. But we know for a fact that they killed and were killed

No one knows exactly how many boys served in the Civil War. But we know for a fact that they killed and were killed. Some of these boys showed more courage than most, which allowed them to endure the hardships of war. In the early morning of April 12, 1861, troops of the Confederate army assembled one mile outside of the Union fort, Fort Sumter. As the light of day appeared, the Confederates waited until they heard the command. With the orders to attack by P.G.T. Beauregard, the Civil War began. Because of the fall of Fort Sumter President Lincoln called for volunteers. Thus started the arrival of anxious young men willing and ready to fight for their side. Many saw the war as a sure way to settle the dispute between the North and the South. No one is quite sure of the number of young boys enlisted in the armies of the North and South. Most record keeping was relaxed and unorganized. There was no real way to tell how old a boy was. Most of the time the boys lied about their ages, and most of them got in. Sometimes the parents of a young boy would allow or even force their son to become a soldier. This was the case for fifteen-year old Ned Hutter of Mississippi. I am sixteen next June, I said....The officer ordered me out of line and my father, who was behind me, stepped to the table. He can work as steady as any man, my father explained. And he can shoot as straight as any man who has been signed today. I am the boys father. It must have been the way he said the words...[because] the officer handed me the pen and ordered, sign In the North the boys joined the army to escape the boring routine of farm life and to take an exciting adventure. They didnt join with the intention of stopping slavery. Northern boys new very little of what slavery was, but they new they wanted to take over the South and set them straight. The Southern boys h...

Biography of Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnamese General

Biography of Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (August 25, 1911–October 4, 2013) was a Vietnamese general who led the Viet Minh during the First Indochina War. He later commanded the Vietnam Peoples Army during the Vietnam War. Giap was the deputy prime minister of Vietnam from 1955 to 1991. Fast Facts: Vo Nguyen Giap Known For: Giap was a Vietnamese general who commanded the Vietnam Peoples Army and orchestrated the capture of Saigon.Also Known As: Red NapoleonBorn: August 25, 1911 in Lá »â€¡ Thá » §y,  French IndochinaParents: Và µ Quang Nghià ªm and Nguyá »â€¦n Thá »â€¹ Kià ªnDied: October 4, 2013 in Hanoi, VietnamEducation: Indochinese UniversitySpouse(s): Nguyen Thi Minh Giang (m. 1939–1944), Dang Bich Ha (m. 1946)Children: Five Early Life Born in the village of An Xa on August 25, 1911, Vo Nguyen Giap was the son of Và µ Quang Nghià ªm and Nguyá »â€¦n Thá »â€¹ Kià ªn. At the age of 16, he began attending a French lycà ©e in Hue but was expelled after two years for organizing a student strike. He later attended the University of Hanoi, where he earned degrees in political economy and law. After departing school, he taught history and worked as a journalist until he was arrested in 1930 for supporting student strikes. Released 13 months later, Giap joined the Communist Party and began protesting against French rule of Indochina. During the 1930s, he also worked as a writer for several newspapers. Exile and World War II In 1939, Giap married fellow socialist Nguyen Thi Quang Thai. Their marriage was brief, as he was forced to flee to China later that year following the French outlawing of communism. While in exile, his wife, father, sister, and sister-in-law were arrested and executed by the French. In China, Giap joined with Ho Chi Minh, the founder of the Vietnamese Independence League (Viet Minh). Between 1944 and 1945, Giap returned to Vietnam to organize guerilla activity against the Japanese. Following the end of World War II, the Viet Minh was given authority by the Japanese to form a provisional government. First Indochina War In September 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and named Giap as his interior minister. The government was short-lived, however, as the French soon returned to take control of the area. Since the French were unwilling to recognize Ho Chi Minhs government, fighting soon broke out between the French and the Viet Minh. Given command of the Viet Minhs military, Giap soon found that his men could not defeat the better-equipped French and he ordered a withdrawal to bases in the countryside. With the victory of Mao Zedongs communist forces in China, Giaps situation improved, as he gained a new base for training his men. Over the next seven years, Giaps Viet Minh forces successfully drove the French from most of North Vietnams rural areas; however, they were unable to take control of any of the regions towns or cities. At a stalemate, Giap began attacking into Laos, hoping to draw the French into battle on the Viet Minhs terms. With French public opinion swinging against the war, the commander in Indochina, General Henri Navarre, sought a quick victory. To accomplish this he fortified Dien Bien Phu, which was situated along the Viet Minhs supply lines to Laos. It was Navarres goal to draw Giap into a conventional battle where he could be crushed. To deal with the new threat, Giap concentrated all of his forces around Dien Bien Phu and surrounded the French base. On March 13, 1954, his men opened fire with newly obtained Chinese guns. Surprising the French with artillery fire, the Viet Minh slowly tightened the noose around the isolated French garrison. Over the next 56 days, Giaps troops captured one French position at a  time until the defenders were compelled to surrender. The victory at Dien Bien Phu effectively ended the First Indochina War. In the ensuing peace accords, the country was partitioned, and Ho Chi Minh became the leader of communist North Vietnam. Vietnam War In the new government, Giap served as the minister of defense and commander-in-chief of the Peoples Army of Vietnam. With the outbreak of hostilities with South Vietnam, and later the United States, Giap led North Vietnams strategy and command. In 1967, Giap helped oversee the planning for the massive Tet Offensive. Giap was initially opposed to a conventional attack; he had goals that were both military and political. In addition to achieving a military victory, Giap hoped the offensive would spark an uprising in South Vietnam and show that American claims about the wars progress were wrong. While the 1968 Tet Offensive proved to be a military disaster for North Vietnam, Giap was able to achieve some of his political objectives. The offensive showed that North Vietnam was far from being defeated and significantly contributed to changing American perceptions about the conflict. Following Tet, peace talks began, and the United States ultimately withdrew from the war in 1973. Following the American departure, Giap remained in command of North Vietnamese forces and directed General Van Tien Dung and the Ho Chi Minh campaign that finally captured the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon in 1975. Death With Vietnam reunified under communist rule, Giap remained minister of defense. After retiring, he authored several military texts, including Peoples Army, Peoples War and Big Victory, Great Task. He died on October 4, 2013, at Central Military Hospital 108 in Hanoi. Legacy Giap was much admired for his military skills, even by leaders in the West, some of whom referred to the Vietnamese general as Red Napoleon. Giap had no formal military training; nevertheless, he was able to drive the Americans to a stalemate in Vietnam and capture the city of Saigon from the South Vietnamese. Sources Lawrence, Mark Atwood.  The Vietnam War: a Concise International History. Oxford University Press, 2010.Warren, James A.  Giap: the General Who Defeated America in Vietnam. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Alternative assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Alternative assignment - Essay Example The essay hereby recounts these experiences and awareness of music and compared to the previous days when one was not actually aware of the diversity of sounds being heard within the daily course of activities. A concluding portion would highlight what has been learned appropriately from the experience. A Recount of the Musical Experience From the time one wakes up, it is a habit to turn off the first sound that is heard and experienced: the sound of one’s alarm clock as set from the cellular phone: the alarm sound was of Liszt. As one gets up, I am greeted by our pets at home, a family of Shih Tzus who happen to happily greet me with barks of excitement. Mother is already in the kitchen preparing breakfast and now, I am cognizant of kitchen sounds: the running of water in the sink to wash the utensils needed to prepare the meal; the fizzle of eggs and bacon in the pan; the opening and closing of the refrigerator to get water or juice; and the sound of making a good aromatic c up of coffee. I just realized that the sounds of preparing breakfast were music to my ear. At the background, I also hear my siblings preparing for their daily destinations. There was the sound of water in the shower, and one sibling opened the radio in his room to play faint background music. From what I remember and noted some of the songs that were played were as follows: Too Close by Alex Clare; One More Night by Maroon 5; and Lights by Ellie Gouldy. Also, at this early morning, I already hear vehicles rushing to work and the intermittent honking of their horns at the farthest location to warn pedestrians and other vehicles at intersections. It is at this point that I recognize the chirping of our pet Zebra Finch, all three of them, like sounds of little trumpets, as they happily hop from one branch to another in their bird cage. As the day goes on, turning the television, one could more audibly appreciate the television commercials and I tried to determine the background songs being played: there was the song in Coke commercial: Fountain Pour where Paul Riddick and The Sidemen apparently sing I’m a Criminal. Another commercial, Apple iPod where Willy Moon sang Yeah Yeah. Of course, just be looking for programs though different cable stations in one’s television would generate a barrage of sounds and songs and background music. While trying to locate a good television program after the morning news, one encountered Pepsi Max commercial where Jennifer Netties sang Your Cheatin Heart. I could not remember the songs for all the other commercials that were viewed, but one remembers JC Penny commercial and Sprint Girl to what I could recognize as Alexi Murdoch’s All My Days. Of course on the way to school, most of the sounds that one hears include the vehicles along the road and sounds people make: their chatter, conversation, walking (some people walk really noisy), and there are houses where children could be heard either crying, laughing , or just playing with car toys. There is a sound heard of a neighbor sweeping the front lawn and cutting the grass. At their respective houses, their radio playing background music of Justin Bieber’s As Long as You Love Me and Some Nights by Fun. I even heard the Korean singer Psy singing the famous Gangnam song. When night

Describe and evaluate psychological theories of human motivation Essay - 1

Describe and evaluate psychological theories of human motivation - Essay Example All the stages involved are also discussed as analysed in the theories. This paper gives a detailed discussion of the three theories of human motivation. It discusses the classical theories of motivation and how they are applicable to various businesses. The final section of this paper gives the limitations of using these theories in operation of businesses. A brief comparison between these theories is given by looking at their applications (Jones, et al., 1998, pp.370-398). It also gives insight on how human beings are motivated towards making certain decisions. The theories give an analysis of how several factors influence and motivate individuals to making various decisions. They explain how both favourable and hostile factors drive individuals into reasoning and acting in a given circumstance to satisfy their needs (Thil, et al., 2003, pp.435-465). Motivation is considered as a process by which a person initiates and through personal guidance gets to maintain goal driven behaviours. It is normally the desire for any person to do a given thing and usually with personal reasons. This enables one to focus towards achieving certain goals. Human motivation is normally driven by the urge of satisfying the most pressing needs or wants depending to the various stages of life one is at. One also may be motivated by his surroundings, work being conducted and responsibilities invested in him. Motivation could be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is a result of special interests of a person and things he enjoys doing. In this condition the actions that results from this motivation are not as a result of external pressure. This situation happens when an individual has total control in that he is sure and has appropriate skills to accomplish his goals. Extrinsic motivation is a result of external factors which directs ones activi ties towards a particular reward. They are not within

Marketing research goals Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Marketing research goals - Essay Example Apart from this marketing research also is important for an organization as it gives them directions for future planning. Its like if marketing is an engine that drives a country's economy than marketing research is the process that keeps the engine tuned. Marketing Research's wide range of uses can measure the importance of it. For example it helps in making new and improved products and enables an organization to have a more convenient delivery of products and services. Well marketing research results can be both correct and incorrect, same is for the viewpoints of the senior management. The major reason for following either one of the options, which is following the marketing research conclusion or the viewpoints of senior management, depends on how much a person knows about the marketing research. If a person is sure that there has been no mistakes or errors throughout the marketing research then he can be sure of following the conclusions based on the marketing research but its not necessary that the results come out to be positive. It's vice versa if u follow the viewpoints of the senior management. Rather than offering the same marketing mix to different customers, organizations plan out market segmentation. Market segmentation helps firms to tailor marketing mix for specific target markets, hence better satisfying customer needs. Not all elements of the marketing mix are changed from one segment to another. For example in some cases only the promotional campaigns would change. A niche is a further division of a segment. Thus, the difference between a segment and a niche is that between segments substitution is negligible, while a large part of the customers in a segment will allow substitution between niche products. Niche products are aimed at a smaller group of consumers within a segment, for whom specific product properties are obligatory, while the same properties were only positioning properties in the broader market segment. We can have a market segment of one individual but in business markets not in consumer markets. There is a major reason for it. The reason is that in business markets an organization can have only one consumer. This is due to the high priced machinery transactions that take place in the business markets. Apart from that, organizations do want many customers to cater to but they can have a single customer as well and can be specialized producer for a single buyer as they are still making profits in doing so. Ans.3 There are basically two types of sellers in any international market. These two types rely on the two basic terms that a buyer uses to distinguish the products. These two factors are price and quality. Some seller might be giving a good price but not good quality and vice versa. Sellers can be buyers there is no doubt about it. There is no country that is completely self sufficient in producing every single good or commodity that is required by the people living in it, hence keeping this fact in the mind a seller can be a buyer is proved easily. The challenges in regard

Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes

Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes Should liberal societies tolerate illiberal practices? Discuss with reference to Kukathas. Most liberal democracies would claim to be liberal societies with hardly any or no restriction on liberal practices such as freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, or freedom of information. However, not all of the liberal societies have the same levels of illiberal practices potentially restricting the freedom of their citizens. Liberal societies need to consider whether they should tolerate illiberal practices for various pragmatic and theoretical reasons. Not all of the liberal societies are the same and therefore tolerate different levels of illiberal practices. The level of illiberal practices that liberal societies will tolerate can depend, as will be discussed, on whether there are threats to those societies than can justify illiberal practices being used to safeguard those liberal societies from greater damage. Alternatively, toleration of illiberal practices depends on whether any particular liberal society sees a need to intervene when other liberal societies would not. The following discussion, as to whether liberal societies should tolerate illiberal practices, is with reference to the arguments of Chandran Kukathas in the ‘Liberal Archipelago’ and his other works. Kukathas and his work have aroused controversy especially with regard to whether minority groups should receive extra protection or special treatment in liberal societies, for instance being able to educate their children in separated schools. Discussions of liberal societies have shifted in emphasis to pluralism and whether it should be promoted or not. That change of emphasis from past debates occurred due to a greater recognition of the increased diversity in multicultural societies and the increased social conflicts or disagreement that can entail. No liberal society is free to operate without restraints, whether those are legal restraints or illiberal practices that have evolved over time or have been applied upon an ad hoc basis. Liberal societies have to find a balance between the greatest amount of freedom for every individual within those societies with the need to maintain stability plus law and order. Liberal democracies are regarded as the best form of state that allows liberal societies to flourish with the least number of illiberal practices (Comfort, 1993 p. 345). Kukathas himself contends that although not perfect in practice that ‘democratic states have been kinder and gentler rulers’ (Kukathas, 2003 p. 195). A problem with the toleration of illiberal practices is that people’s definitions of illiberal practices differs widely and is entirely subjective. The illiberal practices of some people are the necessary and common sense measures advocated by others to maintain law and order. Liberalist me asures do not even have to be introduced by liberal societies, for instance Russia, France, and Prussia in the 18th century or present day China have adopted economic liberalism without lessening the authoritarian grip of the state (Held, 1996 p. 70). The acceptable level of illiberal practices tolerated in liberal societies is dependent on how much interference from the state in the political, economic and social spheres of societies is considered justified. Liberalism as a political, economic and social concept had evolved and changed over the centuries. Liberalism has been subject to changes and trends just like the other ideologies such as socialism and conservatism. In its original guise liberalism called for the minimum amount of state interference as possible in social and economic affairs. Liberalism contends that states were only needed to ensure that people had basic legal rights and that the property of the wealthy or businesses was protected. This classical liberalism wa s linked to the political ideas of John Locke and the economic liberalism of Adam Smith amongst others. Kukathas finds Locke’s views appealing, as Locke was a strong supporter of religious toleration and freedom of conscience (Held, 1996 p. 70). Classical liberalism stresses the freedom of individuals to do what they like, when they like and be free to use their money and their property as they like. New liberalism, which developed towards the end of the 19th century, stresses the importance of society and the role that the state has in providing welfare as well as promoting equality. Adherents of both types of liberalism claim that their form of liberalism is the true form, making the other redundant. Classical liberalism gives a greater scope for the acceptance of illiberal practices as it stresses minimum state intervention. On the other hand, new liberalism is more likely not to tolerate illiberal practices, particularly if those practices prevent welfare provision and social equality (Schumpeter, 1954 p.394). Aside from maintaining law and order plus preventing the poorest starving to death, no illiberal, or for that matter well-intentioned liberal practices, were to be tolerated, that was the belief at the centre of classical liberalism. Liberal societies emerged at different times and at different rates. Economic liberalism often emerged before political and social liberalism. This would explain how illiberal societies could embrace economic liberalism without embracing political and social liberalism. From the 19th century a more proactive form of liberalism termed new liberalism emerged that intervened in societies to tackle social and economic problems such as basic levels of welfare provision. As the 20th century progressed liberal societies embraced further interventions to ensure full employment and to counter social issues such as race and gender discrimination. The issues of diversity and multiculturalism have changed the debates over the illiberal practices that liberal societi es should tolerate. These issues have added complexity as to how illiberal is defined and whether some groups should have their illiberal practices tolerated to further diversity or whether no illiberal practices should be tolerated from any group (Bellamy in Eatwell Wright 2003 p.33). The post –war consensus on high spending liberal democracies with ever expanding social and welfare provisions, with an increasing emphasis on the pluralist nature of liberal societies was challenged by neo-liberals such as Fredrich von Hayek and John Rawls. It was such views that had a strong influence upon Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (Bellamy in Eatwell Wright, 2003 p.39). Hayek and Rawls have also proved influential on Kukathas’ ideas concerning liberal societies tolerating illiberal practices. Rawls believes that economic liberalism needs to be combined with social justice. It is Rawls later works that interested Kukathas the most as Rawls displays libertarian views that he shares with Kukathas. Rawls thought that distinct ethnic or religious groups should receive differing levels of toleration depending â€Å"on the extent to which they can be allowed an equal place within a just system of liberty† (Rawls, 1993). Kukathas himself is an advocate of classical liberalism where state intervention is kept to the lowest possible minimum rather than later versions of liberalism in which the state intervenes more frequently to achieve set economic, social, and political aims. Kukathas has provoked debate by stating in his works that the states of liberal societies should not even intervene to promote the interests of minority ethnic or religious groups, liberal societies should only permit the toleration of these groups. Kukathas believes that the toleration accorded to such groups should not be dependent on how liberal the internal practices of such groups are. Once groups have received toleration then they can run themselves as they please as long as they are not breaking any laws. If any individual members of these groups are unhappy then they should not look to liberal societies to help them, all they need to do is leave their particular group. Liberal societies should not promote the interests o f any groups ahead of all the groups, or any particular sector within society no matter how well intended its motives are, also they should not make such treatment conditional. Toleration is beneficial to the whole of society; special treatment for individuals and groups is not. Discrimination in favour of certain groups does not benefit them in the long term and is harmful to society (Kukathas, 2003 p. 5). Kukathas regards all groups that form voluntarily to be enhancing liberal society, which includes those with illiberal practices. States are the main actors that threaten liberal society when they restrict such groups. The illiberal practices of these groups might not be illegal activities and whilst they remain within the law, no action should be taken against such groups. The motivations for such groups to form can be due to a sense of being different from the rest of society. If liberal societies are truly open and democratic, then they should accept that some people are oppos ed to the majority of the populations’ beliefs and behaviours. For people that wish to safeguard their diversity forming separate groups is a means to live how they want to live. To such groups illiberal practices are a way of maintaining their distinctiveness from the rest of their society. Groups may also believe that their illiberal practices are not illiberal at all and can be justified as part of their culture and beliefs (Kukathas, 2003 p. 36). There is one freedom that Kukathas believes that liberal societies should promote above all other freedoms and rights, which is freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is so important for the proper functioning of liberal societies that these societies should be prepared to tolerate illiberal practices to ensure that freedom of conscience is maintained for the maximum number of people and groups within each liberal society. Allowing freedom of conscience is perhaps the best way of achieving and maintaining a diverse and multicultural liberal society. Governments should not intervene in the internal matters of illiberal groups to remove their illiberal practices. If illiberal practices are based upon the freedom of conscience of individuals or groups then liberal societies should tolerate such practices. If individual members of such groups change their opinions and no longer accept the group’s ideological or religious viewpoints then they can leave the group. As long as i ndividual members are free to leave, then there are no reasons to end the illiberal practices of such groups (Kukathas, 2003 p.36). Kukathas does admit that some members of these groups may find it more difficult to leave than others could, for instance women and children. Women in such groups may face disadvantages such as being unable to support themselves outside of their groups through lack of education and skills. Groups may also be difficult to leave because they use propaganda to persuade doubters to remain or intimidate members into staying within the group. Kukathas again argues that liberal societies should tolerate those illiberal practices if groups ultimately allow members to leave them. As soon as illiberal practices become life threatening to members that wish to leave then it is appropriate for liberal societies to stop tolerating illiberal practices. Therefore, state intrusion into the illiberal practices of groups should be a last resort rather than undertaken lightly or with little respect for their freedom of conscience and association (Kukathas, 2003 p. 107). Kukathas contends that there are two main types of religious or social groups. There are those groups that are a ‘Union of Liberty’ and those groups that are a ‘Federation of Liberty’. States are less likely to intervene in the affairs of the Union of Liberty groups than they are to intervene with a Federation of Liberty group. Groups that are a Union of Liberty type are less likely to have illiberal practices, whilst members are more likely to be able to leave these groups without any obstructions. In contrast the groups which are Federation of Liberty type are more likely to have illiberal practices and are more likely to prevent members leaving their fold. The Union of Liberty groups are more likely to have a strategy over shared property rights and the rights of children to leave their membership, as the parents chose to join and the children did not (Kukathas, 2001 p. 43). When liberal societies opt to tolerate social and political freedoms such as freedom of religion and conscience they are voluntarily restricting their rights to intervene in the internal affairs of political or religious groups. However, the rights of states to intervene to restrict such freedoms still remain. The rights to intervene and therefore no longer tolerate illiberal practices can be used if or when groups abuse their freedoms to abuse others. Such views are put forward by those that disagree with Kukathas willingness to tolerate more illiberal practices rather than less. Kukathas’ views on pluralism and multiculturalism plus whether illiberal practices should be tolerated have been criticised by many contemporary liberal writers and academics. Those that argue against Kukathas’ views on tolerating illiberal practices most notably include Will Kymlicka. Kymlicka contends contrary to Kukathas that liberal societies are justified in denying toleration to ethnic or religious groups that have an illiberal or authoritarian hold over their members. Kymlicka sees that the majority of liberal societies tolerate illiberal practices not through choice but because of their benign negligence. Kymlicka views the tolerance of illiberal practices in liberal societies as being undesirable, especially when that the freedoms of individuals are subordinated to the freedoms of the illiberal groups that they belong to (Kymlicka, 1995 p. 239). Liberal societies should not have to tolerate illiberal practices especially when these societies have the ability to stop such illiberal practices at any point they wish to. Liberal societies should certainly end illiberal practices before the freedom and the safety of group members is at risk. Freedom of conscience should not be given priority over freedom of association or speech. At no point should liberal societies decide to place freedom of conscience above the personal safety of any of its citizens. Whilst the state in liberal societies should not have to decide on whether groups should allow their members to leave, the state does have a duty to uphold law and order or public safety or if they are under actual or potential threat. Kymlicka argues that illiberal practices are easily recognisable. Illiberal practices occur when groups â€Å"simply assign particular roles and duties to people, and prevent people from questioning or revising them† (Kymlicka, 1995 p.94). Brian Barry is another critic of the concept that liberal societies should accept or tolerate illiberal practices. Barry is arguing from a different viewpoint than Kymlicka when he criticises Kukathas for proposing that liberal societies should tolerate illiberal practices. Unlike Kymlicka, Barry is not a strong advocate of multiculturalism. In fact he argues that multiculturalism can introduce illiberal practices in to liberal societies that should not be tolerated. The basis of his arguments against the illiberal practices linked to multiculturalism are that minority ethnic and religious groups should not be allowed to exclusively educate their own children. For if these groups educate such children then they may not learn about equality and political moderation. If not monitored groups educating their own children can pass on religious and political extremism on to them. The governments of liberal societies have shown most concern over Islamic schools and the perception that they will increase illiberal practices. Muslims argue that their children are not catered for in non-Islamic schools. For instance, Britain has not provided public funding for Islamic schools, although it does for Christian and Jewish schools. In Northern Ireland, separate Roman Catholic and Protestant schools have arguably helped to maintain the sectarian divisions. By contrast, the French have kept their schools strictly secular since the revolution and will not tolerate Muslims (or any other religious group) trying to bring religious elements into schools. Education is a vital area to consider when it comes to deciding if liberal societies should tolerate illiberal practices. Therefore, deciding what should or should not be permitted and taught in schools is a highly contentious area. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks there has been a closer scrutiny of the education that Muslims receive in schools and mosques and whether tolerating illiberal practices is good or bad for the security of liberal societies (Barry, 2001). Therefore, to some extent liberal societies should tolerate illiberal practices with certain limitations to operate. Liberal societies have to maintain a balance between all the individuals and groups within them. A Liberal society usually attempts to give individuals and groups as much freedom as possible, which is what distinguishes liberal societies from illiberal societies. It should be remembered that illiberal practices are not necessarily illegal and that the state will not intervene if groups with illiberal practices keep their activities legal. Liberal societies tend to tolerate as much as they can. Toleration though has limits. Liberal societies will not tolerate illiberal practices that threaten the safety of individuals or that risk breaking down law and order or inciting violence between groups on racial, ethnic or religious grounds. There are political, social and philosophical arguments as to why illiberal practices should or should not be tolerated. Kukathas’ s trongest arguments in favour of tolerating illiberal practices is that allowing individuals or groups freedom of conscience is more important than the liberal or illiberal nature of their practices. For Kukathas toleration is the key to achieving a well- balanced diverse multicultural liberal society. Toleration is more important than making special provisions for minority groups, which are discriminatory and counter-productive. Critics of Kukathas counter his arguments by stating that liberal societies should not tolerate any illiberal practices that restrict the freedom of individuals, especially if such illiberal practices place people in danger. Much of the debate between Kukathas and his critics hinges around the rights of individuals to leave groups with illiberal practices. The thorniest issue regarding individuals leaving groups is whether children have to remain in these groups even when they did not chose to join in the first place. Kukathas contends that groups should be tolerated as long as members are free to leave. Critics of Kukathas believe that groups with illiberal practices should change those illiberal practices or at least guarantee that members can leave whenever they want to before they are tolerated within liberal societies. Critics of groups with illiberal practices point to the problems that members of these groups can face, such as not been educated, being educated with extremist views, being physically and mentally abused or simply forced to stay in these groups. Governments should not stand by and let those things happen if they can be prevented. The arguments over the toleration of illiberal practices in liberal societies have been brought in to greater focus in relation to issues concerning religious and political extremism, particularly in relation to Islam. The dividing lines between promoting diversity and multiculturalism on the one hand or appeasing to illiberal and possibly illegal practices can be blurred. Bibliography Barry B, (2001) Culture and Equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism, Polity Press, Cambridge Bellamy R ‘Liberalism’ in Eatwell Wright (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London Comfort N (1993) Brewer’s Politics, a phrase and fable dictionary, Cassell, London Held D, (1996) Models of Democracy 2nd edition, Polity Press, Oxford Kukathas, (2001) Can a Liberal Society Tolerate Illiberal elements? Policy 17, No. 2 Kukathas (2003) the Liberal Archipelago: A theory of Diversity and Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford Kymlicka W, (1995) Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford University Press

Story of a Different Hour :: Essays Papers

The Story of a Different Hour Mrs. Millard just found out that Mr. Millard was killed in a tragic train wreck. Because of a heart condition, Josephine (Mrs. Millard's sister) was hesitant to tell her what happened. Richard (Mr. Millard's good friend) was also there to comfort the newly widowed Mrs. Millard. Josephine was concerned for her sister. To everyone?s surprise Mrs. Millard was rather joyful rather than devastated of the tragic news about her husband. ?Free! Free! Free!?, ?Free! Body and free soul?. Everyone was a bit confused, why Louise was jumping for joy when she just received that her husband passed away few minutes ago. Something smells fishy in this story and who really is Richard? Is he a good friend of Mr. Millard or he is a lover of Louise?.. Well, we will modify some sentences in this story. We all knew what happened in the end. Mrs. Millard was having the time of her life because she just found out that her husband just died. Was Louise happy because of the hefty insurance money that her husband left her? We can?t tell. So as the door was being opened by a latchkey everyone ran through the long stair case and found ?Brently Millard who entered, a little travel-stained, composedly carrying his grip-sack and umbrella?, then Louise was so flabbergasted that she had a heart attack and eventually died. In my opinion the story could use a better ending than Louise dying at the end of the story. If only Chopin talked to me about this story before she published it in 1894 it would probably be a little different. We left of where before Brently opened the door. After Brently died, Louise was alone in her huge plantation. She asked Josephine to move in with her because she can?t bear to be alone any longer. One day Richard dropped by to check on Louise and to drop the title of the house, Richard is a prominent lawyer nowadays. Richard stayed for supper, and Louise told him ?