Love in Their Eyes Were Watching God :: Their Eyes Were Watching God Essays

Love in Their Eyes Were Watching God Love plays a very important role in Zora Neale Hurston's Their Eyes were watching God. Janie spent her days looking for love. She thought of love just as she thought of the elements of springtime: Sunny days, bright skies, a bee pollinating pear tree blossoms. She searched far and wide for this kind of perfect love. Logan Killicks couldn't give this kind of love to Janie. He may not have loved her at all. To him, Janie was just another working set of hands. He treated her almost like another man. He was inconsiderate of her feelings, her hopes, her aspirations. He probably didn't know the color of her eyes. Janie was worked hard by Logan. He made her do all sorts of things that only men should have to have done. He was even going to make her plow the fields-a job that requires a considerable amount of strength: strength that Janie didn't have. Janie complained that nothing beautiful was ever said. She had no love with Logan Killicks. That is why she left him for a man that showed much potential to give the kind of love she was looking for. The whistling man that Janie ran away with was Jody Starks. With Jody, Janie thought that she would forever have "flower dust and springtime sprinkled over everything." She thought she'd have "a bee for her bloom." She didn't exactly find this in Jody though. In him she definitely found change and chance, but still not the love she was looking for. What Jody had for Janie was more of a lust than a love. He was very protective of her and didn't want anyone else to see in her what he saw. He gave Janie many things including lots of money, but he couldn't give her love. The little love that was there eventually died. So did Jody. Finally, Janie met up with Tea Cake. The moved together to the Muck in the Florida Everglades and lived in Tea Cake's Shanty. They spent each new day together. They laughed together, fished and hunted together, talked together, and spent time with friends together. These were all things that were missing from her previous relationships. They had made her to be somebody that she wasn't. Tea Cake let her be herself. He loved her just the way she was. He encouraged her to be what she wanted to be, to follow her dreams, her thoughts, her aspirations. Janie had finally found her bee. Tea Cake was the perfect bee for her bloom.

Marxist Understanding of Family Essay

Examine the Marxist contribution to our understanding of the family The Marxists society view family through the eyes of capitalism and that the proletariat (the working class) solely benefit the bourgeoisie (the ruling class), whereas a functionalists perspective of family is that they should benefit both society and individual members of the family, however, Marists argue family is simply an instrument of the ruling class. Marxists believe family in today’s society perform key ideological functions for capitalism, a set of ideas/beliefs that justify inequality, a system that persuades the public into accepting this is a fair and natural way to act in society. Capitalism is an economic system in which private ownership controls all of the means of production for profit and exploits the proletariat class, selling their products for more money than paying the working class for their labour. Benefits that the family provide through capitalism include the inheritance of private property, socialisation into acceptance of inequality and a source of profits – all of these which do not benefit the members of the family. Capitalism leads to family playing a major role in profits as they are the market for the sale of consumer goods. Family fulfil this role by persuading families to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ by consuming the latest products, ‘pester power’ which persuades parents to spend more on their children, especially if their child do not have the latest gadgets, clothes etc. nd being mocked because of this. The capitalist system requires nuclear monogamous relationships as it is needed for private ownership, as said by Friedrich Engels. A sociologist, Friedrich Engels, alongside Karl Marx, studied family from a Marxist perspective and traced the changes of family to the mode of production. Engels explains that society has not always been exploited by the bourgeoisie, in fact, the means of production were collectively owned. Engels theorized that as society changed, more restrictions of norms and values in a family were placed on sexual relationships and the production of children. Primitive communism was described as a large promiscuous horde; however, family and marriage have evolved through stages which included polygyny evolving into the monogamous nuclear family. This form of family is believed to have developed to solve the problem of inheritance of private property because there would be no confusion about the paternity of their offspring, whereas a promiscuous horde would have difficulty defining who the father of their offspring was. Gough approves of Engel’s views claiming they have a ‘sound basis’ agreeing that when the means of production is shared tend to be have larger units, however, as the means of production moves towards private ownership, the family size decreases. Nevertheless, criticisms against Engels’ theory by Lewis Henry Morgan claimed Engels’ studies are a ‘figment of his imagination’, due to the fact Morgan found out that monogamous marriages and the nuclear family existed. However, Eli Zaretsky’s view on family is linked to the Marxist view, that they are just a unit of consumption – the ‘major consumer of capitalist products’ – and that the ‘modern capitalist society creates an illusion’ of private family life as the family cannot meet its family’s needs. Zaretsky sees that the family is an apparent ‘safe haven’ due to the fact individuals were alienated at work which built up stress, however, families were unable to provide for the personal needs of its members. Family basically provided satisfactions which were unavailable out in public. Zaretsky argues that the ideology of the private family life is separate from the economy as he also feels the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat for their own gains. Marxists feel that there are many institutions that the capitalist system are maintaining within society such as education – which provides secondary socialisation which prepares children for adult life, working for the bourgeoisie, and institution of healthcare from the NHS who provides free healthcare. This is also seen to benefit the bourgeoisie as free medical care for patients mean they will recover quicker in order to go back to work and serve interests of capitalism. However, these perspectives from a Marxists view of family are highly criticized for being too deterministic, not giving enough credit to individuals, overly emphasizing the importance of the economic system’s effect on family structures. Critics also suggest Marxists are too negative on family, ignoring realistic benefits of the family such as intimacy and mutual support rather than reproduction just to provide the next generation. Also, this perspective on family is proved to be very outdated as the rise of alternative family and types of household have changed within society over the years and the fact that Marxism blame capitalism for lack of responsibility in individuals, even in non-capitalist countries such as Cuba, where do the problems come from there if they do not suffer capitalism? Other opposing perspectives of the Marxist view on family come from Feminists who argue that Marxists emphasize on social class, underestimating the importance of gender inequalities within the family and Functionalists such as Parsons believe that family are not present to serve capitalism. Talcott Parsons believes the family is like a ‘warm bath’ in which family life helps individuals relieves their stresses from work at home. To conclude, the Marxist view of family proves to be quite negative on the concept of family, stating that the proletariat are being exploited by the bourgeoisie as a unit of consumption (said by Zaretsky), and other than that, serve no other purpose but to reproduce for the inheritance of property (said by Engels). Edmund Leach, although not a Marxist, has a consensus view of family, pointing out problems found within the nuclear family, presenting a pessimistic view of the family. Leach says that today’s domestic household is isolated with large amounts of emotional stress in individuals which results into the nuclear family becoming ‘like an overloaded electrical circuit’ causing ‘fuses to blow due to high demands’. Because of this, conflict is present – parents begin to fight and children rebel. Leach’s view is diametrically opposed to the Functionalists as Parsons feels that the nuclear family makes up a supportive unit, whereas Zaretsky thinks that this view is too positive and this ‘happy family’ is an illusion and is a fake impression of reality. However, Engels believe that the nuclear family did not exist in pre-industrial society, but promiscuous hordes did – now in today’s society, that has changed due to serial monogamy being seen as a set norm and inheritance can function for capitalism. Feminists disagree saying that this perspective ignores gender, Morgan stating that Engels has imagined this theory and Functionalists claiming the nuclear family is in fact a natural process, not deliberately changed for the bourgeoisie.

The Frightful Abuse of Human Rights

Violence or education as forms of oppression carried out by political groups in Latin America is a reoccurring theme as seen in Argentina and Cuba from earlier essays. Government sponsored â€Å"cloaks of fear† take over the nation and keep the common citizen subdued as seen in Argentina. The process of educating the common person so that he/she would not only understand, but be able to participate in political affairs was a major force in the Cuban revolution. In the 1980's, Central America saw both violence and education used as political devices to promote or prevent political change. The most common and horrific form of oppression in Central America is violence. Violence can be used to eliminate political competition as seen in El. Salvador â€Å"In November 1980 Alvarez and five top associates were killed by government forces, an act hat eliminated an entire cadre of reformist politicians† (Skidmore & Smith: 350). Another example of eliminating a potential threat to the government can be seen in the movie â€Å"Men With Guns†. In this movie a religious leader (Bishop Romero) with some control of people and their political thoughts was considered dangerous by the El. Salvadorian government. Therefore he was assassinated by the military in an attempt to silence his voice and maybe even spread fear throughout the country as others feared what would become of them if they spoke out against the government. This imposement of fear, was another method of using violence to prevent political change. Argentina is the most dominant example of government created ‘fear' as a weapon against the voice of the people. The acting government or Junta, randomly kidnapped citizens and offered no reason for their actions. In many cases the kidnapped (disappeared) were tortured and killed, their bodies and explanations for what happened never found. The actions of the Guatemalan government during its politically unstable period are a clear example of using violence and fear to repress change as seen in Skidmore and Smith (1997: 357) â€Å"One feature of this entire period†¦ was the frightful abuse of human rights. Paramilitary death squads most notoriously Mano Blanca and Ojo por Ojo, carried on a murderous campaign against political dissenters. No fewer then 80,000 people were killed or â€Å"disappeared between the 1960's and 1990†. Because people feared that if they spoke out against the government they would face death/torture, many would-be activists sat quietly as the government did whatever it wanted. The only weapon against this ‘cloak of fear' was to bring in the help of outside nations and expose the atrocities being committed. For example this is what the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo were famous for. They petitioned at a time nobody else would leave their house and they brought the attention of the United Nations and other human rights groups to the current situation in Argentina. However in the case of Guatemala, the government continues their oppression until they see fit to stop it themselves as illustrated by Skidmore & Smith (1997: 357-358): â€Å"The government bore at least indirect responsibility for these killings, but world wide protests did not bring much respite†¦By the mid-1980s the Guatemalan military judged their campaign against the Marxist Guerrillas successful enough to allow the election of a civilian president†¦ Under a patina of electoral democracy, the military force continues to predominate in Guatemala†. Violence does not have to be only used as a form of oppression. Violence is sometimes used as a form of combating represent by groups of revolutionary solders. These groups of indigenous (local) solders combine to fight for their political and social rights are called Guerillas. Guerillas and guerilla tactics are spattered all throughout the history of Central America. They live in the mountains or jungles and rely on the locals for food, recruits, and information. Guerillas typically share the same ethnic background and social class, these are the chains that link them together. They use violence and military strategy to combat the unjustness or oppressing governments. Another form of oppression in Central America is education and lack of it. Much of Central America is poverty-stricken and underdeveloped (Skidmore & Smith: 1997), this leads to a lack of literacy. By not having the ability to read and understand what is going on politically in their country, the common citizen lacks the knowledge necessary to participate in political affairs. Domineering governments do little to educate the common citizen because doing so would/could make them a dangerous adversary as seen in Hammond (1998: 15) â€Å"To acquire knowledge is to acquire power, or at least it is a necessary first step. Popular education fosters specific skills, personal growth, and critical consciousness among the poor and oppressed. Learning empowers poor people because they prove they can do something they were always told was beyond them†. Education can also be used as a weapon against oppression, as discussed in the book Fighting to Learn. Hammond (1998: 61) describes meetings between solders and their leaders where they discussed political issues and current events. Another issue often stressed in these meetings was the need to spread propaganda and knowledge into civilian communities. Educating the common people can produce many effects, all useful in combating an oppressive government regime. Knowledge and education expose people to multiple views of common issues, therefore allowing them to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. This creates a sense of political and social awareness that combined with the desire for change and the willingness to use violence can be an explosive combination in the fight against oppression.

King Louis XIV essays

King Louis XIV essays Historians of three centuries have both defended and ridiculed King Louis XIVs controversial reign. Many people have hailed him as a great king; mighty as the sun he took for his emblem. Being great as a king entails putting people before personal ambition, taking only necessary military action, achieving big things for his country, and instilling a sense of national pride in the people he rules. Louis the XIV did indeed instill national pride but his other faults negate his claim to greatness. King Louis XIV staffed his government with men who would obey him without question. Instead of appointing nobles he filled all of the positions with advisors drawn from the middle class. This way the people only had claim to what the king gave and could easily take away. Therefore the nobles couldnt get a chance to overpower him. In order to express the power he had and attempt to scare off his enemies he organized civil services, reorganized the military, and improved the economy. He made himself the symbol of the state. Louis XIV used the people for his own benefit, so that he could completely control the government and keep his power for as long as possible. Louis XIV fought many wars, some beneficial and others not so worthwhile. As previously stated, one factor of being great is only taking necessary military action. Louis did not fit this requirement. Most of his wars were benefit to himself more than to his country, while others did not achieve anything. The Spanish Succession war was one without national gain. This war occurred so that King Louis could get his grandson in the Spanish throne. It was fought for 12 years and the territorial changes were minor. In addition the war also left both France and Spain exhausted. Louis XIV centralized France as a state, but his wars added little territory and were costly in both lives and money. ...

Guidelines for a Successful Field Trip

Guidelines for a Successful Field Trip Field trip days are often the best days of the entire school year. Most students look forward to this day for weeks or months! Thats why it is important that you mind some basic rules to keep the trip safe and enjoyable. Be Safe Dont get reckless on the bus. You dont want your day to end early, do you? Misbehavior on the bus can get you into trouble and ruin your day. You could end up sitting on the bus while the others enjoy the destination.Dont wander off. Listen carefully when the teacher gives instructions about sticking with the group or sticking with an assigned partner even when going to the restroom. Dont ever wander off on your own, or your trip could end badly. If you break this rule, you could end up with the teacher as your partner!Respect the chaperones. You should respect any chaperones and listen to them as you would your own teacher or parents. Chaperones have a big responsibility, watching after so many students at one time. They cant afford to give too much attention to one squeaky wheel, so they will probably be intolerant to distractions. Dont be disruptive.Respect nature. Some field trips will take you into contact with animals or plants. For your own safety, be mindful of potential dang ers and dont assume you can tug, pull, tease, or touch things safely. Dont roughhouse. You may visit a factory containing equipment  with moving parts, or a museum with rooms full of pottery and glass, or a riverside with fast-running water. Kids dont always think about the dangers that come with certain places, so think about the potential hazards before you go, and remember not to push or pull on friends.Keep an eye on the clock. If you are supposed to meet your group for lunch or for loading onto the bus, you should keep an eye on the time. You dont want to miss lunch, and you surely dont want to be left behind. Have Fun Arrive in plenty of time to get on the bus. You dont want to miss the fun day because you ran into heavy traffic. Plan ahead and leave early.Eat and drink in designated places. Dont assume you can buy a soda from a machine and drink it anywhere. Your destination site might have strict limitations when it comes to drinking or eating on site.Dress for hot and cold. If its a warm day, it could be really cold inside a building. If its cold outside, it could be steamy inside! Try to dress in layers so you can add and subtract as necessary.Dont litter. You can be banned from some locations for this. Dont be sent back to the bus!Bring comfort items for the ride. If you are facing a long bus ride, ask if you can bring a pillow or small cover for comfort. Be Smart Bring along a small recording device or a notebook  because you know there will be a follow-up assignment or quiz.Pay attention to any speakers. If your teacher has arranged a speaker, and if a speaker takes time out of his/her day to share wisdom with you, dont ignore it! This trip is for your education. Oh - and there probably will be a quiz.

Should professors be allowed to advocate their views on political or Essay

Should professors be allowed to advocate their views on political or social issues in the classroom - Essay Example This article would further give an overview about this topic and would clarify the position of professors educating their students rather then indoctrinating them. (Erin 2007) Indoctrination is a word commonly used by the critics of the professors. This word here means that the knowledge which is being given by the professors should not be one sided or unquestionable. It is unto the students to decide as to what knowledge is right and what is not. Thus the students are required to put forward their own views when the professors are teaching. However the criticism by different organizations about the professors has been counterattacked by the professors. These different organizations have urged the professors to bring in any other subject of study which is not relating to their course material. Anything which is related to the other course of study is not to be guide lined by the professor in the class. However the professors in response to his statement have said that every thing which is being stated in the class and is not in the course material has significant importance. And as in Michael Berube describes in his words that he teaches in his class on d ifferent subjects which are not even in mentioned in the course material. However he counters this action by telling that he can co-relate the topics on which he is teaching to the course materials.

Apple and Amazon Companies Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 15

Apple and Amazon Companies - Essay Example The present research has identified that Amazon.com, Inc. is an American-based company that dominates the United States retail markets. The company deals with electronic commerce and it has strived to become the best online-based retailer in the region. It originally started as an online bookstore but in the recent times, it has greatly diversified into the sale of compact disks, furniture, software, toys, video games, food, electronics, and jewelry. Just like Apple, Amazon produces consumer electronics such as the Fire TV sets, Fire mobile phones, Fire tablets, and the Amazon Kindle e-book. The company has separate websites for its different market regions. Some of its market regions include; the United States, Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, China, and Japan. The graph in the paper is essential in determining the various strategies different companies use in their marketing programs. Apple and Amazon are no exceptions in this situation. The graph compar es the different marketing strategies used in a period of two years against their popularity among companies. An analysis of these strategies would act as a good way to compare and contrast the two companies. According to Moorman, Apple has managed to emerge as the best overall winner of marketing excellence surveys, and the latest being the 2012 award. Scrutinizing the company’s marketing policies would be a good starting point for this analysis. Just as Moorman continues to explain, Apple has been successful in the electronics market primarily because of its marketing strategies. Apple’s marketing approach constitutes the following three strong pillars: empathy, focus and impute. Empathy implies that the company should be in a better position to understand the needs of their customers than their competitors do. In a move to maintain focus, the company puts its attention to important opportunities that will enable them to be in apposition to do a perfect job.