Critical Review: Bradley A. Thayer, Bring in Darwin: Evolutionary theor

In Thayer’s article, he makes an attempt to incorporate Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory into the international security studies. The article tries to answer a central question that what are the implications of Evolutionary theory to realist theory of international security and in what way can peace be achieved if warfare is part of human nature? This paper agrees with Thayer that Evolutionary theory provides a scientific theory foundation for realism and is an ultimate cause for war and ethnic conflicts, as well as the assumption that origin of war is intrinsic in human nature as part of their evolution history. This paper will also suggest that a balanced structure of the world could contribute to temporary peace. But it need to be noted that the theory is also limited since Evolution theory could not fully explain many other forms of security problems like civil wars and terrorism. To review Thayer’s article, first, the paper will briefly explain how Evolutionary theory act as an ultimate cause for realist theory in terms of two human traits: egoism and domination. Following that, the paper will discuss the implications of Evolutionary theory to international relations. This paper will also evaluate the theory by comparing it with Waltz’s and Gleditsch’s theory on peace and war. Finally, it will conclude the paper by summarizing main points. Thayer seeks to understand Evolutionary theory as the ultimate cause of realism. In Evolutionary theory, humans like other animals have to evolve to survive and reproduce from natural selection, which develops two basic human traits: egoism and dominance (Thayer, 2000, p.130). In order to survive and for fitness, an organism tends to places its security over the others and according to Evoluti... ...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained. Reference: Gleditsch, N. P. (1999). Peace and democracy. Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, 2, 643-652. Thayer, B. A. (2000). Bring to darwin: evolutionary theory, realism and international relations. International Security, 25(2), 124-151. Waltz, K. N. (1988). The origins of war in neorealist theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XVIII(4), 615-628.

Irish English literature interaction

The notion of Irish literature is often the subject of much critical contention. For some people Irish literature is reserved for works in the Irish language. The fact that the Irish language was almost eradicated during the nineteenth century is still, however few people actually now speak or write it in contemporary Ireland, an inescapable fact of Irish history and Irish literary history. Its eradication was, in part, a matter of political compulsion and also, in part, a matter of the tragic history of the vast scale of emigration which followed on the Irish Famine of 1845-8.This is why, among Irish writers who write in the English language, language itself becomes the focus of their reflection. Literature in English in Ireland has been a literature in which ideas of Ireland — of people, community and nation — have been both created and reflected. To understand how it is true it is necessary to contemplate the conceptions of a distinctively Irish identity which have b een articulated, defended, and challenged. Another point to consider is how the perception of alienation, felt almost by all Irish writers, influences their choice of themes for literary works.For the material of my study I have chosen the works of two great Irish writers, prose writer Joyce and poet Heaney and American writer who nevertheless is regarded as English writer, Thomas Stern Eliot. The reason I choose to include Eliot in this essay is that he is much like Joyce and the comparison between those two geniuses with help to trace the ways of intersection and similarity of two cultural traditions. Another reason for choosing to study Eliot, together with Joyce and Heaney is that all three writers were exiles, the fact that influenced their literary style and themes.They knew and influenced each other.. Eliot founded new literary movement, and Joyce's technical innovations still occupy his followers like Heaney. The work of all three great moderns exhibits the characteristic fe atures of modern art in being difficult to the point of obscurity, complex, allusive, experimental in form, and encyclopedic in scope. The work of all three writers, especially Heaney’s, is imbued with the modern attitude to the past–that the past was radically different from the present but eternally haunts it and so is inescapably past-present.Of the three writers, Joyce was clearly driven into exile in order to write. Joyce wrote with scrupulous naturalism with its fidelity to detail and habit of naming names, and satiric vein. Outwardly rootless Joyce was not inwardly so. His life and art were transfixed, rooted in the Dublin he had known as a young man, which was the subject of all his work. Joyce constantly carried feeling of alienation in relation to his homeland. Joyce rejected his home, family, society, nation, and religion. Alienation is explicitly detailed in Dubliners, the collection of short stories focused on the exploration of Irish theme.One of those st ories Araby focuses on a vagrant boy energized by a desire for escape from the confinement of Irish culture. The desire for such escape appears already in the first story of collection, continues in the second and finally materializes in the third. The epiphanies at the end of first three stories metaphorize the promise of freedom. To gain clear understanding of this metaphor of the travel in quest of liberation we have to illustrate what was the place of Irish culture in the broader aspect of British literature and how it is reflected in Joyce’s literary work.This story is a metaphor for Joyce’s life too, for his search for place where he would have been able to work. Joyce's issue is to present the lives lived by his people and their characteristic and characteristically Irish ways of trying to make sense of them. The image of Dubliners illustrates more than the human condition; it illustrates the Dublin condition, which may be defined as an excessive degree of susce ptibility to decay and loss. It is a condition not of excess but of deprivation. The first three stories The Sisters, Encounter and Araby are connected by the common hero, a boy, who is looking for something that is not there.Araby opens with an inspection of the empty back rooms of an abandoned house on a blind street: An uninhabited house of two stories stood at the blind end, detached from its neighbors in a square ground (Joyce, 29), concludes with the lights going out in an emptied hall: The upper part of the hall was now completely dark. Gazing up into the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity (Joyce, 36), and in between tracks the narrator as his money and the dreams built on it come, by degrees, to nothing.The story gives much attention to detail. In the scene at the marketplace, the narrator offers vivid metonymic of the boy's world. The boy aspires to commence his journey to Araby, a journey which is metaphorized as chivalric quest. His destinati on is eastward, the East is even more important metaphorically to the boy: â€Å"The syllables of the word Araby were called to me through the silence in which my soul luxuriated and cast an Eastern enchantment over me† (Joyce, 32).Because he had thought the East would be the proper place in which his desire might be realized, he is disillusioned, as readers, of Araby by his encounter with the actuality of the â€Å"empty† bazaar with its â€Å"magical name. † On arrival to the Araby the boy discovers absolutely discouraging scene which makes him describe himself, in this confrontation with the real world, in one of Joyce's most famous sentences: â€Å"Gazing up into the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger† (Joyce, 35).What the boy had expected as the completion of his traveling toward Araby, namely the validation of his mastery, ends by confirming, at least in his own eyes, his power lessness. The wanted to find what the priest, the dead father, has lost: faith in the ability to liberate himself and thereby to make at least the journey, into the unknown. Furthermore, he must find a means of bringing that â€Å"poetry† found in the books into touch with the â€Å"prose,† or reality of ordinary Dublin life. Eliot, like Joyce, was an exile.He left United States and found in England an organic society which satisfied his hunger for tradition and order; society, politics, and religion were more closely related and institutionalized in England than in the United States. Unlike Joyce Eliot’s poetry is universal but there is little specifically local attributions, Eliot's work is not as local as Joyce's is. When we look at his poems for physical evidence of his adopted country, we find little. Such images as there are of city, village, church, or stately home are universalized, made symbolic.Eliot in his poetry tends to touch upon unconventional phi losophical issues like what will happen if we lose the capacity to see the community between persons and lose the capacity to believe in any real community between persons. Such a hypothetical situation is exemplified in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock where the â€Å"eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase† (Eliot, line 56) have made the community between persons unable to be seen. The climax is in the middle of the poem, where we see most clearly what the theme of this poem is; it is the peculiar affliction of our age — metaphysical blindness.The middle is the most intricate one in the poem, but if we concentrate on what is essential, following Prufrock as he struggles up the stairs, as he wrestles with the dead lumber in his head, and as he draws near to the person he has come to visit, there is a moment of suspended thought, a moment when Prufrock is his experience, a moment typical of in Eliot’s works, where the door out of the corridor suddenly opens, and we are invaded by a sense of reality. The opening here is not much more than a crack: the flash of light to light as the lamplight is reflected from the brown hair on the woman's arms.But it is sufficient not only to throw Prufrock off his bent: â€Å"Is it perfume from a dress/ That makes me so digress? † (Eliot, line 65) but almost to bring him to act. His â€Å"Shall I say . . . ?† shows him on the verge of entering a real present. But then he falls back, and rejoins the arthropods, because he has nothing to act with, just as he had nothing to confront the streets with: here, for example, he did not see the light answering light. This scene illustrates what is meant by the theme of metaphysical blindness. The poetic collection Prufrock & Other Observations had made Eliot famous in the English-speaking literary world.The interplay between Irish and English literature is continued by Joyce’s follower Seamus Heaney. This divided tradition states the essenti al condition of the modern Irish mind. The Irish literary tradition proffered a sense of identity which became the preoccupation of Irish writers of the early twentieth-century like Joyce; that identity still confounds contemporary poets like Seamus Heaney. Modern poetry in general is haunted by the divided mind, a reflection of man cut off from his past, confused about meaning, and attempting to reconcile himself to his solitude.In the Irish literary tradition that reconciliation is defined in cultural and national terms. The struggle for reconciliation becomes embroiled in the question of identity. Heaney wrote in the early seventies, his poems have as their focus the relation of England to Ireland which tends to be that of domineering male to helpless female. His was a witness of cruelty in Belfast when Catholic student arranged civil rights marches. Heaney moved from Belfast at the peak of this conflict, but his poem Punishment presents his experiences: â€Å"I can see her drow ned / body in the bog, / the weighting stone, / the floating rods and boughs†.(Heaney, 1975) In this poem Heaney explores a theme of revenge for betrayal but admits his own feebleness when facing violence inculcated for ages: â€Å"I almost love you / but would have cast, I know, / the stones of silence. I am the artful voyeur / your brain's exposed and darkened combs†¦ † (Heaney, 1975) This poem as other in collection North, are Heaney's ‘bog poems', in which he disturbs very dark emotions and appeals to the political and social situation in his native Northern Ireland.Heaney's through the interpretation of the past gives his comments on the present in concealed yet strong manner. In conclusion, Heaney, Eliot, and Joyce all exemplify the case of the artist who due to various reason is forced to abandon his homeland. Eliot freed himself from America in order to transplant himself elsewhere. Joyce was trying to find a perfect place for his creative activity. D espite his love-hate relationship with Ireland Joyce remained faithful to Ireland in spirit. Heaney deserted North Ireland because of unstable political situation but often resorted to it in his works.Thus we see, beyond certain similarities in their work, striking contrasts in the lives of these three writers. Joyce preceded and prepared the way for Heaney, as an Irishman writing happily in English. These should enable us better to understand them and the general problem of the alienation of the modern artist. Works Cited List: Eliot T. S. â€Å"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock† in Prufrock and Other Observations. New York: Bartleby. Com, 2000 Heaney, Seamus. â€Å"Punishment† in North. London: Faber and Faber, 1975 Joyce, James. Dubliners. London: Penguin Group, 1996

Leadership interview Essay

Our group interviewed five leaders varying from business owners to Sr Vice Presidents of different organizations. As we began to analyze the interviews from our leaders we noticed more common themes than differences amongst them. The first common theme was that three out of the five leaders stated that they defined themselves as participative leadership styles. They functioned as a facilitator rather than simply issuing orders to those that they support. The leaders encouraged active participation from their teams allowing them to express their opinions and be able to demonstrate their abilities. Our leaders participative leadership styles allows the skills of all their team members to be utilized in making suggestions and decisions but the leader is still responsible for making the final decision. This will allow everyone to have their input and provide a well rounded decision that will create a positive environment which will only bring profitability to the organization. As the tra its theory of leadership, most of our leaders agreed that leaders are born with leadership characteristics. They also agreed that there are certain characteristics that can be strengthened and developed by the leaders through their childhood years, beliefs, the environment in which they surround themselves, the ability of how they learn, and most importantly how they react when being provided with feedback. Leaders can enhance and learn certain characteristics through advice, observation of others, and their own experiences. Everyone is born with certain characteristics that will develop into strengths and weaknesses. A good leader will identify these characteristics and apply then into their leadership capacity. As far as the common characteristics that the leaders valued in their employees commitment to the vision of the organization was among the most common. By having the same vision people have a better understanding of the future environment where they are operating, a better understanding of what the organization must be like in the future to be successful, a common goal for building team work and a common vision ensures that everyone makes decisions based on the same direction. Our leaders agreed that result driven employees were another characteristic that they value. Our leaders explained that they like their teams to bring forth not only the problem but possible solutions tha t will help make the best decision for the team and at the same time enhancing the  teams’ decision making skills. Trustworthiness and interpersonal skills were also common characteristics that our leaders stated that they valued in their employees. Interpersonal skills are needed on a daily basis which would include verbal communication, non-verbal communication, listening skills, problem-solving, and decision making. One of the leaders stated that â€Å"the biggest challenge day to day is people and remembering that people are people.† This is when having a person with good interpersonal skills can be very useful to the organization. When it came to the decision making process our leaders stated that they like to take their time in making the correct decision but at times when time is limited they need to follow their instinct based decision. When time is not of the essence our leaders stated that they make their decisions in the following steps: 1) Identifying and clarifying the issue in question this gives them an opportunity to gather facts and ask questions about the issue in question 2) Possible solutions or options 3) Process the information that has been provided to them and then finally 4) Implementing the decision. This process allows the leaders to strengthen the communication between the leaders and their team. This goes back to making a decision where everyone has input based o n the vision and culture of the organization. Consistency with solutions to issues will bring consistency when the need for a resolution arises within an organization. You will have the ability to treat issues equally and know that you have done your due diligence in gathering as much facts and data necessary to make the right decision. One thing that our leaders agreed is that they lead by example. Leading by example is one of the strongest ways to show your dedication the team. As a leader you have to remember that actions speak louder than words. Our leaders know that treating our employees with honesty and respect in another motivation for their employees. Leaders understand that how they treat a person is the same way that the person will treat them. As far differences between leaders there were not noticed during the interview process there were not any that were noticeable. They all seemed to have the same values when it came to their teams or departments. They all expressed that they have confidence in the teams and the people that work with them. The answers provided by the leaders tie into what we have learned in class because as the interviews were being conducted we looked at leadership styles of each individual leader. We also analyzed the examples  that they provided as they explained their styles an d made sure that the style matched the examples that they were providing us. For example, in the case where our leaders stated that they considered themselves Participative style we looked for examples that clearly matched the style like the leaders being supportive of their teams and the input. All leaders mentioned a clear vision of the organization that they support. In order for our leaders to expect that others follow that vision that would need to understand it themselves. It was very interesting to see that all the leaders had a vision that coincided with the value system of the organization. The most important lesson that we learned about true leaders is that leaders will support and help strengthen characteristics of those that are willing to follow to the vision of the organization. We have a better understanding of what leaders expect from their teams and will make the team be effective.

American History Since 1877 Essay

While it may be the case that a popular and misinformed view of the entry of the United States into World War Two has displaced that of historical accuracy for the majority of casual observers of history, those with a deeper immersion in the historical facts recognize a more complex and perhaps more profound set of reasons and circumstances that led to the US entry into the war. The casual and uninformed observer no doubt believes that Hitler’s conquests in Europe along with the terror-inspiring Nazi-sponsored U-boat warfare in the North Atlantic and beyond, along with the imperial Japanese invasion of China are the reasons for the US entry into the war. These ideas are sound enough, but they tell only a partial story, the exterior of the issues and events. Admittedly, the concrete reason for war was the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, a single event which demonstrated the intention of the Axis powers to rule the earth. However, this surprise attack gave rise to one of the war’s most enduring and over-riding myths: that America’s entry into the war was precipitated primarily on moral grounds. This idea proves to be particularly specious given the historical evidence: although moral obligation might be given as the reason for US entry into the war, one, with study can easily â€Å"rejects the purely moral justification of American entry into the war against Hitler,† (Russett, 1997, p. 44) and it is equally as thorny, although just as tempting,, to frame US conflict with Japan on purely moral grounds. While it is true that the Japanese, â€Å"were often unkind conquerors,† (Russett, 1997, p. 44)they were also â€Å"welcomed in the former European colonies of Southeast Asia, and Japan† (Russett, 1997, p. 44) and they were able to keep some good relations native rebels; so Japanese territorial expansion and influence was in no way one-sided or always regarded as brutal. Whether or not moral justification was desired or necessary for the US to declare war on Japan, it is â€Å"Hitler, not Tojo, who is customarily presented as the personification of evil† and therefore it is Germany, not Japan, which carries most of the weight of â€Å"moral justification† for the US entry into World War Two,† (Russett, 1997, p. 44) although even this position is tenuous weighed against the very real historical ambivalence displayed by the American government during Hitler’s rise to power and Germany’s subsequent campaign of European conquests. When Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933 he had already divulged most of his far-reaching plans for war in Europe and especially for war in the east, against Russia. Also divulged was his violent antisemiticism and his ambition to attain global German and Nazi hegemony. In his celebrated â€Å"autobiography† Mein Kampf, Hitler made clear to whomever was paying attention (presumably the world) his â€Å"attitudes and plans which were the basis of the Nazi government and of his foreign policy. † (Goldston, 1967, p. 60) The policies and ambitions were â€Å"frankly stated for all the world to read† (Goldston, 1967, p. 60) and it is to the sorrow and pity of millions that Hitler’s blatant pronouncements went unheeded by politicians and generals throughout Europe. In fact, if a moral imperative played any role in the mind-set of the Western, future-Alllied, powers during this time, it was an imperative of peace. And it was precisely this imperative toward preserving peace: for Britain to prevent another Great War in Europe and for America to refuse involvement in another European war, which led to the tragic escalation of what began as a localized conflict into a global catastrophe. This mistake would be repeated at least three more times as the world sped toward World War Two. On at last three occasions: during the Anschluss when Hitler integrated Austria into the German Reich, again during Hitler’s military conquest of the Sudentland and, once more, when Hitler engineered the political conquest of Czechoslovakia at Munich, the post-war Treaty of Versailles had been broken. From the base of 100,000 troops permitted under the Versailles Treaty, Hitler, on 1 October 1934: ordered a trebling of army size, as well as the creation of an air force, which had been illegal under the Versailles terms. On 7 March 1936, troops were sent into the Rhineland, unilaterally abrogating the demilitarization of Germany’s western frontier provided for under the Locarno Pact† (Black, 2003, p. 4). Later, after this initial violation, â€Å"troops were sent into the Rhineland,† which broke the Treaty of Versailles openly. (Black, 2003, p. 4). In each of these cases, military intervention by France, Britain, and Russian was not only lawful, it was indicated by treaty: and, as is obviously the case looking back on history, each of the chances provided an opportunity for the Allied powers to prevent World War Two. During the invasion of the Sudentland, Hitler’s true ambitions lay elsewhere, he desired to invade Czechoslovakia, and in doing so, secure the German flank for an eventual invasion of the Soviet Union. Clearly, Germany was heading in the direction of war. So, any argument that Hitler or Germany’s were hidden or hard to understand is weak, if not plainly foolish. This fact, however, seemed to have little influence of the European policy of appeasement, which allowed not only human rights abuses in the Reich to continues unchallenged, but allowed for blatant military conquest of sovereign nations by Germany. Meanwhile, America’s isolationist vision towards continued, leaving Hitler with a free hand after his shrewdly engineered â€Å"Pact of Steel† had been concluded with his sworn enemy the Soviet Union. The US entered World war One slowly, and after â€Å"the conclusion of hostilities there was a wave of revulsion against war and military activity, † (Aldcroft, 1997, p. 8) which resulted in a public unwillingness to support intervention which might lead to military conflict. Though the pattern of appeasement followed by France and Britain in the wake of Hitler’s string of highly-visible conquests is difficult to understand, the apprehension toward war which had been seeded in the aftermath of World War One, â€Å"pacifism was strong in both Britain and France, in large part in response to the massive casualties in World War One† (Black , 2003, p. 4). as well as serious problems with the ensuing Treaty of Versailles are the best explanation for the malaise of the Allies. Instead of â€Å"responding forcefully against the successive breaches of the Versailles settlement,† (Black , 2003, p. 4). France and Britain decided to take a pretty much passive position in regards to Nazi Germany. Clearly these actions â€Å"encouraged Nazi expansionism† (Black , 2003, p. 4). even though the British and French governments were blind to the dangers of Nazism and believed that they were averting a war through their diplomatic efforts. Meanwhile, everyone concerned hoped Hitler’s conquests would be limited and that he would spend his time â€Å"ruling Germany† and not seeking conflict or expansion throughout Europe. Of course, these hopes turned out to be foolishly placed because â€Å"†Hitler’s aim–as he had set it down in Mein Kampf[†¦ ] was an expansion of Germany† (Jarman 206) and the outbreak of the war made those who had sought to make diplomacy the leading idea for dealing with Hitler had to admit that his diplomacy was merely a smokescreen to his desire to make war on those he believed were his enemies or those who opposed his plans for expansion for Germany. That he had already made all of his ambitions clear in his book was not important to the European leaders who dealt with Hitler initially; they just believed whatever he said to the loss of territories and thousands of peoples lives. (Jarman). Nothing seem to limit or stop the Allied policy of appeasement at Munich, which sacrificed the nation of Czechoslovakia to Hitler and the Nazis without a shot being fired. Hitler was also â€Å"determined to destroy Czechoslovakia, a democratic state that looked to other great powers for support† (Brown, 2004, p. 40); this would be a demonstration of the Reich’s power and intentions to expand its territories in the face of European opposition. Later, just â€Å"six months before the start of the Second World War, Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist,† (Brown, 2004, p. 40). and was incorporated into the Reich. Munich provided the most dramatic, and obvious, representation of Hitler’s ambitions and yet the irony is Germany would have been unable to match the military forces of the Allies during any of the three conquests outlined above. At the time of Munich, the German army could â€Å"muster only 31 divisions or regular troops and 7 reserve divisions;† (Brown, 2004, p. 40) this in contrasted with Allied powers â€Å"the French could hurl over 100 divisions and simply walk to Berlin. † (Brown, 2004, p. 40). In fact, the Czech army itself might have provide for its own protection had it been allowed to fight. Instead, Hitler was allowed to digest his conquests and plot his eventual war with the Soviet Union. No matter how considered the overwhelming historical evidence is that the Allies could have prevented the rise of global Nazism and the eventual outbreak of World War Two by abandoning their policies of appeasement and confronting the Third Reich with overwhelming military force. If moral justification had been lacking, one might interpret the Allied non-response to Hitler’s early acts of conquest and aggression as an act of graciousness — in sparing not only the soldiers but civilian populations from needless bloodshed. After-all, Germany had, her self only recently emerged from a terrible ravishment in the fiery end of World War One and her suffering under the Treaty of Versailles and the extraction of war-debts had brought Germany nearly to collapse. Even the Germans deserved better than a second war so closely following upon the Great War. If this had been the reasoning, in the absence of moral imperative, in the absence of signed treaties, and in the absence of military superiority, then even the Allied appeasement at Munich might have been at least understandable. Although the the Hitler-Stalin pact of August 1939 offered Germany protection from Soviet military retaliation and allowed the proposed invasion of Poland to take place without fear of Soviet reprisal. The Wehrmacht defeated the Polish army in just over 25 days and later when Spring allowed a more forceful and aggressive campaign strategy, the Wehrmacht descended upon the ‘low countries:† Denmark, Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands. After two and a half months, the French surrendered. And even though the majority of the British expeditionary force to the continent escaped at Dunkirk, the British experienced the loss of their heavy equipment† (Russett, 1997, p. 25). Ultimately, Mussolini decided to launch Italy into the war only a fear days after France’s surrender. Meanwhile, America’s involvement in the war was limited to the implementation of the â€Å"The Lend-Lease Act, which was to pour billions of dollars of supplies into Britain† (Russett, 1997, p. 26) and also, pave the way for military involvement. Not only did US forces occupy Iceland, but â€Å"President Roosevelt had agreed that American ships would escort convoys–including British ships† (Russett, 1997, p. 26) to Iceland. This convoying was not entirely peaceful, it meant that â€Å"if German U-boats approached the American escorts were to â€Å"shoot on sight† (Russett, 1997, p. 26) to insure that the goods got through. These were steps to protect Britain and also steps toward total war. However, the role of â€Å"Lend_lease† itself proclaimed a total lack of moral imperative on the behalf of the American people regarding Hitler’s conquests in Europe. While Hitler was gobbling up Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland — and even before his physical conquest, during his rise to power — the same ethical and moral reasons for making war against the Nazi Regime existed as would exist many months later, after the destruction and deaths of millions of Europeans, Africans, Russians, Americans, and Japanese was assured by the conflagration of a World War. If there was a time when a moral imperative should have played a role in the events which ed to America’s involvement in World war Two, Munich makes much ore an apt case than Pearl Harbor. Looking back over the vents which preceded the invasion of Poland, there seems to be no moral impediment for American intervention in Hitler’s rising Nazi state. Meanwhile, in the Pacific war, where America’s ambitions and motivations toward war were much less ambiguously articulated, Japan continued with an â€Å"exhausting and seemingly endless war† (Russett, 1997, p. 45) which started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, and was â€Å"greatly escalated by the clash at the Marco Polo Bridge which expanded into severe open warfare with China in 1937† (Russett, 1997, p. 45); such considerations were deeply incongruous with American ambitions in Southeast Asia. The imperative, however, was not one of moral obligation but one of geopolitical power. The same can be said for the Hobson’s choice ultimately faced by the Japanese. Although the attack on Pearl Harbor appeared to the American public as an act of ruthless aggression; to the Japanese, given the dwindling options for an Imperial future, as we will discuss directly, the act might easily have been viewed as a defensive military act of aggression. The friction between the US and Japan over the â€Å"China Incident† stemmed basically from an opposition of geopolitical ambitions. Japan considered itself and Imperial power, one which was as entitled to territorial expansion and expansion of influence as Britain or the United States and it viewed Southeast Asia and China as residing within its natural spheres of influence. To give up ambitions in China would be admitting that Japan was a second or third-rate world power and the elite of Japan’s military and civilian leaders found such a decision impossible because it gave in entirely to American demands. Faced with such a choice, the Japanese began to orbit around diplomatically and then join into the Nazi-led Axis, since it was obvious that the British? American alliance was likely headed toward a Allied war in Europe anyway. In July of 1941, Japanese assets were frozen in America, and â€Å"the consequent cessation of shipment of oil, scrap iron, and other goods from the United States, Japan’s economy was in most severe straits and her power to wage war directly threatened† (Russett, 1997, p. 46) and her ability to make war was becoming severely threatened by the ongoing embargoes against her. Japanese military planners estimated that â€Å"reserves of oil, painfully accumulated in the late 1930s when the risk of just such a squeeze became evident, would last at most two years† (Russett, 1997, p. 46) by which time it would be far too late to make a stand, militarily, against the United States in China or elsewhere. Somehow, Japan had found its way to a â€Å"no good choices† scenario, with acquiescence to American demands dooming Japan to a less than coequal status with the world’s dominant powers, or war with the United States — sooner than later — before supplies dwindled below practical abilities to make war. Diplomatic efforts proved useless when â€Å"The United States, and the British and Dutch,† (Russett, 1997, p. 47) would end the embargoes only as a response to â€Å"Japanese withdrawal from air and naval bases in Indochina† (Russett, 1997, p. 47); and at this time the Japanese military began to consider war with the U. S. inevitable. Most of the Japanese elite â€Å"were opposed to any settlement which would in effect have meant withdrawal from China† (Russett, 1997, p. 47) which would also mean the increase of Western, particularly American influence, in precisely those ares which Japan’s ruling castes believed were the natural provinces of the Japanese Empire. It is impossible to view the preceding acts perpetrated against the Japanese as anything other than aggressive, if falling short of actual military warfare; it was clear that Japan was being pushed just about as far to the brink of war as any nation could be pushed. It is impossible to extract from the American non-intervention in Europe coupled with its seeking intervention by economic and diplomatic means in Manchuria and Southeast Asia a policy which is driven by moral, rather than global-poltical, imperatives. In fact, positing American neutrality throughout the early days of Hitter’s conquests with American proactive intervention in Japanese Imperial expansion requires one to admit very little in the way of moral imperative. While the Japanese military planned for war, the American government also planned for an escalation of hostilities: â€Å"By autumn 1941, however, opinion was crystallizing in the highest levels of the American decision-making system† (Russett, 1997, p. 50) this process was leading to war. Roosevelt â€Å"informally polled his cabinet on the question of whether the country would support war against Japan† (Russett, 1997, p. 50) and the result was that â€Å"All members responded in the affirmative† (Russett, 1997, p. 50); with public support behind the war, conflict with Japan seemed immanent. By the beginning of December their attack was irrevocably set in motion. The Japanese conviction that war could not be limited to the British and Dutch had to be based wholly on inference. Yet it was a correct analysis and a solid conviction, as shown by the otherwise inexplicable risk they took at Pearl Harbor â€Å"the attack ensured American popular support for the war in the Pacific, just as the moral argument against Hitler in Europe worked to fuel public support for the American entry into World War Two† ; so, in effect, where the brutality and obvious territorial ambitions of Hitler had failed to ignite American sentiment for war, the attack by Japan ignited an inferno that would draw the US into the most notable global conflict of the twentieth-century. (Russett, 1997, p. 51) In conclusion, the US entry into World War Two when studied at more than a popular â€Å"mythic† level, is a story which combines the global-political ambitions of many nations with the propagandistic impulse which is necessary to â€Å"sell† even just wars to the soldiers who must fight them and to the publics which must support them. The US entered World War Two not so much as an agent of moral â€Å"good† or to stop a great evil which was recognized as emerging from the Third Reich. As we have seen, if this had truly been the motivation for a US war against Germany, moral justification had been provided as early as 1933 when Hitler rose to power declaring his ambitions to shirk off the Treaty of Versailles, wipe out Soviet Russia and destroy the Jews. Certainly, by the time of the Munich agreement, Nazi Germany was a recognized threat to both world order and world morality. The facts of history, while deepening and shadowing the more broad strokes of myth, fail to eliminate altogether the essential ideas contained within the myth. While it is true that the US entered World War Two in what could properly be described as a â€Å"tardy† fashion, and failed to seize the opportunity to help to push the European Allies to a timely confrontation with the burgeoning Reich before the loss of millions, the fact remains that US involvement in World War Two was the triumph of good over evil adn did provide a victory for freedom, democracy, and humanism which did not exist in the Nazi state. However, it is important also to realize that one of the key Allies, Soviet Russia, stood as perhaps an even more corrupt regime than the Nazis, slaughtered as many, if not more, Jews, political prisoners, and Russian citizens, combined as the Nazi regime — the truths of history provide the seeds of myth and from those seeds, often, the fruit of what is essential can be tasted. If history shows that the US entry into World War Two was based less in moral grounds than myth would have us belive, it is also true that American morality and strength of character provided an indelible asset in claiming victory against both the Nazis and the Japanese during the Second World War. References Aldcroft, D. (1997). The Versailles Legacy. History Review, (29), 8+. Black, J. (2003). World War Two.New York: Routledge. Brown, M. D. (2004, December). The S. O. E. and the Failure of the Slovak National Uprising: Martin D. Brown Tells the Little-Known Story of How British and American Soldiers Disappeared in Slovakia’s Tatra Mountains during the Remarkable Episode of Slovakia’s National Uprising against Its Nazi-Supporting Government during the Second World War. History Today, 54, 39+. Jarman, T. L. (1956). The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany (1st ed. ). New York: New York University Press. Russett, B. M. (1997). No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the United States Entry into World War II. Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press. Goldston, Robert. (1967). The Life and Death of Nazi Germany. New York, Fawcett Premier. Payne, Robert. (1973). The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. New York

Relationship between Theory and Research Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Relationship between Theory and Research - Essay Example Descriptive theories are the most common theories. They classify or describe characteristics or dimensions of an individual, group, situation, or event by summarizing similarities found in discrete observations. Descriptive theories mostly required when remarkably little about the phenomenon under discussion (Ellis and Yair, 2008). Descriptive theory described into two categories, that is, classification and naming. A classification theory is elaborate in that it defines how the characteristics or dimensions of a given phenomenon interrelated structurally. Naming theories describe the characteristics or dimensions of some phenomenon. The dimensions may be exclusive, overlapping, mutually exclusive or sequential. A classification theory can be mostly referred to as taxonomies or typologies. A descriptive theory is tested and generated by descriptive research. This research usually referred to as explanatory research. Explanatory research specifically directed towards knowing the existing characteristics of the real world relative to the question being researching upon. A descriptive may or may not use an empirical method. Non empirical methods include historic and philosophic inquiries. Philosophic inquiries classify and describe phenomena through critical discussion. Moreover, historical research directed towards the description of phenomena that occurred at an earlier time (Harlow, 2011). A descriptive study employing the empirical method involves observation of a phenomenon in its natural setting. Data gathered by a participant or a non participant observation, as well as by structured interview schedule, questionnaires or by open ended. The raw data gathered in a descriptive study may be quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative data usually analyzed by various parametric or non parametric measures of central tendency and variability. Qualitative data may be analyzed by a means of content analysis. This technique sorts data into a priori category or into a category that emerge during the analysis (Kerlinger, & Lee, 2000). Empirical- descriptive research involves surveys, ethnographies, case studies and phenomenological studies. A case study is a systematic and intensive investigation of many factors for a group, a community or a small number of individuals. Surveys yield accurate and factual descriptions of an intact phenomenon. Surveys use structured instruments fo r collecting data although open ended questions may be included in the instrument (Harlow, 2011). The method of grounded theory yields a description of social situations and processes in those social situations. Every piece of data constantly compares with every other piece in order to discover the dominant social processes that characterize the phenomenon under study. Ethnography yields a theory of cultural behavior for a

Human Resource Management PT 4 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Human Resource Management PT 4 - Essay Example Secondly it states the functions of the advertised position, this is usually the lengthy part and details what the job really is all about and can be quite particular .The third importance is that it contains attributes that are required for that particular job and provides some of the insights into what kind of work environment an employee is trying to maintain. This part also details any educational or technical requirements that may be desired or important (Philip, 1989). The fourth importance of a job description is that it stipulates clearly particulars on the one to report to and organizational structure. The fifth importance specifies the criteria for evaluation and helps clarify what is really important both for the employee and the organization. The sixth importance helps the employee understand the type and span of compensation including the benefits to be derived from the post and finally the seventh importance is all about physical surroundings and location of the place of work. Apart from the above, job descriptions also assist organizations to better understand the skill base and experience required to improve the victory of the company. They assist in recruiting, hiring, evaluating and possible termination of employees. Job descriptions are valuable because they save time, are useful in aspects of labor management and as crucial references if an applicant, government or employee agency disputes a hiring or some additional employment decis ion (Sharon, 2008). A sample job description of my previous job is that of a registered nurse and is as follows; identification of patient care needs by establishment of personal rapport with possible and real patients and other individuals in a capacity to comprehend care needs. Establishment of a compassionate atmosphere by provision of emotional, spiritual and psychological support to patients, families and friends. Promotion of

Essay questions Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 13

Questions - Essay Example The executive branch is conferred â€Å"with exemptions and qualifications† in the President of the United States; he also has the power to veto laws (Davis 1). The president is not obliged to enforce the law; instead, the president’s minions should perform these duties. Lastly, the judicial branch of the government has the authority to decide over cases and disputes. This power is conferred to the Supreme Court and lower courts as recognized by the Congress. Each branch of the United States national government possesses powers that it can utilize to check and balance the functions and activities of the other two branches. Declaring George Washington’s greatest achievement would always be subjective and indefinite in nature; but, in all probability, he desisted from taking more power than what was appropriate (Wood 105). After his resignation as the Commander-in-Chief of the continental Army, the people wanted him to become the King of the newly-formed nation; nevertheless, he refused to accept this fate, and instead, he wanted to have a democratic and free country. He was thorough of upholding a good standing by precluding political conspiracy. He showed no attention and notice over partiality and cronyism. Perhaps his greatest failure was when he approved the passing of The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which provided slaveholders the right to regain their property; also, to help a runaway slave is a grave crime, which eventually permitted the proliferation of slave chasers within the United States’ territories. This is a rather subtle move to sustain slavery, which is contradictory to his desire to create a democratic and free country. On the whole, Washington’s administration led the successful emancipation of the slaves, which although hampered in his initial decision to implement The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, eventually