Native American Relations with The United States Essay -- Exploratory

Native American Relations with The United States What were the significant treaties, policies, and events that defined US Government and Native American Relations? How did the Native American respond to these treaties, polices, and events historically? How did these treaties, policies, and events affect the subsistence, religion, political, and social structures of the Native American people? I will answer these questions through the examination of two centuries of US history in six time periods that define clear changes in the relationship between the Native American and the US Government. Formative period 1780 -1825 One of the critical tasks that faced the new nation of the United States was establishing a healthy relationship with the Native Americans (Indians). â€Å"The most serious obstacle to peaceful relations between the United States and the Indians was the steady encroachment of white settlers on the Indian lands. The Continental Congress, following [George] Washington’s suggestion, issued a proclamation prohibiting unauthorized settlement or purchase of Indian land.† (Prucha, 3) Many of the Indian tribes had entered into treaties with the French and British and still posed a military threat to the new nation. The new US Government was careful not to antagonize the Indians and sought to treat them with mutual respect. This is evidenced in early treaties where the term â€Å"Red Brothers† was used to convey this sentiment of equality. By 1800 interaction between the Indian and white settlers had become quite common through trade. Many Indians traded for household goods, traps and tools. The US became concerned about the cultural differences and sought to improve the Indian station in life by providi... ...ll as the opportunity like the Seminole to develop a culture rich in tradition and assimilation that fosters a self-reliant people. Sources Cited American Indian Research and Policy Institute, â€Å"Framework of tribal sovereignty†, URL: http://www.airpi/org/marge1.html, 1998 Bailey Thomas A., Kennedy David M, The American Pageant: A History of the Republic 10th ed , Lexington, Massachusetts, D.C. Heath and Company,1994. Brown, Dee, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, New York, Bantam Press,1970 Josephy, Alvin M, The American Heritage Book of Indians, New York, American Heritage Publishing Co,1961 Prucha, Francis Paul, Documents of United States Indian Policy, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press,1990 Schlesinger, Arthur M, The Almanac of American History, New York,Brompton Books Corporation,1993

Elementary Ethnography in the Movies

A not-so-usual moviegoer can create streams of thought inside the movie house, and the experience of being inside that large, dark hollow can be a quite vivid experience more than the plot of the film in the taking. This is the fine point of tangency of the two essays (sic) â€Å"The Magic of Moviegoing† (essay 1) and â€Å"Sit Down and Shut Up or Don’t Sit by Me† (essay 2). Besides this point of tangency, we see more divergence than convergence for the two essays. Basically, the two essays intentionally or unintentionally teach a lesson of simple social research. Employing the method of ethnography, Essay one draws up a conclusion of movie-going having several rituals in the process. This observation is characteristic of functionalist remark where daily human behavior is made up of different rituals, which serve its â€Å"function† or purpose.   Meanwhile, essay two utilizes the same observation method, but maintains the objective of watching a movie rather than remaining true to the objective research of the social science in action happening right before the author’s eyes. Ethnography employs participant observation – a process where â€Å"the researcher enters the group or situation that he or she is studying†¦to try to understand the motives and meanings of the group of people they are studying.†Ã‚   (Walsh, 2001: 67) The author of essay one amused himself for his discoveries inside the movie house as a participant observer. He says about the movie going ritual: â€Å"But there's another question, equally interesting, that seldom gets examined or even asked. It's not the What but the How of the matter: How do we watch the movies? How do we behave during this pop rite of going to the picture show?† The same amusement goes with the author of the second essay. He says of putting on the shoes of a famous socio-anthropologist, â€Å"I’ve amused myself with a Margaret Mead-like study of the way people come in and take their seats and their antics during the movie.† Analyzing from the point-of-view of the social research process, Essay one sticks with the object of the study – the group or the audience. Meanwhile, essay two keeps its observation only before the start of the film and shifts attention after the start of the film, thereby losing the consistency and intent of the study.   Thus, a small lesson for the student conducting a social research: be clear with your objective and remain objective with the study. Observations made in Essay one reflects behavior of people as a group or more formally, social psychology. Meaning, people act differently as an individual and as a group. The author realizes this by saying thus, â€Å"(the) convergence of disparate people turns into an audience.† Clearly, this is the reason why he posits that film viewing in the sala set is bland and lacking of the necessary effects to rival the vividness of experience and intensity of film viewing as a social experience. However, the first essay is quick to respond to the need of the second essay for attentiveness and ethics in watching movies. It said that, â€Å"when we are most truly alone, we are most truly an audience.† The author of the second essay would have been happy to know that the author of the former agrees with the point of etiquette inside the movie houses. Albeit implicitly, we are sure that second essay agrees that some sort of collective and social interaction during the movie proper is necessary to make the experience more fulfilling. In the whole, the two essays request the attention of movie buffs and the uninitiated alike.   One can be a student of sociology just by doing a thing we like most. A movie house can be a place full of lessons for the social research process. The catch is that one must have a keen eye and good sense of observation to capture life moments and scenes outside of the silver screen. REFERENCES: Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E., Bem, D., & Nolen-Hoeksma, S. (1953). Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology, 628-638. Walsh, M. (2001). Research Made Real: A Guide for Students, 66-68.   

Police Shooting Essay

The claim that the NYPD is becoming trigger-happy cannot really be said conclusively without comparing it to other large metropolitan areas in the United States and when doing so it seems that the answer is, at the present time, no.   In 1999, 11 people died at the hand of an officer in New York, in 2000 it was 41.   1993 had 23 people killed by police that was the same year that David Dinkins was mayor. Now if you compare this to Chicago last year, 2001, 13 people were killed by police with only 10 in 2000. LAPD was the only U.S. city to have the death rates from police shootings fall lower than New York, down from 39 to 6 in between 2000-2001.   But LAPD’s crime reduction still did not match New York, which was drastically lower.   Even with demonstrations and poor poll rating, the number of civilian complaints about the police fell to 4,903 in 1999, the lowest since 1994.   Even though the NYPD is not perfect the trend still predicts that improvement is still happening.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Some attribute the decline to economics such as lower unemployment or demographics, fewer criminal youths.   No one wants to believe that it could possibly be tougher policing.   A new computerized system that maps the criminality in the city has been given credit by most.   Along with this system and weekly brainstorming meetings among senior police and precinct captains NYPD has been able to predict and locate new outbreaks of crime quickly and find better ways of cracking down on them. Some point to the focus on quality of life crimes like littering and graffiti painting.   Enforcing these types of crime has shown the community that law will be enforced and this has given a clear message.   The changing of how police officers are rewarded for performance has also made a really huge difference.   It switched from rewards for number of arrests to rewards for lower reported crimes. Only until an incident with Patrick Dorismond, who was shot by police in March of 2000 by the street crimes unit, did the NYPD gain a more critical look into if they are trigger-happy.   The unit is a plain clothed police squad that can be sent anytime anywhere.   At the time they were investigating an outbreak of cab drivers who were being murdered.   Another function of this unit is to find illegal weapons.   In New York City it is quite frequent that individuals can become stopped and frisked, but many residents do not like this fact.   It seems that this activity focuses on many blacks and Hispanics. Dorismond was approached by officers from the street crimes unit but because they were in street clothing Dorismond did not realize they were officers and a scuffle began with the result of Dorismond’s fatal shooting.   He was unarmed and the family is searching for answers.   What really hurt the department was when the mayor’s office decided to make public Dorismond’s juvenile record, trying to portray the man as â€Å"no Altar boy† did not go over well with the community and became nationwide news giving the police as being very insensitive. Racial Profiling seems to be at the heart of this problem, the mayor points to studies that the disproportionate number of people accused of crimes come from ethnic minorities and that is the reason why more of those minorities get stopped.   A recent study by Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute points to the tactics of this policing unit as the problem.   They point out that it is unconstitutional and makes shooting like Dorismond’s a predictable result.   It gives the police â€Å"the mind-set of a soldier† training the unit as soldiers.   Some have said that legalizing guns for citizens and legalizing some drugs could be a solution to eliminate the need for this unit. As you can see there are many openings for improvement in the NYPD and while researching this topic I have found that it is obvious that improvements have been made, but they are slow in coming and in implementing.   Media has played a very important role in keeping this in the public arena, where it needs to be.   It was difficult when the changing of the way departmental review of rewards, such as being rewarded for reduction in crime reports, was implemented and there was much debate on if this would really work.   But now since it has been implemented it has shown great improvement in community safety. Now a focus on racism should be examined closely to fix what is really, in my opinion, at the heart of this controversy.   I think if officers of tomorrow were educated in multicultural terms racism will fade away, like time.   America has had many dark moments in history and hopefully racism will become just a dark moment in the past.   I don’t think that we can actually say that NYPD is trigger-happy, but I do think that acts of racism could be behind the shootings that have happen between the NYPD and its citizens. Reference: Anonymous (2000, May 6).   â€Å"United States: The Thin Blue Line†.   The Economist,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   London Ed. Vol. 355, Issue 8169, pg.32.

Religion vs Ethics

Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics return to religion-online Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics by Reinhold Niebuhr One of the foremost philsophers and theologians of the twentieth century, Reinhold Niebuhr was for many years a Professor at Union Theological Seminary, New York City. He is the author of many classics in their field, including The Nature and Destiny of Man, Moral Man and Immoral Society, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, and Discerning the Signs of Our Times.He was also the founding editor of the publication Christianity and Crisis. Published in 1932 by Charles Scribner's Sons. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. In this classic study, Niebuhr draws a sharp distinction between the moral and social behavior of individuals versus social groups — national, racial, and economic. He shows how this distinction then requires political policies which a purely indi vidualistic ethic will necessarily find embarrassing. IntroductionThe inferiority of the morality of groups to that of individuals is due in part to the difficulty of establishing a rational social force which is powerful enough to cope with the natural impulses by which society achieves its cohesion; but in part it is merely the revelation of a collective egoism, compounded of the egoistic impulses of individuals, which achieve a more vivid expression and a more cumulative effect when they are united in a common impulse than when they express themselves separately and discreetly.Chapter 1: Man and Society: The Art of Living Together History is a long tale of abortive efforts toward the desired end of social cohesion and justice in which failure was usually due either to the effort to eliminate the factor of force entirely or to an undue reliance upon it. Chapter 2: The Rational Resources of the Individual for Social Living The traditions and superstitions, which seemed to the eight eenth century to be the very root of injustice, have been eliminated, without checking the constant growth of social injustice.Yet the men of learning persist in their hope that more intelligence will solve the social problem. They may view present realities quite realistically; but they cling to their hope that an adequate pedagogical technique will finally produce the â€Å"socialised man† and thus solve the problems of society. file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem=415. htm (1 of 4) [2/4/03 12:43:52 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics Chapter 3: The Religious Resources of the Individual for Social LivingIf the recognition of selfishness is prerequisite to the mitigation of its force and the diminution of its antisocial consequences in society, religion should be a dominant influence in the socialisation of man; for religion is fruitful of the spirit of contrition. Chapter 3: The Religious Resources of the Individual for Social Living I f the recognition of selfishness is prerequisite to the mitigation of its force and the diminution of its antisocial consequences in society, religion should be a dominant influence in the socialisation of man; for religion is fruitful of the spirit of contrition.Chapter 4: The Morality of Nations A discussion of the moral characteristics of a nation and the reasons for the selfishness and hypocrasy found therein. Chapter 4: The Morality of Nations A discussion of the moral characteristics of a nation and the reasons for the selfishness and hypocrasy found therein. Chapter 5: The Ethical Attitudes of Privileged Classes The prejudices, hypocrisies and dishonesties of the privileged and ruling classes is analyzed. The moral attitudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterised by universal selfdeception and hypocrisy.Chapter 5: The Ethical Attitudes of Privileged Classes The prejudices, hypocrisies and dishonesties of the privileged and ruling classes is analyzed. The moral at titudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterised by universal selfdeception and hypocrisy. Chapter 6: The Ethical Attitudes of the Proletarian Class If we analyse the attitudes of the politically self-conscious worker in ethical terms, their most striking characteristic is probably the combination of moral cynicism and unqualified equalitarian social idealism which they betray.The industrial worker has little confidence in the morality of men; but this does not deter him from projecting a rigorous ethical ideal for society. The effect of this development of an industrial civilisation is vividly revealed in the social and political attitudes of the modern proletarian class. These attitudes have achieved their file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem=415. htm (2 of 4) [2/4/03 12:43:52 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics authoritative expression and definition in Marxian political philosophy.Chapter 6: The Ethical Attitudes of the Proletari an Class If we analyse the attitudes of the politically self-conscious worker in ethical terms, their most striking characteristic is probably the combination of moral cynicism and unqualified equalitarian social idealism which they betray. The industrial worker has little confidence in the morality of men; but this does not deter him from projecting a rigorous ethical ideal for society. The effect of this development of an industrial civilisation is vividly revealed in the social and political attitudes of the modern proletarian class.These attitudes have achieved their authoritative expression and definition in Marxian political philosophy. Chapter 7: Justice Through Revolution Difficult as the method of revolution is for any Western industrial civilisation, it must not be regarded as impossible. The forces which make for concentration of wealth and power are operative, even though they do not move as unambiguously as the Marxians prophesied. Chapter 7: Justice Through Revolution Difficult as the method of revolution is for any Western industrial civilisation, it must not be regarded as impossible.The forces which make for concentration of wealth and power are operative, even though they do not move as unambiguously as the Marxians prophesied. Chapter 8: Justice Through Political Force The group, which feels itself defrauded of its just proportion of the common wealth of society, but which has a measure of security and therefore does not feel itself completely disinherited, expresses its political aspirations in a qualified Marxism in which the collectivist goal is shared with the more revolutionary Marxians, but in which parliamentary and evolutionary methods are substituted for revolution as means of achieving the goal.Chapter 8: Justice Through Political Force The group, which feels itself defrauded of its just proportion of the common wealth of society, but which has a measure of security and therefore does not feel itself completely disinherited, expres ses its political aspirations in a qualified Marxism in which the collectivist goal is shared with the more revolutionary Marxians, but in which parliamentary and evolutionary methods are substituted for revolution as means of achieving the goal. Chapter 9: The Preservation of Moral Values in PoliticsIf coercion, self-assertion and conflict are regarded as permissible and necessary instruments of social redemption, how are perpetual conflict and perennial tyranny to be avoided? file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem=415. htm (3 of 4) [2/4/03 12:43:52 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics Chapter 9: The Preservation of Moral Values in Politics If coercion, self-assertion and conflict are regarded as permissible and necessary instruments of social redemption, how are perpetual conflict and perennial tyranny to be avoided?Chapter 10: The Conflict Between Individual and Social Morality The conflict between ethics and politics is made inevitable by the double focus of the moral life. One focus is in the inner life of the individual, and the other in the necessities of man's social life. From the perspective of society the highest moral ideal is justice. From the perspective of the individual the highest ideal is unselfishness. 31 file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem&id=415. htm (4 of 4) [2/4/03 12:43:52 PM] Religion-Online religion-online. orgFull texts by recognized religious scholars More than 1,500 articles and chapters. Topics include Old and New Testament, Theology, Ethics, History and Sociology of Religions, Comparative Religion, Religious Communication, Pastoral Care, Counselling, Homiletics, Worship, Missions and Religious Education. site map (click on any subject) THE SITE THE BIBLE About Religion Online Copyright and Use A Note to Professors THEOLOGY Authority of the Bible Theology Old Testament Ethics New Testament Missions Comparative Religion Bible Commentary Religion and CultureHistory of Religious Thought R ELIGION & COMMUNICATION Communication Theory Communication in the Local Church Communication and Public Policy Media Education THE LOCAL CHURCH The Local Congregation Pastoral Care and Counseling Homiletics: The Art of Preaching Religious Education SEARCH Search Religion Online Church and Society Sociology of Religion Social Issues BROWSE Books Index By Author Index By Recommended Sites Category A member of the Science and Theology Web Ring [ Previous | Next | Random Site | List Sites ] file:///D:/rb/index. htm [2/4/03 12:43:55 PM]RELIGION & SOCIETY Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics return to religion-online Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics by Reinhold Niebuhr One of the foremost philsophers and theologians of the twentieth century, Reinhold Niebuhr was for many years a Professor at Union Theological Seminary, New York City. He is the author of many classics in their field, including The Nature and Destiny of Man, Moral Man an d Immoral Society, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, and Discerning the Signs of Our Times.He was also the founding editor of the publication Christianity and Crisis. Published in 1932 by Charles Scribner's Sons. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. Introduction The thesis to be elaborated in these pages is that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the moral and social behavior of individuals and of social groups, national, racial, and economic; and that this distinction justifies and necessitates political policies which a purely individualistic ethic must always find embarrassing.The title â€Å"Moral Man and Immoral Society† suggests the intended distinction too unqualifiedly, but it is nevertheless a fair indication of the argument to which the following pages are devoted. Individual men may be moral in the sense that they are able to consider interests other than their own in determining problems of conduct, and a re capable, on occasion, of preferring the advantages of others to their own. They are endowed by nature with a measure of sympathy and consideration for their kind, the breadth of which may be extended by an astute social pedagogy.Their rational faculty prompts them to a sense of justice which educational discipline may refine and purge of egoistic elements until they are able to view a social situation, in which their own interests are involved, with a fair measure of objectivity. But all these achievements are more difficult, if not impossible, for human societies and social groups. In every human group there is less reason to guide and to check impulse, less capacity for self-transcendence, less ability to comprehend the needs of others and therefore more unrestrained egoism than the individuals, who compose the group, reveal in their personal relationships.The inferiority of the morality of groups to that of individuals is due in part to the difficulty of establishing a rationa l social force which is powerful enough to cope with the natural impulses by which society achieves its cohesion; but in part it is merely the revelation of a collective egoism, compounded of the egoistic impulses of individuals, which achieve a more vivid expression and a more cumulative effect when they are united in a common impulse than when they express themselves separately and discreetly. file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. ll-action=showitem=1=415. htm (1 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics Inasfar as this treatise has a polemic interest it is directed against the moralists both religious and secular, who imagine that the egoism of individuals is being progressively checked by the development of rationality or the growth of a religiously inspired goodwill and that nothing but the continuance of this process is necessary to establish social harmony between all the human societies and collectives.Social analyses and prophecies made by moralists, sociologists and educators upon the basis of these assumptions lead to a very considerable moral and political confusion in our day. They completely disregard the political necessities in the struggle for justice in human society by failing to recognise those elements in man's collective behavior which belong to the order of nature and can never be brought completely under the dominion of reason or conscience. They do not recognise that when collective power, whether in the form of imperialism or class domination, exploits weakness, it can never be dislodged unless power is raised against it.If conscience and reason can be insinuated into the resulting struggle they can only qualify but not abolish it. The most persistent error of modern educators and moralists is the assumption that our social difficulties are due to the failure of the social sciences to keep pace with the physical sciences which have created our technological civilisation. The invariable implication of this assumption is that, with a little more time, a little more adequate moral and social pedagogy and a generally higher development of human intelligence, our social problems will approach solution. It is,† declares Professor John Dewey, â€Å"our human intelligence and our human courage which is on trial; it is incredible that men who have brought the technique of physical discovery, invention and use to such a pitch of perfection will abdicate in the face of the infinitely more important human problem. What stands in the way (of a planned economy) is a lot of outworn traditions, moth-eaten slogans and catchwords that do substitute duty for thought, as well as our entrenched predatory self-interest. We shall only make a real beginning in intelligent thought when we cease mouthing platitudes†¦.Just as soon as we begin to use the knowledge and skills we have, to control social consequences in the interest of a shared, abundant and secured life, we shall cease to compla in of the backwardness of our social knowledge†¦. We shall then take the road which leads to the assured building up of social science just as men built up physical science when they actively used techniques and tools and numbers in physical experimentation. †(John Dewey, Philosophy and Civilization [New York: Minton, Balch], p. 329. In spite of Professor Dewey's great interest in and understanding of the modern social problem there is very little clarity in this statement. The real cause of social inertia, â€Å"our predatory self-interest,† is mentioned only in passing without influencing his reasoning, and with no indication that he understands how much social conservatism is due to the economic interests of the owning classes. On the whole, social conservatism is ascribed to ignorance, a viewpoint which states only part of the truth and reveals the natural bias of the educator.The suggestion that we will only make a beginning in intelligent thought when we â₠¬Å"cease mouthing platitudes,† is itself so platitudinous that it rather betrays the confusion of an analyst who has no clear counsels about the way to overcome social inertia. The idea that we cannot be socially intelligent until we begin experimentation in social problems in the way that the physical scientists experimented fails to take account of an important difference between the physical file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem=1=415. tm (2 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics and the social sciences. The physical sciences gained their freedom when they overcame the traditionalism based on ignorance, but the traditionalism which the social sciences face is based upon the economic interest of the dominant social classes who are trying to maintain their special privileges in society. Nor can the difference between the very character of social and physical sciences be overlooked.Complete rational objectivity in a soc ial situation is impossible. The very social scientists who are so anxious to offer our generation counsels of salvation and are disappointed that an ignorant and slothful people are so slow to accept their wisdom, betray middle-class prejudices in almost everything they write. Since reason is always, to some degree, the servant of interest in a social situation, social injustice cannot be resolved by moral and rational suasion alone, as the educator and social scientist usually believes.Conflict is inevitable, and in this conflict power must be challenged by power. That fact is not recognized by most of the educators, and only very grudgingly admitted by most of the social scientists. If social conflict be a part of the process of gaining social justice, the idea of most of Professor Newey's disciples that our salvation depends upon the development of â€Å"experimental procedures? â€Å"( Cf. inter alia, John Childs, Education and the Philosophy of Experimentalism, p. 37. in soc ial life, commensurate with the experimentalism of the physical sciences, does not have quite the plausibility which they attribute to it. Contending factions in a social struggle require morale; and morale is created by the right dogmas, symbols and emotionally potent oversimplifications. These are at least as necessary as the scientific spirit of tentativity. No class of industrial workers will ever win freedom from the dominant classes if they give themselves completely to the â€Å"experimental techniques† of the modern educators.They will have to believe rather more firmly in the justice and in the probable triumph of their cause, than any impartial science would give them the right to believe, if they are to have enough energy to contest the power of the strong. They may be very scientific in projecting their social goal and in choosing the most effective instruments for its attainment, but a motive force will be required to nerve them for their task which is not easily derived from the cool objectivity of science. Modern educators are, like rationalists of all the ages, too enamored of the function of reason in life.The world of history, particularly in man's collective behavior, will never be conquered by reason, unless reason uses tools, and is itself driven by forces which are not rational. The sociologists as a class, understand the modern social problem even less than the educators. They usually interpret social conflict as the result of a clash between different kinds of â€Å"behavior patterns,† which can be eliminated if the contending parties will only allow the social scientist to furnish them with a new and more perfect pattern which will do justice to the needs of both parties.With the educators they regard ignorance rather than self-interest as the cause of conflict. â€Å"Apparently,† declares Kimball Young, â€Å"the only way in which collective conflicts, as well as individual conflicts, can be successfully and hygi enically solved is by securing a redirection of behavior toward a more feasible environmental objective. This can be accomplished most successfully by the rational reconditioning of attitudes on a higher neuropsychic or intellectual symbolic plane to the facts of science, preferably through a free file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. ll-action=showitem&gotochapter=1&id=415. htm (3 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics discussion with a minimum of propaganda. This is not an easy road to mental and social sanity but it appears to be the only one which arrives at the goal. â€Å"( Kimball Young, Social Attitudes p. 72) Here a technique which works very well in individual relations, and in certain types of social conflict due to differences in culture, is made a general panacea. How is it to solve the problem between England and India?Through the Round-Table Conference? But how much would England have granted India at the conference if a non-co-o peration campaign, a type of conflict, had not forced the issue? A favorite counsel of the social scientists is that of accommodation. If two parties are in a conflict, let them, by conferring together, moderate their demands and arrive at a modus vivendi. This is, among others, the advice of Professor Hornell Hart. (Hornell Hart, The Science of Social Relations. ) Undoubtedly there are innumerable conflicts which must be resolved in this fashion.But will a disinherited group, such as the Negroes for instance, ever win full justice in society in this fashion? Will not even its most minimum demands seem exorbitant to the dominant whites, among whom only a very small minority will regard the inter-racial problem from the perspective of objective justice? Or how are the industrial workers to follow Professor Hart's advice in dealing with industrial owners, when the owners possess so much power that they can win the debate with the workers, no matter how unconvincing their arguments ?On ly a very few sociologists seem to have learned that an adjustment of a social conflict, caused by the disproportion of power in society, will hardly result in justice as long as the disproportion of power remains. Sometimes the sociologists are so completely oblivious to the real facts of an industrial civilisation that, as Floyd Allport for instance, they can suggest that the unrest of industrial workers is due not to economic injustice but to a sense of inferiority which will be overcome just as soon as benevolent social psychologists are able to teach the workers that â€Å"no one is charging them with inferiority except themselves. ( FIoyd Allport, Social Psychology, pp. 14-17. ) These omniscient social scientists will also teach the owners that â€Å"interests and profits must be tempered by regard for the worker. † Thus â€Å"the socialisation of individual control† in industry will obviate the necessity of â€Å"socialistic control. † Most of the social scientists are such unqualified rationalists that they seem to imagine that men of power will immediately check their exactions and pretensions in society, as soon as they have been apprised by the social scientists that their actions and attitudes are anti-social.Professor Clarence Marsh Case, in an excellent analysis of the social problem, places his confidence in a â€Å"reorganisation of values†in which, among other things, industrial leaders must be made to see â€Å"that despotically controlled industry in a society that professes democracy as an article of faith is an anachronism that cannot endure. â€Å"( Clarence Marsh Case, Social Process and Human Progress, p. 233. ) It may be that despotism cannot endure but it will not abdicate merely because the despots have discovered it to be anachronistic.Sir Arthur Salter, to name a brilliant economist among the social scientists, finishes his penetrating analysis of the distempers of our civilisation by expressing the u sual hope that a higher intelligence or a sincerer morality will prevent the governments of the future from perpetrating the mistakes of the past. His own analysis proves conclu-sively that the failure of governments is due to the pressure of economic interest upon them rather than to the â€Å"limited capacities of uman wisdom. † In his own words file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=1&id=415. htm (4 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics â€Å"government is failing above all because it has become enmeshed in the task of giving discretionary, particularly preferential, privileges to competitive industry. † (Sir Arthur Salter, Recovery, p. 41) In spite of this analysis Sir Arthur expects the governments to redeem our civilisation by becoming more socially minded and he thinks that one method which will help them to do so is to â€Å"draw into the service of the public the great private institutions which represent the organised activities of the country, chambers of commerce, banking institutions, industrial and labor organisations. † His entire hope for recovery rests upon the possibility of developing a degree of economic disinterestedness among men of power which the entire history of mankind proves them incapable of acquiring.It is rather discouraging to find such naive confidence in the moral capacities of collective man, among men who make it their business to study collective human behavior. Even when, as Professor Howard Odum, they are prepared to admit that â€Å"conflict will be necessary† as long as unfairness in the distribution of the rewards of labor exists,† they put their hope in the future. They regard social conflict as only an expedient of the moment â€Å"until broader principles of education and cooperation can be established. † (Howard W.Odum, Man's Quest for Social Guidance, p. 477. ) Anarchism, with an uncoerced and voluntary j ustice, seems to be either an explicit or implicit social goal of every second social scientist. Modern religious idealists usually follow in the wake of social scientists in advocating compromise and accommodation as the way to social justice. Many leaders of the church like to insist that it is not their business to champion the cause of either labor or capital, but only to admonish both sides to a spirit of fairness and accommodation. Between the far-visioned capitalism of Owen Young and the hard-headed socialism of Ramsay MacDonald,† declares Doctor Justin Wroe Nixon, â€Å"there is probably no impassable gulf. The progress of mankind . . . depends upon following the MacDonalds and Youngs into those areas. † (Justin Wroe Nixon, An Emerging Christian Faith p. 294) Unfortunately, since those lines were written the socialism of MacDonald has been revealed as not particularly hard-headed, and the depression has shown how little difference there really is between Mr.Youn g's â€Å"new capitalism† and the older and less suave types of capitalism. What is lacking among all these moralists, whether re1igious or rational, is an understanding of the brutal character of the behavior of all human collectives, and the power of self-interest and collective egoism in all intergroup relations. Failure to recognise the stubborn resistance of group egoism to all moral and inclusive social objectives inevitably involves them in unrealistic and confused political thought.They regard social conflict either as an impossible method of achieving morally ap- proved ends or as a momentary expedient which a more perfect education or a purer religion will make unnecessary. They do not see that the limitations of the human imagination, the easy subservience of reason to prejudice and passion, and the consequent persistence of irrational egoism, particularly in group behavior, make social conflict an inevitability in human history, probably to its very end. The roman tic overestimate of human virtue and moral capacity, current in our modern middlefile:///D:/rb/relsearchd. ll-action=showitem&gotochapter=1&id=415. htm (5 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics class culture, does not always result in an unrealistic appraisal of present social facts. Contemporary social situations are frequently appraised quite realistically, but the hope is expressed that a new pedagogy or a revival of religion will make conflict unnecessary in the future. Nevertheless a considerable portion of middle-class culture remains quite unrealistic in its analysis of the contemporary situation.It assumes that evidences of a growing brotherliness between classes and nations are apparent in the present moment. It gives such arrangements as the League of Nations, such ventures as the Kellogg Pact and such schemes as company industrial unions, a connotation of moral and social achievement which the total facts completely belie. â€Å"There must,† declares Professor George Stratton, a social psychologist, â€Å"always be a continuing and widening progress. But our present time seems to promise distinctly the close of an old epoch in world relations and the opening of a new†¦.Under the solemn teaching of the War, most of the nations have made political commitments which are of signal promise for international discipline and for still further and more effective governmental acts. †(George M. Stratton, Social Psychology and International Conduct, pp. 355-361. ) This glorification of the League of Nations as a symbol of a new epoch in international relations has been very general, and frequently very unqualified, in the Christian churches, where liberal Christianity has given itself to the illusion that all social relations are being brought progressively under â€Å"the law of Christ. William Adams Brown speaks for the whole liberal Christian viewpoint when he declares: â€Å"From many di fferent centres and in many different forms the crusade for a unified and brotherly society is being carried on. The ideal of the League of Nations in which all civilised people shall be represented and in which they shall cooperate with one another in fighting common enemies like war and disease is winning recognition in circles which have hitherto been little suspected of idealism. . . In relations between races, in strife between capital and labor, in our attitudes toward the weaker and more dependent members of society we are developing a social conscience, and situations which would have been accepted a generation ago as a matter of course are felt as an intolerable scandal. †(William Adams Brown, Pathways to Certainty, p. 246. ) Another theologian and pastor, Justin Wroe Nixon, thinks that â€Å"another reason for believing in the growth of social statesmanship on the part of business leaders is based upon their experience as trustees in various philanthropic and educat ional enterprises. ‘ (Justin Wroe Nixon, An Emerging Christian Faith, p. 291) This judgment reveals the moral confusion of liberal Christianity with perfect clarity. Teachers of morals who do not see the difference between the problem of charity within the limits of an accepted social system and the problem of justice between economic groups, holding uneven power within modern industrial society, have simply not faced the most obvious differences between the morals of groups and those of individuals. The suggestion that the fight against disease is in the same category with the fight against war reveals the same confusion.Our contemporary culture fails to realise the power, extent and persistence of group egoism in human relations. It may be possible, though it is never easy, to establish just relations between individuals within a group purely by moral and rational suasion and accommodation. In intergroup relations this is practically an impossibility. The relations between g roups must therefore always be predominantly political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses at least as much as by any rational and moral appraisal of the comparative needs and claims of each group.The coercive factors, in file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=1&id=415. htm (6 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics distinction to the more purely moral and rational factors, in political relations can never be sharply differentiated and defined. It is not possible to estimate exactly how much a party to a social conflict is influenced by a rational argument or by the threat of force.It is impossible, for instance, to know what proportion of a privileged class accepts higher inheritance taxes because it believes that such taxes are good social policy and what proportion submits merely because the power of the state supports the taxation policy. Si nce political conflict, at least in times when controversies have not reached the point of crisis, is carried on by the threat, rather than the actual use, of force, it is always easy for the casual or superficial observer to overestimate the moral and rational factors, and to remain oblivious to the covert types of coercion and force which are used in the conflict.Whatever increase in social intelligence and moral goodwill may be achieved in human history, may serve to mitigate the brutalities of social conflict, but they cannot abolish the conflict itself. That could be accomplished only if human groups, whether racial, national or economic, could achieve a degree of reason and sympathy which would permit them to see and to understand the interests of others as vividly as they understand their own, and a moral goodwill which would prompt them to affirm the rights of others as vigorously as they affirm their own.Given the inevitable limitations of human nature and the limits of the human imagination and intelligence, this is an ideal which individuals may approximate but which is beyond the capacities of human societies. Educators who emphasise the pliability of human nature, social and psychological scientists who dream of â€Å"socialising† man and religious idealists who strive to increase the sense of moral responsibility, can serve a very useful function in society in humanising individuals within an established social system and in purging the relations of individuals of as much egoism as possible.In dealing with the problems and necessities of radical social change they are almost invariably confusing in their counsels because they are not conscious of the limitations in human nature which finally frustrate their efforts. The following pages are devoted to the task of analysing the moral resources and limitations of human nature, of tracing their consequences and cumulative effect in the life of human groups and of weighing political strategies in the light of the ascertained facts. The ultimate purpose of this task is to find political methods which will offer the most promise of achieving an ethical social goal for society.Such methods must always be judged by two criteria: 1. Do they do justice to the moral resources and possibilities in human nature and provide for the exploitation of every latent moral capacity in man? 2. Do they take account of the limitations of human nature, particularly those which manifest themselves in man's collective behavior? So persistent are the moralistic illusions about politics in the middle-class world, that any emphasis upon the second question will probably impress the average reader as unduly cynical. Social viewpoints and analyses are relative to the temper of the age which gives them birth.In America our contemporary culture is still pretty firmly enmeshed in the illusions and sentimentalities of the Age of Reason. A social analysis which is written, at least partially, from the pe rspective of a disillusioned generation will seem to be almost pure cynicism from the perspective of those who will stand in the credo of the ninteenth century. file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=1&id=415. htm (7 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics 0 file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=1&id=415. tm (8 of 8) [2/4/03 12:43:58 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics return to religion-online Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics by Reinhold Niebuhr One of the foremost philsophers and theologians of the twentieth century, Reinhold Niebuhr was for many years a Professor at Union Theological Seminary, New York City. He is the author of many classics in their field, including The Nature and Destiny of Man, Moral Man and Immoral Society, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, and Discerning the Signs of Our Times.He was also the fou nding editor of the publication Christianity and Crisis. Published in 1932 by Charles Scribner's Sons. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. Chapter 1: Man and Society: The Art of Living Together Though human society has roots which lie deeper in history than the beginning of human life, men have made comparatively but little progress in solving the problem of their aggregate existence. Each century originates a new complexity and each new generation faces a new vexation in it. For all the enturies of experience, men have not yet learned how to live together without compounding their vices and covering each other â€Å"with mud and with blood. † The society in which each man lives is at once the basis for, and the nemesis of, that fullness of life which each man seeks. However much human ingenuity may increase the treasures which nature provides for the satisfaction of human needs, they can never be sufficient to satisfy all human wants; for man, unlike other creatures, is gifted and cursed with an imagination which extends his appetites beyond the requirements of subsistence.Human society will never escape the problem of the equitable distribution of the physical and cultural goods which provide for the preservation and fulfillment of human life. Unfortunately the conquest of nature, and the consequent increase in nature's beneficences to man, have not eased, but rather accentuated, the problem of justice. The same technology, which drew the fangs of nature's enmity of man, also created a society in which the intensity and extent of social cohesion has been greatly increased, and in which power is so unevenly distributed, that justice has become a more difficult achievement.Perhaps it is man's sorry fate, suffering from ills which have their source in the inadequacies of both nature and human society, that the tools by which he eliminates the former should become the means of increasing the latter. That, at least, has been his fate up to the present hour; and it may be that there will be no salvation for the human spirit from the more and more painful burdens of social injustice until the ominous tendency in human history has resulted in perfect tragedy. file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. ll-action=showitem&gotochapter=2&id=415. htm (1 of 11) [2/4/03 12:44:05 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics Human nature is not wanting in certain endowments for the solution of the problem of human society. Man is endowed by nature with organic relations to his fellowmen; and natural impulse prompts him to consider the needs of others even when they compete with his own. With the higher mammals man shares concern for his offspring; and the long infancy of the child created he basis for an organic social group in the earliest period of human history. Gradually intelligence, imagination, and the necessities of social conflict increased the size of this group. Natural impulse was refined and e xtended until a less obvious type of consanguinity than an immediate family relationship could be made the basis of social solidarity. Since those early days the units of human cooperation have constantly grown in size, and the areas of significant relationships between the units have likewise increased.Nevertheless conflict between the national units remains as a permanent rather than a passing characteristic of their relations to each other; and each national unit finds it increasingly difficult to maintain either peace or justice within its common life. While it is possible for intelligence to increase the range of benevolent impulse, and thus prompt a human being to consider the needs and rights of other than those to whom he is bound by organic and physical relationship, there are definite limits in the capacity of ordinary mortals which makes it impossible for them to grant to others what they claim for themselves.Though educators ever since the eighteenth century have given t hemselves to the fond illusion that justice through voluntary co-operation waited only upon a more universal or a more adequate educational enterprise, there is good reason to believe that the sentiments of benevolence and social goodwill will never be so pure or powerful, and the rational capacity to consider the rights and needs of others in fair competition with our own will never be so fully developed as to create the possibility for the anarchistic millennium which is the social utopia, either explicit or implicit, of all intellectual or religious moralists.All social co-operation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion. While no state can maintain its unity purely by coercion neither can it preserve itself without coercion. Where the factor of mutual consent is strongly developed, and where standardised and approximately fair methods of adjudicating and resolving conflicting interests within an organised group have been established, the coercive factor in social life is frequently covert, and becomes apparent only in moments of crisis and in the group's policy toward recalcitrant individuals.Yet it is never absent. Divergence of interest, based upon geographic and functional differences within a society, is bound to create different social philosophies and political attitudes which goodwill and intelligence may partly, but never completely, harmonise. Ultimately, unity within an organised social group, or within a federation of such groups, is created by the ability of a dominant group to impose its will.Politics will to the end of history,be an area where conscience and power meet, where the ethical and coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises. The democratic method of resolving social conflict, which some romanticists hail as a triumph of the ethical over the coercive factor, is really much more coercive than at first seems apparent. file:///D:/rb /relsearchd. dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=2&id=415. htm (2 of 11) [2/4/03 12:44:05 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and PoliticsThe majority has its way, not because the minority believes that the majority is right (few minorities are willing to grant the majority the moral prestige of such a concession), but because the votes of the majority are a symbol of its social strength. Whenever a minority believes that it has some strategic advantage which outweighs the power of numbers, and whenever it is sufficiently intent upon its ends, or desperate enough about its position in society, it refuses to accept the dictates of the majority.Military and economic overlords and revolutionary zealots have been traditionally contemptuous of the will of majorities. Recently Trotsky advised the German communists not to be dismayed by the greater voting strength of the fascists since in the inevitable revolution the power of industrial workers, in charge of the nation's indu strial process, would be found much more significant than the social power of clerks and other petty bourgeoisie who comprised the fascist movement. There are, no doubt, rational and ethical factors in the democratic process.Contending social forces presumably use the forum rather than the battleground to arbitrate their differences in the democratic method, and thus differences are resolved by moral suasion and a rational adjustment of rights to rights. If political issues were really abstract questions of social policy upon which unbiased citizens were asked to commit themselves, the business of voting and the debate which precedes the election might actually be regarded as an educational programme in which a social group discovers its common mind.But the fact is that political opinions are inevitably rooted in economic interests of some kind or other, and only comparatively few citizens can view a problem of social policy without regard to their interest. Conflicting interests th erefore can never be completely resolved; and minorities will yield only because the majority has come into control of the police power of the state and may, if the occasion arises, augment that power by its own military strength.Should a minority regard its own strength, whether economic or martial, as strong enough to challenge the ,power of the majority, it may attempt to wrest control of the state apparatus from the majority, as in the case of the fascist movement in Italy. Sometimes it will resort to armed conflict, even if the prospects of victory are none too bright, as in the instance of the American Civil War, in which the Southern planting interests, outvoted by a combination of Eastern industrialists and Western agrarians, resolved to protect their peculiar interests and privileges by a forceful dissolution of the national union.The coercive factor is, in other words, always present in politics. If economic interests do not conflict too sharply, if the spirit of accommoda tion partially resolves them, and if the democratic process has achieved moral prestige and historic dignity, the coercive factor in politics may become too covert to be visible to the casual observer. Nevertheless, only a romanticist of the purest water could maintain that a national group ever arrives at a â€Å"common mind† or becomes conscious of a â€Å"general will† without the use of either force or the threat of force.This is particularly true of nations, but it is also true, though in a slighter degree, of other social groups. Even religious communities, if they are sufficiently large, and if they deal with issues regarded as vital by their members, resort to coercion to preserve their unity. Religious organisations have usually availed themselves of a covert type of coercion (excommunication and the interdict) or they have called upon the police power of the state. file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem&gotochapter=2&id=415. htm (3 of 11) [2/4/03 12:44 :05 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and PoliticsThe limitations of the human mind and imagination, the inability of human beings to transcend their own interests sufficiently to envisage the interests of their fellowmen as clearly as they do their own makes force an inevitable part of the process of social cohesion. But the same force which guarantees peace also makes for injustice. â€Å"Power,† said Henry Adams, â€Å"is poison†; and it is a poison which blinds the eyes of moral insight and lames the will of moral purpose. The individual or the group which organises any society, however social its intentions or pretensions, arrogates an inordinate portion of social privilege to itself.The two most obvious types of power are the military and the economic, though in primitive society the power of the priest, partly because he dispenses supernatural benefits and partly because he establishes public order by methods less arduous than those of the sol dier, vies with that of the soldier and the landlord. The chief difference between the agrarian civilisations, which lasted from the rise of ancient Babylon and Egypt to the fall of European feudalism, and the commercial and industrial civilisations of today is that in the former the military power is primary, and in the latter it has become secondary, to economic power.In agrarian civilisations the soldier becomes the landlord. In more primitive periods he may claim the land by his own military prowess. In later periods a grateful sovereign bestowed land upon the soldiers who defended his realm and consolidated his dominion. The soldier thus gained the economic security and the social prestige which could be exploited in further martial service to his sovereign. The business man and industrial overlord are gradually usurping the position of eminence and privilege once held by the soldier and the priest.In most European nations their ascendancy over the landed aristocrat of military traditions is not as complete as in America, which has no feudal traditions. In present-day Japan the military caste is still so powerful that it threatens to destroy the rising power of the commercial groups. On the pre-eminence of economic power in an industrial civilisation and its ability to make the military power its tool we shall have more to say later. Our interest at the moment is to record that any kind of significant social power develops social inequality.Even if history is viewed from other than equalitarian perspectives, and it is granted that differentials in economic rewards are morally justified and socially useful, it is impossible to justify the degree of inequality which complex societies inevitably create by the increased centralisation of power which develops with more elaborate civilisations. The literature of all ages is filled with rational and moral justifications of these inequalities, but most of them are specious. If superior abilities and services to s ociety deserve special rewards it may be regarded as axiomatic that the rewards are always higher than the services warrant.No impartial society determines the rewards. The men of power who control society grant these perquisites to themselves. Whenever special ability is not associated with power, as in the case of the modern professional man, his excess of income over the average is ridiculously low in comparison with that of the economic overlords, who are the real centres of power in an industrial society. Most rational and social justifications of unequal privilege are clearly afterthoughts. The facts are created by the disproportion of power which exists in a given social system.The justifications are usually dictated by the desire of the men of power to hide the nakedness of their greed, and by the inclination of society itself to veil the brutal facts of human life from itself. This is a rather pathetic but understandable inclination; since the facts of man's collective life easily rob the average individual of confidence in the human enterprise. The inevitable hypocrisy, which is associated with all of the |collective activities of the human race, springs chiefly from this file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. ll-action=showitem&gotochapter=2&id=415. htm (4 of 11) [2/4/03 12:44:05 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics source: that individuals have a moral code which makes the actions of collective man an outrage to their conscience. They therefore invent romantic and moral interpretations of the real facts, preferring to obscure rather than reveal the true character of their collective behavior Sometimes they are as anxious to offer moral justifications for the brutalities from which they suffer as for those which they commit.The fact that the hypocrisy of man's group behavior, about which we shall have much more to say later, expresses itself not only in terms of selfjustification but in terms of moral justification of human behavior in general, symbolises one of the tragedies of the human spirit: its inability to conform its collective life to its individual ideals. As individuals, men believe that they ought to love and serve each other and establish justice between each other. As racial, economic and national groups they take for themselves, whatever their power can command.The disproportion of power in a complex society which began with the transmutation of the pastoral to the agrarian economy, and which destroyed the simple equalitarianism and communism of the hunting and nomadic social organisation, has perpetuated social injustice in every form through all the ages. Types of power have changed, and gradations of social inequality have varied, but the essential facts have remained unchanged. In Egypt the land was divided into three parts, respectively claimed by the king, the soldiers and the priests. The common people were landless.In Peru, where a rather remarkable despotic communism developed, the king owned all the land but gave the use of one third to the people, another third to the priests and kept one third for himself and his nobles. Needless to say, the commoners were expected to till not only their third but the other two thirds of the lands. In China, where the emperor maintained the right of eminent domain for many centuries, defeating the experiment in feudalism in the third century A. D. , and giving each family inalienable rights in the soil which nominally belonged to him, there has probably been less inequality than in any other ancient empire.Nevertheless slavery persisted until a very recent day. In Japan the emperor gave the land to feudal princes, who again sublet it to the inferior nobility. The power of the feudal clans, originating in martial prowess and perpetuated through land ownership, has remained practically unbroken to this day, though the imperial power was ostensibly restored in the latter part of the last century, and growing industry has developed a class of industrial overlords who were partly drawn from the landed aristocracy.In Rome the absolute property rights of the pater familias of the patrician class gave him power which placed him on top of the social pyramid. All other classes, beginning with his own women and children, then the plebeians and finally the slaves, took their places in the various lower rungs of the social ladder. The efforts of the Gracchi to destroy the ever growing inequality, which resulted from power breeding more power, proved abortive, as did the land reforms of Solon and Lycurgus in Greece.Military conquest gave the owners of the Roman latifundia hundreds of slaves by the labor of which they reduced the small freeholders to penury. Thus the decay of the Roman Empire was prepared; for a state which has only lords and slaves lacks the social cement to preserve it from internal disintegration and the military force to protect it from external aggression. file:///D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showit em&gotochapter=2&id=415. htm (5 of 11) [2/4/03 12:44:05 PM]Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics All through history one may observe the tendency of power to destroy its very raison d'etre. It is suffered because it achieves internal unity and creates external defenses for the nation. But it grows to such proportions that it destroys the social peace of the state by the animosities which its exactions arouse, and it enervates the sentiment of patriotism by robbing the common man of the basic privileges which might bind him to his nation.The words attributed by Plutarch to Tiberius Gracchus reveal the hollowness of the pretensions by which the powerful classes enlist their slaves in the defense of their dominions: â€Å"The wild beasts in Italy had at least their lairs, dens and caves whereto they might retreat; whereas the men who fought and died for that land had nothing in it save air and light, but were forced to wander to and fro with their wives and chi ldren, without resting place or house wherein they might lodge†¦. The poor folk go to war, to fight and to die for the delights, riches and superfluities of others. Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, see â€Å"Tiberius Gracchus,† Loeb Classical Library, Vol. X). † In the long run these pretensions are revealed and the sentiment of patriotism is throttled in the breasts of the disinherited. The privileged groups who are outraged by the want of patriotism among modern proletarians could learn the cause of proletarian internationalism by a little study of history. â€Å"It is absurd,† says Diodorus Siculus, speaking of Egypt, â€Å"to entrust the defence of a country to people who own nothing in it,†(Quoted by C. J. M. Letourneau, Property; Its Origin and Development. p. 77) a reflection which has applicability to other ages and other nations than his own. Russian communists of pure water pour their scorn upon European socialists, among whom patriotism outwei ghed class loyalty in the World War. But there is a very simple explanation for the nationalism of European socialists. They were not as completely, or at least not as obviously, disinherited as their Russian comrades. The history of slavery in all ancient civilisations offers an interesting illustration of the development of social injustice with the growing size and complexity of the social unit.In primitive tribal organisation rights are essentially equal within the group, and no rights, or only very minimum rights are recognised outside of the group. The captives of war are killed. With the growth of agriculture the labor of captives becomes useful, and they are enslaved rather than destroyed. Since rightless individuals are introduced into the intimate life of the group, equality of rights disappears; and the inequality remains even after the slaves are no longer regarded as enemies and have become completely organic to the life of the group.The principle of slavery once establ ished, is enlarged to include debt slaves, victims of the growing property system. The membership of the debt slaves in the original community at first guarantees them rights which the captive slaves do not enjoy. But the years gradually wipe out these distinctions and the captive slaves are finally raised to the status of debtor slaves. Thus the more humane attitudes which men practice within their social groups gains a slight victory over the more brutal attitudes towards individuals in other groups.But the victory is insignificant in comparison with the previous introduction of the morals of inter group relations into the intimate life of the group by the very establishment of slavery. Barbarism knows little or nothing of class distinctions. These are created and more and more highly elaborated by civilisation. The social impulses, with which men are endowed by nature are not powerful enough, even when they are extended by a growing intelligence, to apply with equal force ile:/// D:/rb/relsearchd. dll-action=showitem=2=415. htm (6 of 11) [2/4/03 12:44:05 PM] Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics toward all members of a large community. The distinction between slave and freeman is only one of the many social gradations which higher societies develop. They are determined in every case by the disproportion of power, military and economic, which develops in the more complex civilisations and in the larger social units.A growing social intelligence may be affronted by them and may protest against them, but it changes them only slightly. Neither the prophets of Israel nor the social idealists of Egypt and Babylon, who protested against social injustice, could make their vision of a just society effective. The man of power, though humane impulse may awaken in him, always remains something of the beast of prey. He may be generous within his family, and just within the confines of the group which shares his power and privilege.With only rare e xceptions, his highest moral attitude toward members of other groups is one of warlike sportsmanship toward those who equal his power and challenge it, and one of philanthropic generosity toward those who possess less power and privilege. His philanthropy is a perfect illustration of the curious compound of the brutal and the moral which we find in all human behavior; for his generosity is at once a display of his power and an expression of his pity. His generous impulses freeze within him if his power is challenged or his generosities are accepted without grateful humility.If individual men of power should achieve more ethical attitudes than the one described, it remains nevertheless typical for them as a class; and is their practically unvarying attitude when they express themselves not as individuals but as a group. The rise of modern democracy, beginning with the Eighteenth Century, is sometimes supposed to have substituted the consent of the governed for the power of royal fami lies and aristocratic classes as the cohesive force of national society. This judgment is partly true but not nearly as true as the uncritical devotees of modern democracy assume.The doctrine that government exists by the consent of the governed, and the democratic technique by which the suffrage of the governed determines the policy of the state, may actually reduce the coercive factor in national life, and provide for peaceful and gradual methods of resolving conflicting social interests and changing political institutions. But the creeds and institutions of democracy have never become fully divorced from the special interests of the commercial classes who conceived and developed them.It was their interest to destroy political restraint upon economic activity, and they therefore weakened the authority of the state and made it more pliant to their needs. With the increased centralisation of economic power in the period of modern industrialism, this development merely means that soc iety as such does not control economic power as much as social well-being requires; and that the economic, rather than the political and military, power has become the significant coercive force of modern society. Either it defies the authority of the state or it bends the institutions of the state to its own purposes.Political power has been made responsible, but economic power has become irresponsible in society. The net result is that political power has been made more responsible to economic power. It is, in other words, again the man of power or the dominant class which binds society together, regulates its processes, always paying itself inordinate rewards for its labors. The difference is that

Stefan’s Diaries: The Craving Chapter 10

November 6, 1864 Damon is back, though it seems he was never actually gone. He has been watching me, baiting me, controlling me. He is the puppet master and I am his hapless marionette, forced to do his bidding. Until I saw Damon, I had not realized just how fond I had become of the Sutherlands, of how they eased my loneliness and gave me hope that I might not have to live in exile. Though I knew I had to leave them, I had dared to hope that by proving I could stay in control around them, my journey through this world might ultimately be less solitary. But Damon knows me all too well. He might have compelled the Sutherlands to accept me, but he didn't compel me to stay in their presence. I could have slipped out this morning, could have run off in the park, could have disappeared into the crowd at the ball. And yet I stayed, because, as Damon no doubt predicted, I liked being part of a family again, even if just for a few fleeting days. Damon's plan terrifies me – precisely because I don't understand it. Why New York? Why the Sutherlands? Why involve me? If Damon was able to orchestrate everything, to so seamlessly weave his way into the Sutherlands' lives and pave the way for my arrival, why stage such a spectacle? Why bother with a marriage? Why not just take Winfield to the bank and compel him and the teller to empty his vast accounts? Does he intend to live as a human? Does he need the marriage for legitimacy in New York society? Is he simply intent upon torturing me? Or is there something I'm missing? Some secret aim I can't possibly begin to imagine†¦ All I have are questions. And I fear that the answers won't come until the first dead body shows up. Later that Monday afternoon, I stood on the roof deck of one of the most amazing Federal-style houses ever built. Slim columns supported a soaring porch over a formal entrance, to which a grand, curved driveway rolled up as royally as a red carpet. From casement to cornice every detail was thoughtfully considered and never overdone. The dining room, large and oval, was (as near as I could tell) exactly the same as the one in the White House. The White House. In our new capital. That's the sort of place the Commandant's House was, as befitted the man who looked after the Brooklyn Naval Yards. What it lacked in size and modern touches (such as the Sutherlands' residence), it more than made up for in perfectly manicured lawns, a fine orchard, and a spectacular view of Manhattan. The property was perched almost on a cliff surveying the East River and the city that was under the Navy's protection. Commodore Matthew Perry himself had lived there earlier. I sighed at its magnificence. â€Å"No,† Bridget said, shaking her head decisively and heading back downstairs, picking up the train of her skirts in a very businesslike way. Her little entourage followed, laughing good-naturedly. â€Å"It's too white,† joked Bram. â€Å"It's too small,† added Hilda. â€Å"But it's incredible! The views! The size! The†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I said. â€Å"What's wrong with this one?† â€Å"Placement. It's in Brooklyn,† Bridget said, barely acknowledging her fiance. â€Å"No one goes to Brooklyn to be married.† Winfield and his wife looked at each other with old love, clearly remembering their own wedding. Apparently it had been quite modest – he had not made his fortune yet. Neither one of them had minded. And yet they were willing to indulge their youngest daughter in her most expensive flights of fancy. Lydia smiled and murmured something to Damon, who wasn't really paying attention. She didn't mind where she was married. While it was to be a double feature with us two â€Å"happy† couples tying the knot at the same time, she had graciously allowed her sister to decide all the details. The Sutherlands were at least nominally Episcopal, but apparently neither Damon's nor my religion, or lack thereof, was a bother, nor was a proper church necessary to the proceedings; a family chapel – a very rich family's chapel – would be enough. Bridget was very modern that way. â€Å"So why did we bother seeing those mansions on Prospect Park?† Margaret muttered. â€Å"If Brooklyn is out, I mean.† â€Å"I rather liked the one with all the Romanesque arches,† I said, eager to get this portion of the sham weddings out of the way. â€Å"Fear not, brother,† Damon said, chucking me on the shoulder. â€Å"Only four more to go. Back in Manhattan.† We clattered down the steep, wooden, and rather old-fashioned stairs to the ground floor, thanking the butler for letting us in. Then it was a walk back down to the Fulton Ferry landing, where a boat would take us across to a veritable caravan of carriages for the long uptown commute. â€Å"This would be a nice place for an ice cream parlor,† Lydia remarked, walking around the dock pensively. â€Å"You want an ice cream?† Damon asked, as if to a four-year-old. If being with Bridget was bad enough, with me constantly cringing at the things that came out of her mouth, the nervous tension of waiting for Damon to say or do something horrible was even worse. I was on pins and needles the entire day. Because Damon would say something horrible, at some point, to Lydia, as soon as he tired of playing the game of attentive suitor. His attention span for games – other than ones he was betting on – was incredibly limited. â€Å"Yes,† Lydia said. â€Å"And there's no ice cream here. And there should be.† â€Å"Won't matter,† Bridget said, trying to add something useful to the conversation. â€Å"Soon there's going to be a giant bridge and this will all be shaded off and there won't be anything except for loud carriages and the stink of horses.† Bram, the original source of this information, shook his head. â€Å"No, Bridgey, the angle is fine. Look where the sun is†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I leaned on a dock railing, surveying our little party. The girls in this setting looked like a scene from a painting, the four ladies' cheeks rosy with sunlight and the exertion of the day, the long ribbons from their straw hats blowing in the wind, their fluffy walking skirts swept up against their legs by the sea breeze. They were all beautiful, and for just a moment I could forget my present situation. Margaret bought a paper from a newsboy to read on the trip over. It was a fine day for a boat ride and strangely the East River didn't repel me the way fresh running water usually did. Bridget went to sit down inside the ferry, not wanting any more sun on her skin, which was ironic and hilarious considering my own situation. I was relaxing for the first time that day, my face up to the sun, letting my Mediterranean skin take on a bronzed, healthy glow. And then Margaret plopped down in the seat next to me. â€Å"You seem to be at least a bit more reasonable than the other fiance,† Margaret snapped. â€Å"Tell me. What do you want with my family. Money? The business? What?† I groaned inwardly. â€Å"You have to believe me,† I said, fixing her blue eyes with my own hazel ones. Without compelling her, I willed my voice to sound as genuine as I could. I took her arms in my hands, which was bold, but I needed her to understand. â€Å"I am not after Bridget's wealth. All I want is your family's safety and happiness. I swear to you by whatever you want.† â€Å"That's just the problem. I don't know what your word is worth. I don't know you. Nobody knows you,† Margaret said. Sighing, she took off her hat. â€Å"It's just†¦ so†¦ odd. I can see why Bridget likes you, you're certainly handsome and well-mannered†¦.† I cast my eyes down, embarrassed. â€Å"But really – no papers, no history, just an escapee of the South? This is Bridget we're talking about. She wanted Papa to take us all on a tour of Europe so she could capture the heart of a king, or prince, or at least a duke. Nothing less than royalty for her. And no offense, you're about as far from royalty as one can get.† â€Å"Well, and Lydia got her count, I suppose.† â€Å"Yes,† Margaret said thoughtfully. She eyed me, pushing a black tendril of hair back behind her ear. â€Å"And what about Damon DeSangue†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I shrugged, trying to look innocent. â€Å"What do you think of him? The two of you have been†¦ unusually close since your double declarations of love.† I stared into the distance south, where the mighty Hudson and East rivers joined and became the sea. I shaded the city from my eyes, blocking it out, and the sun was bright white and rose over ancient, exotic waters. How much could I tell her without endangering her? She seemed to be the only one in the family with a sensible head on her shoulders. I thought once more about Katherine and whether my family would have been better prepared with some warning. â€Å"Don't trust him,† I finally admitted, hoping I wasn't putting her at greater risk. â€Å"I don't.† â€Å"Hm.† She looked over at Damon, who was talking animatedly with Bram and Winfield. â€Å"Neither do I.† Bridget had chosen the next few venues to visit as far away as it was possible to get from where we were. The mansion of the Richards was near Fort Tryon on the northern tip of Manhattan, while the Fulton Ferry dock was at the southeastern end. The slow ride in our carriages from downtown gave me an almost panopticon's view of city life. Slowly going up Fifth Avenue, I was amazed by the sheer difference in fortune of the people who made their home in New York – from the often shoeless newsboys and schmatta, or rag-sellers, to people like Winfield, who sat in his gilded private carriage, puffing on a cigar. We stopped for lunch about halfway there at the Mount Vernon Hotel on Sixty-first Street, where Bridget continued to discuss her outfit for the wedding. â€Å"†¦ and Darla had her dress in muslin, out of respect for the war, but it's almost over, and I think I should have a new pair of earrings, don't you, Papa? Stefan, darling, there is the most fantastic pair of pearl earrings†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Damon cleared his throat. â€Å"Bridget, you should absolutely have new earrings. And your outfit sounds good enough to eat, don't you agree, Stefan?† I stood up from the table, unable to enjoy the nice repast of cold chicken, fresh bread, fish, and tea that had been set before us, and unable to listen to another word of my fiancee's mindless prattling or my brother's endless teasing. â€Å"I must go take some air,† I excused myself, and would have stumbled over the bench on my speedy way out if I didn't have the grace of a vampire. I should not have been exhausted; I'd endured far worse. Living hungry in the middle of Central Park and hunting small prey was far more physically demanding than sitting in a carriage, looking at houses, and listening to the youngest member of the Sutherland family babble on about meaningless things. But as I had not fed since the squirrel the day before, I was famished and weak, as if I was enduring a transatlantic journey. A quick, silent trip to the kitchens revealed exactly what I had hoped – rats, of course. Not too many, and mostly in the breezeway between the cold house and the pantry. With a flash of my hand I grabbed one and broke its neck, sucking the poor thing dry, all without losing control. It was easy, with such disgusting fare. A low noise, a muffled sigh, made me turn and look up guiltily, rat blood leaking down my lips. Damon stood there holding a waitress around her throat, fangs out and ready to feast. She had the dumb, slightly breathless look of someone who was under a spell. â€Å"I see we both slipped out for the same thing,† Damon said, pleased. He raised a lip in disgust at the rat in my hand. â€Å"Although, really, you can do better.† He lifted his head back, ready to tear – â€Å"Please – don't†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I put up my hand helplessly. â€Å"Please don't kill her,† I begged. Damon paused. â€Å"All right,† he said gamely. â€Å"I won't kill her. As an early wedding present! Just for you.† I closed my eyes, seeing the horror of the future before me. By implying he wasn't going to kill this girl, as a present, there was the assumption that there would of course be other murders, later on.

Journal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 99

Journal - Essay Example All children believe in Santa Clause and love the magic of Christmas. So Coca Cola used it and built the association array, something like Santa Claus drinks Coca Cola and Christmas is not full without Coca Cola. At least I understood it in this way and asked to buy me a Cola. In this commercial one may also find the image of happy families, celebrating the holiday and enjoying positive emotions. Children like and need such things and these pictures capture childrens attention. Also the authors used the holiday song with very sticking to the memory tune. Eric Schlosser in his essay Kid Kustomers noticed â€Å"The growth in children’s advertising has been driven by efforts to increase not just current, but also future, consumption. Hoping that nostalgic childhood memories of a brand will lead to a lifetime of purchases (...)†. This pattern works in case of Christmas advertisement by Coca Cola. When I found the clip on YouTube I saw comments like â€Å"I dont feel Christmas until I see and hear that advert† (user pwnsauce8) or â€Å"i love coca cola adverts at christmas i always drink coke on christmas day† (user Ste OC). Also I remember the commercial of 7-UP with Orlando Jones. He plays with small dog and accidentally he hits the pet with the can of 7-UP. I was not cruel to animals, I liked dogs and liked to play with them. I imaged that the dog is kidding and pretending dead so it seemed very funny. This clip did not make me want 7-UP but it made me want a puppy. I asked my parents to buy me a dog every time I saw this video. Now I can say these clips contain no information about goods, its features, or price. There are only emotions and associative arrays in these videos. So the ideal audience of these advertisements has to be emotional and have no logical and critical thinking. Like kids. Basically these drinks are not for children as they contain a lot of harmful for childs body

Why does a blue sky have white clouds Why do the clouds appear red at Essay

Why does a blue sky have white clouds Why do the clouds appear red at sunset. What is the "Green Flash seen in some sunsets in Hawaii - Essay Example This phenomenon is due to the process known as Mie scattering, one which is responsible for the white colour of the clouds at daytime. At one point, theory suggests that clouds appear red at sunset because of the earth’s pollutants. The red colour of the clouds is a reflection of the sun’s beam of light striking the polluted atmosphere of the earth. This reflection comes from the smoke, smog and other gases emitted from factories, vehicles, and so on that are hit by the sun’s radiant beam of light. On the other hand, the phenomenon could also be explained by the idea of wavelength. Particles in the atmosphere like oxygen and nitrogen can scatter violet and blue light from the sun due to their size. Thus, the more we are closer to the sun, the more we would see sky as blue during day time. However, at sunset, considering that there must have been too much blue and violet light that has been scattered for the day, allowing the observer to see light of longer wavelength, clouds may substantially appear red. This is called Rayleigh scattering. The Green Flash seen in sunsets in Hawaii is one of the most spectacular events in the place. This is due to light refracting in the atmosphere. At sunset, the different colours of light rays from the sun are refracted at the atmosphere. The refraction provides varying colours that may overlap each other. At some point, the green one may overlap the other in a flash, which is a brief and sudden phenomenon. That is why it is called a green