Milton the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce Essay Example

Milton the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce Paper The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce by John Milton led to a great stir in society during his time. Milton used his ideas and made many deferent Biblical names, even Christ, sound Like they agreed with him. In his prose, he took words from the Bible and changed the meaning to make the Bible sound as If It preached the same Idea he tried to convey. The prose argues that the main purpose of marriage Is not to procreate, but to share a deeper, meaningful relationship with your significant other. Milton wanted to propose irreconcilable differences as grounds for divorce. That indisposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, rising from a cause in nature unchangeable, hindering and ever likely to hinder the main benefit of conjugal society, which are solace and peace, is a greater reason of divorce then natural frigidity, especially if there be no children and that there be mutual consent. (IPPP) Milton tries to say that if the nature of two people will not produce harmony then they should not have to stay together. If they both agree that the differences they share cause too much negativity then a divorce would be the best resolution, especially with no children Involved cause then they have not followed the basis for the marriage. The first passage Milton uses comes from Deuteron 24:1-4. Deuteron uses the word uncleanness, which Milton puts his own meaning to. The passage follows: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. We will write a custom essay sample on Milton the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Milton the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Milton the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another mans wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and senders her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord: and thou shall not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God give thee for an Inheritance. L] Milton says that when translated by the Hebrew the terms some uncleanness means any real nakedness. The notion of any real nakedness refers to that of the mind or the body. The cause of divorce mentioned in the Law is translated some uncleanness, but in Hebrew it sounds nakedness of ought, or any real nakedness: which by all of the learned interpreters is referred to the mind, as well as to the body. And what greater nakedness or unfitness then that which hinders ever the solace and peaceful society of the marled couple, and what hinders that more then the unfitness and defectiveness of an uncongenial mind. IPPP) Milton attempts to change the mind of the Parliament by making a suggestion that the Hebrew interpret the passage differently. Although it mess Like a logical way to persuade, the Parliament did not care for the Hebrew, thus not acknowledging Millions attempt to change their minds. The next passage Milton mentions taken from 1 Corinthians 7:8, 9 leads him Into the usage of the word burn. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It Is good for them if they abide even as l. But if they cannot contain, let the marry: for it is netter to marry than to Turn. Ill] Milton takes ten word Turn to mean a easels Tort conversation. The burn suggests that the marriage will not survive without the communication between the husband and wife. Milton agues that without the mental connection, the physical part of the relationship will not exist. Without the physical attraction the marriage could not keep up with the standards set to have children. Milton shows his belief in conversation and mental connection creates the feeling of love not the desire of physical attraction. As for that other burning, which is but as it were the venom of a lusty and over-abounding concoction, strict life and labor, with an abatement of a full diet may keep that low and obedient enough: but this pure and more inbreed desire of Joining to it self in conjugal fellowship a fit inversion soul(which desire is properly called love) is stronger then death, as the spouse of Christ thought, many waters cannot quench it, neither can the floods drown it. IPPP) In another piece of Millions prose he states that the burn could also constitute the need for another person. Milton centers his argument for the basis of marriage on the prevention of loneliness. Marriage therefore was giving as a remedy of that trouble: but what might this burning mean? Certainly not the mere motion of carnal lust, not the mere goad of a sensitive desire; God does not ironically take care for such chattel. What is it then but that desire which God put into Adam in Paradise before he knew the sin of incontinence; that desire which God saw it was not good that man should be left alone to burn in; the desire and longingly to put off an unkindly solitariness by united another body, but not to without a fit souls to his in the cheerful society of wedlock. (IPPP) Milton says that the remedy for such burning can only come from the presence of another person. When Milton states to put off the unkindly solitariness, it shows God made both Adam and Eve to revert solitude. The final piece in the prose where Milton attempts to sway the audience into believing his argument happens with Christ. Milton tries to say that Christ made a harsh statement, not because he meant it, but only to instill strict rules where the Pharisees did not. Where the Pharisees were strict, there Christ seems remises; where they were too remises, he saw it needful to seem most severe: in one place he censures an enchant look to be adultery already committed: another time he passes over actual adultery with lessee reproof then for an unchaste look; not so heavily modeling secret weakness, as open malice: So here he may be Justly thought to have giving this rigid sentence against divorce, not to cut off all remedy from a good man who finds himself consuming away in disconsolate and uninjured matrimony, but to lay bridle upon the bold abuses of those over-weaning Rabies; IPPP) Milton went out on a limb trying to take what Chrisms word and Just say that Christ did not mean what he said. Now the argument Just revolves around the idea that Christ only said that marriage could take place if the partner committed adultery because the Pharisees had become too lenient. Milton tried hard too push this idea into the minds of those in the Parliament. The Parliament did not accept the prose and wanted all of the copies burned. Although Milton did not get what he wanted accomplished he still found a way to keep his ideas. Millions ideas and beliefs became realities far after he passed away. Even though the rational behind his ides sometimes lacked in a following, Milton still Delved In teem strongly Ana wangle-nearly. [I] http://www. Baryons. Net/milestone/divorce. HTML http://www. Baryons. Net/milestone/divorce. HTML

An experiment to determine the enthalpy changes using Hesss law Essay Example

An experiment to determine the enthalpy changes using Hesss law Essay Example An experiment to determine the enthalpy changes using Hesss law Essay An experiment to determine the enthalpy changes using Hesss law Essay The main idea behind this experiment is to find out the temperature difference between the room temperature and the final temperature. Sodium carbonate, sodium hydrogencarbonate and hydrochloric acid were used in this experiment. Sodium carbonate, also known as soda ash is got from the reaction of carbonic acid and sodium hydroxide while sodium hydrogencarbonate (baking soda) is a salt formed by the partial replacement of hydrogen by sodium.Data Collection1) Temperature change by using 3.3g of sodium hydrogencarbonateMass of the container on which the sample was weighed = 11.48gMass of the container and the crystals = 14.98gMass of the container after the crystals were added = 11.70gMass of the crystals that did not react = 00.20gMass of the crystals that reacted = 03.30gTime (s)Temperature ( à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ C)023.03023.06023.09018.012015.015015.018015.021015.024015.527016.030016.02) Temperature change by using 1.88g of sodium carbonateMass of the container on which the sample was weigh ed = 11.48gMass of the container and the crystals = 13.48gMass of the container after the crystals were added = 13.60gMass of the crystals that did not react = 00.12gMass of the crystals that reacted = 01.88gTime (s)Temperature ( à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ C)023.03023.06023.09029.012030.015030.018030.021030.024029.527029.030029.03) Temperature change by using 5.66g of sodium hydrogencarbonateMass of the container on which the sample was weighed = 11.48gMass of the container and the crystals = 18.48gMass of the container after the crystals were added = 12.82gMass of the crystals that did not react = 01.34gMass of the crystals that reacted = 05.66gTime (s)Temperature ( à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ C)023.03023.06023.09021.012021.015021.018021.021021.024022.527022.030022.04) Temperature change by using 3.85g of sodium carbonateMass of the container on which the sample was weighed = 11.48gMass of the container and the crystals = 15.48gMass of the container after the crystals were added = 11.63gMass of the crystals th at did not react = 00.15gMass of the crystals that reacted = 03.85gTime (s)Temperature ( à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ C)023.03023.06023.09028.512028.515028.518028.521028.524028.027028.030028.0UNCERTAINITIES+/- 0.01g : Digital weighing scale+/- 0.01s : Stop watch+/- 0.05cm3 : Measuring cylinder+/- 0.05à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½C : ThermometerOBSERVATIONS- When hydrochloric acid is added to sodium carbonate, some effervescence (bubbles appear) is observed because of the liberation of carbon dioxide gas. It is completely soluble and in the process it starts getting warmer.- The same thing happens when sodium hydrogencarbonate is added to hydrochloric acid except for the fact it cools down instead of getting warmer.CHEMICALS (QUALITATIVE DATA)1) Hydrochloric acid- It is colorless and odorless. It is a monoprotic acid, that is, it produces 1 hydrogen ion when completely dissolved in water. The molarity of hydrochloric acid used in this experiment is 2M.2) Sodium carbonate- Sodium Carbonate is a white, crystalline com pound soluble in water (absorbing moisture from the air) but insoluble in alcohol. It forms a strongly alkaline water solution. It is also known as soda ash3) Sodium hydrogencarbonate- sodium bicarbonate or sodium hydrogen carbonate, chemical compound, NaHCO3, a white crystalline or granular powder, commonly known as bicarbonate of soda or baking soda. It is soluble in water and very slightly soluble in alcohol.DATA PROCESSING AND PRESENTATIONFinding the enthalpy of reaction for the following equation:2NaHCO3 Na2CO3 + H2O +CO2a) Using 1.88g of sodium carbonate and 3.3g of sodium hydrogencarbonateEnthalpy cycle for the reaction?H12NaHCO3(s) + 2 HCl 2NaCl(aq) +2 CO2(g)+ 2 H2O(l)?H2 ?H3Na2CO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O + 2 HCL(aq)Heat released during the reaction between HCl and NaHCO3 (Q1)= Mc?TSo, Q1 = 25g * 4.18 * (15-23)Q1 = 25* 4.18 * -8Therefore, Q1 = -836 J= -0.836KJCalculating the number of moles present in 3.3g of NaHCO3Number of moles = mass(g)/ molar massMass (g) = 3.3gMolar mass = 2 3 + 1 + 12 +(16*3)= 23 + 1 + 12 + 48= 84 g/molnumber of moles present in 3.3g of NaHCO3 = 3.3g/ (84g/mol)= 0.039 molesCalculating the amount of energy given out by 1 moleIf 0.039 moles of NaHCO3 give -0.836KJ of energy then1 mole would give out (-0.836/0.039 = -21.44KJ) of energyTherefore, ?H1 = -21.44 KJ/molCalculating ?H3 by the above method, that is, the reaction between Na2CO3 and HClQ2 = Mc?TSo, Q2 = 25 * 4.18 * (30-23)Q2 = 25 * 4.18 * 7Therefore, Q2 = 731.5J= 0.7315KJCalculating the number of moles present in 1.8g of Na2CO3Number of moles = mass (g)/ molar massMass (g) = 1.8gMolar mass = (23 * 2) + 12 +(16*3)= 46 +12 + 48= 106 g/molnumber of moles present in 1.8g of Na2CO3 = 1.8g/ (106g/mol)= 0.018 molesCalculating the amount of energy given out by 1 moleIf 0.018 moles of Na2CO3 give -0.731KJ of energy then1 mole would give out (-0.7315/0.018 = 40.64KJ) of energyTherefore, ?H3 = 40.64 KJ/molIn order to find the enthalpy of reaction for:2NaHCO3 Na2CO3 + H2O+ CO2; we use the Hes ss law which states that 2 ?H1 = ?H2 + ?H3?H2 = 2 ?H1 ?H3so, 2 ?H1 = 2 * -21.44 KJ/mol= -42.88KJ/mol?H3 = 40.64 KJ/molTherefore, ?H2 = -42.88 40.64= -83.52KJ/molb) Calculating the enthalpy change of reaction using 5.66g of sodium hydrogencarbonate, 3.85g of sodium carbonate and 50cmà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ of HCl.Enthalpy cycle for the reaction?H12NaHCO3(s) + 2 HCl 2NaCl(aq) +2 CO2(g)+ 2 H2O(l)?H2 ?H3Na2CO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O + 2 HCL(aq)Heat released during the reaction between HCl and NaHCO3 (Q1)= Mc?TSo, Q1 = 50g * 4.18 * (21.5-23.0)Q1 = 50* 4.18 * 1.5Therefore, Q1 = -331.50 J= -0.3135KJ `Calculating the number of moles present in 5.66g of NaHCO3Number of moles = mass (g)/ molar massMass (g) = 5.66gMolar mass = 23 + 1 + 12 + (16*3)= 23 + 1 + 12 + 48= 84 g/molnumber of moles present in 5.66g of NaHCO3 = 5.66g/ (84g/mol)= 0.0674 molesCalculating the amount of energy given out by 1 moleIf 0.0674 moles of Na2CO3 give -0.3135KJ of energy then1 mole would give out (-0.3135/0.0674 = -4.65KJ) of en ergyTherefore, ?H1 = -4.65 KJ/molCalculating ?H3 by the above method, that is, the reaction between Na2CO3 and HClQ2 = Mc?TSo, Q2 = 50 * 4.18 * (28.5-23)Q2 = 50 * 4.18 * 5.5Therefore, Q2 = 1149.5J= 1.1495KJCalculating the number of moles present in 3.85g of Na2CO3Number of moles = mass (g)/ molar massMass (g) = 3.85gMolar mass = (23 * 2) + 12 + (16*3)= 46 +12 + 48= 106 g/molnumber of moles present in 1.8g of Na2CO3 = 3.85g/ (106g/mol)= 0.036 molesCalculating the amount of energy given out by 1 moleIf 0.036 moles of Na2CO3 give 1.1495KJ of energy then1 mole would give out (1.1495KJ/0.036 = 31.93KJ) of energyTherefore, ?H3 = 31.93KJ/molIn order to find the enthalpy of reaction for:2NaHCO3 Na2CO3 + H2O+ CO2; we use the Hesss law which states that 2 ?H1 = ?H2 + ?H3?H2 = 2 ?H1 ?H3so, 2 ?H1 = 2 * -4.65 KJ/mol= -9.3KJ/mol?H3 = 31.93KJ/molTherefore, ?H2 = -9.3KJ/mol 31.93KJ/mol= -41.23KJ/molc) Error analysisDigital weighing scale: 1) 0.01/3.3 * 100= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½0.3%2) 0.01/5.66 * 100= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½0.18%Stop watch : 0.01/300 * 100= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ 3.3*10^-3Measuring cylinder : 1) 0.05/25 * 100= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½0.2%2) 0.05/50 * 100= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½0.1%Thermometer : 0.05/23 * 100= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½0.22%Total percentage error = 0.22%+ 0.1% + 3.3*10^-3 + 0.18%+ 0.3%= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½0.8033%Accounting for the error ?H2 = à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ -41.23KJ/mol= à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ -83.52KJ/molConclusionThe reaction between sodium hydrogencarbonate and HCl is endothermic, that is, heat is being absorbed in the reaction and the reaction between sodium carbonate and HCl is exothermic because temperature is given out to the surroundings.Also, in the second part of the experiment when the volume of HCl is increased and also the masses of sodium hydrogencarbonate andsodium carbonate is increased, the temperature difference in the reaction is less than before when the mass were less. The enthalpy of reaction is also decreased in the second part.Evaluation:Reasons for shortcoming in the answers are as follows:1) While t ransferring the HCl from the measuring cylinder to beaker, there is a possibility of leaving out some amount of HCl in the beaker itself.2) An analogue thermometer was used so the temperature may not have been accurate.3) Some systematic errors in the equipment might have led to some slight changes in the readings.Solution to the above problems:1) The first problem stated above is a personal error; So it can only be overcome by practice and improving ones concentration while doing the experiment.2) The second problem could have been overcome by the use of digital thermometer which is more accurate than an analogue thermometer.

Article Review about White Collar Crime Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Article Review about White Collar Crime - Essay Example I also learned that the old cliche â€Å"honesty is the best policy† always works. I learned that the time has come for the accounting profession to adopt a zero telerance policy against wrongful and dishonest behavior. This assignment also made me realize that not all good intentions are laudable. Doing a good job does not necessarily mean that it is laudable act. There are orders from our superiors that are illegals such as â€Å"coooking the books† that should not be followed. Being a good soldier will not absolve an employee from such criminal act. I learned from the article that our employers cannot pushed or forced us to do it and we cannot be bullied into submission because we are protected by law against the commission of such illegal acts. Corollary to this, whistleblowing and stopping the act right there and then could be detrimental to the employee. It is better that to stay in the organization and just quietly collect evidences and approach a lawyer who has an experience in litigating such cases. Obtaining evidences that we do not have access to, even if our intention is good, will not hold in court because because one’s hands are also dirty. Above all, the motivation of those who whistleblowed was not necessarily out of monetary reward, but out of their conscience to stop the illegal act. 2. How the article relates to our class discussions. This relates to our class discussion in a way that the practice of ethical behavior prevents wrongful and dishonest behavior in the accounting profession and other similar profession. It also relates to the discussion that following orders of a superior is not always morally right especially if the order is unlawful. Being a good soldier will not and cannot absolve an employee from doing a wrongful and criminal act. It also relates to the discussion that the accounting profession demands a high standard of ethical behavior and that the time has come that such criminal act is no longer tolera ted. 3. Your analysis and thoughts, and whether you agree or disagree with the authors.    The article made me realized that the recent financial crisis and corporate scandals that recently rocked the news was caused by this unethical and criminal behavior as perpetrated by those in the white collar industry especially those belonging in the financial sector. I need not elaborate the consequence, but it is already enough to tell that such collective unlawful acts precipitated and slid this country and the whole global economy into recession that caused a lot of people to lose their jobs and their homes and made life difficult for all of us. This consequence stresses the need why there is a need for strong a ethical behavior enforced by the zero tolerance against a criminal behavior in the accounting profession and financial industry. It is an eye opener to realize how the author illustrated the point that good intention is not necessarily laudable. I agree with the author fully wh en it was discussed that it is not wise to stop an illegal act right there and then especially if we are still in the organization. It will be prudent to quietly collect evidences and seek the help of an experience lawyer. Considering the consequence of this dishonest behavior to the economy in general, I agree with the author that the penalty should far exceed the benefit derived from those wrong doing. It made the lives of a lot of people

A Kinematic Analysis of a dominant versus non-dominant leg football Lab Report - 1

A Kinematic Analysis of a dominant versus non-dominant leg football kick - Lab Report Example In this research, a comparison will be made between the kinematics of the kicking of the dominant leg and that of the non-dominant leg. This study intends to study the kick for shooting the ball and for accomplishing low-drive ball. The objective of this study is to apply the information that improves the skills and level of performance of the non-dominant leg of the soccer player. Further to that, this study aims at examining findings on the biomechanics used in soccer kicks for the identification of new aspects and factors influencing the performance of soccer kicks. Soccer game is among the most popular sports globally. The offensive action in the soccer game is the soccer kick. The team with the majority of shooting stands greater opportunities to win the game. In this regard, it is very essential to enhance the soccer kicking technique in the training programs among the young energetic soccer players. The effectiveness of instep soccer kicks is affected by various factors such as the type of kick, the kicking distance from the goal, atmospheric pressure (air resistance) and the method of main kick as per the description of the biomechanical analysis. Earlier studies have explored the details of biomechanics in the soccer movement. New transformations have taken place in the performance of soccer kick such as the three-dimensional kinematics. Other movements include the joint-moments, which drive the joint movement, football performance mechanisms and various factors affecting the biomechanics of soccer kick. The elementary kinematics of lower limbs in the instep soccer kicks have previously gone through assessment. These demand the evaluation of the angular kicking position, the angular velocity and the joint linear kinematics involved. The linear velocity of the ankle hips and the knee in soccer kicks at the start of the movement to point of touching the ground, then finally to the ball impact (Mizrahi et al, 2000). Several studies of soccer-kick

Why patient outcomes are improved when cared for on specialised Stoke Essay

Why patient outcomes are improved when cared for on specialised Stoke Units - Essay Example Advances in diagnostic aids and medical treatment have come to the aid of the treatment of stroke. Multidisciplinary specialized stroke units have evolved as a sequel to these developments. Specialized stroke units have demonstrated the capability of improving the outcomes of stroke patients. Recommendations: Sound development of specialized stroke units as the means for treatment of stroke patients. Medical, nursing and therapist educational facilities to incorporate educational strategies to provide for the development of these members of the multidisciplinary specialized stroke unit. Additional research into is required into areas for which, evidence is currently not completely validated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of specialist stroke units, when compared to other medical care modes like speciality wards and general wards, on the outcome of patients that have undergone a stroke event. A further aim of this study is to show that specialist stroke units provide better outcomes for stroke patients, as opposed to general wards or other speciality wards, by evaluating the outcomes of patients treated in stroke units as compared to speciality and general wards. The outcomes that would be investigated to provide clarity in the comparison of stroke units to general wards or other speciality wards would include mortality and disability rates, length of stay, development of complications, rehabilitation potential, cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Around the world stroke is attracting more and more attention as a medical problem of growing dimensions. The attention is not restricted to the field of medical studies, but has also drawn the attention of the health authorities and the media. This is because stroke has a considerable impact on the socio-economic status of communities around the globe. It was initially thought that stroke was a problem of the western developed

Overview Of The Enola Gay Controversy History Essay

Overview Of The Enola Gay Controversy History Essay The term History Wars was coined in the United States in 1994  [1]  . It was based on the controversy over how history should be represented for the decision of dropping an atomic bomb on Japan when the Smithsonians National Air and Space Museum drafted an exhibit entitled The Crossroads: The End of World War II, the Atomic Bomb and the Cold War around the refurbished Enola Gay to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the war in 1995. This controversy centred around the failed 1995 Smithsonian National Air and Space Museums exhibit of the Enola Gay, which intended to examine intersection the end of World War II beginning with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Along that process, various stakeholders in the representation of this historical event were embroiled including Smithsonian curators, veterans such as the Air Force Association and the American Legion, members of the United States Congress, academic historians, media, American public and even the Japanese. As early as in 1988, Smithsonians National Air and Space Museum (NASM) announced that they would display the Enola Gay as part of an interpretive exhibit on the end of World War II and the origins of the Cold War  [2]  . This announcement brought the museum into contact with a variety of interested groups. As the scripts developed, the exhibit had set off a heated controversy concerning national ideologies, the collective memory of self-victimization, and contestation over historical knowledge. The story of the Smithsonian and the Enola Gay reflected a larger battle in America over academic goals, cultural superiority, sacrifices, heroic effort and how should American remember their past.  [3]   This essay explores the ways in which the Enola Gay debate was fought out primarily in the American public media and in congressional hearings about history and memory. It will focuses on various predicaments in an attempts to produce a nations single and definitive public history and memory shared commonly and objectively by a nation. The Enola Gay controversy or some might called it the Smithsonian atomic bomb exhibit debates sparks a History Wars in American public. In fact, any attempts to produce or exhibit narratives about the past will always spark a controversy and incites various arguments and struggles over historical truth. This essay furthermore attempts to situate The Enola Gay debates within the larger context of the condition of the knowledge that describes those who were involved in this polemic. The Enola Gay controversy was not really about facts, nor was it about which side represented the facts more accurately. Rather, it centred on questions about for whom, for what objectives, and for whose community the event need to be remembered. The difference between the two different factions did not actually portray whether one side distorted the facts more than the other, although there were a number of events that which conservative politicians and veterans deliberately refused to acknowledge the existence of certain information, records and archives materials. Although those who involved in this debate be it veterans, Air Force Association, American Legion, news editors, conservative politicians, academic historians, Smithsonian curators and American public agreed that the main objective of the exhibit is to commemorate the important mission that led America to victory, there will always be different approaches on how to portray American as a saviour of the world and to acknow ledged the United States as the nation that ends the war. The conflation of the history wars with rhetoric of educational over the exhibit escalates during the development of the script. The exhibition main objectives were to showcase the plane that had dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to end the war.  [4]  The script would have taken visitors through five sections moving from victory in Europe through the nuclear proliferation of the Cold War.  [5]  Along with the script preparation, gradually there are contradiction and different perspectives among the groups involved. The heated discussion of the initial script became public when the Air Force Association accused Smithsonian curators of politicizing the script.  [6]  These debates between veterans and curators foreshadowed a two-year struggle over plans for the exhibition. Veterans insist that the bomb had ended the war and thus prevented further loss of American soldiers lives, while academic historians and curators believed the other way round. The contradiction of the story which is one of a weapon that brought peace and victory and the other side weapon that brought destruction and terrify the world had created different views to American public  [7]  . Martin Harwit, the Smithsonians director, along with his curators, had held numerous discussions with veterans, academic historians and other interested groups in preparing the script of the exhibit.  [8]  During the preparation of the script and long before the official opening exhibition which is planned in August 1995, criticism on this exhibition increased largely due to the alleged political correctness and historical accurate polemic. There was an intense pressure against the Smithsonian from the veterans especially from the American Legion and the Air Force Association in developing the script. The Smithsonian wanted to tell a narrative purely based on the factual historical event while veterans insist on the portrayal of the struggling American troops, their heroic action that eventually fought to end the war and how the bomb could save approximately hundred thousand lives of American soldiers  [9]  . Tom Crouch, Chairman of the Institute of the Aeronautic Department at the Smithsonian Institute, already getting fed up with the continuous unresolved debates over the objectives of the exhibit, had asked this very important question in his memo to Harwit: whether the museum was producing an exhibit that was intended to make veterans feel goods or an exhibition that will lead our visitors to think about the consequences of the atomic bombing of Japan? Frankly, I dont think we can do both  [10]  . Veterans boasted that they had a number of powerful lobbying groups in Congress and they have the strength in number. They claimed that they have public backing and the American is always behind them. Their claim is true; on 27 August 1994, twenty four Congressmen sent a letter to the Smithsonian calling the exhibition as anti-American and a historically narrow, revisionist view of the Enola Gays mission  [11]  . When the veterans felt that they were going to be portrayed unfairly in the exhibition, they began to react and gather the support from those who felt the same way they did and started to interfere in the Smithsonian script. Veterans organization had a very high expectation that the exhibition would provide enough balanced historical context so that the reason to drop the bomb were justified enough or at least reasonable, legitimate and might be a necessary to avoid unbalance inference that will equal the bombing with more tragic incident such as holocaust. The politicians were also jumped into the bandwagon in support of the veterans resistance. Newt Gingrich, a Republican leader in House of Representative said that American had been tired and sick of being told by some so called historians that they ought to be ashamed of their country in the way they end the war  [12]  . In the following month, the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 257 which stated: . . . any exhibit by the National Air and Space Museum with respect to the Enola Gay should reflect appropriate sensitivity toward the men and women who faithfully and selflessly served, and should avoid impugning the memory of those who gave their lives for  [13]  . The Smithsonian is being criticized from all corners, from those who consider the exhibition as revisionist which is critical of the American History Wars to those who accuse the curators and the historians of staging and exaggerating which glorifies the decision of dropping the bomb. The curators and historians wanted the exhibition to be devoted solely to the justifications in using such a weapon and the task of the curators is to educate people, not to spread some kind of propaganda. Curators have not always been comfortable creating exhibits to celebrate technological prowess, devastating impact, losses of lives and wartime sacrifices. The curators saw the chance to display the Enola Gay as an opportunity to bring to a wider audience the issue of the consequences of the devastating impact for using such a terrible weapon and helping visitors to have better understanding the meaning and implication of the decisions and events that have shaped the subsequent history of the twentiet h century. The veterans accused the Smithsonian in denying the justification to drop the bomb at that time by questioning the morality and motives of President Trumans decision to end the war soonest possible  [14]  . On the veterans point of view, the decision is just a noble thing to be made which is to save as many American lives possible and to end the war immediately. As the script developed, both parties seem to be at loggerheads. The Smithsonian refusal to change the script infuriates the veterans. The American Legion insists that the script inferred that America was somehow in the wrong and her loyal airmen somehow criminal  [15]  . The congressmen step into the debate sided with the veterans and accusing the Smithsonian as a blatant betrayal of American history, biased and anti-American  [16]  . According to veterans, the script was a politically rigged program that made the Japanese in World War II look like victims instead of aggressors, and showed Americans as ruthless i nvaders, driven by racism and revenge.  [17]   Veterans reacted strongly to any Smithsonian attempt to remember the bombing that questioned the good war. They heavily criticized the progress of the script and particularly disturbed by the scripts suggestion that there were element of US aggression and imperialism even in what had been described as the most just and sacred of American wars ever fought.  [18]  While the curators wanted the public to interpret the consequences of the terrifying weapon and the horror of the war, veterans wanted the exhibit to commemorate the sacrifices they made to end the war. Their complaints reflected a perception that the curators and historians refusal to restructured the script as what the veterans wanted was seen as slap in the face of all Americans, including our courageous fallen, who fought from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay.50 Bob Dole, a war veteran and a Republican Presidential candidate, told the American Legionnaires during the speech in Labor Day added that a generation of historians were in fact tend to be intellectual elites who seem embarrassed by America51. Charles B. Sweeney, the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, heavily criticized the curators and described it as an assault on our language and history by the elimination of accurate and descriptive words.52 The media also inflames the controversy by bringing the exhibition into disrepute. A day after the exhibition were cancelled, the editorial of the Washington Post wrote : It is important to be clear about what happened at the Smithsonian. It is not, as some have it, that benighted advocates of a special interest or right-wing point of view brought historical power to bear to crush and distort the historical truth. Quite to the contrary, narrow-minded representatives of a special-interest and revisionist point of view attempted to use their inside track to appropriate and hollow out a historical event that large numbers of Americans alive at that time and engaged in the war had witnessed and understood in a very different and authentic way  [19]  . The main problem is to decide who the decision maker in this exhibition is. Curators is just doing their job and they have the right to interpret the past based solely on their scholarly credentials and other primary resources such as archives, historical records, photographs, interviews, bibliographies and also advised from academic historians. In contrast, the veterans claimed that they too have the rights to portrayed the exhibition based on their personal and wartime experience. As far as the veterans concerned, their criticism is not solely against the suffering of the Japanese people due to the dropping of the bomb, but they call for more balance and the completeness of the story rather than for accuracy or fidelity to what happened in fact. Apart from contrary belief that veterans were at all time against the historical accuracy, veterans greatly appreciated the curators effort to portray the exhibition as much attractive as ever but they wanted them to be displayed more on the Americans favour rather than Japanese one. As a whole, all parties came into agreement that they wanted to make this exhibition a success. Everybody involves in the controversy over the exhibition seems to agree that the decision to drop the bomb will resulted various interpretation but it is clear that the decision made in 1945 will be viewed differently as in present day. The veterans came into agreement that the exhibition should tell another side of the story about Enola Gay so that the balanced display would allow visitors to make their own judgement about what happened, how and why. The Enola Gay controversy clearly demonstrates that one cannot effectively seek proper representation in a national public sphere solely by claiming to possess knowledge that is solidly based on factual authenticity. To differentiate between factual history and imaginary commemoration is problematic precisely because it can prove debilitating when trying to prevail over those who adhere to opposed understanding of history. Moreover, as observed in the Smithsonian dispute, to rationalize the demand for the representation in the public sphere by opposing ones legitimacy on factual authenticity alone may unwittingly help perpetuate the myth that the subaltern history is more accurate than mainstream history. As The American Legions national commander, William M. Detweiller declared in November 1994: More than anything else, our disagreements centre on the estimate numbers of lived saved by the use of atomic weapons in 1945. Does it matter? To the museum and the historians, it seems to be of great importance in determining the morality of President Trumans decision. To the American Legion, it matters less, if at all.  [20]   In truth, to all concerned, it mattered a great deal. In the end, everyone believed that memory and history had been abused, and the controversy over the Enola Gay exhibit became a useful symbol for all sides in the history wars going in America. Controversies over museum exhibition clearly demonstrate that political correctness has displaced historical accuracy over issues of humanities, race and history itself.  [21]   If this is true, then the controversy accompanying this fiftieth anniversary marked a dark spot in Americas collective memory, when latent struggles came to the surface about which histories needed to be remembered or forgotten. These are not just academic questions, because public memories are also forms of cultural practice. Scholars should therefore attend to the ways historians, curators, the media, and ordinary citizens participated in the creation of the symbolic repertoires that made up the Enola Gay dispute. For the veterans, the exhibition will display not only the historical memories of the American veterans but also at their sense of personal and national identity. They wanted the exhibition to reflect their past glory and to portray themselves as the saviour of America who risks their lives in order to bring peace to America and the entire world. The exhibit floundered when pressure from conservative politicians and veterans groups denounced it and Congress threatened to cut the museums funding  [22]  . In the end, after the exhibit had finally been cancelled, Harwit admitted that his curators were defeated by veterans organizations whose summed membership stands six million strong.  [23]   The history wars have a negative influence not because they encourage public debate about historical matters, thereby removing control of them from the authority who really in the know about the subject matters. History is unceasingly controversial because it provides so much of the substance for the ways a society defines itself and considers what it wants to be. The history wars, though unnerving and nasty, offer the public an opportunity to talk with historians and about how history is written, how research has changed in recent decades, and how arguments about the past illustrates the future. History does matter, and it is important for American at the end of the twentieth century to understand how the recent history wars have unfolded, how these struggles are connected to earlier arguments over interpreting the past and what does it tell us of current state of present society. This controversy became a new battle in a war over American culture life and the exhibition is a new ex perience for American public especially in the way the debates were fought between various sides. History Wars are not only occurred or debated in America alone, but in other countries as well. Around the world, various History Wars have sparked over museum exhibits, national commemoration, public anniversaries, history textbooks, usage of jargon and parades.5 Where ever there are past event, there will be History Wars sparked by that particular event. In the past twenty years, there are debates about events that happened in the past. These debates all exhibit the same characteristics: the same obsessive collective pronouns and terminology, as well as the same parochialism and national preoccupations. Such example was a tragic event of infamous holocaust that still been debated until today by different party. There will always be a group of history revisionist, left wing or far-right denial that will keep on debating the truth about events that happened in the past. The debates on History Wars are not restricted in the western society but it also being debated everywhere. In the Far East during the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, the Japanese Army committed atrocities against the inhabitant of Nanking which will be remembered in history as The Rape of Nanking. The Japanese aggression caused the massacre of more than 260,000 Nanking civilian  [24]  and the Japanese government refusal to confess their past aggression and apologizing their atrocities infuriates the Chinese Government and its people. In the Japanese textbook, there were nothing being mention about their atrocities in the past and refusal had been condemned by China and other nations  [25]  . In Australia, History Wars represent an ongoing conflict between conservative, leftist groups, politicians and academic historians over the early white settlements and the behaviour of Australias settlers in regard to the indigenous peoples. The History Wars have also been an integral feature of the cultural war conflicts in Australia of recent years and of the consequent attacks on the academic historian publicly. The politician, journalists and revisionist and academic historians try to interpret issues about treatment of Australias indigenous people, the stolen generations, Black Armband view and others  [26]  . Such questions dominate the History Wars; in this case a Smithsonian lengthy politicised and polarised debate that have raged over years. Such dispute show how issue on nations past has become in US, as academic historians, curators, veterans, politicians and media find themselves increasingly entangled in a heated public debate. It was a paradox where while school children in US found that the subject of American history is being too boring  [27]  , the perspective wasnt shared by the people of the older age, in fact it seems more fraught than ever, in this case at least in this Smithsonian debate. As Richard H. Kohn, professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that the cancellation of the original Enola Gay exhibition may constitute the worst tragedy to befall the public presentation of history in the United States in a generation .  [28]  In my opinion, this exhibit is a major opportunity to inform not only the American people but to all m ankind about war and its consequences and the tragedy of the cancellation was a great loss.

Essay examples --

To what extent were the slaves lives affected by the Civil War? Before, During, and After. The American Civil War began officially on April 12 1861, and it lasted all the way to May 10th 1865. The War began not for the reason of eradicating slavery but to save the Union, but later the motive changed slowly but surely into fighting to eliminate slavery from the United States. When the war begun Union troops were fighting to save the Union but later Lincoln realized that he needs to find a way to free the slaves in the rebellion states in order to win the war and the coming election. The South was using slaves to aid them in the war. The slaves did things like, transferring artillery to battlefields and serving as nurses. During the war President Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation demanding the freedom of slaves in the rebellion. (The more than 1 million slaves in the loyal border states and in the Union-occupied parts of Louisiana and Virginia were not affected by this proclamation.) Lincoln did not prohibit slavery in the border states out of fear that they might secede from the Union. Some would argue that the reason the Emancipation Pr oclamation was made possible is by the slaves themselves. Even though this still remains a debate, no one can argue the fact that African-Americans had a significant role in the making of the Emancipation Proclamation. The slaves aided the Union troops by fleeing Southern plantations and signing up for the war. For the first time in American history Blacks were allowed to be slightly seen as equals to Whites. For a little while before the Emancipation Proclamation came into full effect, some Union troops were confused about what to do about fugitive slaves. They weren't s... ... just all the white people in the south living condition was in a bad state. The conditions of the African-Americans were much worse. After being free most did not know where to go and did not have a place to stay. Abraham lincoln had promised suffrage for the freed-blacks but that did not come to fruition because of the execution of the president. In th south there was a lack of enforcing the the 14th amendment. And during this time is when the south gave birth to the Jim Crow law. Jim Crow law is the segregation in society of everything that is shared, including bathrooms, restaurants, and schools. After aiding the North in victory of the war, the North left the freed-blacks high and dry. The Jim Crow law made African-Americans second class citizens for almost a century. The Jim Crow mainly took place in the south and the border states; former slave owning states.