Historical Perspectives on the Social Order

Historical Perspectives on the Social Order Laura Sanchez Ronald P. Bobroff In The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Gordon Wood showed the various transitions that the American society had to go through in order to achieve a sense of equality in a socio-economical level and with respect to the government. In the book, Wood starts talking about how American society looked like at the beginning, how it was basically a replica of what people knew at the time; a monarchy-like Estate, derived in some form of aristocracy since there was no king ruling in the continent, but back in England. In this early Estate, the status quo was important to maintain and show in order to reflect power and social position, where work was seen as something not worthy of doing by the higher classes because they already had the financial resources and did not feel the need of produce them through labor activities. Since labor activities were seen as something lower classes needed and should do in order to gain resources to live. Because the higher classes, the Gentry, were the only independent group, because they did not have to answer to anyone, they were the ruling class, but the lower classes had to answer to the ruling classes because they had to work for the money that was provided by the higher classes. Even when the American society enjoyed some freedoms that the English society could not enjoy, the inequalities were still present, since the level of freedom people could enjoy was given by the social status they had and enjoyed. But again, this was the replica of what they knew as a socio-political system. In America, it was clear that because the Gentry did not have to work for the financial resources they already had, for it was clear that they were to lead and the rest, to follow. From this aristocratically estate of government, American society made its way to a less hierarchical society, where equality of opportunity was the main character, where every person was born with the same rights and where every man had the equal opportunity to become a gentleman based on their level of education. This was in the reality a rough equality, since they were still valuing people based on the property owned. According to Wood equality lay at the heart of republicanism; it was, said David Ramsay, the life and soul of commonwealth. Republican citizenship implied equity. Citizen (or sometimes cit) was a term that had been commonly used by the premodern monarchical society. It generally had meant the inhabitant of a city or town, who had been thus distinguished from a member of the landed nobility or gentry[1]. Then, it came the idea of a ruling class composed by disinterested gentleman, this idea came up because the alternative was interested gentleman who were to rule obey ing their own particular interests, but if the leading class had no particular interest they were to rule more equally and impartially to everyone instead than just for a few. The problem here is that this model of being ruled by disinterested gentleman would be replicating the past and with that, replicating the old problems. Since this disinterested gentleman were also human beings with their particular interests to work for, even when they claimed not to have any particular interest. With this new concept of equality, and in reality those who claimed to be disinterested and those on the higher social classes were not more capable to rule than the rest of the population who had access to the same opportunities. The problem with this approach is that it generates and feeds conflict of interests, because no matter who is in a leading position is undeniably going to promote policies that will benefit their own interests or the interests of the people close to them; resulting in an unbalance of the social and political system. This opened the way for a democratic political system, where ordinary people could being involved in the government, in contrast with the previous forms of government that were attempted where only the gentry could aspire to be in charge of a leading position on the government, like a perpetuation of the aristocracy, because if gentlemen were involved in the marketplace and had interests just like everyone else, they were really no different from all those common people artisans, shopkeepers, traders, and others who had traditionally been denied a role in political leadership because of their overriding absorption in their private occupational interests. In short, the Anti-Federalists were saying that liberally educated gentlemen were no more capable that ordinary people of classical republican disinterestedness and virtue and that consequently there was no one in the society equipped to promote an exclusive public interest that was distinguishable from the private interests of peo ple[2]. The great achievement of this time is that the motivation of the people to participate on the government had really changed from maintaining the status quo to open the positions equally to every person in the society, transitioning almost without realizing into a democracy. By contrast with this new increasing openness in the American society, we find a British society which was open to foreign nationals looking for refuge, but this openness of the British government to receive foreign nationals into their space was not seen well by other European countries and by British nationals as well. This is why, some British nationals, called themselves anarchists, decided to promote and commit terrorist acts on British soil as a form of rising their voices and make the statement of their inconformity with this policy of giving refuge to other people. They wanted to keep Britain for themselves, so while other countries were opening their boundaries to welcome other nationals, other ideals, religions, and a complete new rainbow of possibilities; there were groups in Britain, as is explained in the novel The Secret Agent, as well in other countries that were not happy with this kind of policies, that took their nationalism feelings and ideals to another level full of hate and incomprehension that led them to commit acts of terror and treason to their own soil. Because, in the end, this people, the anarchists, were not democratic. This anarchist group decided to attack Greenwich observatory, the center of the modern world, sending a clear message of how anti progress they felt, because instead of promoting and applauding the progress they attacked it. Being objective, if they only were against the laws, policies or even the political system and beliefs, they would have attacked some political, judicial or governmental institution, but they needed to state that they were not only against the policies but against any form of progress, and nothing claims more progress than science. Because science is the fundament of the progress of humankind; moreover, I am a civilized man. I would never dream of directing you to organize a mere butchery, even if I expected the best results from it. But I wouldnt expect from a butchery the results I want. Murder is always with us. It is almost an institution. The demonstration must be against learning science. But not every science will do. The attack must have all the shocking senselessness of gratuitous blasphemy[3] And, wanting to close the borders to people of foreign countries because some nationals of a given country feel insecure about it, is an inhumane act full of hate, prejudice and resentment. This anarchists could not being democrats because they were firm believers of the socialist doctrine, that is by mere concept anti progress. Democracy is about progress, that is why throughout history it is often seen that democracy is the last form of government achieved after having tried and passed for all others, because its core is almost perfect and can be only achieved through trial and error; after seen what should and should not be done. Democracy is about liberties, not debauchery as people often misunderstand it. Democracy is about equality of opportunities, people cannot be forced to do something they do not want to, but they have the right of having equal opportunities to access the minimal conditions to live and to live well. If someone is w orking hard and is not getting involved or interfering with other peoples life, it does not matter where that person is from. That individual person is a human being and has the right to live and to live well, and to work, and to not being afraid of being attacked by another person. This is the kind of society that Wood explain to us, this is the fundament of the openness of American society. They were open to everyone who was disposed to work hard and live a good life based on their work. And that is what is translated nowadays in what is called the American dream, it is just another name for the principal fundament of the American democracy. B3. Benedict Anderson in his Imagined Communities suggests ways that the citizens of a nation perceive themselves as a part of the whole as a community developing some sort of spirit that overcomes them and that is able to overlap the individuality of each one, this is what is called nationalism; a sense of belonging to something bigger than oneself. He explains this when he says that the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion[4]; meaning that what really matters is the idea of belonging, the feeling to be part of something bigger than the sense of individuality. Is the idea of being a valuable member of the whole. Anderson also explains the it is not only the sense of belonging, but it goes further to the sense of limitations, because human beings do not like to think that everyone has the same without having fought for it; meaning, that it is important to feel that there are some boundaries that somehow contain this massive feeling of community; because even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations. No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. The most messianic nationalists do not dream of a day when all the members of the human race will join their nation in the way that it was possible, in certain epochs, for, say, Christians to dream of a wholly Christian planet[5]. In the end, we need to feel part of something that even though it is bigger than us it is finite; something that no one else has it and that it cannot be found elsewhere, something that belongs to us so that there is the i dea that it is special and therefore that generates in the human mind the urgency to defend it. Another important concept is sovereignty, which is the power conferred by independence. Not having atavistic ties that create and maintain ties to the past, gives way to the progress of a nation and with it, the progress of its citizens who feel part of it. Because the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the allomorphism between each faiths ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under .God, directly so. The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state.[6] This is extremely important because the sense of progress brings with it a new meaning to the concept of freedom. At this point, we found citizens who have well identified their sense o f belonging to something larger than them as mere individuals, who need to feel that they belong to something unique and special, that not everyone can have access to and that is worth fighting for; Accompanied by the ideas of freedom and progress. Finally, Anderson explains that in spite of the inequities that have existed in the world historically, nowadays the feeling of nationalism has generated that the human beings feel part of a horizontal whole where all are equal and fight every day for a common goal and that they are able to fight for this, not necessarily with the disposition to kill for this but with the will to die defending that for what they believe and live; because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings[7]. For it generates the idea of horizontality as Anderson explains, that is to say that there are no longer any social classes that command over other social classes. That all are born equal and have access to the same rig hts and opportunities because they all are human alike. And they are willing to go to the last consequences in order to defend it. Comparing these four ideas about nationalism as a sense of belonging to a whole with what Gordon Wood explains in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, United States, already composed of more and more diverse peoples, could not rely on any tribal or national identity. To be an American could not be a matter of blood; it had to be a matter of common belief and behavior. And the source of that common belief and behavior was the American Revolution: it was the Revolution and only the Revolution, that made them one people.[8]. The sense of belonging for American people needed to be greater than language, political views, religion or national origin; the sense of being part of this great nation needed to go further, to the point that all people, national and foreign, feel the need to defend the ideals in which this nation is built. This nation, with well delimited boundaries, that has been pioneering in subjects of freedom, equality and horizontality, meaning that all people are equa l under the unit of the American flag, provided they are willing to respect and work for it, to defend the ideals it represents. Works Cited Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. (New York, Vintage Books, 1991) Conrad, Joseph. The Secret Agent. (Oxford Worlds Classic, 2008) Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. (New York, Verso / New Left Books, 1996) I pledge that I have acted honorably. Laura Sanchez [1] Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. (New York, Vintage Books, 1991), 223 [2] Wood, 256 [3] Conrad, Joseph. The Secret Agent. (Oxford Worlds Classic, 2008), 25 [4] Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. (New York, Verso / New Left Books, 1996), 7 [5] Anderson, 7 [6] Anderson, 8 [7] Anderson, 8 [8] Wood, 336

High School and William R. Dy Essay

Born in a beautiful place in Isabela on July 25, 1994, it was my beginning of my journey through life. I was the oldest son of Engineer William R. Dy and Eleanor I. Dy. William, a hardworking man, raised his four children in a much disciplined way. It was from here that I’ve learned much of his punctuality. When I was small, like every child I had a dream, well more like many dreams. Like every little boy I either fantasized about becoming something like a king or a super hero. As I grew up, I began to realize that life isn’t a fantasy and that I have to answer my true calling and eventually led to discovering my real passion. Like any kid going to school, they have to learn, but to me it was something that made me explore all the techniques how to study and the way others use so many methods of studying. As I prepared myself going to school my first school was in Saint Ferdinand College walking distance in our house. I study there for how many years from kindergarten until I graduated Elementary. My kindergarten experience was so sad because in kindergarten, I was separated from our parents for the first time and I am so nervous at that time, first thing that comes in my mind was, there are a few things that I should be introduced to. First, I should know the name of the kindergarten teacher, the principal’s name, and if possible, where my kindergarten room is. I became overwhelmed at first because of the new situation and the new people. And also I may not immediately like school, but with encouragement, I adapt and hopefully begin to enjoy their very first year of school. Making friends in that very first year in the kindergarten is a very important issue associated with transition to school. Then the time will come I was in Elementary, it seems everything gets bigger. The classrooms, the garden even the green space where students play – are all noticeably larger. The children themselves have grown and acquired a greater need to interact in groups, so their furniture and materials have been appropriately designed and sized as well. Mr. Maximo was my favourite teacher made learning fun. I also remember his reading voice and he always accepting my â€Å"creativeness†. I can remember other elementary teachers scolding me for my ideas. But still I enjoyed my elementary experience but sad to say I will leave my elementary life and start my high school life I will miss my other classmate who will transfer to other school especially if you only spend with them for only a year. But we will never know maybe there will be more excitement, more challenge, and meet new friends. When I began high school in Isabela National High School, I became more afraid because I knew I was entering in to a new world that will shape me to become the person I want to be as an adult. I knew that I was going to have many challenges in school, but I felt that being in my class, I never felt like I would fail. My class helped me and challenged me to decide what I truly felt was my calling. As I progressed in school, I became more in tuned with my writing and other stuffs that made me feel even more positive and gave me even the more confidence to continue. When the graduation day came, I was so sad because I will miss those happy days, emotional days and especially those bonding days with my friends and teachers. For me high school life was the best, I’ve learned many crazy things in life. Unfortunately, my â€Å"maturity† did not arrive when expected. I never fully realized in the earlier grades how important high school success is. To go from being coddled and having everything sugar coated, to the treachery of â€Å"real life† certainly affected me, and my entire outlook on life. But still it was the best experience in my life. And now here I am taking up Nursing as my profession, College is a lot different than high school. You may decide to commute from your home to a local campus. It was like kindergarten I was separated to my parents for the second time. But these are supposed to be some of the best years I have so I will make it that way instead of allowing the stresses of college ruin my experience. The trials and tribulations, success and failures, are all part of what will make me as a responsible, mature, & educated young adults. The experiences I gain from these years will stick with my life and make them worth remembering. And by the way my name is Wilson Elibert I. Dy. Signing off.

A Tragic Hero in Aristotle Definition Essay

The word tragedy is when an event ends in misfortune. However, when the word tragedy is put in context within a play or a story it is a story circling around a protagonist who is of high power and stature. A tragedy is usually the development of a protagonist whose in conflict with a more superior force; the superior forces that the protagonist could be faced with is his destiny, free will and the Gods that rule over them. The end of a tragedy is usually the protagonist whose in a state of deterioration in which he loses everything. A tragic hero is meant to define his fate by himself, usually by actions that he inflicts on himself which then lead him to wreck his own life. Aristotle is considered as one of the many ancient influential philosophers there is and therefore his view of Oedipus being an ideal tragic hero is considered as highly powerful in the world of literature. Aristotle defines tragedy as the conflict between humans being good yet being defeated by reality as their actions done with good intentions can actually bring back outcomes that were not initially wanted. In the play Oedipus by Sophocles, Oedipus is classed as a classic tragic hero by Aristotle for many of the characteristics he possesses. According to Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero; the tragic hero has to be realistic, true to life, consistent and true to themselves, consistent within the context of the narrative and has to make errors of judgement throughout the play but the results of what has been done should be the opposite of what was initially intended. A tragic hero should be able to arouse feelings of pity and fear; this is because, the feeling of pity is aroused by our deep sympathy for someone whose life is falling out of place whereas that person is neither too good nor too evil to have deserved such a misfortune, and the feeling of fear is aroused by the sheer horror that such a tragedy can fall upon anyone regardless of their stature. According to Aristotle’s definition Oedipus is a tragic hero because he is a man of great power and influence over the city he rules and his life begins to deteriorate in front of everyone’s eyes as he goes on a quest to find out who he is. Aristotle says that a tragic hero must be the one to cause their own downfall in which Oedipus persistently decides to carry on asking questions about his origins. Also, the tragic hero’s fate is not deserved and his punishment exceeds his wrongdoings and  that a tragic hero must be someone important and influential and he must be someo ne who makes an error of judgement. This error of judgement is seen when Oedipus forces Tiresias in anger to answer his questions of who his parents are, â€Å"Who? Wait; who are my parents?†, it is Oedipus’s own mistake in forcing answers in which he does not wish to hear or know.

Transgender And US Military - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1267 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/08/07 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Transgender Essay Did you like this example? President Trump announced that US Military wont accept transgender into US Military. This announcement provoked his audience on Twitter and they called his decision callous and against the human right. Many retired generals, admirals and prominent members of Congress condemned this decision of President Trump. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Transgender And US Military" essay for you Create order Multiple lawsuits were filed to challenge the decision. Obama administration has allowed Trans people to serve in the military; this reverse of decision has given rise to the question that should Trans be allowed to serve military or if not then on which basis they are not allowed to serve. Is this based on some reason or this is a simple act of like and hate for the Trans community. Previously in 2016 Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that Transgender are allowed to serve the military. But Carter nor Barak Obama ever articulated that how that policy will affect the military readiness. Military readiness is the criteria that evaluate the changes made to the military personnel recruitment policy. Decision makers are under huge stress after Trumps announcement. Under the current global situation of the economy, military and security; this decision will affect military readiness in the long term. All the emotions Transgender have for the military are valuable but are the actually ready to serve the military is the question that many wont consider. Military training is tough. The pace of deployment of troops has increased to the point that after nine-month deployment period, troops get nine months to recover and train before the next deployment. Training and harsh conditions put soldiers through extreme stress and put their marriages under strain, which in turn effects their mental health severely. Mental problems are common in soldiers. Stress management is an important aspect of military life survival. Will Trans people be able to control this stress, is the question. Transgender refers to those individuals who are assigned the different gender, but they feel like another. They can look like one gender but they feel like another. This feeling of dislocation in ones own bodies is described as gender dysphoria. Some Dysphoric change their gender, as a cure to this disorder. This requires them to go through gender reassignment operations, Hormone therapy and then appearance change treatments including, plastic surgery and laser hair removal, etc. So the procedural cost is extremely high. The opposition to this announcement has given a passionate responses to the new decision, and they claim that numerous myths, lies, and stereotypes are attached to the Trans community, and lies should be separated from facts. They claim that Transgender are actually fit to serve. If they fulfill the requirements of any particular gender during the selection according to criteria, then they cant be stopped from serving their country. In defense, they claim that our bodies are not perfect and we routinely alter our bodies to correct the issues or simple flaws, like eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. Even the physical issues at birth are altered later for correction then why dysphoric disorder, cant be corrected. When mismatched body is corrected, it does not make a person physically unfit. And this reassignment actually contributes to their mental health and fitness in the long run(Should Transgender Persons Serve? | U.S. Naval Institute). Normally if service member gets injured in comb at or accident, they are provided medical treatment and areb given time for recovery. Health care issues like blood pressure, cholesterol, concussions, and mental health issues are common in general. Similarly, Gender dysphoria is no different. Medical issues related to Gender dysphoria include similar treatments, they are just used in a different way, i.e., counseling, grooming, lifestyle, and hormone levels. Depending on the situation Trans members can serve their deployment and can still transition during other deployments. About the cost; around $2.4 a million to $4.8 million is required for complete reassignment, which is .14% of the total annual military budget. Knee replacement requires around 12 weeks to recover, but Trans surgery requires eight weeks. So why this cant be treated as a normal procedure. Trans medical allowance is like other, soldiers medical allowance. They cant be segregated on basis of medical need. They should be allowed to deal with their medical issues like other soldiers. Many soldiers dont disclose their identity but they keep serving silently for years due to fear of losing a career. The point is, they already are different so why they cant be allo wed to transition into their true selves and still be part of military (Hill et al.). All the defense in favor of Trans to join the military can be understood, and at humanitarian level one can agree to it, but we need to dig deeper into the matter. Decisions should not be made on the basis of emotions but by logic. We can just agree to this without considering other aspects of gender dysphoria. Many questions should be considered in other dimension. Is gender dysphoria actually curable through gender reassignment? Facts should be considered, especially when huge cost, military readiness and performance is at stake. Transgenders, already dealing with pressure, will they be able to manage more pressure during deployments? Suicide is already increasing between military personnel due to the nature of the job, they do. Stress and depression get to them, which is a huge problem. From the economical aspect, if we keep things practical, huge military budget is spent on training soldiers, but when they become unfit, they endanger the force. Not only they adds to the cost, but if they commit suicide its not just loss of precious life, but it is losing investment put on a defense. So is it wise to put week people who are already prone to distress, to the military? Actual figures support the fact that Trans suicide rate is 6.7% higher than the other genders in the US(Suicide Rates: An Overview). Its not only because of the social pressure but also due to depression; they feel after reassignment but also because gender dysphoria remains there. So after reassignment operation. Persons gender is not changed completely because genders cant be altered completely. Researches support this fact. This delusional concept is supported by the media, but in reality, gender alteration is not possible. Trans attempt suicide is 41% more than then cisgender Americans. They are not resilient and strong enough to handle harsh combat as a non-trans person(Why Transgender People Experience More Mental Health Issues). Many reassignments cause issues like reduced strength and confidence. Due to hormone therapy, many emotional and mood changes occur in Transgender. Risk of psychiatric hospitalization increases up to 2.8 times. Also, a physical persona can change their reproductive systems that is the basis on gender difference, apart from this difference all others are stereotypes that are self-cre ated(Anderson). Sexual Organizations begins with DNA when a child is in the womb; all the sex difference infest themselves at the molecular level in all organs. So simply a cross-hormone therapy can change the gender, in fact, they can stunt and damage the outward expressions and our biological reproductive organizations. But the complete transition is not possible its just a glamorous myth. This just creates instability the person. Some alternative cure need be found for gender dysphoria. So these Trans individuals who desperately want to serve their military are respected for their emotions. But at a humanitarian level, it would not be suitable to put them under such harsh battlefield conditions, especially knowingly the situations that they are dealing with. Also military cant keep unfit in the military as it will affect the performance of operations. Also knowing the cost of maintenance, it will be unwise to let Trans join the military.