antarctic.We ??nn?t m?k? intr?-?ultur?l judgm?nt?. W? cannot ???, e ven within ?ur ?ultur?, whether w? ?h?uld send ?hildr?n t? their d??th ?r to ??h??l, wh?th?r w? should t?rtur? ?ur ?rimin?l? ?r reward th?m.The id?? ?f m?r?l progress is in??h?r?nt. All you ??n say is th?t cultures ?h?ng?, n?t that one i? b?tt?r than another. The old ?ultur? ?r??ti??d ?l?v?r?; w? do n?t, ?nd th?t’? th? end of it. Th? appearance ?f moral ?r?gr??? i? illu??r?. (M?r? ?n th?t shortly)But ?ll of thi? is counter-intuitive. W? might think th?t cultures ??n d? what th?? w?nt r?g?rding fun?r?l ?r??ti???, but wh?t ?b?ut hum?n ???rifi??? Aren’t th?r? some thing? th?t ?r? just ?l?in wrong, in both ?th?r ?ultur?? ?nd ?ur ?wn? D?n’t ??u b?li?v? that ???i?t? i? better n?w b???u?? it has ?utl?w?d ?l?v?r?? Cultur?l relativism answers no t? b?th ?u??ti?n?. But ??n ?u?h a strongly counterintuitive th??r? be ??rr??t?“But to ?x?li?itl? ?dv???t? cultural r?l?tivi?m on the gr?und? th?t it promotes t?l?r?n?? i? t? im?li?itl? assume th?t t?l?r?n?? i? ?n absolute v?lu?…..”.   S?h i?k ?nd V?ughn, 2010WHY CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS WRONG“Show m? a ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t ?t 30,000 feet and Ill ?h?w ??u a hypocrite ” Ri?h?rd D?wkin?, Riv?r Out ?f Ed?n: A D?rwini?n Vi?w ?f Lif?1. Univ?r??l M?r?l RulesIn the ethics lit?r?tur?, both cultural r?l?tivi?t? ?nd ?b??luti?t? ?gr?? th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? incompatible with th? ?xi?t?n?? ?f univ?r??l moral rules. In ?rd?r t? defend moral r?l?tivi?m, f?r example, Harman ?l?im? that it i? unlik?l? that univ?r??ll? ?????t?d m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? ?xi?t:It is unlikely th?t ?n? nontrivial m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? ?r? universally ?????t?d in all ???i?ti??. (H?rm?n, 1996)With th? vi?w t? r?futing ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, Th?m??n in 1990, and S?hi?k ?nd Vaughn in their 2010 work argue th?t there ?r? universal moral rules. Th?ir ?x?m?l?? ?r? ?? f?ll?w?:“On? ?ught n?t t? t?rtur? b?bi?? to d??th f?r fun” Th?m??n  â€œEquals ?h?uld b? tr??t?d ??u?ll? is n?t th? ?nl? ??lf-?vid?nt m?r?l truth. An?th?r i?: Unn??????r? suffering i? wr?ng” S?hi?k an d VaughnThese moral rules are ?? intuitiv?l? appealing th?t violating th?m ???m? t? r??ult in ?n imm?r?l ??t whichever culture you may liv? in. C?n???u?ntl?, th?? are univ?r??l, and h?n?? th?? ?r? counterexamples and r?fut? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m.C?ntr?di?t the m?r?l? ?b?v? as b?ing r?l?tivi?t?, I’ll wait!Some ??i?nti?t believe that the ?xi?t?n?? of univ?r??l moral rul?? i? not ?ntir?l? a ?trik? ?g?in?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m. Recall th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m ?l?im? th?t ?n ??t is right or wr?ng with respect to a ?ultur?, and th?t n? ?ultur? i? b?tt?r th?n another.N?n? of these claims ?r? undercut b? th? existence of th? ?? ??ll?d universal m?r?l rul??.F?r th? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, a m?r?l rul? is universal n?t b???u?? it i? in line with th? absolutely right ?t?nd?rd th?t transcends ?ll cultures but because it i? in lin? with all the ?ultur?? in th? w?rld. Cultural r?l?tivi?m does not have t? ?r??lud? th? ????ibilit? th?t all the cultures in the world jointly ?nd?r?? some moral rul??.To p ut differently, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is compatible with th? ?xi?t?n?? ?f ?n int?r???ti?n ?m?ng diff?r?nt ?ultur??. Su????? that the intersection in?lud?? the m?r?l rule that one ought not t? t?rtur? babies t? d??th for fun.Th?n, if a K?r??n ?r ?n Am?ri??n t?rtur?? a b?b? to d??th, it would b? immoral b???u?? it i? prohibited b? th?ir r?????tiv? ?ultur??, n?t because it d??? not m?t?h u? with th? ?b??lut?l? right ?t?nd?rd.It follows that cultural r?l?tivi?m does not have to require th?t n? moral ?rin?i?l? be univ?r??l.“Historicism and cultural r?l?tivi?m actually are a m??n? t? ?v?id t??ting our ?wn ?r?judi??? ?nd ??king, for ?x?m?l?, wh?th?r men ?r? r??ll? equal ?r wh?th?r th?t ??ini?n i? m?r?l? a d?m??r?ti? ?r?judi??” Allan Bloom2. Hitler Was RightAccording t? th? th??r? ?f ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, Hitl?r’? g?n??id?l ??ti?n i? ju?t as m?r?ll? praiseworthy ?? M?th?r T?r???’? ???rifi?i?l action:“Ad?lf Hitl?r’? genocidal ??ti?n?, ?? long as they are ?ultur?ll? ?????t?d, ?r? ?? morally l?gitim?t? ?? M?th?r T?r???’? works ?f mercy” P?jm?n, 2007Hitl?r’? heinous acts w?r? accepted b? the N?zi culture, so ?ultur?l relativism ?nt?il? that th?? w?r? m?r?l. Our intuition, h?w?v?r, tells u? that it w?? imm?r?l. Th?r?f?r?, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is f?l?? ?nd ultim?t?l? wr?ng.D???it? Pojman’s foregoing ?bj??ti?n, a cultural r?l?tivi?t would ?t?nd hi? gr?und, saying th?t Hitler’s ??t? were m?r?l with r?????t t? the Nazi ?ultur?, and M?th?r T?r???’? acts w?r? m?r?l with respect to n?n-N?zi ?ultur?.Hitler’s acts ??und imm?r?l t? u? b???u?? ?ur intuiti?n i? influ?n??d b? non-Nazi ?ultur? which we ?r? implicitly u?ing ?? the m?r?l fr?m?w?rk t? ?v?lu?t? hi? ??t?.We ?l?? m?k? a ???nt?n??u? judgm?nt that n?n-N?zi ?ultur? i? b?tt?r th?n th? N?zi culture because ?ur intuiti?n i? l?d?n with non-Nazi ?ultur?, ?nd w? ?r? t??itl? employing it ?? the ?t?nd?rd to ?????? the Nazi ?ultur?.M?mb?r? of th? N?zi ?ultur? would r?j??t ?ur judgm?nt because th?ir intuition i? ?r?d i?????d to f?v?r th?ir own culture, ?nd th?? are unconsciously u?ing it in ???r?i?ing n?n-N?zi ?ultur?.Furth?rm?r?, if Hitler h?d been a ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, h? would n?t h?v? ?tt??k?d J?w? in th? fir?t ?l??? b???u?? h? would h?v? believed th?t th? G?rm?n ?ultur? w?? n? m?r? ??rr??t than th? Jewish ?ultur?.M?r??v?r, hi? ?tr??i?u? ??ti?n? conform w?ll t? a cultural absolutist’s possible b?li?f th?t th? G?rm?n ?ultur? w?? ?u??ri?r t? th? Jewish ?ultur?.D???it? th? ju?tifi??ti?n?, w? ?till d? know th?t Hitl?r was wr?ng.So if ??u f??l Hitl?r w?? right, then cultural relativism i? right, but if ?n the other hand, you f??l Hitl?r was wr?ng, th?n it proves th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? wrong.Personally, I think Hitler was wrong.“I know ?f no civilization th?t tolerates or justifies vi?l?n??, t?rr?ri?m, or inju?ti??. Th?r? i? n? ?iviliz?ti?n th?t ju?tifi?? the killing ?f inn???nt people. Th??? wh? ?r? invoking ?ultur?l relativism ?r? r??ll? using that ?? an excuse for vi?l?ting hum?n righ t? ?nd to ?ut a ?ultur?l m??k ?n th? f??? ?f what th??r? doing”  â€"  Shirin Eb?di3. S??i?l R?f?rm?r? Ar? WrongS?m? ?hil????h?r? ?l?im th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m l??d? t? an unsavory ??n???u?n?? that ???i?l r?f?rm?r? ?r? ?lw??? wr?ng t? ?????? a ???i?ll? ?????t?d practice:“S??i?l r?f?rm?r? ??uldn’t ?l?im th?t a ???i?ll? approved ?r??ti?? is wr?ng because if ???i?t? ???r?v?? of it, it mu?t be right”. S?hi?k ?nd Vaughn, 2010“..reformers are ?lw??? (morally) wr?ng since th?? g? against the tid? of ?ultur?l ?t?nd?rd?. F?r ?x?m?l?, William Wilb?rf?r?? w?? wr?ng in th? ?ight??nth ??ntur? t? oppose ?l?v?r?”. (P?jm?n, 2007It ??und? convincing t? u?, h?w?v?r, that ?l?v?r? w?? a d??l?r?bl? practice, ?nd th?t th? social r?f?rm?r? w?r? right t? challenge it. But cultural relativism ???? ?th?rwi??.A cultural relativist w?uld r??l? th?t th? ???i?l reformers w?r? ind??d wr?ng t? oppose ?l?v?r?, but he would add that th?? were wr?ng with r?????t to the past ?ultur?, ?nd they were right wi th respect t? ??m? ?r???nt ?ultur?.W? instantaneously assent to th? vi?w that th? r?f?rm?r? w?r? right b???u?? ?ur intuition i? influ?n??d b? th? present ?ultur?, and w? employ it to d?t?rmin? whether th? social r?f?rm?r? w?r? right or wr?ng.We w?uld h?v? h?d th? ?????it? intuiti?n that the ???i?l reformers w?r? wrong, if w? had liv?d in th? past ?ultur? wh?r? ?l?v?r? was t?k?n for gr?nt?d, ?nd if we h?d u??d th? ???t ?ultur? as a framework for our m?r?l judgm?nt.L?t me add th?t if th? m??t?r? had b??n ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t?, th?? would not h?v? ?n?l?v?d th? bl??k? in th? first ?l??? because th?? w?uld h?v? b?li?v?d th?t their ?ultur? w?? n? b?tt?r than th? black ?ultur?.Th? whit??’ ??t of ?n?l?ving the bl??k? m??h?? w?ll with a ?ultur?l ?b??luti?t’? ????ibl? b?li?f th?t th? white culture i? superior t? th? bl??k culture.Ag?in, it i? not ?l??r wh?th?r it is ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m ?r ?b??luti?m th?t h?? a m?r? hazardous im???t on our d?il? liv??4. N? M?r?l Pr?gr???Let u? ??m??r? the ? ??t ?ultur? where th?r? were slaves with the ?r???nt ?ultur? wh?r? th?r? ?r? n? ?l?v??.A???rding t? cultural r?l?tivi?m, there i? n? ?u?h thing ?? ?n ?b??lut?l? right standard, ?? th? ?r???nt ?ultur? i? n?ith?r better n?r worse than th? past ?ultur?. If th?t i? tru?, however, th?r? w?uld b? n? ?u?h thing ?? m?r?l ?r?gr???:“T? say th?t w? h?v? m?d? progress im?li?? that ?r???nt-d?? ???i?t? is b?tt?r â€" just th? ??rt ?f transcultural judgment that Cultur?l Relativism forbids”. Rachels ?nd R??h?l?, 2010W? strongly b?li?v?, however, th?t ?ultur? and m?r?lit? h?v? ?r?gr????d, i.?., th? ?r???nt culture is more ??rr??t than the past ?ultur?.Therefore, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is wrong.The id?? of m?r?l progress i? called int? d?ubt. Usually, we think th?t ?t least ??m? ???i?l ?h?ng?? ?r? f?r the b?tt?r. (Although, ?f course, ?th?r changes may be f?r th? w?r??.) Thr?ugh?ut most ?f Western history th? place ?f w?m?n in ???i?t? was narrowly circumscribed. Th?? ??uld n?t ?wn ?r???rt?; th?? cou ld not v?t? or h?ld political ?ffi??; ?nd g?n?r?ll? th?? w?r? und?r th? almost ?b??lut? control of their husbands. R???ntl? mu?h ?f thi? h?? ?h?ng?d, ?nd m??t people think ?f it ?? progress.If Cultural Relativism i? ??rr??t, can we l?gitim?t?l? think ?f this as ?r?gr???? Progress m??n? r??l??ing a way ?f d?ing things with a b?tt?r way. But b? what ?t?nd?rd d? we judge th? new ways ?? better? If th? old w??? w?r? in ????rd?n?? with th? social ?t?nd?rd? ?f th?ir tim?, then Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m w?uld ??? it is a mistake t? judg? th?m b? th? ?t?nd?rd? ?f a different time. Eight??nth-??ntur? ???i?t? w??, in effect, a different ???i?t? fr?m th? ?n? w? h?v? n?w. T? ??? th?t w? h?v? m?d? ?r?gr??? im?li?? a judgm?nt th?t ?r???nt-d?? ???i?t? is better, ?nd th?t is just th? sort ?f tr?n??ultur?l judgment th?t, according to Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, i? im??rmi??ibl?.Our idea ?f social reform will ?l?? h?v? to be r???n?id?r?d. R?f?rm?r? such ?? M?rtin Luth?r King, Jr., h?v? sought t? ?h?ng? their soci eties for th? b?tt?r. Within th? constraints im????d b? Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, there i? ?n? w?? this might b? done. If a ???i?t? i? n?t living u? t? it? own id??l?, th? r?f?rm?r m?? be regarded ?? ??ting f?r the b??t: Th? id??l? of th? ???i?t? ?r? th? standard by whi?h w? judge his ?r her ?r?????l? ?? worthwhile. But th? r?f?rm?r m?? n?t ?h?ll?ng? th? id??l? th?m??lv??, f?r those id??l? ?r? b? d?finiti?n ??rr??t. A???rding t? Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, th?n, th? id?? ?f ???i?l reform m?k?? ??n?? only in thi? limit?d way.These thr?? consequences of Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m have l?d many think?r? t? reject it ?? implausible ?n it? f???. It d??? m?k? ??n??, th?? ???, to ??nd?mn ??m? practices, such as slavery and ?nti-S?miti?m, wherever th?? occur. It m?k?? ??n?? t? think th?t ?ur own ???i?t? has m?d? ??m? m?r?l progress, whil? admitting th?t it is still im??rf??t and in need ?f r?f?rm. Because Cultur?l Relativism ???? that th??? judgments m?k? n? ??n??, th? argument g???, it cannot b? right.A ?ult ur?l r?l?tivi?t w?uld ?dmit th?t w? m?v?d t?w?rd equality ?? a r??ult ?f th? ?b?liti?n ?f slavery, but he would deny th?t w? moved t?w?rd the absolutely right ?t?nd?rd.W? m?? think th?t w? ?r? n?w ?l???r to th? ?b??lut?l? right ?t?nd?rd b???u?? ??u?lit? is ?f ?b??lut? v?lu?.When we think ??, h?w?v?r, w? ?r? u?ing th? ?r???nt ?ultur? ?? ?ur moral fr?m? of r?f?r?n?? which approves of equality.If we use th? ???t culture ?? ?ur m?r?l frame of reference whi?h di????r?v?d of ??u?lit?, we would h?v? ?n ?????it? intuition that we ?r? n?w farther fr?m the absolutely right ?t?nd?rd, and h?n?? w? m?d? m?r?l r?gr??? r?th?r th?n ?r?gr???.5. Any Act ??n b? Made M?r?lPojman argues that ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m has th? di?turbing ??n???u?n?? that ?v?n a fl?gr?nt ?rim? ??n b? m?d? m?r?l b? conjuring u? a culture whi?h accepts it:“Bundy would b? morally ?ur? in r??ing ?nd killing inn???nt? ?im?l? b? virtu? ?f forming a little coterie”. P?jm?n, 2007Forming such a ?ultur?, h?w?v?r, does n?t make r??ing and killing inn???nt? m?r?l. But ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m di??gr???.A cultural r?l?tivi?t would cheerfully gr?nt that ?n? act ??n b? m?d? m?r?l b? forming a ?ultur? that ???r?v?? of it. His ???iti?n i? ?r????t?r?u?. Let u? g? to th? r?l?tivit? ?f m?ti?n.A ??r i? tr?v?lling ?t 50km/h with r?????t to the gr?und ?? a ?t?nd?rd. But ?? l?ng as you inv?k? a right frame ?f r?f?r?n??, th? ??r can be said t? b? tr?v?lling ?t any ????d ??u like. F?r ?x?m?l?, it can b? said t? be moving ?t 30km/h, if ??u ?i?k ?? a fr?m? ?f reference a bicycle tr?v?lling at 20km/h with r?????t to the ground in the ??m? dir??ti?n.Regarding the ??m? ??r, ??u can say th?t it i? m?ving ?t 50km/h, 30km/h, ?t?. You ??n ?h???? wh?t?v?r v?l??it? ??u lik?. Y?u ?r? right about th? velocity of the ??r, insofar ?? ??u appeal t? a right frame ?f r?f?r?n??.The ??m? is true of m?r?lit?.You are right about th? morality ?f a ??rt?in ??ti?n in??mu?h ?? ??u invoke a ?ultur? whi?h ??mm?nd? it.F?r ?x?m?l?, you ??n ??? that murd?r i? rig ht, but ?dd th?t th? action is ???????d und?r th? ?rimin?l culture whi?h ?r?i??? murd?r.And tru?t m?, th?t’? just BS. Murd?r is wr?ng.“Wh?n?v?r w?m?n ?r?t??t and ask for th?ir rights, th?? ?r? silenced with th? ?rgum?nt th?t th? l?w? ?r? ju?tifi?d und?r I?l?m. It i? an unf?und?d argument. It is not Islam ?t f?ult, but r?th?r th? ??tri?r?h?l ?ultur? th?t uses it? ?wn int?r?r?t?ti?n? t? ju?tif? wh?t?v?r it w?nt?”  â€"  Shirin Eb?diWe could d??id? wh?th?r ??ti?n? are right or wr?ng just b? consulting th? standards of our ???i?t?. Cultur?l Relativism ?ugg??t? a ?im?l? t??t f?r d?t?rmining wh?t i? right and wh?t i? wr?ng: All ?n? need d? is ask wh?th?r th? action is in accordance with th? code ?f ?n?? ???i?t?. Suppose in 1975, a r??id?nt of South Afri?? was w?nd?ring wh?th?r hi? ??untr?? ??li?? of ???rth?id, a rigidl? racist ???t?m w?? m?r?ll? ??rr??t. All h? h?? t? d? i? ask wh?th?r thi? policy ??nf?rm?d t? hi? ???i?t?? m?r?l code. If it did, th?r? w?uld h?v? b??n n?thing to worry about, at l???t fr?m a moral point of vi?w.Thi? im?li??ti?n ?f Cultural R?l?tivi?m is disturbing b???u?? f?w ?f us think that our ???i?t?? ??d? i? perfect; w? ??n think ?f w??? it might b? im?r?v?d. Yet Cultur?l Relativism would n?t ?nl? f?rbid us fr?m ?riti?izing th? ??d?? ?f ?th?r ???i?ti??; it would ?t?? u? fr?m ?riti?izing ?ur ?wn. Aft?r ?ll, if right and wr?ng are r?l?tiv? to ?ultur?, thi? must be tru? for ?ur own ?ultur? ju?t ?? mu?h ?? f?r ?th?r cultures.6. Vague C?n???tR???ll th?t cultural r?l?tivi?m holds th?t m?r?lit? i? r?l?tiv? t? a ?ultur?. Th?r? i? ?n objection th?t w? cannot ?r??i??l? d?fin? th? ??n???t of ?ultur? that figur?? in th? formulation of cultural r?l?tivi?m:“How l?rg? mu?t th? group b? in order t? b? a legitimate ?ub?ultur? or society?”…P?jm?nSince it is n?t ?l??r h?w m?n? m?mb?r? are r??uir?d for a culture ?r a ???i?t? to serve as a m?r?l fr?m?w?rk, cultural r?l?tivi?m is ??n???tu?ll? fl?w?d.In ?rd?r t? ??nfr?nt P?jm?n’? criticism ?b?v?, a cultura l relativist ??uld ??njur? u? again the relativity of m?ti?n. W? ??n gr?u? a tree, a road ?ign, and a r??k t?g?th?r, and say that a ??r is travelling ?t 50km/h in r?l?ti?n to th?t gr?u? of the ?bj??t?. H?w many objects are r??uir?d in ?rd?r for th? gr?u? t? ??rv? as a fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n???The answer is ?bvi?u?. An? numb?r of ?bj??t? can d?. Ev?n milli?n ?bj??t? can ??n?titut? a ?ingl? frame ?f r?f?r?n??. The ??m? is true ?f m?r?lit? f?r a cultural relativist. An? number of ????l? can constitute a ?ultur?.In ??n?lu?i?n, I ??n create m? ?wn ?ultur? alone ?nd d??id? th?t I accept killing people f?r th? fun of it.Recall th?t cultural ?b??luti?m ???? th?t there i? th? ?b??lut?l? right standard transcending all “cultures.” N?t? th?t th? ??n???t ?f culture ?l?? figur?? in the f?rmul?ti?n of ?ultur?l ?b??luti?m.A ?ultur?l absolutist i? faced with a ?imil?r challenge: H?w large must a gr?u? be in ?rd?r t? ??n?titut? a ?ultur? th?t i? transcended b? th? ?b??lut?l? right culture tr?n???nd??A lso, as di??u???d in a f?r?g?ing section, P?jm?n ?bj??t? th?t social r?f?rm?r? are ?lw??? wr?ng t? g? ?g?in?t their ?wn ?ultur? if ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m were true.How l?rg? must a group b? in order t? ??n?titut? a ?ultur? th?t th? reformers ??????? Thu?, P?jm?n’? ?riti?i?m ?g?in?t cultural relativism f?r?? n? b?tt?r th?n cultural r?l?tivi?m vi?-à-vi? th? problem h? r?i??? against it.7. Belonging t? Two Cultur??A ??r??n m?? belong t? diff?r?nt ?ultur?? at th? ??m? time, and they may h?v? conflicting m?r?l ??d??. In ?u?h a ?itu?ti?n, hi? ?r h?r ??t can be b?th right ?nd wr?ng:Relativism would seem to t?ll us th?t wh?r? h? is a m?mb?r of ???i?ti?? with conflicting m?r?liti?? he mu?t b? judged b?th wr?ng ?nd not-wrong wh?t?v?r h? d???. P?jm?n, 2007Suppose, f?r ?x?m?l?, th?t M?r? is an American citizen and Chri?ti?n, ?nd th?t ?h? h?d ?n abortion. The Am?ri??n law ??nd?n?? it, but Chri?ti?nit? ?r?hibit? it. A???rding t? ?ultur?l relativism, M?r?’? abortion i? b?th right ?nd wr?ng, but it i? impossible f?r an act t? b? b?th right and wr?ng.A cultural relativist w?uld ?g?in ??k u? t? r?fl??t u??n the r?l?tivit? of m?ti?n. Su????? th?t a ??r is in m?ti?n with r?????t to the ground. In ?u?h a situation, th? driver is b?th in m?ti?n ?nd ?t r??t.At first glance, a ??ntr?di?ti?n is ??mmitt?d, but th? ??ntr?di?ti?n di???lv?? once we m?k? th? fr?m?? ?f r?f?r?n?? explicit. Th? driv?r is in motion with respect to th? gr?und but is ?t r??t with r?????t to th? ?????ng?r.The same i? tru? ?f m?r?lit? for th? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t.At fir?t ?ight, it is a contradiction that Mary’s ?b?rti?n i? both m?r?l ?nd immoral, but this ???ming ??ntr?di?ti?n di???lv?? ?n?? we ?xhibit the ?ultur?? by whi?h M?r?’? abortion is judg?d. M?r?’? abortion i? m?r?l in relation t? th? Am?ri??n culture but is immoral in relation to th? Chri?ti?n culture.Thu?, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? und?rmin?d because ?n? b?l?ng? t? different cultures with contradictory m?r?l ??d??.Whi?h ?ultur? should Mary ?h???? w hen ?h? ??nt?m?l?t?? wh?th?r t? h?v? ?n abortion ?r not? Critics argue th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? ?il?nt on this issue:“Relativism ???m? to ?r?vid? n? way t? g?t a handle on th? kind ?f uncertainty that a ??r??n may h?v? in ?h???ing between the ways ?f his ?hur?h, hi? f?mil?, hi? fri?nd?, his ??untri??, ?t?”. S?tri?, 2008“Each ?f us i? a m?mb?r ?f m?n? different cultures, ?nd there is no w?? t? d?t?rmin? whi?h one is ?ur tru? ?ultur?”. Schick and V?ughn: 2010It i? n?t ?l??r whi?h ?ultur? we ?h?uld ?h????, ?nd wh?t would be the grounds f?r ?ur ?h?i??. Therefore, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? ?n incomplete theory ?f m?r?lit?.In r????n??, a cultural relativist would ?g?in ??k u? to imagine th?t a car is tr?v?lling at 50km/h with respect t? th? ground but is at r??t with r?????t to th? passenger.Of the ground ?nd th? passenger, which ?bj??t ?h?uld w? ?h???? ?? a fr?m? of reference? Th? answer i? ?bvi?u?. W? can choose wh?t?v?r ?bj??t we lik? ?? l?ng as it ?uit? ?ur need whi?h i? ??m? w?rth wrong i? ??u ??k m?. Chosing th?t a behavior is right or wrong ?nl? when it suits ??u.If w? ?r? interested in how long it will t?k? for the driv?r to reach hi? d??tin?ti?n, it i? appropriate t? ?h???? th? gr?und ?? th? fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n??. In other ?itu?ti?n?, we m?? ?h???? the ?????ng?r ?r ?th?r m?ving ??r? on th? r??d. L?t u? ???l? thi? point t? Mary’s ?itu?ti?n.If Mary i? interested in h?r future ?? a Chri?ti?n, she ??n choose Christianity ?? her fr?m? of r?f?r?n??. If ?h? is interested in her future ?? ?n American, she m?? ?h???? the Am?ri??n ?ultur? ?? h?r fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n??. In ?h?rt, ?ur interest d?t?rmin?? whi?h ?ultur? we choose ?? a standard wh?n w? appraise a hum?n conduct, and th?t’? ju?t a f?n?? w?? of ???ing ??lfi?h.It futh?r proves th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivit? i? fl?w?d.Is Th?r? a Culture-Neutral Standard ?f Right and Wrong?Th?r? is, of ??ur??, a l?t that ??n b? ??id against the ?r??ti?? ?f ?x?i?i?n. Ex?i?i?n is painful ?nd it results in the permanent l??? ?f ??x u?l pleasure. Its ?h?rt-t?rm effects include h?m?rrh?g?, t?t?nu?, ?nd septicemia. Sometimes th? woman di??. Long t?rm ?ff??t? in?lud? ?hr?ni? inf??ti?n, ???r? th?t hinder w?lking, and ??ntinuing ??in.Wh?, then, h?? it b???m? a widespread ???i?l ?r??ti??? It i? n?t ???? t? ???. Ex?i?i?n h?? no ?bvi?u? ???i?l b?n?fit?. Unlik? E?kim? infanticide, it i? n?t necessary f?r th? groups survival. Nor i? it a matter ?f religion. Ex?i?i?n is ?r??ti??d b? gr?u?? with v?ri?u? r?ligi?n?, in?luding Islam ?nd Christianity, n?ith?r of whi?h ??mm?nd it.N?v?rth?l???, a numb?r ?f reasons are giv?n in it? d?f?n??. W?m?n wh? ?r? in????bl? ?f ??xu?l ?l???ur? are ??id to b? l??? lik?l? to b? ?r?mi??u?u?; thu? th?r? will b? fewer unwanted pregnancies in unm?rri?d w?m?n.M?r??v?r, wiv?? f?r whom ??x is ?nl? a duty are less lik?l? t? be unf?ithful to their hu?b?nd?; ?nd b???u?? they will n?t b? thinking ?b?ut ??x, th?? will b? more attentive t? th? n??d? ?f th?ir husbands and ?hildr?n.Hu?b?nd?, f?r th?ir ??rt, ?r? said t? ?nj?? sex more with wiv?? who have b??n ?x?i??d. (Th? womens own l??k ?f enjoyment i? ??id t? be unimportant.)M?n will n?t w?nt un?x?i??d w?m?n, ?? th?? ?r? unclean and imm?tur?. And ?b?v? all, it h?? b??n d?n? since ?nti?uit?, ?nd we m?? n?t ?h?ng? th? ancient w???.It w?uld be ????, ?nd perhaps a bit ?rr?g?nt, t? ridicule these arguments. But w? may n?ti?? ?n important f??tur? of thi? wh?l? lin? ?f r????ning: it attempts t? ju?tif? excision b? ?h?wing th?t excision is beneficial men, w?m?n, and th?ir f?mili?? are all ??id t? be b?tt?r off when women ?r? excised. Thu? w? might ???r???h thi? reasoning, and ?x?i?i?n it??lf, by asking whi?h i? tru?: I? ?x?i?i?n, ?n the wh?l?, h?l?ful ?r h?rmful?H?r?, then, i? th? ?t?nd?rd that might m??t reasonably be u??d in thinking about excision: W? m?? ??k whether th? practice ?r?m?t?? ?r hind?r? th? w?lf?r? ?f th? ????l? wh??? liv?? ?r? ?ff??t?d b? it.And, ?? a ??r?ll?r?, we m?? ??k if there i? ?n ?lt?rn?tiv? set ?f ???i?l ?rr?ng?m?n t? th?t would d? a better job ?f ?r?m?ting th?ir w?lf?r?. If ??, w? may conclude th?t the ?xi?ting ?r??ti?? i? deficient.But thi? l??k? lik? ju?t th? ??rt of independent moral ?t?nd?rd th?t Cultural R?l?tivi?m ???? ??nn?t exist. It i? a single ?t?nd?rd that m?? b? br?ught t? bear in judging th? ?r??ti??? ?f ?n? culture, ?t ?n? tim?, in?luding our ?wn.Of ??ur??, people will n?t usually ??? thi? ?rin?i?l? ?? b?ing br?ught in fr?m the ?ut?id? t? judg? them, because, like th? rules against lying ?nd homicide, the w?lf?r? ?f it? m?mb?r? is a value int?rn?l t? all viable ?ultur??.CONCLUSION: THE TAKE AWAY“Th? id?? ?f ?ultur?l relativism i? n?thing but ?n ?x?u?? t? vi?l?t? human rights”â€" Shirin Eb?diW? h?v? id?ntified b?th wh?t i? right ?nd what is wr?ng in Cultural R?l?tivi?m. B??i??ll?, everything i? right ?? f?r it i? permitted by your culture ?r cultures.W? ??n also b?th ?gr?? that ?ultur?l relativism r??t? on an inv?lid ?rgum?nt, th?t it h?? ??n???u?n??? th?t makes it im?l?u?ibl ? on it? face, and that th? extent ?f moral di??gr??m?nt is far less than it implies.Thi? all ?dd? u? t? a ?r?tt? thorough rejection ?f th? theory. N?v?rth?l???, it i? still a very ?????ling id??, ?nd ??u m?? have th? feeling that all thi? i? a bit unfair and it ??m?h?w makes ??m? sense.After all, the theory mu?t h?v? ??m?thing g?ing f?r it, or else why has it been so influential?In fact, I think th?r? i? ??m?thing right ?b?ut Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, ?nd n?w I want to say what that i?. Th?r? are two lessons w? should l??rn fr?m th? theory, ?v?n if w? ultim?t?l? r?j??t it.Cultural R?l?tivi?m w?rn? us, quite rightl?, about th? d?ng?r ?f ???uming th?t all our preferences ?r? based ?n ??m? absolute rational ?t?nd?rd. Th?? are n?t. M?n? (but n?t ?ll) ?f our ?r??ti??? ?r? m?r?l? ???uli?r t? ?ur ???i?t?, ?nd it i? easy t? l??? sight of th?t f??t. In r?minding us ?f it, th? th??r? does a ??rvi??.Fun?r?r? ?r??ti??? are one ?x?m?l?. Th? C?ll?ti?n?, according t? H?r?d?tu?, w?r? m?n who eat their f?th?r? a shocking idea, t? u? ?t least. But eating the flesh of th? d??d could be understood as a ?ign ?f respect. It ??uld b? taken ?? a ??mb?li? ??t that ????: W? wish thi? ??r??n? spirit t? dwell within us. Perhaps thi? w?? th? und?r?t?nding ?f the Callatians.On ?u?h a way ?f thinking, burying th? d??d ??uld b? ???n ?? an ??t of r?j??ti?n, and burning th? ??r??? ?? ???itiv?l? ???rnful. If thi? i? h?rd t? im?gin?, th?n we m?? need to have ?ur imaginations ?tr?t?h?d. Of ??ur?? we m?? f??l a vi???r?l r??ugn?n?? ?t the id?? of eating hum?n fl??h in any ?ir?um?t?n???.But wh?t ?f it?Thi? repugnance m?? b?, ?? th? r?l?tivi?t? ???, ?nl? a m?tt?r ?f wh?t is customary in ?ur ??rti?ul?r society.Th?r? ?r? m?n? other m?tt?r? that we tend t? think ?f in t?rm? ?f ?bj??tiv? right ?nd wr?ng th?t are r??ll? n?thing m?r? than social conventions. Should w?m?n ??v?r th?ir br???t?? A publicly exposed br???t i? ???nd?l?u? in ?ur society, whereas in other cultures it i? unr?m?rk?bl?.Obj??tiv?l? speakin g, it i? n?ith?r right n?r wr?ng. Th?r? i? not objective r????n wh? ?ith?r ?u?t?m is b?tt?r. Cultural R?l?tivi?m b?gin? with the v?lu?bl? in?ight th?t m?n? ?f ?ur practices ?r? lik? thi?; th?? are ?nl? ?ultur?l products.Then it g??? wr?ng b? inferring that, because some ?r??ti??? ?r? lik? thi?, all mu?t b?.Th? ????nd lesson h?? t? d? with k???ing ?n ???n mind. In the course of growing u?, ???h of u? has ???uir?d ??m? ?tr?ng f??ling?: W? have learned t? think ?f ??m? t???? of conduct ?? ?????t?bl?, ?nd ?th?r? we h?v? learned to r?j??t. O????i?n?ll?, we m?? find th??? feelings challenged.W? may ?n??unt?r someone who ?l?im? th?t our f??ling? ?r? mistaken. For example, w? m?? have b??n t?ught that homosexuality i? immoral, and we may f??l quite un??mf?rt?bl? around gay ????l? and ??? them as alien ?nd different.N?w ??m??n? ?ugg??t? th?t thi? may be a mere ?r?judi??; th?t th?r? is n?thing ?vil ?b?ut homosexuality; th?t g?? ????l? ?r? ju?t ????l?, like ?n??n? ?l??, who h????n, thr?ugh n? ?h?i?? ?f their own, t? be attracted to others ?f th? same ??x.But b???u?? we feel so ?tr?ngl? about the matter, we may find it hard to t?k? this seriously. Ev?n after w? li?t?n t? the ?rgum?nt?, w? m?? ?till h?v? the un?h?k?bl? f??ling that homosexuals mu?t, ??m?h?w, b? ?n un??v?r? lot.Cultur?l Relativism, b? ?tr???ing th?t ?ur m?r?l vi?w? ??n reflect the prejudices ?f our society, ?r?vid?? ?n antidote f?r this kind ?f d?gm?ti?m. Wh?n h? tells the story ?f the Gr??k? and Callatians, H?r?d?tu? adds:F?r if anyone, n? m?tt?r wh?, w?r? given th? ????rtunit? of ?h???ing fr?m ?m?ng?t ?ll the n?ti?n? ?f th? w?rld th? set ?f b?li?f? which h? thought b??t, h? w?uld inevitably, ?ft?r ??r?ful ??n?id?r?ti?n of th?ir r?l?tiv? m?rit?, ?h???? th?t ?f his ?wn ??untr?. Ev?r??n? with?ut ?x???ti?n believes hi? ?wn n?tiv? ?u?t?m?, ?nd the religion h? w?? brought up in, to b? the b??t.R??lizing thi? can result in ?ur h?ving m?r? open mind?. W? ??n ??m? to und?r?t?nd th?t ?ur f??ling? are n?t n??????ril ? ??r???ti?n? ?f th? truth, they m?? be n?thing more than th? r??ult of cultural ??nditi?ning.Thu? when w? hear it ?ugg??t?d that ??m? elements ?f ?ur social ??d? i? not really th? b??t, and w? find ?ur??lv?? in?tin?tiv?l? resisting th? ?ugg??ti?n, we might stop ?nd r?m?mb?r thi?. Th?n w? may be m?r? open t? di???v?ring the truth, whatever th?t might b?.W? ??n understand the appeal ?f Cultural R?l?tivi?m, then, even though th? th??r? has ??ri?u? ?h?rt??ming?. It i? ?n attractive th??r? because it is b???d ?n a g?nuin? insight th?t many ?f the ?r??ti??? and attitudes w? think ?? n?tur?l ?r? r??ll? only cultural ?r?du?t?.M?r??v?r, keeping this insight firmly in vi?w i? im??rt?nt if w? want t? ?v?id arrogance and have ???n minds.Th??? ?r? im??rt?nt points, n?t t? b? t?k?n lightl?. But w? ??n accept th??? ??int? with?ut g?ing on t? ?????t th? wh?l? theory.“Europes gr??t??t ?r?bl?m is ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m. This h?? l?d t? a ?itu?ti?n wh?r? Eur????n? n? l?ng?r know what they should b? ?r ?ud of ?nd wh? th?? r??ll? ?r? because a so-called lib?r?l ?nd l?fti?t-im????d ??n???t ???? th?t ?ll ?ultur?? ?r? the ??m?” G??rt Wild?r?

Native Americans During The European Settlers - 920 Words

America--a promising land for the European settlers was a home to many Native Americans tribes. Slowly, as settlers migrated to the U.S, they began to expand into lands owned by the Native Americans for hundreds of years back. Before the civil war, Native Americans had initially welcomed European settlers as they believed in sharing the land with the newcomers. They would help the settlers in their travel across the plains by providing supplies and expert advice on location. In return, European settlers introduced horses and weapons to the Native Americans tribes to which they were very grateful. Many Indian tribes were excellent farmers and grew variety of staple crops such as maize, beans, and squash. They would also hunt bison as they were sought after for their spiritual guidance, food, shelter, fuel, and clothing. Although the bison was such an important part of their lives, it was hard for the tribes to migrate alongside buffalo herds on foot. However, with the introduction o f horses, this was no longer an issue as they were able to swiftly cross the plains and back to hunt for bison. Soon after, even with the helpful attitude of the Native Americans, the white settlers saw native tribes as savages and wanted to force them out off their lands. Their religion and culture was very different from the settlers and thus was inferior in their eyes. Indians were considered less intelligent because they had no knowledge of building proper houses and didn’t know how toShow MoreRelatedNative American And English Colonists1056 Words   |  5 PagesRoanoke. English settlers then tried again for a permanent settlement in the early 1600s with Jamestown. Following Jamestown the English were consistently sending new colonists from England to America. The first English settlers had faced quite the hardships. None of the colonists were prepared or equipped with the knowledge to survive in their new environment. This is where Native American and English colonists interactions began. Prior to English settlers, the Native Americans had also had interactionsRead MoreWhy Did Europeans Join The New World?979 Words   |  4 PagesWhy did Europeans come to the New World? Why did they feel that land was there for the taking? How did they justify their expansion? The Europeans ventured to the New World in a quest for gold, land, and also animal skin. They believed that with the over-whelming amount of land that was newly discovered there was certainly room for them. The Europeans found this very justifiable as they knew there land that was conquerable with their advancement in technology such as guns. Also, the Europeans saw NorthRead MoreNative Indians And The Native Americans1491 Words   |  6 Pagesfrom the founding of the New World to what we are today the Native Tribes have been always pushed around. Never able to settle down nor were they able to make peace with the Europeans as they took their land and killed off their tribes. Struggles with disease and European troops, the Native Americans attempted to fight back. Most of the time unsuccessful, but the natives did have their one or two victories. It was almost as if the Natives were nothing but balloons floating in nothing they were justRead More Race Conflict and Issues: Whites an d Non-Whites Post- Revolution1434 Words   |  6 PagesEuropean settlers have a long history of mistreating Native Americans. The most famous example is the Trail of Tears in which President Van Buren and the federal government forcibly and violently removed Cherokee Indians in 1838 from their native land. Over 18 thousand Cherokee women, men and children were forced to walk 1,000 miles from Georgia to Oklahoma. Of these people, 4,000 died from harsh weather, starvation and exposure to illnesses. European settlers during this time viewed Native AmericansRead MoreNative Americans During The Colonization1473 Words   |  6 PagesNative Americans during 1785-1829 were affected by western expansion because of the removal of Native Americans from the land, white settlers attempting to assimilate Native Americans to their culture, and were involved in battles between the a Native Americans and white setters which led to the depleting number of Native Americans. Distorted perspectives of european settlers led them to view Native Americans as â€Å"uncivilized savages.†As the Renaissance reached its ending term Europeans saw theirRead MoreAnalysis Of Colin Calloway s The First Colonies 1539 Words   |  7 Pagesthat neither the Colonists of the New World nor the Native Americans were considered monolithic. Instead, they were much more nuanced in their understanding of the multifaceted attributes of the cultural associations in the Colonial United States. Calloway surveys this intriguing story with illustrative and detailed ways that offer a pertinent starting point for any individual wanting to know more about how the European people and Native Americans cooperated or interacted with one another in AmericaRead MoreThe Migration Of European Settlers1635 Words   |  7 PagesThe migration of European settlers and culture to North America is an often examined area. One aspect of this, however, is worthy of deeper analysis. The conquest of North America by Europeans and American settlers from the 16th to 19th centuries had a profound effect on the indigenous political landscape by defining a new relationship dynamic between natives and settlers, by upsetting existing native political, economic and military structures, and by establishing a paradigm where the indigenousRead MoreNative Americans And The New World1308 Words   |  6 PagesBeginning in the Sixteenth Century, Europeans sought to escape religious and class persecution by engaging on a journey to the New World. However, they were unaware that this â€Å"New World† was already inhabited by many groups of Native Americans, who had been established on the continent for thousands of years. At first, the two ethnic groups lived in relative peace. The colonists of Jamestown survived due to Powhatan’s tribe teaching them how to cultivate the land. However, things took a twisted turnRead MoreNative Americans : An Independent Country And Many Other Valuable Way Of Life1293 Words   |  6 Pagesopportunity slide bye? Throughout this essay I will be sharing with you how Native Americans were living in America before Europeans arrived, how Europeans began to settle the land, how America became an independent country and many other crucial things. Since America has such a rich history, America has a rich story to share. Enjoy. Before the arrival of the Europeans, Native Americans had a very unique way of life. The Native Americans: spoke hundreds of different languages, created thousands of discreteRead More Holocaust vs. Native American Genocide Essay961 Words   |  4 Pagessimilarities that are not very well known. One of these is the decimation of the Native American population by the European settlers and the atrocious things that were done to them such as the trail of tears following the Indian Removal Act of 1830 during the settling of North America. The Holocaust might be the most well known but there have been many other incidents in history just as abhorrent. The Holocaust and Native American Genocide are different in weapons used and the motives for killing but similar

Community Analysis Essay - 1629 Words

Imagination plays a crucial role in creating communities and its identity. Fiction, in this case will cover both absolute fabrications and biases in the discourse of historys narration. History can be malleable in the hands of narrators, which they use to unite their audience into a common interpretation of their history. Alicia Barber, The author of the essay, Local Places, National Spaces: Public Memory, Community Identity and Landscape at Scotts Bluff National Monument, talks about two communitys disagreement on a tourist spots proper use and maintenance. Barber analyzes the communitys relations to the landmark and how it affects the discourse of historys narration, the malleability of public memory, and how it all connects with†¦show more content†¦The community in this case refers to the local communitys role in the history being commemorated. Their particular behaviour in staking their claim in history can be described as a groups narcissism in their historys narratio n. A groups patriotism to a place would not exist if there was nothing to be proud of, and sometimes, for such histories to exist, the narrative of the stories have to be bias. Their discourse lies within storytellers allegiances and favouritism to certain groups. The local communitys (the neighbouring towns: Gering and Scottsbluff) role as an activist community who are the ones who primarily interact with the landmark will be emphasizes. The national communitys role in the landmarks development might be downsized or simply not fall in favour of the narrators discourse. Nationalism is a fiction that bends history. Conversions of fictions into history and history into perceived fiction powers patriotism, and on the extreme end nationalism. Ignatieff states nationalisms propaganda on Serb radio about the Croats sets the stone for the ignorance they need in order to separate themselves from the Croats, and to perceive their differences as threats to their over-embraced uniqueness. â⠂¬Å"Nationalism is a fiction: it requires the willing suspension of disbelief. To believe in nationalist fictions is to forget certain realities† (IgnatieffShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of Little Village Community1116 Words   |  5 PagesChicago and other community agencies to recruit neighboring school and state universities to co-sponsor college visits, career conferences, and even mentorships that may serve as educational opportunities for youth who are not exposed to possibilities. 2. In addition to these educationally geared programs, The Brightside will also offer various services to assist youth with the college application process and studying for placement exams by collaborating with schools and other community agencies. ProcessRead MoreAnalysis Of The Community Is Anomic, By Kirst Ashman861 Words   |  4 PagesWatts Community is anomic, According to Kirst-Ashman (2014) anomic refers to a failed community which is dysfunctional and provides little social support. An anomic community has not or does not take advantage of outside linkages; there is no sense of belonging to the community. Some conditions that illustrate the Watts neighborhood is anomic are the residents of the community live in fear and do not trust each other. The community fails to address persistent problems poverty, unemployment, and lackRead MoreAn Analysis on Community: A US TV Deries2401 Words   |  10 PagesAn analysis on Community: A US TV series A. Critically discuss four or five of the main contexts surrounding and informing the product (e.g. how it might be understood with reference to politics, economics, society, technology, narrative, realism, ideology, postmodernism, identity, history, aesthetics, etc.) B.Define one of the critical contexts introduced on the block, and not previously discussed in the first section, and illustrate how it can inform the understanding and practice of the chosenRead MoreCommunity Benefit Analysis on Federal Tax-Exemption for Charitable Organizations1648 Words   |  7 Pagessupported by public funds. Nonprofit hospitals are able to qualify for federal tax-exemption under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has recognized the promotion of health for the benefit of the community, where medical assistance is afforded to the poor or where medical research is promoted, as a charitable purpose. (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2008) Thus, not all hospitals are considered charitable organizations, creating a distinctionRead MoreCommunity College Leadership Gap Analysis8105 Words   |  33 PagesCommunity College Leadership Gap Introduction A community college leadership crisis endures; within the next fifteen years, ninety percent of the community college presidents are expected to retire (McNair, 2015). To remain viable, United States community colleges need an influx of self-motivated, visionary leaders. Currently, there is a gap in leadership; (Anderson, 2014, Claus, 2013, Eddy, 2013, Hannum, 2015, Jones, 2014, Leist, 2013, McArdle, 2013, McFadden, 2013, McNair, 2015, Tunheim, 2015)Read Moreï  ¶ Cost Benefit Analysis on the Construction of a Community Centre in Berekuso.8255 Words   |  34 Pagesprovisions for structures like schools, clinics, community centres, etc. Most of these towns are evolving ones whose development the government seeks to intervene in the provision of public utilities like water, housing, schools, markets, good roads with street lights, health facilities like clinics or maternity homes and community centres among others. Our research has zoned in on Berekuso, in the Eastern region of Ghana, where the provision of a community centre is increasingly being asked of the stakeholdersRead MoreCommunity Development Corporations ( Cdcs ) : An Industry Analysis2967 Words   |  12 PagesCommunity Development Corporations (CDCs): An Industry Analysis Community Economic Development (CED) is a field of study that causes community engagement when working with public and private organizations to create strong communities, industries, and markets. â€Å"Community Economic Development is a multifaceted comprehensive approach to community change that is not limited to just poverty programs, nor is it synonymous with industrial recruitment†, as pointed out by Shaffer et al. (2004), â€Å"CommunityRead MoreAgency Analysis : Tidewater Community College s Advising And Counseling Office Essay1555 Words   |  7 PagesThis paper is the agency analysis of Tidewater Community College’s Advising and Counseling office. The funding sources of this agency are discussed. The organizational structure, in which the agency is set, is brought up. In order to give a better understanding of the purpose of the office and its services, the mission statement is shared. To go more in-depth with the mission statement, the goals that the office is trying to achieve is addressed. A more specific description of the services providedRead MoreCommunity Immersion Analysis On Community1972 Words   |  8 Pagesdefinition of Community, Netting, Kettner, McMurty and Thomas (2012) stated by Warren (1978) â€Å"Community is the combination of social units and systems that perform the major social functions relevant to meeting people’s needs on a local level.†(p.133). Understanding communities is important to social workers as they have, Netting et al (2012) â€Å"to know individuals functions within larger systems, understanding of its history and that communities constantly change† (p. 168). A community has many partsRead MoreThe Parts Of A Community Analysis1443 Words   |  6 Pages 1. Discuss the parts of a community analysis report why each part is important. Defining borders is important for the patrons to understand the community in which the library serves. It’s also important due to knowing the development of the collection which caters to the patrons of the community. The borders can be defined through zip codes, and service areas. (Disher, 2007, p. 10) Understanding the borders of the library allows the staff to understand who they are servicing, and what trends are

The Witness Paper Essay Free Essays

There is no better manner to understand an event than to see it first-hand. History is an imperfect thing. and as narratives are passed down. We will write a custom essay sample on The Witness Paper Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now people forget their true significance. In â€Å"The Witness† . Katherine Anne Porter’s â€Å"Uncle Jimbilly† has experienced the horrors of bondage personally. and is frustrated when kids of the following coevals do non to the full understand and esteem the subject. The manner Porter describes these characters subtly shows the reader their feelings toward each other. Direct word picture may non be the most elusive signifier. but it rapidly and expeditiously gets a point across. The kids are given descriptions like. â€Å"flighty† . â€Å"thoughtful† . and â€Å"sad looking† . This brief word picture causes one to see the kids merely as guiltless immature heads. Uncle Jimbilly is described as an old adult male who â€Å"hobbles on a stick† with light-green grey. flocculent hair. He is â€Å"bent about double† from old ages spent bowing over things. This reflects his former life as a slave. He has clearly lived a long. difficult life. and his battered organic structure shows us this. Indirect word picture helps to supply a deeper apprehension of a character. Through the inquiries the kids have for Uncle Jimbilly. particularly the younger two. Porter demonstrates their artlessness farther. â€Å"The kids thought Uncle Jimbilly had got over his bondage really good. † This outlook creates some inquiries the kids believe to be harmless ; they do non to the full understand the emotional strain Uncle Jimbilly faces. However. with his responses. the reader comprehends his true feelings on the affair. Maria asks him to carve â€Å"Safe in Heaven† on the gravestone for her coney. At her inquiry Uncle Jimbilly grows impatient and continues to reminisce about the male childs in the swamp and the unjust ways they were treated. This highlights the acrimonious feelings he has toward his yesteryear and the fact that the kids do non understand his agony. Katherine Anne Porter’s usage of word picture leaves the reader with a character many beds deep. She displays their colourss in a manner which highlights the implicit in subject in â€Å"The Witness† . The generational spread between Uncle Jimbilly and the kids is portrayed throughout the narrative and Uncle Jimbilly’s past of bondage is used as vehicle to stress this spread. Younger coevalss will ne’er to the full understand their ancestors’ lives. merely as coevalss to come will non understand theirs. How to cite The Witness Paper Essay, Essay examples

The Witness Paper Essay Free Essays

There is no better manner to understand an event than to see it first-hand. History is an imperfect thing. and as narratives are passed down. We will write a custom essay sample on The Witness Paper Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now people forget their true significance. In â€Å"The Witness† . Katherine Anne Porter’s â€Å"Uncle Jimbilly† has experienced the horrors of bondage personally. and is frustrated when kids of the following coevals do non to the full understand and esteem the subject. The manner Porter describes these characters subtly shows the reader their feelings toward each other. Direct word picture may non be the most elusive signifier. but it rapidly and expeditiously gets a point across. The kids are given descriptions like. â€Å"flighty† . â€Å"thoughtful† . and â€Å"sad looking† . This brief word picture causes one to see the kids merely as guiltless immature heads. Uncle Jimbilly is described as an old adult male who â€Å"hobbles on a stick† with light-green grey. flocculent hair. He is â€Å"bent about double† from old ages spent bowing over things. This reflects his former life as a slave. He has clearly lived a long. difficult life. and his battered organic structure shows us this. Indirect word picture helps to supply a deeper apprehension of a character. Through the inquiries the kids have for Uncle Jimbilly. particularly the younger two. Porter demonstrates their artlessness farther. â€Å"The kids thought Uncle Jimbilly had got over his bondage really good. † This outlook creates some inquiries the kids believe to be harmless ; they do non to the full understand the emotional strain Uncle Jimbilly faces. However. with his responses. the reader comprehends his true feelings on the affair. Maria asks him to carve â€Å"Safe in Heaven† on the gravestone for her coney. At her inquiry Uncle Jimbilly grows impatient and continues to reminisce about the male childs in the swamp and the unjust ways they were treated. This highlights the acrimonious feelings he has toward his yesteryear and the fact that the kids do non understand his agony. Katherine Anne Porter’s usage of word picture leaves the reader with a character many beds deep. She displays their colourss in a manner which highlights the implicit in subject in â€Å"The Witness† . The generational spread between Uncle Jimbilly and the kids is portrayed throughout the narrative and Uncle Jimbilly’s past of bondage is used as vehicle to stress this spread. Younger coevalss will ne’er to the full understand their ancestors’ lives. merely as coevalss to come will non understand theirs. How to cite The Witness Paper Essay, Essay examples

Understand Australian Business Regulation †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Understand Australian Business Regulation? Answer: Introducation The cheapest and simplest business a person can set up in Australia is a sole proprietor business which allows him to operate as a sole trader. In this type of business although a person trade on its own it can employ other employees in the business and have the power to manage and control the business by himself. For the purpose of setting up a sole proprietary business in Australia the following steps has to be complied with by a person. Firstly the business name has to be registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, however in case the business is operated under the name of the owner such registration is not required. The second step which is required for registration of a sole trader business is making an application for an Australian Business Number. Thirdly, the business has to get register for Goods and Services Tax with the help of the Australian Tax Office, in case the annual turnover of the business is more than $75000. The owner also has to make per son superannuation arrangements along with applying for certain insurance like disability, death and personal illness insurance. Yes it is clearly possible for Peter to start a business in its own name as a sole proprietor. This is because the sole proprietor form of business is the easiest former business and is widely accepted in Australia. In order to incorporate Susan as a owner of the business Peter can also structure his business in form of a partnership. A partnership allows a business to be owned by two or more person and each person is liable for the act of the other. The partners operate inform of agents for the business and in Australia are regulated by the Partnership Act 1963. As Susan is making a contribution to the business she can be incorporated as a partner which would enable hard to become the corner of the business (Business.gov.au,2017). A company is one of the form of the business which a person may select in order to carry out with his activities in Australia. There are various advantages and disadvantages which a person has to except while carrying out a business in form of a company because of its features. Firstly the most important and distinctive feature of a company as compared to that of a partnership and sole proprietorship is that a company is a separate legal entity and his existence is completely independent from its owners. The law considers it as a separate legal person who has the capacity to sue another or to be sued by a person. The company operates under a common Seal which is used to validate any document in relation to it. A company can be public company or a private company. In a public company the minimum number of members required to form it are 7 whereas in a private company only 2 members are required to established the company. The operations of incorporated company is given in the hands of the directors. Directors are person who are also the shareholders of the company who have been selected by the other shareholders in order to continue the operations of the company. As the company is a separate legal person and does not come to an end after the death of its members and can only be brought to an end by a legal process known as winding up of the company. There are certain steps of registering a company the first of which involves selecting the name of the company. The name of the company should not be identical to any other company. There must be the minimum number of members required to form the company. The company must have the minimum required share capital for a company to be incorporated. An Australian Business Number has to be generated before incorporating a company. A private company can be it incorporated in Australia show filling up of form 201 provided by the Australian Investment and Securities Commission. Yes, in the given circumstances Susan also has the right to become a part owner of the company as without it the company would not be able to be incorporated as a minimum of 2 members are required to form a company. The process can happen by Allocating shares of the company to Peter and Susan according to their investments and contribution to the company (Business.gov.au, 2017). The three prominent types of business searching in Australia as a company a partnership and sole proprietorship. Is form of business organisation has its own advantages and disadvantages which has to be considered before selecting one of the organisation for starting a business. This section of the paper compares the advantages and disadvantages of a company with that of a partnership and sole trader. Advantage The liability of the members of a company or only limited to the amount of investment which have been made by them towards the company in form of shares as guarantees and they cannot be held liable in relation to the personal assets for any actions or debt which has been caused by the company, whereas in a partnership or a sole proprietorship the liabilities of the members and not Limited. This means that they can be help personally liable for any actions or loss which has been incurred by the business. A company has perpetual existence which means that it does not come to an end with the death of its members and therefore it can even continue after a person has died unlike that of a partnership for a sole trader. A company is the most suitable business structure for carrying out large scale business activities whereas partnership or a sole proprietorship cannot carry out large scale business activities because of their unlimited liability and extinction features. Disadvantages When it comes to a company the owners of the company have very limited control over its affairs and most of them are not allowed to participate in the day to day basis of the company as they are mere shareholders and the operations of the company a vested in the directors. However in case of a partnership on a sole proprietorship the partners and sole trader has Supreme control over the business and can manage and operate the business in the way they feel right. In addition a company has been imposed with a lot of legal obligations such as duties of directors, insolvent trading, rights of minority shareholders, auditing requirements whereas the degree of legal obligations imposed on a partnership or a sole trader are very less as compared to that of a company. Another major disadvantage of a company as compared to that of a sole proprietor on a partnership is that the profits which are distributed to the shareholders are taxable which are not in case of a sole proprietorship and partnership thus double taxation comes into a picture when a company is incorporated (Peirson et al., 2014n case Peter chooses to operate his business in form of an Incorporated Organisation in Australia he would be able to make any number of person join the business as members in case of a public company and in case of a private company he can make a maximum of 50 members join the company. A company has a right to issue shares. A share as a part which a person owns in a company. In case Peter wants to incorporate other friends along with Jack into the company for the purpose of raising capital he can issue them with the shares of the company. The issue of shares would make such person owners of the company to the extent of the number of shares held by them respect to the company and the total number of shares which have been distributed by the company. For the purpose of incorporating Jack and other friends into the business Peter does not have to seek any approval from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission as he is not trying to raise capital from the general public (Jeston Nelis, 2014). It would not be very difficult for Peter and Susan to protect their personal assets in relation to the business in case the business failure in cause additional liability. The major step in order to achieve such protection by Peter and Susan would be to form a company which is limited by liability. The most important feature of a company which is limited by liability is that the members of the company and not liable for any that which is incurred by the company. The liability of the members in case of a company limited by liability is only restricted to the shares with the member hold in the company. In addition the liability of such members of the company can also at most extend to the amount which is to yet to be paid in relations to the share which is held by them in the company. There is one more business structure which can be chosen by Peter and Susan in order to protect their house against the loss faced by the business. This can be done so by starting a limited liability part nership. A limited liability partnership is a form of business in which all of you partners with respect to the jurisdiction are subjected to the doctrine of limited liability. This form of business exhibits both the elements of a corporation and a partnership. In case of a limited liability partnership partners are not liable for the negligence on misconduct conducted by other partners in the course of business. This feature of the limited liability partnership is the most important feature which has said to be distinguished from a traditional partnership. In a limited liability partnership partners have limited liability in the same the shareholders have it in a corporation. However in Australia there must be one person who has to be a general partner in the business which means that his liability would be unlimited in the business (Galbraith, 2014). There are certain reporting obligations which every business has to comply with for operating in Australia. Firstly businesses lodge a of business Activity Statement for the purpose of operating in Australia to the Australian Taxation Office in order to report that taxes and make payment. Individuals of a certain category may also be required to compulsorily lodge a Business Activity Statement. The Business Activity Statement can be launched by mail, in person or electronically on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis depending upon the due instalments. The Financial Service, financial market and corporate regulator of Australia is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Businesses which are operating in Australia have the duty to make and submit a financial report to the ASIC at the end of every financial year. The financial reports have to be audited mandatorily. However under certain circumstances a company may be exempted from financial reporting. If a company is registered under the Australian Securities Exchange they have to make a continuous and periodic disclosure. Information in relation to these requirements are provided by the assets in the listing rules. The financial reporting in relation to the companys annual financial report has to be done in accordance with the Australian Accounting Standards as prescribed by the Australian Accounting Standard Board. The Australian Accounting Standard Board is independent agency of the Australian government. The standards operate as a legislative requirement in relation to the companies. They are applicable in both private and public sector with respect to financial reporting. In Australia the corporations are governed to the Corporation Act 2001. The Australian Securities Exchange provide certain guidelines and codes for the functioning and the operation of businesses such as the Corporate Governance Recommendations. The Australian Investment and Security Commission act as a Watchdog of corporations operating in Australia under the Australian investment and security Commission Act 2001 (Cth). In Australia partnership are governed by the federal legislation of the Partnership Act 1963 (Cth). Each state also has its own partnership legislation but the rule stated in them very similar to each other (Austrade.gov.au, 2017). References (Business.gov.au,2017). Retrieved 17 September 2017, from https://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your...and.../sole-trader Austrade.gov.au (2017). Retrieved 17 September 2017, from https://www.austrade.gov.au ... Understanding Australian business regulation Business.gov.au,2017). Retrieved 17 September 2017, from https://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your.../business-structure Galbraith, J. R. (2014).Designing organizations: Strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels. John Wiley Sons. Jeston, J., Nelis, J. (2014).Business process management. Routledge. Peirson, G., Brown, R., Easton, S., Howard, P. (2014).Business finance. McGraw-Hill Education Australia.

About Mary Dyer, Quaker Martyr

About Mary Dyer, Quaker Martyr Mary Dyer was a  Quaker martyr in colonial Massachusetts. Her execution, and the religious freedom initiatives taken in memory of that, make her a key figure in American religious freedom history.   She was hanged on  June 1, 1660. Mary Dyer Biography Mary Dyer was born in England in about 1611, where she married William Dyer. They emigrated to the Massachusetts colony in about 1635, the year they joined a Boston church. Mary Dyer sided with Anne Hutchinson  and her mentor and brother-in-law, Rev. John Wheelwright, in the Antinomian controversy, which challenged the doctrine of salvation by works as well as challenging  the authority of the church leadership .   Mary Dyer lost her franchise in 1637 for her support of their ideas.   When Anne Hutchinson was expelled from church membership, Mary Dyer withdrew from the congregation. Mary Dyer had given birth to a stillborn child the fall before she left the church, and neighbors speculated that that the child had been deformed as divine punishment for her disobedience. In 1638, William and Mary Dyer moved to Rhode Island, and William helped found Portsmouth.   The family thrived. In 1650, Mary accompanied Roger Williams and John Clarke to England, and William joined her in 1650. She remained in England until 1657 after William returned in 1651.   In these years, she became a Quaker, influenced by George Fox. When Mary Dyer returned to the colony in 1657, she came through Boston, where the Quakers were outlawed. She was arrested and jailed, and her husbands plea led to her release. He had not yet converted, so he was not arrested.   Then she went to New Haven, where she was expelled for preaching about Quaker ideas.   In 1659, two English Quakers were jailed for their faith in Boston, and Mary Dyer went to visit them and to bear witness. She was jailed and then banished on September 12. She returned with other Quakers to defy the law, and was arrested and convicted. Two of her comrades, William Robinson, and Marmaduke Stevenson,   were hanged, but she received a last-minute reprieve when her son William petitioned for her.   Again, she was banished to Rhode Island.  She returned to Rhode Island, then traveled to Long Island. On May 21, 1660, Mary Dyer  returned to Massachusetts to again defy the anti-Quaker law and protest the theocracy that could limit Quakers from that territory. She was again convicted.   This time, her sentence was carried out the day after her conviction. She was offered her freedom if she would leave and remain out of Massachusetts, and she refused.    On June 1, 1660, Mary Dyer was hanged for refusing to comply with anti-Quaker laws in Massachusetts. Mary and William Dyer had seven children. Her death is credited with inspiring Rhode Islands Charter of 1663 granting religious freedom, which is in turn credited with inspiring part of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution in 1791. Dyer is now honored with a statue at The State House in Boston. Bibliography The Antinomian Controversy, 1636 - 1638: A Documentary History. David D. Hall, editor.Ingle, H. Larry. First Among Friends: George Fox and the Creation of Quakerism Mary Dyer: Biography of a Rebel Quaker.Larson, Rebecca. Daughters of Light: Quaker Women Preacher and Prophesying in the Colonies and Abroad, 1700-1775Plimpton, Ruth T. Mary Dyer: Biography of a Rebel Quaker

Lightning essays

Lightning essays Lightning is beautiful, dangerous, and mysterious all at the same time. The flashes that can cause citywide power outages and raging forest fires. While the average lightning bolt is only about five kilometers long and the width of a finger, it heats the surrounding air to a temperature five times hotter than the surface of the Sun and produces enough energy to power a 100-watt light bulb for three months. In this project I plan to make lightning using only aluminum pie plate, ball-point pen, thumb tack, wool sock, and a piece of styrofoam. I first push the thumbtack up through the center of the pie plate. Then I push the end of the pen onto the tack. After that I rubbed the styrofoam quickly with the wool sock. After that I pick up the aluminum pie plate with the pen and put it down on top of the styrofoam. Last I turned out the lights and slowly brought my finger close to the pie plate. Then I heard, felt, and saw a tiny spark. By now you probably wonder what is happening. As I rub the styrofoam, it stole electrons from the wool and becomes negatively charged. Charges that are alike move apart and charges that are different attract. The electrons on the styrofoam repelled the electrons pie plate and pushed them to the top edge of the plate. The pen acts as an insulator, preventing the built-up charge from moving through me to the ground until I was ready. When I brought my finger close to the edge of the plate, the repelled electrons jump across the gap and escaped through my body, giving me a small shock. When I turned off the lights, I was able to see the discharge. The sky is filled with electric charge. In a calm sky, the plus and minus charges are evenly interspersed throughout the atmosphere. Therefore, a calm sky has a neutral charge. Inside a thunderstorm, electric charge is spread out differently. A thunderstorm consists of ice crystals and hailstones. The ice crystals have a plus charge, while the hailstones have ...

Spiritual and Cultural Considerations in Primary Care Assignment

Spiritual and Cultural Considerations in Primary Care - Assignment Example Similar with the Asian American culture, Hispanic American also believe that health can be attained by maintaining balance between the hot and cold and the wet and dry forces. Illness results when God punished Hispanic Americans for their sin, when feeling of susto (fright) occur, when someone throws a mal ojo (evil eye), and envidia (envy)(De Laune, 2006, p. 394). Hispanic Americans used Spanish or Portuguese and other dialects in communication process. They are verbally expressive and used dramatic body language to express emotions and pain. However, Hispanic Americans view direct confrontation and expression of negative feelings as disrespectful. When communicating with a Hispanic American, one can observe the comfort in close proximity, overly tactile communication such as frequent handshakes and enbrace, and the value Hispanic Americans have for the presence of others. Hispanic Americans value modesty and politeness in speaking and are presently oriented. However, time for Hispa nic American is flexible. The role of the family in the primary care might be used in dealing with Hispanic Americans as they prioritize first the need of the families before the individual needs. Nuclear family is the basic unit but highly regarded extended family. Gender roles are also evident in the Hispanic American culture and man performs the role of decision maker and breadwinner while the woman is the home maker and care taker. Review of Literature Healthcare Concerns and Beliefs Health care concerns and beliefs of many Hispanics have affected the predisposing diseases of their race and access to the use of health services. Hispanic diet, lack of health insurance, transportation, culture, and linguistic are some of the identified concerns of most researchers among Hispanics that needs to be addressed. Hispanic dietary preferences differ from other culture. Existing research suggests that Hispanic diet has greater percentage of carbohydrates, protein, and fiber, and lower percentage of total and satura ted fat (Loria, Bush, Carroll, Looker, McDowell, Johnson, &Sempos, 1995, n.p.).Thus, Hispanics are more apt to meet the cholesterol education program. However, majority of the Hispanics suffer from obesity which is one of the most important health problems they are facing today. Aside from dietary preferences, Hispanics also lack sufficient access to health services particularly because of financial, structural, and personal barriers. Lack of health insurance and low income among Hispanics constitute the financial barriers. Structural barriers include proximity and transportation to the health providers and personal barriers include cultural and linguistic factors. In addition, Hispanics are less likely to consult a primary care’s advice primarily because Hispanics believe that having a disease is a punishment from God. For example, a child suddenly has fever after the parents brought the child to the park. Following Hispanic culture, this child was thrown a mal ojo (evil eye ) by a stranger. Hispanics are known for being religious and spiritual-driven. Hispanics belief on God and evil forces are

A management report on preoperative fasting Essay

A management report on preoperative fasting - Essay Example is why it is essential to consider this process from the different viewpoints, through its limitations and weaknesses on the basis of the clinical practices and state policies. Ethical considerations are to be accounted also. In order to clarify all issues and to define the possible solutions for the existing problems in preoperative fasting, it is necessary to look through the principal notions of the preoperative fasting’ process, the guidelines of the royal college of nursing and other related researches, both supporting and denying the benefits of preoperative fasting. The need in preoperative fasting has become evident with understanding that the risk of pulmonary aspiration during the elective surgery may be significantly decreased or eliminated through the application of the preoperative fasting process. It has become a legal requirement for the clinical practices and medical specialists. On the basis of the official statistics the cases of the pulmonary aspiration are very rare (about 1 in 10,000 patients), while the statistics also shows that the majority of the cases in pulmonary aspiration take place in the emergency situation (traumas, for example) when the gastric emptying is delayed (Scarlett et al, 2002); the same statistics relates to the cases of emergency abdominal surgery, etc. This statistics may become supporting evidence that preoperative fasting is an essential process in making the statistical morbidity in elective surgery minimal. The purpose of the existing fasting guidelines is to minimize the gastric contents before electiv e surgery; however the question here arises: how to avoid the unnecessary thirst and dehydration. This is the principal issue in the present research of preoperative fasting, and this issue needs to be addressed on the state level through the development of the new policies in fasting. being expressed in plain words as ‘nothing by mouth after midnight’. However, the question here is – how it is possible to

Sodium Thiosulphate and Hydrochloric Acid

Sodium Thiosulphate and Hydrochloric Acid Aim: To investigate how the rate of reaction between Sodium Thiosulphate and Hydrochloric acid is affected by changing the concentration. Background: THE REACTION: when Sodium Thiosulphate reacts with hydrochloric acid sulphur is produced. The sulphur forms in very small particles and causes the solution to cloud over and turn a yellow colour. This causes the cross to fade and eventually disappear. Sodium Thiosulphate + Hydrochloric acid  »Ã‚ » Sulphur + Sodium Chloride + Sulphur Dioxide + Water NA2S2O3 + 2HCL  »Ã‚ » S + 2NaCl + SO2 + H2O (aq) + (aq)  »Ã‚ » (s) + (aq) + (g) + (l) PREDICTION: As the concentration of Sodium Thiosulphate increases the length of time for cross to disappear decreases (inverse). This is because the increase of concentration of Sodium Thiosulphate will increase the rate of reaction between Hydrochloric acid and sodium Thiosulphate particles. SCIENTIFIC REASONS FOR PREDICTION: the results from preliminary experiments support the prediction made. From the results you can see that there is a directly proportional relationship between the concentration and the rate of reaction. If you increase the concentration then the rate of reaction will also increase. METHOD: 1. Set up apparatus as in preliminary experiment. 2. Record the temperature of the room. 3. Add the first of the concentrations of sodium Thiosulphate to the flask. As you add 10cm3 of HCL and start the stopwatch 4. Watch the solution as it clouds over. Once the cross has disappeared stop the clock. 5. Record the time in a results table 6. Repeat the above steps for the other concentration of sodium Thiosulphate. Repeat the experiment 3 times for each of the concentrations. 7. Record all results in a table and work out the rate by dividing 1 by the average time for each. This extract was taken from the link below: This experiment is testing how the rate of reaction is affected when concentration is changed. The theory is said that increasing the concentration can increase the rate of reaction by increasing the rate of molecular collisions. The phenomenon behind all of this is the collision theory and how it plays a big role in this investigation. The higher the concentration the less time/faster it will take for the system to turn into equilibrium, and if concentration id decreased, time taken for the solution to go cloudy increases. Hypothesis: The higher the concentration the faster the rate of reaction will be and the time taken to reach equilibrium will decrease. A more diluted concentration will have a longer rate of reaction and a longer time to reach equilibrium. Apparatus: Method: Gathered all the apparatus needed for the experiment. Using a weight balance we measure out 8g of Sodium thiosulphate, that we added too 200cm ³ of water. We mixed the solution until all the crystals were dissolved. Then you pour 50 cm ³, 40 cm ³, 30 cm ³, 20 cm ³, and 10 cm ³ of the solution into five identical conical flasks. Then you add water to the other conical flasks so that the total volume in each flask in 50 cm ³. Make sure to label the flasks so you know which one has so much concentration. Once thats done, you must now take a beaker and add 35 cm ³ of concentrated Hydrochloric acid to 65 cm ³ of water to make a diluted solution. Now take a piece of paper and draw a black cross on it, and then place one of the flasks on the paper (do one flask at a time). Using a measuring cylinder measure out 5 cm ³ of the hydrochloric solution, and add this to the flask. Immediately stir the flask and start the stop watch. One person should do this part. As soon as you cant see the cross any more stop the stopwatch, and record the results in a table. Repeat this with all the flasks. Results: Concentration (cm ³) Time (s) Rate of reaction (s) 50 24.9 0.04 40 + water 32 0.0313 30 + water 42.2 0.0237 20 + water 74.07 0.0135 10 + water 202.8 0.0049 The rate of reaction is measured by dividing 1 by the time taken for the reaction to take place. Number of moles of sulphur used: n= m/M n= 8/32 = 0.25 mols Discussion: You can see from the graph that as concentration increases, the time taken for the solution to go cloudy decreases. So the stronger the concentration the faster the rate of reaction is. As the concentration of sodium Thiosulphate decrease the time taken for the cross to disappear increases, this is an inverse relationship.When equilibrium was reached the solutions turned a yellow color, the stronger the concentration was the higher the turbidity was. When equilibrium was reached SO2 gas and water were released. The more concentrated solution has more molecules, which more collision will occur. So therefore the rate of reaction should depend on how frequently the molecules collide, so more molecules have greater collisions and the reaction happens faster as more products are made in a shorter time. All related to the collision theory. What we saw what happened was exactly what we expected from the experiment. Our predictions were accurate. Evaluation: The method we used was fairly accurate, our results werent perfect but they were good enough for us to see what happens during the experiment. So overall the results proved the hypothesis and I was able to draw graphs with a line of best fit. In our experiment we keep the HCL a constant, and also keeping the volume of the solution was important to get more accurate results. The results were fairly reliable under our conditions. They could be a bit off from bad measuring, unclean equipment and the timing. Conclusion: When the concentration of Sodium thiosulphate was increased the rate of reaction increased and the time taken to reach equilibrium decreased, so therefore the rate of reaction is directly proportional to the concentration. Bibliography: azete.com/view/48253 6 September 2009 woodrow.org/teachers/ci/1986/exp19.html 9 September 2009