Small Scale Production of Yogurt

SMALL SCALE PRODUCTION OF YOGURT Yogurt is a sour milk product. Its sour taste is attributed to the presence of lactic acid yielded by bacteria through fermentation. Bacteria that are commonly used in yoghurt production are Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus. These bacteria have the ability to break down sugars in the milk producing lactate or lactic acid as by-product. Below is a step-by-step procedure in the production of yogurt. Find out from the procedure why yogurt has low fat content.Note: Practice aseptic technique. Wash hands before proceeding and wear lab gown, head cap, latex gloves and if necessary, facial mask to prevent unwanted contamination of the pre-yogurt mixture. Ingredients (good for one group) 1. 500 mL homogenized pasteurized milk (to be bought and brought as 1L pack good for two groups) to be provided: 2. 15 grams skim milk powder (SMP) 3. 50 grams refined sugar 4. 40 ml starter culture bacteria from natural yoghurt prepared as follows : % skim milk powder in distilled water, yoghurt or yakult, incubated at 43o to 46o for 3 to 4 hours till clotted Procedure 1. In a clean container, carefully transfer the milk and carefully dissolve the SMP and sugar. Cover with aluminum foil and heat the mixture at 90oC (water bath) for 10 minutes. 2. Cool down to 50oC in a bath of ice water. 3. Meanwhile shake the culture of the starter bacteria to free it from lumps and carefully add (inoculate) to the milk. Make sure that the temperature of the container is cool enough to touch.Mix to evenly distribute the starter culture. 5. Transfer the inoculated milk into the plastic container provided. Seal the lid with masking tape and label the container properly (group number, section and instructor). 6. Incubate the milk at 43oC to 46oC in an incubator overnight. At this point this will be taken cared of by the lab technicians and will be chilled at 4C thereafter. Reference: Davide, Clara L. 1996. Microbial Production of Yoghurt and Cheese . Training Seminar sponsored by PSM held at Ateneo de Manila, January 29-30.

Summary of “Little Things” by Raymond Carver

Raymond Carver’s short story entitled â€Å"Little Things† is a representation of internal situation in a house when a husband and a wife could not retrieve the love that once felt before. The author did not state the names of the characters but only used the words â€Å"she† and â€Å"he† to refer the names of the characters as husband and wife. This story is a situation that most families usually get into because of the separation and the child is the most affected in the whole scenario for he or she could not able to determine whether to go with his or her mother or with his or her father. The story begins when the man paced his own things for he decided to leave his family. the woman was happy as according to her that the man will leave but it was felt from her emotions that it is hard for her to accept the situation. After packing all the things in his suitcase, the man went to the living room to get the baby but the woman did not want the man to take the baby so she grabbed the baby into the man’s hand. The baby started to cry but the two did not mend the tears and shout of the baby. They did not let each other to get the baby so they grabbed each other’s hands. Related article: †On Compassion† summary Because the woman is much weaker than the man, the man obtained the baby. The woman could not accept it so she tried again but the decision went on as the story ended. Carver’s story is a detailed short story as it represents the signification of elements and images that exists within the whole narrative. It shows that he is capable of acquiring consequences that emerged in the home where men and women could not recognize their weaknesses and incapability that made them quit from being together. Reference Carver, R. (1988). Little Things. Tess Gallagher From Where I'm Calling From: The Selected Stories Atlantic Monthly Press, 1988.

Anthropology of Tattoos

He repeated this several times as a ceremonial pot was filled with gathering soot from the burning fire. After the artist finished his tedious design, he rubbed soot from the pot bottom deep into the slits, planting the bacteria that would infect the skin, raising the scars into their meaningful design. She felt accomplished that she withstood the agonizing pain while other members of her clan could not. Her newly inherited body art signified the birth of her first son, and left her with a renewed sense of beauty. This is the way of life common to people indigenous to the motherland of Africa. Scarification, however, is not the only form of body art that is used. Body painting, tattooing, and branding are all similar forms of body art, which can be found in Africa and other cultures throughout the world. The word â€Å"tattoo† comes from the Tahitian word â€Å"tattau†, which means â€Å"to mark†. Tattoos have evolved from being symbols of punishment that were given to identify criminals and slaves in the early ninth-century Chinese culture, into a pop-culture trend of using he skin as â€Å"a way of describing the exotic uncivilized other† within ourselves (Schildkrout 2004:324). For centuries, the body has been used as a â€Å"visible way of defining individual identity and cultural difference† (Schildkrout 2004:319). This cultural difference becomes apparent when studying the evolution of body art over time, especially when focusing on the differences between the Western and Non-Western cultures. People have been adorning their body with tattoos and piercing for centuries, but until recently, the thought of tattoos in ancient Egypt had been pushed aside. It has now been discovered that, without a doubt, tattoos did exist in that time period. Although miniscule, a group of enormously important tattooed mummies serve to help prove this point (Bianchi 1988:21). The first mummy to be discovered was one f a woman named Amunet, whose mummy was found in an excellent state of preservation, â€Å"most likely due to the fact that she served as a priestess of the goddess Harthor at Thebes during Dynasty XI†(Bianchi 1988:22). The tattoos on her body were comprised of a pattern of dots and dashes in an elliptical shape on her lower abdomen. The thighs and arms adorned the identical parallel lines of the aforementioned pattern. Two more women mummies, who were discovered and believed to be from the same time period, also had similar tattoos on their lower abdomen (Bianchi 1988:22). This group of woman represents an exclusive group of Egyptians who received tattoos in that time period, because there is no other evidence that shows tattoos to be a part of the Egyptian culture until the time of the Middle Kingdom. These abstract patterns associated with ritualistic tattooing survived into the New Kingdom. The Egyptians, more then likely, borrowed a form of tattooing from the Nubian civilization. Unlike the Nubians, whose purpose for tattooing is unknown, â€Å"the Egyptians appear to have regarded the tattoo as one of several vehicles by which the procreative powers of the deceased could be revived† (Bianchi 1988:27). Substantiation proposes that only women were associated with the decorating of their bodies and the ritualistic activities that went along with it. The art of tattooing began with the grouping of bluish or black dots and/or dashes forming abstract geometric patterns; that system of body art lasted for over two thousand years in ancient Egypt. Just like other ideas and goods, the idea of tattooing began to travel to several different societies, and has evolved into extremely different forms of art all over the world. In northeastern Zambia, the Tabwa â€Å"once covered themselves from head to foot with scarification† (Roberts 1988:41). The women of the Tabwa began receiving elaborate marks on their face, chest, and backs when they were young girls; it sometimes was continued at other points in a woman’s life (Roberts 1988:43) such as courting rituals and for woman wishing to bear a child. Male sculptors would trace designs and make incisions on the lesser intimate parts of the body; they left the rest for the women to do. ‘Tabwa women used razors to slit skin [that had been] plucked up with a fishhook or arrowhead. These incisions were then rubbed with soot from a pot bottom, an irritant that produced the desired raised cicatrices† (Roberts 1988:44). There were several reasons that this tradition was done, different to every age and gender in the tribe. Young women went through this process in order to achieve a state of perfection, which was required for those wanting to marry and have children (Roberts 1988:45). Scarification is a form of body art that was used in several tribes because according to their customs â€Å"beauty is not physically innate, but rather a function of the girl’s inscriptions† (Roberts 1988:45). Not only the Tabwa, scarification was used in such tribes as the Ga’anda and the Tiv; all the tribes have distinctly different purposes for doing this, but the process and effect of the body are the same. Another form of body art is body painting, which the people of the Southeast Nuba begin at a young age; but the meanings, and time frame from when they begin decorating the body are very different between males and females. The males paint themselves from the ages of 12 to 27 (Faris 1988:31). Typically, they only paint during the down time after the harvest season and before the next years planting begins. This is the time that the males are less involved in mandatory and productive activities; they spend their supplementary time with festive activities such as dance and sport participation. The restrictions placed on the men by their age, most importantly deal with the color that they use on their body—for example â€Å" only the older age groups are eligible to use the greatest elaboration in color, including the deep black and yellow [colors, that are] prohibited to younger grades†(Faris 1988:32). The change in elaboration allowed on the body does not coincide with any physiological changes, rather, it corresponds with changes â€Å"in productive status or sport† (Faris 1988:32). As they move up in grades from young laborers that answer to the elders, to mature men that own their own property, farm and family, their elaborate painting ability increases. The elders though, do not decorate their bodies; rather, they delegate and lead rituals for the younger men and enforce the rules of allowed color use. Therefore, the male body painting shows their progression thru ones life stages. The women of Southeast Nuba, â€Å"from the age of six years, until consummation of marriage, oil and ochre [their bodies] daily, in colors [that are] appropriate to their patri-clan section† (Faris 1988:34). After childbirth, they may continue to wear some oil and ochre on their shoulders. The personal body art of women is strictly related to the physiological changes that occur as a women goes through life, and are fixed around body scarification as a way of showing her changes. A woman’s scarification is so important, that â€Å"if a husband refuses to pay for a scarring specialist, a woman may seek a lover who will do so, and her first marriage will end† (Faris 1988:35). Unlike the males elaborate body art, a woman’s body art is simple, but it accumulates over her life-span and is very standardized, while a male’s body art is constantly changing. Body painting, tattooing and scarification thus far had been tools used by individuals to beautify their body and elevate their status within their tribe; this is not the case with all societies. In several other cultures, tattoos have been used in a form of branding, which is quite the opposite. Though tattooing and branding are â€Å"similar in that both involve the insertion of pigments under the skin to create permanent marks†, branding is implemented in order to lower an individuals status, to punish for crimes committed, to identify slaves, but most importantly, to eliminate personal identity (Schildkrout 2004:323). â€Å"The immutable alteration of human skin by branding needs to be considered in relation to, but ought not be confused with, tattooing† (Bianchi 1988:27). Two recent studies originating in South Africa elaborate on this subject, reporting on the political influence of tattooing â€Å"as a means of social control† (Schildkrout 2004:330). They site examples from Zambia in which a medical practitioner travels around to villages â€Å"in which witch craft accusations have been common†¦to inoculate people against people against witch craft† (Schildkrout 2004:331). The villagers would â€Å"submit to bodily inspections†, they were then treated â€Å"by getting numbers tattooed on their arms† (Schildkrout 2004:331). This is disturbingly reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps when an unfathomable number of Jewish people lost their personal identities and became known as only a number in the system to be disposed of. This â€Å"symbolic denial of personhood† served as a system â€Å"of control and surveillance† (Schildkrout 2004:323). This system of control was also imposed by â€Å"authoritarian regimes† in Southeast Asia (Schildkrout 2004:323). The Zhou and Ming Dynasties branded criminals as a form of punishment with â€Å"extensive, often full-body tattoos, with elaborate pictorial imagery as well as written inscriptions† (Schildkrout 2004:324) portraying their crime. This form of tattooing is definitely contrary to traditional methods. Similarly in Brazil, branding was used to mark convicts by the penal authorities. Penal tattoos derived their power from subjugation of the marked convicts. The humiliation of being visibly branded was a significant component of the convict’s punishment. In an act of resistance, those that had been branded â€Å"were known to reclaim their bodies by writing over the inscriptions or by displaying them in new social situations† (Schildkrout 2004:324). The branded, therefore, became the empowered, restoring the function of the tattoo to being personally-motivated. This personal motivation is perhaps most notable in Western cultures, specifically North America. In America, the Native Americans used body painting in many ways, usually connected with ethnic identity, social roles or marital status (Rubin 1988:179). The Natives also used the body as a canvas in ritualistic ceremonies, on warriors going into battle and for the beautification of their women. When the Europeans discovered America, they brought with them slaves from Africa and they introduced branding of the slaves into the American culture. After the civil war, when the slaves had been freed, branding was still embedded in American culture through groups of people including gang members and convicts. Though â€Å"branding is often associated with involuntary marking and the denial of personhood†, it has also â€Å"been adopted in contemporary Western body culture as an assertion of group identity, for example in college fraternities† (Schildkrout 2004:323). Tattoos were also prevalent in other parts of America, including Alaska. Among the Eskimos â€Å"[t]he function of these art forms [was] – essentially manifesting one’s place or role within the hierarchy of hunting life† (Gritton 1988:190). With the introduction and adaptation of the western civilization in Alaskan culture, â€Å"the marks of a hunter or hunter’s wife served no purpose in their new lives and were understandably abandoned† (Gritton 1988:190). The function of body art and tattooing has been Americanized, evolving from its native origins to incorporate self expression. This self expression has mushroomed from a manor of identifying oneself to a way of gaining attention through shock value. Though ever-changing, all forms of body art mentioned play enormous roles in the lives of people. Certain non-Western cultures are based around the ability to use skin as a visible way of defining status or bettering their self-image, in order to attract companions. So the artists who are allowed to perform the act of adorning bodies with different designs are regarded as having a very important place in the society. They are â€Å"scarring specialist† (Faris 1988:35), â€Å"body artists† (Drewal 1988:84), but most importantly, they are known as â€Å"[the] one-who-creates- art† (Drewal 1988:84). In the non-Native American culture, however, the general attitude towards tattoo artist in present-day American culture is less than appreciative. Extreme critics even characterize tattooist as opportunist, exclusively seeking monetary gain (Sanders 1988:229). â€Å"The tattooist interest in artistry and control is often in conflict with his profit orientation†, revealing the major flaw within the American society (Sanders 1988:229). This is the major difference in western and non-western cultures. Body tattoos in western society are an object to be purchased. Americans obtain tattoos in the same manner that they acquire a new Louis Vuitton handbag. They purchase them as accessories, which is in stark contrast to the non-western cultures, who acquire tattoos as an essential ritual in their society. With this is mind, the process in which American’s purchases body art seems slightly ridiculous. Tattoo artists often complain of the unwillingness of customers to spend the quoted amount of money for â€Å"a tattoo [they] are going to wear for the rest of [their] life† (Sanders 1988:229). It is more acceptable in American culture to invest in short term materialistic purchases, therefore the legitimate tattoo artists are constantly being monitored and regimented under strict laws imposed by the government. Despite the absurdity of the purchasing process, the reasoning that propels the American society to obtain tattoos is just as flawed. Some reasons people give to explain permanently marking their skin include, â€Å"they were drunk, it’s a macho thing, to fit in with a crowd or even worse, for no reason at all† (DeMello 1995:42). Western society seems to have a complete disregard for the spiritual origins of body art. Tattoo artist are even witness to clients’ apathy, avoiding â€Å"working on people who are obviously under the influence of alcohol† (Sanders 1988:225). Where once there was a ceremonious celebration deeply rooted in spiritualism, in American society the only ritualistic ceremony is the receiving of a piece of paper on how to care for the recently acquired body art. This apathetic attitude of Americans is perhaps derived from the renouncing majority of the population. This bias stems from â€Å"very early ‘regulations’ [including] Moses’ remarks in Leviticus 19:28 forbidding any cuttings in the flesh or the printing of any marks† (Armstrong 2005:39). Since tattoos â€Å"were not sanctioned by the church† the profile for the tattooed archetype became unconventional (Schildkrout 2004:325). Christian belief has been adapted to the masses, forcing those who are tattooed into rebellion. The majority of people adopting body art include â€Å"bikers, convicts, and other ‘low lives’† (DeMello 1995:40). In Western society â€Å"the idea that the unmarked body as a sign of God’s work was linked to the Protestant reformation† and â€Å"the idea that body markings were a sign of savagery goes back even earlier† ( Schildkrout 2004:324). This is ironic considering tattoos in earlier cultures signified positions of high status. Perhaps the only entity that ties these drastic cultures together is the desire to increase their inherited beauty. â€Å"If the body is – metaphorically – a site of inscription to various degrees for various theorist, then cosmetic surgery can be seen, at one level, as an example of the literal and explicit enactment of this process of inscription† ( Schildkrout 2004:320), which is also seen in the aforementioned tribes with the rituals of scarification. DeMello also agrees that along with tattooing and piericing, that cosmetic surgery is seen as a form of â€Å"body modification† (DeMello 1995:37). â€Å"Not only does the tattooed skin negotiate between the individual and society and between different social groups, but also mediates relations between persons and spirits, the human and the divine† (Schildkrout 2004:321). Body art is a tradition that extends throughout the barriers of the world and although the forms in which they are found may be different, the idea of using your body as a canvas is universal. Although recently, several anthropologists agreed and have begun to examine body art more closely, looking at it â€Å"as a microcosm of society† (Schildkrout 2004:328), Roberts still believes that â€Å"there can be no ultimate explanation of symbolism† (Roberts 1988:51). He claims that â€Å"the blazes on trees in the Ndembu forest will remain many years after their purpose and meaning are forgotten. So it is with other inscriptions† (Roberts 1988:51). This is exemplified in the woman who endured the agonizing pain of her scarification to instigate a new chapter in her life. Nevertheless, soon after her body is placed into the ground, her skin will no longer be a visible indication of who she once was. She will become a memory and her body will no longer be used as a canvas. Anthropology of Tattoos He repeated this several times as a ceremonial pot was filled with gathering soot from the burning fire. After the artist finished his tedious design, he rubbed soot from the pot bottom deep into the slits, planting the bacteria that would infect the skin, raising the scars into their meaningful design. She felt accomplished that she withstood the agonizing pain while other members of her clan could not. Her newly inherited body art signified the birth of her first son, and left her with a renewed sense of beauty. This is the way of life common to people indigenous to the motherland of Africa. Scarification, however, is not the only form of body art that is used. Body painting, tattooing, and branding are all similar forms of body art, which can be found in Africa and other cultures throughout the world. The word â€Å"tattoo† comes from the Tahitian word â€Å"tattau†, which means â€Å"to mark†. Tattoos have evolved from being symbols of punishment that were given to identify criminals and slaves in the early ninth-century Chinese culture, into a pop-culture trend of using he skin as â€Å"a way of describing the exotic uncivilized other† within ourselves (Schildkrout 2004:324). For centuries, the body has been used as a â€Å"visible way of defining individual identity and cultural difference† (Schildkrout 2004:319). This cultural difference becomes apparent when studying the evolution of body art over time, especially when focusing on the differences between the Western and Non-Western cultures. People have been adorning their body with tattoos and piercing for centuries, but until recently, the thought of tattoos in ancient Egypt had been pushed aside. It has now been discovered that, without a doubt, tattoos did exist in that time period. Although miniscule, a group of enormously important tattooed mummies serve to help prove this point (Bianchi 1988:21). The first mummy to be discovered was one f a woman named Amunet, whose mummy was found in an excellent state of preservation, â€Å"most likely due to the fact that she served as a priestess of the goddess Harthor at Thebes during Dynasty XI†(Bianchi 1988:22). The tattoos on her body were comprised of a pattern of dots and dashes in an elliptical shape on her lower abdomen. The thighs and arms adorned the identical parallel lines of the aforementioned pattern. Two more women mummies, who were discovered and believed to be from the same time period, also had similar tattoos on their lower abdomen (Bianchi 1988:22). This group of woman represents an exclusive group of Egyptians who received tattoos in that time period, because there is no other evidence that shows tattoos to be a part of the Egyptian culture until the time of the Middle Kingdom. These abstract patterns associated with ritualistic tattooing survived into the New Kingdom. The Egyptians, more then likely, borrowed a form of tattooing from the Nubian civilization. Unlike the Nubians, whose purpose for tattooing is unknown, â€Å"the Egyptians appear to have regarded the tattoo as one of several vehicles by which the procreative powers of the deceased could be revived† (Bianchi 1988:27). Substantiation proposes that only women were associated with the decorating of their bodies and the ritualistic activities that went along with it. The art of tattooing began with the grouping of bluish or black dots and/or dashes forming abstract geometric patterns; that system of body art lasted for over two thousand years in ancient Egypt. Just like other ideas and goods, the idea of tattooing began to travel to several different societies, and has evolved into extremely different forms of art all over the world. In northeastern Zambia, the Tabwa â€Å"once covered themselves from head to foot with scarification† (Roberts 1988:41). The women of the Tabwa began receiving elaborate marks on their face, chest, and backs when they were young girls; it sometimes was continued at other points in a woman’s life (Roberts 1988:43) such as courting rituals and for woman wishing to bear a child. Male sculptors would trace designs and make incisions on the lesser intimate parts of the body; they left the rest for the women to do. ‘Tabwa women used razors to slit skin [that had been] plucked up with a fishhook or arrowhead. These incisions were then rubbed with soot from a pot bottom, an irritant that produced the desired raised cicatrices† (Roberts 1988:44). There were several reasons that this tradition was done, different to every age and gender in the tribe. Young women went through this process in order to achieve a state of perfection, which was required for those wanting to marry and have children (Roberts 1988:45). Scarification is a form of body art that was used in several tribes because according to their customs â€Å"beauty is not physically innate, but rather a function of the girl’s inscriptions† (Roberts 1988:45). Not only the Tabwa, scarification was used in such tribes as the Ga’anda and the Tiv; all the tribes have distinctly different purposes for doing this, but the process and effect of the body are the same. Another form of body art is body painting, which the people of the Southeast Nuba begin at a young age; but the meanings, and time frame from when they begin decorating the body are very different between males and females. The males paint themselves from the ages of 12 to 27 (Faris 1988:31). Typically, they only paint during the down time after the harvest season and before the next years planting begins. This is the time that the males are less involved in mandatory and productive activities; they spend their supplementary time with festive activities such as dance and sport participation. The restrictions placed on the men by their age, most importantly deal with the color that they use on their body—for example â€Å" only the older age groups are eligible to use the greatest elaboration in color, including the deep black and yellow [colors, that are] prohibited to younger grades†(Faris 1988:32). The change in elaboration allowed on the body does not coincide with any physiological changes, rather, it corresponds with changes â€Å"in productive status or sport† (Faris 1988:32). As they move up in grades from young laborers that answer to the elders, to mature men that own their own property, farm and family, their elaborate painting ability increases. The elders though, do not decorate their bodies; rather, they delegate and lead rituals for the younger men and enforce the rules of allowed color use. Therefore, the male body painting shows their progression thru ones life stages. The women of Southeast Nuba, â€Å"from the age of six years, until consummation of marriage, oil and ochre [their bodies] daily, in colors [that are] appropriate to their patri-clan section† (Faris 1988:34). After childbirth, they may continue to wear some oil and ochre on their shoulders. The personal body art of women is strictly related to the physiological changes that occur as a women goes through life, and are fixed around body scarification as a way of showing her changes. A woman’s scarification is so important, that â€Å"if a husband refuses to pay for a scarring specialist, a woman may seek a lover who will do so, and her first marriage will end† (Faris 1988:35). Unlike the males elaborate body art, a woman’s body art is simple, but it accumulates over her life-span and is very standardized, while a male’s body art is constantly changing. Body painting, tattooing and scarification thus far had been tools used by individuals to beautify their body and elevate their status within their tribe; this is not the case with all societies. In several other cultures, tattoos have been used in a form of branding, which is quite the opposite. Though tattooing and branding are â€Å"similar in that both involve the insertion of pigments under the skin to create permanent marks†, branding is implemented in order to lower an individuals status, to punish for crimes committed, to identify slaves, but most importantly, to eliminate personal identity (Schildkrout 2004:323). â€Å"The immutable alteration of human skin by branding needs to be considered in relation to, but ought not be confused with, tattooing† (Bianchi 1988:27). Two recent studies originating in South Africa elaborate on this subject, reporting on the political influence of tattooing â€Å"as a means of social control† (Schildkrout 2004:330). They site examples from Zambia in which a medical practitioner travels around to villages â€Å"in which witch craft accusations have been common†¦to inoculate people against people against witch craft† (Schildkrout 2004:331). The villagers would â€Å"submit to bodily inspections†, they were then treated â€Å"by getting numbers tattooed on their arms† (Schildkrout 2004:331). This is disturbingly reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps when an unfathomable number of Jewish people lost their personal identities and became known as only a number in the system to be disposed of. This â€Å"symbolic denial of personhood† served as a system â€Å"of control and surveillance† (Schildkrout 2004:323). This system of control was also imposed by â€Å"authoritarian regimes† in Southeast Asia (Schildkrout 2004:323). The Zhou and Ming Dynasties branded criminals as a form of punishment with â€Å"extensive, often full-body tattoos, with elaborate pictorial imagery as well as written inscriptions† (Schildkrout 2004:324) portraying their crime. This form of tattooing is definitely contrary to traditional methods. Similarly in Brazil, branding was used to mark convicts by the penal authorities. Penal tattoos derived their power from subjugation of the marked convicts. The humiliation of being visibly branded was a significant component of the convict’s punishment. In an act of resistance, those that had been branded â€Å"were known to reclaim their bodies by writing over the inscriptions or by displaying them in new social situations† (Schildkrout 2004:324). The branded, therefore, became the empowered, restoring the function of the tattoo to being personally-motivated. This personal motivation is perhaps most notable in Western cultures, specifically North America. In America, the Native Americans used body painting in many ways, usually connected with ethnic identity, social roles or marital status (Rubin 1988:179). The Natives also used the body as a canvas in ritualistic ceremonies, on warriors going into battle and for the beautification of their women. When the Europeans discovered America, they brought with them slaves from Africa and they introduced branding of the slaves into the American culture. After the civil war, when the slaves had been freed, branding was still embedded in American culture through groups of people including gang members and convicts. Though â€Å"branding is often associated with involuntary marking and the denial of personhood†, it has also â€Å"been adopted in contemporary Western body culture as an assertion of group identity, for example in college fraternities† (Schildkrout 2004:323). Tattoos were also prevalent in other parts of America, including Alaska. Among the Eskimos â€Å"[t]he function of these art forms [was] – essentially manifesting one’s place or role within the hierarchy of hunting life† (Gritton 1988:190). With the introduction and adaptation of the western civilization in Alaskan culture, â€Å"the marks of a hunter or hunter’s wife served no purpose in their new lives and were understandably abandoned† (Gritton 1988:190). The function of body art and tattooing has been Americanized, evolving from its native origins to incorporate self expression. This self expression has mushroomed from a manor of identifying oneself to a way of gaining attention through shock value. Though ever-changing, all forms of body art mentioned play enormous roles in the lives of people. Certain non-Western cultures are based around the ability to use skin as a visible way of defining status or bettering their self-image, in order to attract companions. So the artists who are allowed to perform the act of adorning bodies with different designs are regarded as having a very important place in the society. They are â€Å"scarring specialist† (Faris 1988:35), â€Å"body artists† (Drewal 1988:84), but most importantly, they are known as â€Å"[the] one-who-creates- art† (Drewal 1988:84). In the non-Native American culture, however, the general attitude towards tattoo artist in present-day American culture is less than appreciative. Extreme critics even characterize tattooist as opportunist, exclusively seeking monetary gain (Sanders 1988:229). â€Å"The tattooist interest in artistry and control is often in conflict with his profit orientation†, revealing the major flaw within the American society (Sanders 1988:229). This is the major difference in western and non-western cultures. Body tattoos in western society are an object to be purchased. Americans obtain tattoos in the same manner that they acquire a new Louis Vuitton handbag. They purchase them as accessories, which is in stark contrast to the non-western cultures, who acquire tattoos as an essential ritual in their society. With this is mind, the process in which American’s purchases body art seems slightly ridiculous. Tattoo artists often complain of the unwillingness of customers to spend the quoted amount of money for â€Å"a tattoo [they] are going to wear for the rest of [their] life† (Sanders 1988:229). It is more acceptable in American culture to invest in short term materialistic purchases, therefore the legitimate tattoo artists are constantly being monitored and regimented under strict laws imposed by the government. Despite the absurdity of the purchasing process, the reasoning that propels the American society to obtain tattoos is just as flawed. Some reasons people give to explain permanently marking their skin include, â€Å"they were drunk, it’s a macho thing, to fit in with a crowd or even worse, for no reason at all† (DeMello 1995:42). Western society seems to have a complete disregard for the spiritual origins of body art. Tattoo artist are even witness to clients’ apathy, avoiding â€Å"working on people who are obviously under the influence of alcohol† (Sanders 1988:225). Where once there was a ceremonious celebration deeply rooted in spiritualism, in American society the only ritualistic ceremony is the receiving of a piece of paper on how to care for the recently acquired body art. This apathetic attitude of Americans is perhaps derived from the renouncing majority of the population. This bias stems from â€Å"very early ‘regulations’ [including] Moses’ remarks in Leviticus 19:28 forbidding any cuttings in the flesh or the printing of any marks† (Armstrong 2005:39). Since tattoos â€Å"were not sanctioned by the church† the profile for the tattooed archetype became unconventional (Schildkrout 2004:325). Christian belief has been adapted to the masses, forcing those who are tattooed into rebellion. The majority of people adopting body art include â€Å"bikers, convicts, and other ‘low lives’† (DeMello 1995:40). In Western society â€Å"the idea that the unmarked body as a sign of God’s work was linked to the Protestant reformation† and â€Å"the idea that body markings were a sign of savagery goes back even earlier† ( Schildkrout 2004:324). This is ironic considering tattoos in earlier cultures signified positions of high status. Perhaps the only entity that ties these drastic cultures together is the desire to increase their inherited beauty. â€Å"If the body is – metaphorically – a site of inscription to various degrees for various theorist, then cosmetic surgery can be seen, at one level, as an example of the literal and explicit enactment of this process of inscription† ( Schildkrout 2004:320), which is also seen in the aforementioned tribes with the rituals of scarification. DeMello also agrees that along with tattooing and piericing, that cosmetic surgery is seen as a form of â€Å"body modification† (DeMello 1995:37). â€Å"Not only does the tattooed skin negotiate between the individual and society and between different social groups, but also mediates relations between persons and spirits, the human and the divine† (Schildkrout 2004:321). Body art is a tradition that extends throughout the barriers of the world and although the forms in which they are found may be different, the idea of using your body as a canvas is universal. Although recently, several anthropologists agreed and have begun to examine body art more closely, looking at it â€Å"as a microcosm of society† (Schildkrout 2004:328), Roberts still believes that â€Å"there can be no ultimate explanation of symbolism† (Roberts 1988:51). He claims that â€Å"the blazes on trees in the Ndembu forest will remain many years after their purpose and meaning are forgotten. So it is with other inscriptions† (Roberts 1988:51). This is exemplified in the woman who endured the agonizing pain of her scarification to instigate a new chapter in her life. Nevertheless, soon after her body is placed into the ground, her skin will no longer be a visible indication of who she once was. She will become a memory and her body will no longer be used as a canvas.

LLM DEGREE MARITIME LAW COLLISION SCENARIO Essay

LLM DEGREE MARITIME LAW COLLISION SCENARIO - Essay Example The second rule that relates to steam ships required steam vessels on different courses to pass on different port sides to reduce the risk of collision. The London Trinity House also laid down a rule for vessels under sail, which required sailing vessels on the tack to give way for a vessel on the starboard tack. This was followed by a collusion of the two Trinity rules of steam vessels through an 1846 act of parliament that saw their inclusion in the Navigation act. In 1858, there was an addition to the Navigation act which saw the addition of regulations on colored side lights for sailing vessels and fog signals for both sailing and steam vessels. In 1863 however, there was a complete change to the Navigation act which saw a new set of rules drawn by the British Board of Trade in consolation with the French government: vessels that were meeting end-on or near end –on were to alter their course to starboard. Every vessel that was overtaking another was to keep away from the v essel being overtaken. By the end of the year 1864, these regulations and others were adopted by over 30 maritime countries including the United States and Germany as Maritime articles.1 1Simon Baughen, Shipping Law (London: Routledge, 2009), 21. The year 1880 saw minor changes to the articles with a requirement for whistle signals to be given by steam vessels as a way of indicating the direction they were taking and therefore avoid collision. 1884 also saw a minor addition of an article that specified the signals that could be used by a vessel in distress, thus bringing the total number of articles to 27. In 1889 for the first time, there was a conference in Washington that sought to consider the regulations for collision at sea. New provisions were put in place requiring a stand on vessel to keep her speed and course. Vessels were also to avoid crossing in front of the other vessel and steamship permission to carry a second white light was also included. Another Maritime conferenc e was held in 1910, which mainly insisted on the Washington regulations with only some minor changes. Another international conference on Safety of life at Sea was held in 1948, which saw minor revisions which came into effect in 1954. This was followed by another international conference in 1960 that saw an addition of a new paragraph in the exiting regulations and better definition of the wordings. In 1972 COLREGs, the article was designed to replace the collision Regulations of 1960. There were several minor changes that were made in the Collision acts in the years following 1972 until in 1995 when the Merchant Shipping Act was introduced, that sought to consolidate the shipping acts from 1894-1995 and other enactments. Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at sea (1972) governs the Merchant Shipping Act on all water crafts, either personal or public, which is classified as a ship.2 2Susan Hodges, Law Of Marine Insurance (London: Routledge, 1996), 23. Main 1. Who do colregs apply to? This is well stipulated in rule of the preventing sea collisions convention which defines the application of the rules as: these rules apply to all vessels upon the high seas and the waters that are connected with navigable seagoing vessels. Nothing in the rules so specified shall interfere with the special rules that have been made by any authority. Nothing in the rules shall interfere with the special rules that may have been made by the government or any particular state. Traffic

Semantic Web and Implications Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Semantic Web and Implications - Essay Example This paper stresses that you would also like to know how long the respective shops are open that day, hence, you start surfing the various websites of dealers and compile gathered information in a list. Although, the websites of the various dealers are designed very differently, it is still easy to gain information such as at the opening times of a branch. Gathering the list is a bit cumbersome, but an intellectually easy task to be accomplished. It is difficult to automatically retrieve content from various web shops, such as information like sales price are all formatted differently and embedded in different places. The Semantic Web helps to unify this complicated data in the background, without changing the layout. According to the discussion Semantic Web Semantic Web is the extension of current web which is better at enabling the computers and individuals to work in cooperation. User locates the information on the internet with the help of two main tools, search engines and catalogues. Catalogues were designed by humans who were accurate in terms of results but search engines were designed to elsewhere. Search engine skims the internet websites and searches for changed pages and mechanisms of indexing. The catalogues store the information on the basis of the usage of the words. The inability to comprehend the words and identify the relationship while searching for query is the drawback identified in search engines due to which semantic web is taking place. Anyone who enters the phrase sequence "Sales for Siemens in Germany in 2005" into a search engine receives all possible outcomes. However, no accurate answers are ever retrieved. Be it Altavista, Yahoo or Google - no search engine today is a ble to "understand" such a query. Search robots react to hidden tags on websites called metadata. If they do not properly classify it comes to "irrelevant results" or to a "too large outcome space†. Dissatisfied users complain about search engines, according to market research firm Jupiter Research, "Dr. Know", the all-knowing oracle of Steven Spielberg's "AI (Artificial Intelligence)", today's world of search is still far away. In the science fiction film, the protagonists asked a question, and if "Dr. Know" did not have an answer right, they simply asked again and marginalized by the context of the question further and further. Semantic technologies allowed computers to process the content of music, images and videos in a better way. Semantically means that content does not only have a meaning, but is also related to other meanings, thus forming hierarchical classes. Future of Semantic Web and Challenges The concept is regarded as an impractical concept presented by the Web Specialists.  

Write a paper which reflects your understanding of the relation Essay

Write a paper which reflects your understanding of the relation between religious views of creation and the way that humans based on these views think - Essay Example The definite stand of Christian left for instance, is to go for same-sex marriage, has become controversial, contrary to the Christian right’s beliefs, but this group has remarkable explanation appealing to the human intellect and reason for justification. According to the Christian left, God has created everyone equal and it is the ultimate goal of Jesus Christ to liberate the oppressed and give freedom to those who are in bondage of sin. From their own interpretation of some Biblical texts associated with this thought, Christian left remakably reflected that Jesus would want to end the oppression against the third gender, and so legalizing the same-sex marriage as they believe would substantially end the repression against the homosexuals. Christian views nowadays are therefore trying to create a way to justify the human actions, unlike from the past which the literal interpretation of the Bible was most likely emphasized. Today, Christian views are still remarkably placing higher authority on God’s Word, but some views are susceptible to create justification leading to the belief system that is highly intellectualize and rich in substantial reasons. However, no matter how diverse these doctrines are, Christians have been united with the basic idea that God from the start would want to ensure a good plan for his creation, but as the humanity failed, he wants restoration and this was made possible through the death of Christ at the cross. This is the basic foundation of the Christian belief, as Christians remain to believe that God is the ultimate creator and source of everything. Furthermore, as creator of all things, God allows calamities at present to inflict remarkable consequences and pains on the humanity. A Christian view concerning this may lead to the very characteristic Jesus would want to show to the mankind. With his

Why does America have a two-party system Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Why does America have a two-party system - Essay Example The classification of the party system is on the grounds of the number of relevant parties and the amount of fragmentation that is seen in the governing bodies (McKeever and Davies 2012). A two-party system is seen where two major political parties are at the time dominating the votes. Within the two-party system, one of the parties gets to hold the majority in the legislation (Bailey et al 2010). The United States is noted to have started the system of having two parties in its governance. There are many reasons as to why it does continue to have its system like that (McKeever and Davies 2012). When the history of the United States is considered, it is found out that its roots are based on the two-party system itself. This force behind the form of tradition, where that the state itself began with, has become very important to the Americans. It has had a lot of influence on the American government (Gerring 2001). Other nations have numerous political parties whereby the candidates ge t to be elected to the offices, and when the data is analyzed, minority parties give out great contribution to this. Over the course of political history in the United States, minor third parties have come up several times (Bibby and Maisel 2003). For example, the Poor Man’s party, the liberty party, and the free soil party have come up within the American history and get to influence the politics of America slightly. But, the worst part is that the names of most of them get forgotten easily and very quickly (Bibby and Maisel 2003). Two-party system is the only system where the county gets to have ideological parties with broad political beliefs and good values that can see the country forward to a better stand (Herrnson and  Green 2002). The minor parties only tend to be economic protests, and this is not what the nation needs at the moment (Campbell 2006). It needs to see progress from one stage to another in terms of a better solution to the problems and matters they are facing (Bibby and Maisel 2003). The minor parties do act as splinter parties in most situations. This paper is going to analyze the reasons why United States of America still has two party systems. Historical influence When the past political system is reviewed, the progressive party of 1912 splinted from the republicans gaining 88 electoral votes. Later on the same progressive party of 1924 gained 13 votes after splinting from the republicans (McSweene and Zvesper 1991). These groups always do not take up the goal of winning the election and transforming the nation, but conversely, they concentrate on changing the view of the current state of the electoral votes (Bowles 1993). One of the major reason as to why United States of America still continues to engage in the Two-party system is due to the reason of the great force of historical tradition (Sundquist 1983; Smith 2003). For a very long time, since the nation started with the Two-party system, the anti- federalists and the fe deralists have become used to the system so much that they cannot let go of it (Milkis and Rhodes 2007). When this system is trace, it is found that there have been five distinct party systems. These are: first party system, which was during 1796 to 1816: federalists and Jeffersonian republicans; second party system, which was during 1840 to 1896: democrats and Whigs; third party system, which was during 1860 to 1896; democrats and republicans; the fourth party system occurred during 1896 to 1932: republicans and democrats, and finally the fifth party system includes the democrats and the republicans: from 1932 to date (Sartori and  Mair 2005). American political Beliefs and Values One of the other factors which have greatly inclined the two party

Bond ratings Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Bond ratings - Essay Example Representatives of the rating agencies have consistently stated that no precise formula is used to set a firm's rating; all the factors listed, plus others, are taken into account, but not in a mathematically precise manner. Statistical studies have borne out this contention, for researchers who have tried to predict bond ratings on the basis of quantitative data had had only limited success, indicating that the agencies use subjective judgment when establishing a firm's rating. When the bond ratings get adjusted downwards, because most bonds are purchased by institutional investors rather than individuals, and many institutions are restricted to investment-grade securities, many potential purchasers will not be allowed to buy them. As a result of their higher risk and more restricted market, when the bond ratings get adjusted downwards, the bonds have higher required rates of return as risk premium (Weston, Besley, and Brigham 707-708). 3. Whenever the gong rate of interest is equal to the coupon rate, a bond will sell at its par. Interest rates do change over time, but the coupon rate remains fixed after the bond has been issued. Whenever the going rate of interest is greater than the coupon rate, a bond's price will fall below its par value. ... 4. The yield to maturity is the average rate of return earned on a bond if it is held to maturity (Weston, Besley, and Brigham 291). To calculate the yield to maturity, the following equation could be solved (Weston, Besley, and Brigham 291). = C (PVIFAk, n) + M (PVIFk,n) Where V = Bond value C = coupon payments k = yield to maturity M = par value of the bond n = number of years before the bond matures K could be solved by using a financial calculator or by substituting values for PVIFA and PVIF until a pair that works is found so that the present value of the interest payments combined with the present value of the repayment of the face value at maturity equals the current price of the bond (Weston, Besley, and Brigham 291). Alternatively, an estimate of the yield to maturity could be calculated with the following equation (Weston, Besley, and Brigham 291). 5. The nominal yield to maturity is the contracted, or quoted, interest rate which is used to compute the interest paid per period. The effective yield to maturity is the annual rate of interest actually being earned, as opposed to the quoted rate, considering the compounding of interest. The investor should use the effective yields to maturity when deciding between corporate bonds and other securities of similar risk. This is because throughout the world economy, different compounding periods are used for different types of investments. For example, bank accounts generally compute interest on a daily basis; most bonds pay interest semiannually; and stocks generally pay dividends quarterly. If the investor is to properly compare securities with different compounding

Women's Rights in India Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Women's Rights in India - Research Paper Example Some held positions of seers and sages. However, there were practices that undermined women rights, for example, forceful immolation of a widow on her husband’s funeral and Purdah which imposed restrictions on women. It required women to cover themselves excessively hence they could not interact freely. In Devadasis, where women were â€Å"married’ to the temple or a deity, cases of sexual exploitation were reported (Menon-Sen and Kumar 113). According to Kashyap (115), women are currently holding positions as the president, the speaker, prime minister and opposition leader among other positions. According to the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts, a third (33%) of the political sits in all locally elected bodies is reserved for women. Panchayat Raj institutions have produced more than a million women who have joined politics. The percentage of women active in various levels of politics has notably increased. Women from scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs) Institutions have secured 65% and 54% sits respectively, an excess to the allocated 33%. A better representation of women increases the chances of their issues being highlighted. However, women still experience representation in decision-making and governance. Male dominion in politics is still present. Whenever women make initiatives, these initiatives are not accepted in politics. Democracy is the best tool for protecting human rights. Such political subordination has undermined efforts towards the realisation of full human rights by women in the India (Sood 32). Women in India have been allowed to participate in education, science and technology. This has enabled them to find their way into top government and leadership positions. They also work in other sectors within the country and abroad. The government has taken steps to ensure an improvement of women education since

Machiavellianism Dissertation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Machiavellianism - Dissertation Example 2.Machiavelli notes that huge-spending by political leaders has a significant influence, power and domination over the economical administrators. The application is still widely relevant in the contemporary setting especially during the general election campaigns. Retired leaders for example George Bush, Bill Clinton and the current leader, President Obama; rose to their presidential thrown due to their huge economic muscle they had during their presidential campaigns. Obama used multiple fundraisers and donations from well wishers which exceeded the then presidential hopeful, Mr. McCain’s financial power. Mr. Obama’s vast financial power enabled him to mobilize multiple people and initiatives, which propelled him to win the elections. 3.(a)Based on Machiavelli the Prince applies Morality to balance the sociopolitical interests where people are accustomed to. Morality is essential for the structuring of the political system. He further noted that moral corruption assist s in the realization of social benefits like security and stability.(b) Machiavelli asserted that Private Morality and Public Morality must be evaluated differently in order for the Prince to rule effectively. The Prince should not only care about his reputation but also act immorally when the need arises. As a result, Morality should constitute force in order to achieve political stability in legal and structural institutions. 4. Machiavelli displays an autocratic attitude towards the role of Religion and its importance to the government.

The Normandy landings in Defeating Germany in World War Two Essay Example for Free

The Normandy landings in Defeating Germany in World War Two Essay 1. Using source A and your own knowledge explain why the D-day was such an important event of World War two? D-Day was such an important event of World War Two for numerous amounts of reasons. The term D-Day actually means The Day. As said by Major Elson, it is the day where everyone does something. Major Elson fought on the Italian front, which is demonstrated on the map. D-Day was to be June 1944 minutes between night turning to morning on the 6th. The Germans had occupied France and France needed Britain, Canada and America to come together to regain the French territory for them. As well as this, Russia was fighting of Germany in the East and needed the Allies to relieve pressure. D-Day was a very important part into ending the war but other factors include the Battle of the Atlantic, the fighting in North Africa and the Battle of Britain. Arriving at Normandy using the Mulberry harbours, the Allies captured all of the five designated beaches (Omaha, Juno, Gold, Sword and Utah) despite strong German coastal defences. This is mainly due to the opposing armies having no idea to where the Allied forces would be landing because no place in France were called those names. The map shows where the troops entered France and this also clearly enforces the sheer scale of the invasion and its importance into keeping it top secret. Meanwhile, parachutists were flown in nearly 20 minutes after mid-night to capture Pegasus Bridge on the River Orne and Vier. This was important as it prevented German counter attacks from transporting troops to the beaches. As quick as they could, the Americans advanced all the way up to Cherbourg and captured it. Meanwhile, the British struggled pushing through Norman hedgerows which proved excellent cover for the defending German formations but the Allies succeeded in liberating the city of Caen in the end. This then led to the captivity of the capital of Normandy, Flank Con. However, with the capture of Saint-Là ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ and later Avranches in mid-July, the way was open for an Allied breakout into open country, an opportunity seized by General Omar Bradley, commander of the 12th US Army Group, who early in August ordered his forces to advance to the east. Hitler refused to allow the Wehrmacht to abandon Normandy and ordered a German armoured counter-attack against the allied forces near Avranches. On August 7 the German offensive was defeated and they soon found themselves in a trap as Canadian and United States divisions began to close in on both sides. On August 19th the allied forces had closed the gap at Falaise, trapping about 12 German divisions, who were subjected to merciless air and artillery bombardment. Hitler now ordered his forces in the gap to escape: about 30,000 did so, while 50,000 were captured by the Allies. The Germans were forced back by sheer weight of numbers by the Allies and by August 25th 1944 Paris had been liberated. After this, the Allies advanced too far, too fast to the border of France and Germany and so the Germans were able to push back one area of the line of troops, enforcing a bulge. This was known as The Battle of the Bulge. The Allies overcome this. The Allied advance in the west and south through Italy coupled with the Soviet advance in the east led to the overall defeat of Germany on May 7th 1945 11 months after D-Day began. The map demonstrates all of the above happenings and the names of the commanders in charge show their line of advancement into Germany. This map also, clearly shows us just how much land had been covered and that the Allies werent just invading from Normandy but from the Mediterranean, from the east (USSR) and from Italy. However, if it werent for the declaration of operation Overlord at Normandy then it is possible to say that attacks elsewhere would not have taken place. The map helps me explain my theory; you can see an awful lot of troops coming from all directions heading towards Germany but the majority are advancing from Britain. Thus meaning that without the attack from Normandy, it wouldnt relieve pressure from the eastern front with USSR and in general, the Allies wouldnt have won the Battle of Normandy. A key factor is that the Battle of Normandy was the beginning of the end. It was a turning point in the war and I can make a judgement from my evidence that the Battle of Normandy was a key factor into the defeat of Germany (Victory in Europe) and possibly to ending the war altogether. 2. Study sources B and C. Compare these judgements on the importance of D-Day in the outcome of the Second World War. From studying both sources, I can see that they differ considerably. Both sources say the importance of D-day. Source C tells the problem of getting over the river Rhine and the vigorous German counter attacks. Source B doesnt have a particular author but it was written for the Telegraph Newspaper marking the 50th anniversary to commemorate D-Day. There are two key facts to touch upon in this subject area. Firstly, I have recognised that this is a British newspaper and therefore its information would be from a British perspective. By this, I mean that it will say only what the British public wants to hear especially on the anniversary. The anniversary is a celebration of freedom and victory and commemoration so for a British newspaper, the British public is not going to want to hear about D-Days flaws. Secondly, this is secondary evidence. This means the writer wasnt there to actually see what happened- he/she is just going on the basis of what they have heard and researched. However, this is the same for source C so there is no difference in that respect. Regardless, a British historian (Jack Watson) writes source C. Therefore, this man is obviously bound to know his stuff as his career is based around the acknowledgement of history. Thus meaning that he isnt just purely writing to commemorate the anniversary of D-Day, he is writing it because he is interested in it. Maybe this is why source C is far much more detailed than source B. From reading source B, it had become clear to me that the way in which the text had been written; it comes across although D-Day was achieved in such little time. This is true but the advancement of the troops from Normandy to Paris did come with a bit of a struggle at some areas (e.g. British troops capturing Caen) and so it wasnt as straightforward as the writer is making out. I think the writer has done this to give the British public what they want to hear and therefore will sell more copies. Another possibility is that the writer just needed to summarise D-Day and just produce an overview. Source C explains that it wasnt just down to Normandy that D-Day took place. Watson says how paratroopers landed in Holland, resistance broken in Italy and fighting in Germany. This means the historian has studied a broader area to the happenings of D-day rather then just focusing on France like source B. I think this is because people, who read his writings, are going to be more inclined to see D-Day from all angles of perspective. I believe people reading Watsons work would like a less judgmental and less biased view to the events of D-Day. Source B illustrates a bit more on how important Normandy was and how we commemorate it today. I do think that the writer of source B is somewhat biased and possibly holding back factual information which would probably give us a different perspective on D-Day as he has just wrote it to please, however, this leaves this piece of evidence to some extent, being unreliable. Source C, nevertheless, has more factual evidence and includes as much information about D-Day in as little words as possible for it to be a more reliable source. It takes into account the German resistance and understands the Allies didnt gain liberation easily. 3. Study sources D and E. Use details from the cartoons and your wider knowledge in your answer. What do these cartoons suggest about the reasons why the allies defeated Germany? There are many reasons as to why the allies defeated Germany. Source D illustrates one aspect. Source D shows Adolf Hitler ordering troops to invade the USSR but they turn into graves instead. From my own knowledge I know that this occurred on June 22nd 1942. Hitler envisioned it as short decisive war with USSR reaching a spectacular triumph. It started well for the German army who successfully employed the blitzkrieg tactic again. The Germans had a spectacular rate of progress into the USSR with the Panzer tank regiments moving up to twenty miles a day. By September1941 the German army had reached the Ukraine farmlands and had surrounded the city of Leningrad. This was the height of German success from this point onwards the German defeat became more and more probable. The German forces were unprepared for the extreme Russian winter with temperatures reaching as low as -40 degrees Celsius. The Russians used a huge evacuation policy, which involved evacuating whole armaments factories to the east of the USSR. This ensured that even though they had lost a large amount of territory they still had the means with which to fight back. USSR was well organised because at the time of signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, they realised they couldnt possibly fight a war as they werent ready. Therefore, this treaty gave USSR time to prepare, and so they did. Consequently, this Soviet cartoon depicts basically how Hitler sent his troops to death. As well as defeats in the east, there are other areas in which Germany fell. Between the years of 1939 and 1941 the United States of America had played a supposedly neutral role in the war. While not actually declaring war on the Germans the USA was supplying the British with everything they needed to keep the war effort going. The American role in the war changed on the 7th December 1941 when the Japanese attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. The American President Roosevelt used this attack to swing public opinion in favour of declaration of war. The USA declared war on Japan and three days later Hitlers Germany declared war on the USA. This declaration of war by Germany was a decisive point in the whole war. It has long been wondered why Hitler chose to declare war on the Americans. His forces were just suffering their first defeats in the USSR and the German army was already stretched on a number of different fronts. This clearly shows that the Germans were failing before they had begun. I believe this relates to the cartoon; the troops in the picture are defeated before they have even begun. As if Germany hadnt enough on their hands and hadnt taken into account the loss of men in the cold winter months in Russia, they continued and they reached the key industrial and railway centre of Stalingrad in August 1942. A bitter street battle ensued which continued until February 1943. Eventually the Germans were defeated in the Battle of Stalingrad one of the fiercest battles in the whole war. The Russian victory destroyed the invincible reputation of the German army. The defeat also destroyed the German morale because of the large losses of men and because of the fact that the supposed master race had been defeated by a lower race in the Slavs. This obviously didnt give the Germans the courage to go on. Not to mention, an awful lot of the German army was foreign so they wasnt as eager to fight as its not their country they are defending. Germany was a country practically on its own. Whereas on the other side there was Canadians, Russian, American and British all fighting on the same team with a greater number of troops. The Atlantic Ocean was a key battleground in the Second World War because of the large number of allied supplies travelling from the USA to Britain and the USSR. The Germans had had control of the Atlantic since the beginning of the war with the number of U-boats losses being very minimal compared to the number of Allied shipping lost. But by mid 1943 technological advances allowed the Allies to effectively win the Battle of the Atlantic. Some of these advances included better radar detection systems and longer-range aircraft. The victory in the Atlantic meant that Britain was no longer blockaded. The Germans also lost the war in the air. Over a period of two years between 1942 and 1944 the Allies mounted ever more devastating air attacks on German cites. The Allies were able to drop a far greater tonnage of bombs over German cites than the Luftwaffe could drop over British cites because of the development of a heavy bomber by the allies. The continuing air attacks slowly gained the Allies complete air superiority which was key for the D-Day landings in June 1944. These are all the events that lead up to June 6th (D-Day) and all of these links in with the effect of D-Day. In conclusion it could be argued that there were a number of different turning points in the war. On the one hand, the declaration of war by the USA, the Soviet victory in Stalingrad the Allies successful completion of Operation Overlord or when Hitler choose to declare war on the USA, could all be considered as the turning points in the war. Overall we believe that the point at which German defeat became inevitable was when Churchill and several great generals including Eisenhower and Montgomery planned the daring invasion of Normandy and put it into action. Sources D and E demonstrate this quite clearly. Source E basically shows that Stalin and a Russian soldier/general could easily roll over the Germans without much of a fuss and were defeating them generously. Germany, as illustrated above, suffered many defeats and Normandy just basically hit the nail on the head. The French were Allies with Britain and Britain was Allies with USSR and Canada and USA. I dont suppose it benefited the Axis in any way at all with the economic and industrial power of the Allies was now overwhelming. If the Germans had been fighting the British alone the war would have been one of attrition like the First World War because Britain and Germanys industrial output were equal. So with the addition of the two most industrial powers in the world in the form of the USA and the USSR the Allies could not lose. All of the previous defeats like the fighting in North Africa, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic and the fighting in the East with USSR etc. are all linked with the effect of the Battle of Normandy. On the other hand, in my opinion, if it wasnt actually for the Battle of Normandy which led to the liberation of France and the Falaise gap and so on, then Germany would of carried on capturing countries until the end. It is also possible to say that if Germany hadnt declared war on USA (for which reason we do not know) then USA might have still stayed out of the war against Germany (and only fought Japan) and also, Germany might have stood a chance of winning. But they still would have had a war on two fronts with USSR, too. Therefore, if they hadnt declared war on USSR in 1942 then they would have had more troops to give resistance on D-Day. In general, Germany didnt stand a chance as the British were sending messages to the French resistance who helped prepare for D-Day and also the British bombed Calais four times as much as they did Normandy to give Hitler the impression they were invading at Calais rather than Normandy. Therefore, Hitler sent more troops to defend Calais and this was completely unnecessary. This then meant, that on the attacks of Normandy, Hitler was unable to send troops to Normandy from Calais because the paratroopers had captured the bridges and railway lines etc. D-day was the largest invasion to be known as of yet and the Germans couldnt retaliate against 3 countries including 176,000 allied soldiers, alone-not to mention the attacks from the East. 4. Study source F. How reliable is Stalins view of the importance of D-Day? Source F may only say that one thing has been completed successfully and that is the landings on a grandiose scale. We can infer from the rest of what Stalin says that the beach landings are going quite successful as well, because he says that. I think this is a fairly trustworthy source in that Jopeph Stalin was the leader of USSR at that time. This is primary evidence and was sent only five days after the landings so the goings on was still perfectly clear in Stalins mind. Also the date is reliable because this could not have been said before D-Day as the things Stalin mentions hadnt happened yet. Also he is speaking in the present tense so it is obvious that what he is talking about is currently going on. There are several things that it does not say in the text, perhaps because Stalin does not know this, or perhaps he is holding back. He does not tell us anything about what the opposition is doing or what the planes and ships providing covering fire are doing, which could be very useful information. The bottom part of the text in bold allows us to infer several things. It tells us he is speaking personally via telegram to Churchill, from this we can infer that as he is writing in the form of a telegram he may not want to mention a few things. He obviously will not criticise Churchills operation, as they are allies. Russia needed Britain, USA and Canada to relive pressure from the east and for Stalin to be congratulating Churchill on the success of it must mean that D-Day had relieved pressure and so Stalins telegram is of some great significance and importance. At face value it is impossible to judge the importance of the D-Day landings from just studying Source F alone. Inconclusively, by making careful inferences we can think that it was obviously a great success, for Stalin to send a telegram to Churchill congratulating him and saying history will record this deed as an achievement of the highest order. It is very difficult to analyse any resistance from the Germans from this source and whether USSR had any part in D-Day or whether D-Day was purely to do with anything else like the fighting in Italy. I know, however, that there was from my own knowledge but this source doesnt imply anything of the kind-5 days into the D-Day landings and Stalin is congratulating him already, before they have really begun. So in that sense, Stalins view isnt that reliable in the importance of D-day. On the other hand, Stalin wrote it so it has to be reliable-it is first hand evidence. He was there to witness the goings on at the time you cant get much closer to it than that and he shows his support to Churchill. Although Russia signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Germany, it was under a mutual understanding and this didnt make them Allies, it merely kept the peace for a little while. So there would be no reason for this source not to be unreliable as they were Allies. Stalin also proves from the Pact that he wasnt at all with Germany because he says the hysterical Hitler boasted for two years that he would invade England across the channel but could not even make up his mind even to attempt carrying out the threat. This means one of a few things. Firstly, Stalin stitched up Hitler to Churchill about Hitlers threat to invade England. Secondly, he criticises him, calling him hysterical. This clearly states he was never a German ally, he just used the Nazi-Soviet Pact as much as Hitler did. Stalin was Allies with Churchill and Churchill was the prominent figure who arranged D-Day. Therefore, his evidence has to be somewhat reliable and relevant to the importance of D-Day. 5. Study sources G and H. Which of these sources is more useful as evidence in assessing the significance of D-Day? On the one hand, Source H is obviously written by one of the allies rather than Germany, as it does not say as such. I know this because the way in which Geoffrey Elliot refers to the event is on a positive note. If a German wrote it, I would expect it to be somewhat negative as a pose to praising the significance of D-Day. Additionally, another factor as to why source H is useful to the significance of D-Day is that it recognises the obstacles the Allies faced. This is because most sources that are written by a member of the Allies country normally exclude the difficulties they faced and just note how greatly they succeeded. Members of the Axis countries usually criticise D-Day and find faults on every account in its events. Therefore, this source, in that sense, is exceedingly reliable as it looks at both perspectives. From my own knowledge, this is to some extent unusual. It states that a change in weather could have destroyed. Meaning that the weather made it harder for the allies to get on the beaches and off load their equipment. Despite this, they did it even though they were forced to cancel out the Mulberry Harbour at Omaha beach due to the weather. On the other hand, source G was written by a historian and it is obvious that he is bound to know the significance of D-Day thoroughly. The writing in bold at the bottom reads that Taylor has studied English history from 1914-1945. This means that he has studied both of the wars (First World War and the Second World War) and knows all knowledge he can on the subject. He would be able to see how significant D-Day was out of the Second World War in greater detail even if it secondary evidence rather than primary. Furthermore, Source G is less biased on the count that it involves the aid of Russia and America. This is great considering other evidence written by British historians, that I have studied seems to out-rule the Russian help and sometimes fails to mention about the Canadians and Americans. Conjointly, this source looks at the events leading up to D-Day and not just D-Day itself. For example, it says that Dunkirk was the period when Britain stood alone. This signifies one of two things. Firstly, Taylor is not just looking at the successes, as being alone isnt much of a success. Secondly, Dunkirk isnt part of D-Day. This can be seen as a good or a bad thing. Bad, because he isnt focusing himself on D-Day and this is what is required for me in order to assess the usefulness of this source to the significance of D-Day. Good, because he is analysing other factors into the vents leading up to Normandy and other factors that helped the invasion succeed. Source G also gives more precise key names and dates throughout the text. This relevant because this shows the historian knows what he is writing about. To add to this, I know for a fact that it is written by a British person because it says so at the bottom in bold. However, this is can mean that the historian is more inclined to be biased but being a British historian, it is expected. Taylor doesnt look at D-Day from a German prospective, given that it was published 20 years after the war. Instead, it sees D-Day as a final victory. They may be his opinion, but it was nearly a year after D-Day that the Germans surrendered so it wasnt exactly a final victory. To analyse exactly what source is more useful than the other to the significance of D-Day I must study their flaws. Source H appears to be more of an overview than anything else. This is satisfactory if its just for the 50th anniversary but compared with source G, with a lot more detail than itself, it is not good. This brings me on to the fact that it is a commemorative article produced for a magazine on the 50th anniversary. An editor who briefly researched the events of D-day produced this article and probably doesnt particularly focus on this subject matter. This is my interpretation of what I thought after reading the text. But as a pose to source G, which is written by a historian whose job and interest is to research the wars thoroughly, it doesnt compare. Therefore, in my opinion, I personally feel that Source G is more useful to the significance of D-Day and the evidence above backs up my theory as a whole. 6. Why do you think sources I and J disagree about the defeat of Germany and the end of World War Two? When one looks at sources I and J, we can see they are very different when juxtaposed with all the other sources and different compared with themselves. The only point at where they have something in common is that both sources are secondary evidence. Source I is written by Yves Leccouturier who is from Normandy. I know this because it says so in bold at the bottom of the source. The fact that he is from Normandy is a great factor to his perspective of the attack itself. He isnt going to be bitter about the landings as the allies came to liberate France, not invade it. Therefore, he is, of course, going to be grateful towards the Allies for pushing the Germans out of France. There is additional evidence that backs up my theory behind this. He describes it as the liberation of Europe and in the outcome of the Second World War. This clearly indicates just how grateful he is and that the rest of Europe should be grateful, too as the Allies savoured them and without them, V E Day wouldnt have been achieved (Victory in Europe-of, which I believe Leccouturier is referring to). Leccouturier also believes that as a result of the landings at Normandy, the war ended (illustrates this in the quote). Both of these examples, would be key factors as to why the source was written in this manner. Another quotation in the text to back up my theory is when Leccouturier says Everyone welcomed the liberator with limitless enthusiasm. Leccouturier is also a French Historian. This helps to establish his reasons behind the source because he would know a great deal about the landings from living there and also from being a historian. He would have surely researched a great deal into the subject matter. To add to this, he is writing this source for a guidebook of the Normandy beaches for tourists. In essence, the type of tourists that are likely to visit this area of France would essentially be French, British, American and Canadian. These are the countries that were on the same side as each other and so it would be me probable for them to visit Normandy as a pose to a German citizen. Therefore, it is logical for this source to be biased, in that approach and this is another instance as to why the source is written in this form. Source J has an immensely different view on the topic. Source J is written by a Soviet historian some years after (1968) and feels very differently juxtaposed with Source I. Source J, from studying the text, appears to be bitter about the Allied troops receiving all the credit for the result and the war ending as a result of that. Source J basically writes it in this way because they dont feel recognised enough by western Allies for their efforts in the war. The Russians were the ones who requested back up from Britain and Churchill took up the request along with America and Canada. Therefore, I can see why credit goes to the Western Allies as they were the saviours but it was Russia who was fighting of German in the East in the first place. The Soviets feel forgotten it seems, from the way the source appears, that Russians just want some sort of recognition for their efforts in the outcome. In conclusion, all of the evidence above makes it clear to why the sources disagree to the defeat of Germany and the end of the Second World War. This is because the Soviet historian wring this text feels that USSR played a key part up to, on and after D-Day and that they havent received a sign of gratefulness or not enough of it from the western Allies they helped. Juxtaposed with source I, who boasts about how joyous the Normans were when the Allies landed and how the Normans welcomed the liberators with limitless enthusiasm. And liberators being the word. It doesnt mention a word about USSR and their efforts and this source is just another example as to why source I disagrees with the defeat of Germany and the end of the Second World War. Being from Normandy and writing for a Norman guide book, it isnt likely that he is going to mention the USSR as they didnt land here, they didnt capture the beaches, Caen, Cherbourg or Paris, they werent anything to do with the Battle of Normandy itself. They were involved with the fighting in the east while the liberators fought in the west. France praised the Western Allies and the Soviets got jealous. All these reasons conclude, in my opinion, to why the sources disagree about the defeat of Germany and the outcome of the Second World War. 7. How far have the sources in this paper convinced you that D-Day and the Normandy invasion was the most significant factor in the defeat of Germany in World War Two? Use all the sources and your wider knowledge There are numerous sources that reflect that Normandy was the most significant factor in the defeat of Germany in World War Two and sources A, B, C, F, G, H and I are included. On the one hand, Normandy was by far, the largest and most amphibious invasion that has ever been planned, let alone to have succeeded. Source A depicts how much of a large-scale invasion it was because you can see a tremendous amount of troops came in from the English Channel to Normandy at the five beaches. Source B, written for the Telegraph newspaper for 50th anniversary edition, classifies it as the turning point in the Second World War and the greatest amphibious operation the world has ever seen. This is the second source to illustrate how much of significant factor the Normandy landings played to the defeat of Germany and the Second World War. Source C, written by a British historian, delivers another quotation to put to my evidence by writing the Germans were driven back. This directly explains that the landings at Normandy advanced to this. I also have primary evidence from Stalin, the leader of Russia. Stalin says, from his first hand knowledge that the landings have succeeded completely. What the Western Allies wanted to do was liberate France, force the Germans out of France and relieve pressure from Russia. Obviously, for Stalin to send this message in a telegram to Churchill after just five days, it must have been working. Source G, written by a British historian, explains that combined with the Russians, British and American armies brought final victory. Thus meaning that D-Day achieved its targets of relieving pressure on Russia, liberating France and more importantly, defeating Germany bringing Victory in Europe (V E Day). Another commemorative magazine on the 50th anniversary, source H, though it is a small article, provides a lot of evidence. To begin with, it refers to the D-Day and the Normandy invasion was a military feat. This infers that D-Day and the Normandy invasion was an achievement for the Allies. This source also says that D-Day and the Normandy invasions were a plan to smash German power in Europe. I can say from this that not only was it a plan; it was a plan put into action. Finally, source I, written by a French historian from Normandy wring tourist guidebook, says how the French coastline is marked forever by the first steps towards the liberation of Europe. By this remark, I assume he is referring to V E Day (Victory in Europe Day). In which case, this source directly shows that D-day and the invasion of Normandy was significant into the defeat of Germany. On the other hand, whilst D-Day and the Normandy invasion is obviously a prominent factor to the defeat of Germany, there are other factors, too. Source A shows how many troops came via the Channel but it also shows how Allied troops came from Italy, all along the German border of Russia and from the Mediterranean and into France. This demonstrates that Germany wasnt just being attacked from Normandy. Source D depicts a cartoon of Hitler ordering troops to invade USSR but instead, they turn into graves. This cartoon clearly states that there was fighting on the eastern front with Russia and that Germany wasnt benefiting from it and arent just suffering defeats in the West. Source E backs that up as it demonstrates Stalin rolling Germans back using a rolling pin and in the stew pots behind him are defeats Germany had already suffered from USSR. It is ironic that the cartoon is named The Chefs Speciality as this means the Russian speciality is to roll Germans back and defeat them. Source G has two sides to it. It does say that the Normandy invasions and D-Day brought final victory but it also says that D-Day couldnt have been launched until German U-boats have been mastered in the summer of 1943. The reason for this is because the Navy wanted absolute air and sea superiority before they proceed with the invasion. This led to an attack on the Atlantic Ocean named Battle of the Atlantic. Therefore, without the Battle of the Atlantic, D-Day and the Normandy invasion couldnt take place. Source J expresses how it wasnt just down to D-Day and the Normandy invasions that Germany was defeated. Source J, written by a Soviet, believes the Soviets played a role in defeating the Nazi aggressor but has not been fully recognised by the Western Allies. It continues to add that it was the Soviet people who held back the Nazis in Europe for over two years while the Western Allies deliberated and prepared for their invasion. I gather from this text that point this source is trying to get across is that without the Soviets aid, Hitler would of put into action his plans of invading Britain (as said by Stalin, Source F). Britain would have been unprepared and the invasion of Normandy and D-Day wouldnt have taken place at all. There are factors not included in any of the sources that without their aid, D-Day and the Normandy invasion wouldnt have been as significant as it was. The Battle of Britain is one of them. Germany was bombing RAF bases in Britain every night for 53 nights before bombing cities. This was a fatal mistake. It gave the RAF time to regroup, repair airfields and train new pilots. Therefore, Germany lost along with a few other reasons. But if Germany had won, Germany would have gained supremacy in the air and Germany would have invaded Britain and probably lost the war as a whole. Dunkirk was a key element in boosting the British moral and saving 50,000 troops from the coast of France. This is a great feat because if the British public didnt rescue them then the British troops would have been stuck at Dunkirk and captured by the Germans. They were saved and this meant that Britain still had its troops and could progress onwards. The loss of 50,000 men would have had an effect on their efforts with D-Day and the invasion of Normandy. The fighting on the Italian front and North Africa played an important role into the significance D-Day and the invasion of Normandy had to the defeat of Germany. This is for the same reasons as the fighting on the eastern front with Russia and the Germans in that if the British had lost this, Germans would have been able to progress onwards through France and would have possibly been more ready for the invasion of Normandy and D-Day. To add to this, Germany was failing anyway, mainly as a result of all these defeats above. Germany had fewer troops and wasnt as well prepared as the Allies. The Allies had paratroopers fly in to capture main railway lines and bridges to prevent Germans from bringing in reinforcements. There were also preparations in Britain. Britain had inflatable military equipment, code signals were sent to the French resistance, petrol pumps for military vehicles in Normandy were disguised as ice-cream parlours and they dropped Rupert dolls which were counterfeit paratroopers that fired gun shot sounds when they landed. Furthermore, Britain sent a van around Scotland sending out more false alerts of an invasion from Scotland and they bombed Calias 3-4 times more than Normandy so the Germans would think an attack would be in Calias. They also invented special tanks to overcome German obstacles, they used reflective stripes to confuse German radar systems and they code-named the beaches so the Germans didnt know where they were going to attack. This is a drastic amount of preparations to undergo but these kinds of preparations meant that Germany didnt, in theory, stand a chance of winning. I dont think Churchill would have organised such a large-scale invasion, involving 4 main countries if he wasnt assured of a beneficial outcome. I think most of the significance of D-Day and the invasion of Normandy was, on the whole, down to exceedingly good planning and a lot of luck. However, the sources, overall, in this paper and from my own knowledge, have convinced me that D-Day and the invasion of Normandy are the most significant factors to the defeat of Germany in the Second World War. The Invasion of Normandy led to a lot of things. For instance the capture of Cherbourg, Caen and Paris. The Falaise Gap was a great achievement as it captured 50,000 German troops and from then the Allies progressed fast to the French-German border where the Battle of the Bulge took place. The Allies won this two and then it was just a race with Russia to get to Berlin. Of course there were set backs, like the weather, the struggle at Caen and the capture of Omaha beach, but thats expected in a large-scale invasion as this. But on the whole, there were a lot of achievements and the invasion accomplished their targets and the invasion was a success. Germany surrendered on the 5th May 1945 and there was victory in Europe at last. Without all the other factors that led up to D-Day and the luck involved, Normandy wouldnt have either taken place, succeeded or succeeded as well as it did.

To what extent are the poems Nothings changed and Half-caste a message of protest Essay Example for Free

To what extent are the poems Nothings changed and Half-caste a message of protest Essay The two poems, Nothings changed by Tatamkhulu Afrika and Half-caste by John Agard, both deal with issues of race. Nothings changed describes the return to district six after the apartheid in South Africa it presents a voice angry that nothing has changed since the apartheid has been abolished, and that racial segregation still exists. Half-caste also communicates a protest against racial prejudice. It questions the use of the term half-caste and promotes more open views. The discontent behind both messages is clear in their tones. From the start Afrika sets a bitter and angry mood, the hot, white, inwards turning anger of my eyes the use of how deeply resentful he is about what is going on. Also the alliteration of the strong t consonant enhances the frustrated quality of this phrase. On the other hand Half-caste challenges the reader with a mocking phrase Excuse me standing on one leg Im half-caste. This appears to set up a more relaxed atmosphere in first three lines. The poet makes this more assertive with his use of imperatives such as excuse and explain. Throughout the poem he continues to play with the term half caste but the light atmosphere is soon over ridden by the seriousness of the message. Nothings changed is written in six main stanzas which draw attention to the harsh reality of district six. Interestingly there is a mini stanza of two lines no sign says it is but we know where we belong. this could show the racial segregation enforced and illustrates that although it is not official everybody accepts the unwritten rule. Afrika uses the power of three and the skin and the soft and the hot to demonstrate how complete and overwhelming the anger is. Also use of the refrain like phrases no board says it is and no sign says it is continue to emphasise how embedded the segregation is in society. The structure in Half caste is less obvious although it has strong implications. For example the unequal line lengths so spiteful deem dont want de sun pass/ ah rass suggest an odd untidiness and imbalance. As in nothings changed Agard uses refrain to reinforce an idea, explain yuself/ what yu mean. Although here is is more aggressive and upfront. It is repeated as he demands for an answer. There is a flow to the poem created by enjambment with no punctuation. This could reflect the release of anger. The forward slashes add pauses ? is a half-caste weather/ well in dat case which keep the reader aware of the theme of standing up against society. Both poets continue to develop the themes through rhyme and rhythm. In Nothings changed there is half rhyme, for example trees and cuisine. This could symbolise inequality and a sense of uprising against what society imposes. The rhythm is heavy and strong with hard consonant sounds like trodden and gatepost this gives a feeling of oppression. Also there is enjambment, which is shown when the poet says seeding grasses thrust/ beaded seeds/ into trouser cuffs this suggests urgency to release anger it is building up to the last line, nothings changed the short sentence ends the flow and implies defeat as the protest is replaced by acceptance that the separation still stands. Similarly the rhyme in Half-caste is random which continues the theme. The main images highlighted by rhyme such as mix a black key with a white key is a half-caste symphony. The rhythm is uneven which again emphasises the concept of half. The interesting use of colloquial language provides lots of focus on the sounds of words for example yu, de or dem which makes the rhythm more confident and direct. In nothings changed the poet begins with monosyllabic language. The first line is small round hard stone click which echoes the sound of walking on gravel this sensory language draws in the reader to the message. He uses words showing oppression like trodden on, crunched, and crushed this conveys the aggressive nature of district 6. Afrika also uses lots of heat associated words like flaring, hot white and burn. These immediately portray a build up of anger. He uses pronouns such as I press my nose making it a more personal account which engages the reader with the personal emotions. On another level he could be expressing the voice of black people against discrimination. Similarly Agard uses pronouns he engages the audience by saying yu which is directing the poem to a wide audience. He also uses colloquial language like wha, yu and on dem cloud this is Jamaican slang which sets up a background and displays his pride to be from that culture. His repeated use of the term half-caste reminds us of the taboo of the term inflicting guilt upon the reader. The clever use of half links all the imagery listening to yu wid de keen half of mih ear. This is all leading up to the last line when he challenges the reader to accept him as a whole person. Afrika uses subtle imagery like tall purple flowering amiable weeds The word weeds suggests inferiority but a struggling to stand tall against segregation. He uses personification to describe the whites only inn it squats shows how unwanted the white people are, because they impose on the black people. A strong metaphor clear panes is like a physical representation of the social barrier. It lets the wealth of the white people be seen. This is emphasised by the contrast of images created. Linen falls, the single rose are compared to bunny chows and plastic tables. Here a clear gap of living standard is shown. I think the most important image in the poem is leaving a small mean O of small mean mouth which describes the circular mark of breath on the window. This shape will disappear, and metaphorically describes how his voice of protest is lost within him. The imagery that Agard uses imagery is based around these of mix and half. Opposites like black and white and light and shadow shows two extremes which in people should be accepted as equals. He also says things like half of mih ear , half of mih eye and half-hand these are unrealistic concepts which is mocking the term half-caste. He uses a metaphor of Tchaikovsky writing a symphony and Picasso mixing colours. The use of an artist and a composer gives out a message universally. Also using art and music, pleasant things, shows how wrong and unpleasant using the term half-caste is. Finally, the change in imagery at the end of the poem shows Agards encouragement of open mindedness. He uses whole and tomorrow which suggest in the future the prejudice can change. Overall both poems show a protest although I think half-caste is defiant outwards protest that chalenges the reader with clever imagery and language. Nothings changed seems to show protest and anger held within or inwards turning anger. It also shows frustration of accepting the harsh life of being an inferior in South Africa.