The post washington consensus development

The post washington consensus development There have been several discussions about whether or not the Washington consensus and the post Washington consensus (alos referred to as the new consensus) approach to development are fundamentally different approaches to development. The World Bank and International Monetary fund critics are quick to say both approaches are the same, and that the Washington consensus was just repackaged and given a new brand, name and identity in the Post Washington consensus development approach. Although it is easy to see how it can be assumed that the underlying fundamentals of the Washington consensus and the post Washington consensus are unchanged because the latter still encompasses the principles of the former that was generally a focus on market reform as the approach for growth and development. However, the fact that the post Washington consensus builds on market reform and includes various other elements ignored by the Washington consensus like institutional reform and good governance whic h are elements that extend the goals of the new consensus and enable it to promote ‘sustainable, egalitarian, and democratic development (Stiglitz 2001:17). These additions and extensive goals therefore make both approaches fundamentally different from one another, even though they both advocate market reform (which is where the similarities end). While the Washington consensus focused on the perfection of the market the post Washington consensus does the exact opposite, it points out market limitations and ways of correcting such limitations (Stiglitz 2001). The purpose of this paper is to illustrate just how different both approaches are by looking at the foundational economic theories they are built on, the components of both approaches and their methodology. The Washington consensus is an approach to development that involves various economic policy prescriptions that are designed to move an economy towards economic growth and development when implemented. They include ten basic polices that create a liberal market and economy. According to Williamson who coined the term and the originator of the list, they include: Macroeconomic stability (restoring fiscal discipline by controlling budget deficit) Redirecting expenditure (reduction of government spending) Tax Reform (involved increasing tax and value added tax.) Financial liberalization Unified Exchange rate (to encourage and ease trade) ‘Replacement of quantitative trade restrictions by Tariffs (trade liberalization) Abolishment of Barriers to entry of foreign direct investments (Liberalizes FDI) ‘Privatization of state owned enterprises (reduce government spending) Deregulation (reduce state interference) ‘Legal system should provide secure property rights (Williamson 2005: 35-42) The policies under the Washington consensus are designed to liberalize various sectors of an economy. They are also directed towards increasing market efficiency, productivity and growth. Not all the policies under the consensus are implemented at the same time and in most cases, there is a lot of mixing and matching done by the governments implementing these policies with a few policies being more popular than others. Williamson (2005: 43) notes that ‘(i)n terms of which reform(s) [policies] were most widely implemented, there have been widespread attempts to tighten fiscal policy, introduce extensive financial and trade liberalization, eliminate restrictions on foreign direct investment, and promote privatization and deregulation. These policies have earned the Washington consensus a bad reputation of increasing poverty because ‘adjustment and stabilization policies tend to depress real wages, as control over money wages is combined with devaluation (Stewart 1991:1849), unemployment coupled with other various adverse effects from such policies on the poor in a country lead to social decay. The failures of such policies are evident in various developing countries like Bolivia, Nigeria, and Zambia (discussed in Adefulu, 1991) whose economies after adopting stabilization and adjustment policies experienced stagnant or slow growth. These countries experienced worse situations than they were in before the implementation of the structural adjustment programme under the Washington consensus policies prescribed by the World Bank and the International monetary fund in the 1980s. The failure of this approach to development gave rise to creation of a new development approach know as the Post Washington consensus which also included some of the policies listed above in relation to its market reform component. However, it focused not just on economic growth through market reforms but also included elements to enhance social growth and welfare and thus encourag es sustainable development. It eased and monitored the effects of the market reform policies on the poor by paying attention to social issues and advocating the creation of safety nets. This new approach addressed areas that had been ignored by the Washington consensus and as a result of this, it provides a better-rounded approach to development. Unlike the Washington consensus: It aims at stabilizing the real economy as well as inflation It tries to improve financial sector regulation, rather than assuming that liberalization is the only game in town It includes competition policy It considers various mechanisms of improving government efficiency, rather than seeking to minimize governments role It focuses on improving human capital formation It seeks to increase the transfer of technology to developing countries. (Williamson, 2005:45) Including these accompanying elements to the market reform policies was based on the recognition that ‘[m]aking markets work requires more than just low inflation; it requires sound financial regulation, competition policy, and policies to facilitate the transfer of technology and to encourage transparency, to cite some fundamental issues neglected by the Washington consensus (Stiglitz, 2001:17). The emphasis placed on trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization under the Washington consensus approach often lead policymakers to disregard the importance of various factors like competition, which contribute to the effectiveness of a market economy and which may be just as important as economic success (Stiglitz, 2001:20-21). The Washington consensus and Post-Washington consensus not only differ based on their development goals, the economic theories and principles on which they are based upon are from different schools of thought. The former based on the logic of Keynesian economics of liberalization and the mantra of lazzie faire allows the market to stabilize itself with little or more preferably no government intervention. The Washington consensus therefore was founded on the neo-classical economic theory centered on the idea of instrumental rationality (North 1995). Instrumental rationality implies that individuals in the market make decision in such a way that creates a perfect market. Their decisions are made based on factors that offer them maximum utility. Under instrumental rationality it is assumed that ‘values are accepted and given as constant, objective decision of the world as it is can be postulated and.. decision makers computational powers are unlimited (North, 1995:7) thus when an imperfection arises in the market because of this factors, the market will correct the imperfections itself. Therefore, there is no need for government intervention. Under this approach government, interference is seen to disturb the flow of the market and impede its efficiency and growth of the economy. The Post-Washington consensus is however eclectic, drawing from the logic of different economic principles. It draws from both the principles of the new development economics, and the new institutional economics (NIE) which understand and value the role the state plays in the regulation of market functions. New development economics according to Ben Fine (2006) was created to accommodate the shift towards the post Washington Consensus. It extends beyond only economic principles and includes other fields of study like sociology and non-economic factors. It also places emphasis on market imperfections and asymmetrical information amongst parties in a market. In this theory in ‘contrast to economic approach, institutions, customs, as well as economic and social structures are taken seriously rather than presumed to be equivalent to as an â€Å"as if† market situation (Fine, 2006 :8) NIE advocates the significance of institutions, and their importance in solving the problem of transaction costs that may exists in the market due to asymmetrical information. Institutions are an important aspect because they â€Å"are the rules of the game of a society, or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction† (North, 1995: 23). They could be formal in the sense of laws created to govern and informal based on norms. The post- Washington consensus as a development approach recognises the fact that markets in developing countries often carry a high cost of transaction, which deters investment and slows down market productivity. Transaction costs arising from asymmetrical information will often lessen confidence in the market and cause insecurity. To remedy the problem institutions are required because; ‘â€Å"efficient institutions lessen insecurity and thereby increase readiness to invest†'(North,1991 in German Fed Ministry, 2004: 7). ‘Over the long term, dynamic growth processes can only be sustained when institutions exist that encourage the growth of productivity and guarantee a high degree of stability, that is, reduce vulnerability to external shocks. (German Fed Ministry, 2004: 7) Another difference between both development approaches is in relation to their view on state intervention in the market. The Washington consensus approach views government intervention as an interference with â€Å"market perfection†. Under this approach, the market will resolve its problems and set the right price, and government or state intervention disrupts this ability and therefore create imperfections and inefficiency. A good illustration is of African countries like Nigeria and Ghana who after independence interfered with the export markets using commission boards and â€Å"monosponies† (singles buyer where there are many sellers) for their agricultural products (discussed in Bates 1981). The boards had an influence on market prices and could afford to be inefficient because the cost of inefficiency could be easily transferred from the states board to the farmers and consumers (Bates 1981). This supports the Neo-liberal view that when states are involved in mark ets, macroeconomic rationality if foregone for their preference of macroeconomic policy instruments. The Washington consensus follows the policy of a non-interventionist state or one with minimal role in markets. The post Washington consensus however, draws from the example of the East Asian countries miracle (which attributes most of its success to state intervention in markets) and promotes the importance of government intervention because of imperfections that already exist within the market. It advocates that the state regulate the market through the creation of institutions, legal framework, and property rights. All of which will solve the problems that exist in an imperfect market like inadequate flow of information and allow proper contracts to be drawn between transacting partners. The government according to the logic of the post Washington consensus ‘should serve as a compliment to markets, undertaking actions that make markets work better and correcting market failu res (Stiglitz, 2001:41). The Washington consensus approach to development as mentioned previously wanted little or no state intervention and disregarded the role of the state. The post Washington consensus approach however, values state role so much so that the approach includes elements designed to better the governance of a developing state in the form of good governance and democracy. Under this new consensus because the state is seen as an important factor for growth and development, it provides for the reform of the state itself. The post Washington consensus recognises the fact that most developing countries are faced with government inefficiency, corruption and bureaucracy. The approach therefore proposes that states should practice good governance, which entails democracy, transparency, and rule of law to mention a few. The post-Washington consensus approach to development considers the practice of good governance as a pre-requisite for sustainable economic growth and development. Under this approach , states role, efficiency or lack thereof and politics is taken into consideration for development purposes, while the Washington consensus approach lacks this attention to governance issues. The disregard for state issues is due to ‘[n]eo-liberalisms skepticism of the state and autonomous exaltation of individual [and the view that] the stateneeds to be extricated from the marketEconomic reforms accordingly take priority over political reforms and civil liberties (Abrahamsen, 2000:30) under the Washington consensus. The post Washington consensus approach to development considers factors outside of economics for instance education and health care. This is another fundamental difference between it and the Washington consensus. The new consensus values the importance of such elements to the development process unlike the Washington consensus that disregards them. Under the new consensus, there is an understanding that development needs to be sustainable and in this regard, it provides for elements that carry it in that direction. Education allows for the development of human capital and the society. If the people are developed, they can move development along by making valuable contributions in the society. According to Stiglitz (2001:46), ‘promoting human capital isa policy that can help promote economic development, equality, participation and democracy. The East Asian countries for instance Japan (Stiglitz, 2001) placed an emphasis on educating its citizens by making basic education compul sory make viable examples of how educating a countrys citizens can contribute to sustainable economic growth and development. Social aspects like education ignored by the Washington consensus is regarded an important element of the post Washington consensus approach. The post Washington consensus approach to development is created in a way that ensures its effects are long-term on the economy as supposed to the short-term effect of the Washington consensus. It achieves this because of its broader goal and dedication to issues outside the realm of economics and the market. According to Stiglitz (2001:68) ‘The new development strategy takes as its core objective development, the transformation of society, this fact and its inclusion of social factors as part of the development agenda ensures that it encourages sustainable development and not only the growth of gross domestic product (GDP). Participation and sense of ownership is another aspect in which both approaches to development have fundamental differences. The Washington consensus approach pays little or no attention to fostering the sense of owner ship instead it reduced state ownership through the heavy promotion of instant privatization. The post Washington consensus on the other hand recognizes that fostering a sense of ownership and participation of developing country governments and its people has an effect on how effective the programs being adopted will be. The government has to implement the development programs that have been recommended by international institutions and if the developing country feel like they are in control and have an opinion about the changes going on in their country they might ensure that the programmes are implemented effectively and not on a superficial level. Lack of proper implementation on part of developing nations government is one explanation offered by the World Bank as a reason for the failure of the structural adjustment programs under the Washington consensus. By including a sense of ownership and encouraging participation, the post Washington agenda ensures that the new approach to development does not face the same problem. The differences between both approaches also extend to how their various components are implemented. For instance, privatization, which is an element of both development strategies as a part of the market reform component of the Washington and Post Washington consensus, has been implemented and understood differently under both approaches. The concept of privatization under the Washington Consensus was to reduce government spending and deficit while removing inefficient state enterprises and creating economic stability. Sale of state owned companies would create revenue and competition between private owners would make enterprises more efficient and more productive therefore it had to be immediate. The post Washington consensus however views privatization as something that has to occur gradually, most importantly after the necessary institutions that would enhance competition has been put in place and not before. The premise for this is that just because public enterprises are made p rivate does not guarantee their efficiency because if the proper institutions were not in place to encourage their efficiency they would not be as productive as expected. The post Washington consensus is however not against privatization, as Stiglitz (2001:38) comments: ‘The Washington consensus is right- privatization is important. The government needs to devote its scarce resources to areas where private sector does not and is not likely to enter. The new consensus is in support of privatizing public enterprises that are unnecessary and can be undertaken by the private sector with institutions to aid its efficiency already in place. Nonetheless, the approaches to privatization under both development programs are different. Both approaches though having a common goal, which is to bring about growth and development, go about it in different ways and have different fundamentals. The Washington consensus approach to development places emphasis on economic growth through increase in GDP levels and market reform. Its fundamental objective is to make market forces more efficient and increase productivity within the economy. This approach is a strong advocate for policies involving deregulation, privatization and stabilization. The post- Washington consensus approach (devised after failure of the previous consensus) on the other hand focuses on development through societal transformation. This approach goes beyond the market approach of the Washington consensus to include broader goals and social factors like health care and education. The new consensus core objective is a more equal, egalitarian and democratic type of development (Stiglitz, 2001:17). The broader goals and objectives pursued under the post-Was hington consensus makes it fundamentally different from the Washington Consensus approach to development. Bibliography Abrahamsen, Rita (2000). Disciplining democracy: development discourse and good governance in Africa. London: Zed books. p23-65. Adefulu, R. A. (1991). African Debt Crisis and the IMF Adjustment Programmes: the Experiences of Ghana, Nigeria and Zambia. In: Renee Prendergast and H.W. Singer Development Perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 37-58). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ajit Singh. (1998). Competitive Markets and Economic Development: A commentary on World Bank analyses. In: Phillip Arestis and Malcom Swayer The Polictical Economy of Economic Policies. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.. 60-105. Bates H. Robert. (1981). Polices Towards Cash Crops for Exports. In: Barry and Popkin Markets and states in Tropical Africa: the political basis of agricultural policies. Berkeley: University of California Press. 11-29. Brohman J. (1995). Economism and critical silences in Development Studies: A theoretical critique of neo-liberalism. Third World Quarterly. 16 (2), p297-318. Cammack, Paul. (2004). What the World Bank means by Poverty Reduction. New Left Review. 9 (2), 189-104 Fine, Ben. (2006). The new development economics. In: Ben Fine, Jomo K. S. The new development economics: after the Washington Consensus. 2nd ed. London: Zed Books. p1-20. Fine, Ben. (2001). Neither the Washington nor post Washington consensus: introduction. In: Ben Fine, Costas Lapavitsas, Jonathan Pincus Development policy in the twenty-first century: beyond the post-Washington. New York: Routledge. p4-15. German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Post-Washington-Consensus- A Few Thoughts. Available: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEDS05/Resources/PostWashingtonConsensus-englisch-04-2004.pdf. Last accessed 15 January 2010. Gore Charles. (2000). The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries. World Development. 28 (5), p789-804. Lal Deepak. (1995). Misconceptions of. In: Corbridge, S Development Studies. New York: Arnold. 56-63. Moseley P.. (1991). World Development and International Finanace since 1970. In: Moseley P, J Toye, and Harrigan J Aid and power: the World Bank and policy-based lending. London: Routledge. p3-25. North Douglass. (1995). The new institutional economics and Third World development. In: John Harriss, Janet Hunter, Colin M. Lewis The new institutional economics and Third World development. London: Routledge. p17-26. Stewart Frances. (1991). The Many Faces of Adjustment. World Development. 19 (12), p1847-1864. Stiglitz, Joseph. (2001). More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus. In: Ha-Joon Chang Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank: the rebel within. 1st ed. New York: Anthem. p17-56. Stiglitz, Joseph. (2001). Towards a new Paradgim for Development:Strategies, Policies, and processes. In: Ha-Joon Chang Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank: the rebel within. 2nd ed. New York: Anthem. p57-93. Tornquist, O. (2001). The Primacy of Institutions. In: Tornquist Olle Politics and Development. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. p86-102. Van Wayenburg Elisa. (2006). From Washington to post washington: illusion of development. In: Ben Fine, Jomo K. S. The new development economics: after the Washington Consensus. 2nd ed. London: Zed Books. p21-45. Williamson, John. (2005). The Washington Consensus as Policy Prescription for Development. In: Timothy BESLEY Roberto Zagha Development Challenges in the 1990s. WashingtonDC: World Bank Oxford University press. 31-57. Williamson J. (1993). Democracy and the Washington Consensus. World Development. 21 (8), p1329-1336. World Bank. (1997). Fostering Markets:Liberalization, Regulation, and Industrial Policy. In: World Bank World Development Report: the state in a changing world. New York: Oxford University Press. p61-75. World Bank. (1994). Moving Towards sound Macro economic policies. In: World Bank Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York: Oxford University Press. 43-59 World Bank. (1994). Reforming the Public Sector. In: World Bank Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York: Oxford University Press. 99-125 World Bank. (1994). The Road Ahead for Adjustment. In: World Bank Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York: Oxford University Press. 181-219.

Comparing Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians :: Jefferson Hamilton American Constitution Essays

Comparing Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians The Washington administration was the first to bring together in the cabinet of the United States, the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson and Hamilton began to take different views when the government began to address the issue of the old war debts and the worthless paper money left over from the days of the Confederation. Hamilton suggested that the government should create the Bank of the United States, which would be a public-private partnership with both government and private investors. The Bank of the United States was to handle the government’s banking needs. Jefferson protested because this was not allowed by the Constitution. Hamilton opposed the view of Jefferson and stated that the Constitution’s writers could not have predicted the need of a bank for the United States. Hamilton said that the right to create the Bank of the United States was stated in the â€Å"elastic† or the â€Å"necessary and proper† clause in which the Constitution gave the government the power to pass laws that were necessary for the welfare of the nation. â€Å" This began the argument between the â€Å"strict constructionists† (Jefferson) who believed in the strict interpretation of the Constitution by not going an inch beyond its clearly expressed provisions, and the â€Å"loose constructionists† (Hamilton) who wished to reason out all sorts of implications from what it said†. Hamilton and Jefferson began to disagree more and more. Hamilton wrote nasty anonymous articles in John Fenno’s Gazette of the United States and Jefferson responded to him in Philip Freneau’s National Gazette. Jefferson’s Notes of the State of Virginia in 1787 stated that rural life was beneficial to the government because cities and other areas of large population created poverty, disease, and corruption. Jefferson believed that the small farmers where the backbone of the United States. While in the Report on Manufactures of 1791,Hamilton stated that the government should be used to develop cities, industries, and trade Hamilton believed that â€Å"government's function is to maintain order in a potentially chaotic society. It needs to be remote and secure from the people's emotional uprisings†.Jefferson believed the government â€Å"needs to be limited in its powers and completely responsive to the needs and desires of the people†.Hamilton was strongest among merchants in the cities and throughout New England while Jefferson was strongest among artisans in the cities and throughout the South. Comparing Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians :: Jefferson Hamilton American Constitution Essays Comparing Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians The Washington administration was the first to bring together in the cabinet of the United States, the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson and Hamilton began to take different views when the government began to address the issue of the old war debts and the worthless paper money left over from the days of the Confederation. Hamilton suggested that the government should create the Bank of the United States, which would be a public-private partnership with both government and private investors. The Bank of the United States was to handle the government’s banking needs. Jefferson protested because this was not allowed by the Constitution. Hamilton opposed the view of Jefferson and stated that the Constitution’s writers could not have predicted the need of a bank for the United States. Hamilton said that the right to create the Bank of the United States was stated in the â€Å"elastic† or the â€Å"necessary and proper† clause in which the Constitution gave the government the power to pass laws that were necessary for the welfare of the nation. â€Å" This began the argument between the â€Å"strict constructionists† (Jefferson) who believed in the strict interpretation of the Constitution by not going an inch beyond its clearly expressed provisions, and the â€Å"loose constructionists† (Hamilton) who wished to reason out all sorts of implications from what it said†. Hamilton and Jefferson began to disagree more and more. Hamilton wrote nasty anonymous articles in John Fenno’s Gazette of the United States and Jefferson responded to him in Philip Freneau’s National Gazette. Jefferson’s Notes of the State of Virginia in 1787 stated that rural life was beneficial to the government because cities and other areas of large population created poverty, disease, and corruption. Jefferson believed that the small farmers where the backbone of the United States. While in the Report on Manufactures of 1791,Hamilton stated that the government should be used to develop cities, industries, and trade Hamilton believed that â€Å"government's function is to maintain order in a potentially chaotic society. It needs to be remote and secure from the people's emotional uprisings†.Jefferson believed the government â€Å"needs to be limited in its powers and completely responsive to the needs and desires of the people†.Hamilton was strongest among merchants in the cities and throughout New England while Jefferson was strongest among artisans in the cities and throughout the South.

Custom Written Term Papers: The Loves in Othello -- Othello essays

The Loves in Othello  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚   In William Shakespeare’s tragic drama Othello the main love of the play is betrayed and undermined by the cunning and evil Iago. This essay seeks to find and explore the examples of love in this play.    Francis Ferguson in â€Å"Two Worldviews Echo Each Other† describes the love existing between the protagonist and his wife and how it is an easy prey for the antagonist:    When Othello sums up their innocent infatuation, we must feel that he is more accurate than he knows:    She loved me for the dangers I had passed, And I loved her that she did pity them.    Othello and Desdemona are so attractive that we tend to see them only as they see each other: the noble Moor, the pure white maiden. But Shakespeare shows their love, even here at the very beginning, as dreamy, utterly defenseless in a world that contains Iago. . . .(133)    The virtue of love is most perfectly illustrated within the character and actions of the heroine Desdemona. Angela Pitt in â€Å"Women in Shakespeare’s Tragedies† finds â€Å"love† as one of the qualities which the heroine of the drama possesses:    Handbooks of the period explain in some detail what is required of the ideal wife, and Desdemona seems to fulfill even the most conservative expectation. She is beautiful and also humble:    A maiden never bold Of spirit so still and quiet that her motion Blushed at herself. (I.iii.)    Her concern for Cassio shows her generosity, for she will intercede for him with Othello. She is wise, and also a ‘true and loving’ wife – ‘the sweetest innocent that e’er did lift up eye’. (44-45)    David Bevington in William Shakespeare: Four Tragedies describes how â€Å"love† is at... ...as deep as his love for Desdemona prior to Iago’s machinations.    WORKS CITED    Bevington, David, ed. William Shakespeare: Four Tragedies. New York: Bantam Books, 1980.    Coles, Blanche. Shakespeare’s Four Giants. Rindge, New Hampshire: Richard Smith Publisher, 1957.    Ferguson, Francis. â€Å"Two Worldviews Echo Each Other.† Readings on The Tragedies. Ed. Clarice Swisher. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. Reprint from Shakespeare: The Pattern in His Carpet. N.p.: n.p., 1970.    Pitt, Angela. â€Å"Women in Shakespeare’s Tragedies.† Readings on The Tragedies. Ed. Clarice Swisher. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. Reprint from Shakespeare’s Women. N.p.: n.p., 1981.    Shakespeare, William. Othello. In The Electric Shakespeare. Princeton University. 1996. http://www.eiu.edu/~multilit/studyabroad/othello/othello_all.html No line nos.

Comparing Speeches of Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez :: Communication Leadership

Both of the speeches, Martin Luther King's and Cesar Chavez', are powerful peices and communicate one vision: equality. King and Chavez have two very different styles of writing but the message from both is simmilar. for example both king and chavez discuss how their people are discriminated against because of their skin color, and how their people have neither the right to vote in the the south, nor the will to vote in the north , and in Chavez' situation, to have their vote counted. however similar their message's may be, their writing styles are different. Chavez talks about statistics, about why and how his people are treated. king held that the atrocitys commited against his people were self evident and as such did not need to be proved to anyone. kings message was meant to encompass the entire Uninted States while Chavez' was directed primarily at California. Throught the history of the uninted states it has been plagued with racism and prejudice. M.L.K and C.C were the two most outspoken opponents to the injustice that they saw on a daily basis. mlk said that it was "time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood". both ceasar and martin recognized a need for change and were brave enough to seek change. indeed in 1968 Dr. King sent a message to Chavez which said "Our separate struggles are really one. A struggle for freedom, for dignity, and for humanity." These mens cause was one and the same. these men were intamently connected, in fact chavez said that they were "Dr. King's disciples". you could no more have chavez without king than you could have ghandi without the imperialism. both men felt that their people were being robbed of there dignity. cesar chavez said that the most important thing to him was the "recognition of workers' dignity". "We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only"." was how mlk stated their dissatisfaction with the inequality. Even though their message was incredibly similar, their writing style was vastly different. for example, Chavez talked in a especially concrete sense. he gave specific examples and statistics to support his opinion wihle mlk spoke on a very idealistic level with no real support in his speech. this difference might be because of there different backgrounds.

Ancient Burials Essay examples -- Cultural Culture Death Essays

Ancient Burials When someone dies in our society we immediately think of ritualistic burial ceremonies, for example a religious service or open casket. Regardless of where you are from or what your cultural background is every culture has its own method and traditions associated with death. Burials dating back to 15,000-27,660 years ago are culturally and symbolically advanced burials. Therefore providing evidence to represent how socially and culturally advanced modern Homo sapiens really were. However there are those individuals including Anthropologists themselves who refute this statement. They do not believe that modern Homo sapiens that date back this far can possibly be as socially and culturally advanced as I believe them to be. These individuals believe that the evidence and examples including the articles of, The Triple Burial of Dolni Vestonice and The Cap Blanc Lady are in fact accidents and coincidences. A radiocarbon date has been labeled to â€Å"The Triple Burial of Dolni Vestonice† to 27,660 years ago, during the Upper Paleolithic era. This specific burial site was excavated in Moscow, Russia in 1986. The gracile skeletons found here were of three ancient people. All three lay side by side. In the middle was the oldest of the three and this skeleton appears to be a woman, due to the analysis of her pelvic region. The entire right side of the woman’s body was not fully developed and her skull shape was asymmetrical. Therefore giving Anthropologists insinuation that she must have had scoliosis due to her deformations. To the left of the woman lies a robust (17 year old boy) with his hand atop of hers. And to the right of the woman lies another robust skeleton (18 or 19 year old boy) with both of his arms touchi... ...n 1911, many anthropologists thought the adult skeleton was a 25 year old male. This proves that anthropologists can be wrong within their predictions. Experiments must be tested several times in order for dates to be accurate. Likewise, in reference to the theories of symbolic burials and the advanced culture of these ancient peoples. Theories may be attested, although we do obtain clear evidence that these burials are not accidents. As I have shown you through two pieces of well studied excavated sites. The Triple Burial of Dolni Vestonice and The Cap Blanc Lady are not accidents and coincidences. Burials that date back to 15,000-27,600 years ago are in fact culturally and symbolically advanced for there time. It’s up to you to formulate your own opinion on this subject matter. Just remember to remind yourself of the questions and the evidence I have provided.

Was the Use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Truman’s Best Option to End World War Ii

The goal of the investigation is to determine whether the use of nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by U. S. President Truman was the best option to end World War II. The investigation will begin by researching other options available to President Truman, which were debated during the war. Then Truman’s options will be analysed for limitations, such as real-life practicality, as well as reliability of the source which presented the options.Some of the issues which will be examined in this investigation are why both the naval blockade and continued bombing was not an option and why the nuclear bomb was the logical choice over an invasion. Two sources that will be evaluated due to their large amount of usable information and relevant data are Hiroshima and Nagasaki-Fire from the Sky and an article from the Kemble Kollection found at http://www. mikekemble. com/ww2/downfall. html entitled Why America Was Right To Drop The Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima ; Nagasaki, both of which will be analyzed in part C for validity and limitations.Word Count: 173 Part B: Summary of Evidence The war for the United States has gone on for four years; public opinion was starting to decay. When the European theatre was still seeing bloodshed the average civilian could follow along because the locations of Europe were well known to the average American. The Pacific theatre was different in this regard; civilians had no concept of how or where the war was being fought, it is not a huge surprise it was a nuisance to the average person.However that’s not all, advertisers were marketing new and wondrous products that would come after the war ended, along with rationing and the increasing death toll that would reach over three hundred thousand lives before the war was done. With the recent defeat of the Nazis most of the world believed that the war was won; Japan would easily be shoved aside and the war was now a distant annoyance preventing soldiers from returning home and holding back new items from consumers.Because of the pressuring demands of public opinion, President Truman had to find a way to end the war, quickly and cleanly, or he would face the end of public support. Options such as a great naval siege of the Japanese main islands and continued bombing of Japanese cities were considered useless by American Generals, they thought of it as â€Å"choking, but not killing†. Preparations and planning begun on what would have been the largest invasion of all time, code named ‘Operation Downfall’ it would be an amphibious invasion of the Japanese islands involving millions of American soldiers and marines.The first invasion of Operation Downfall was named Operation Olympic and was chosen to arrive on the southern beach on the island Kyushu. However, a new report on enemy troop strength on the island, specifically the southern edge, indicated that the Japanese were quickly reinforcing the southern side of t he island and that troop strength increased from approximately eight thousand to over two hundred and six thousand. The Japanese had figured out what the American military was planning. To make matters worse the Japanese government ordered civilians to take up arms and to defend to the death.With these two issues arriving the estimated death toll arrived at up to a million. With these horrifying odds, the whole goal of Operation Downfall to produce a quick surrender was now even in debate, the fighting on the Japanese Islands may last a very long time. However with a naval siege or B-29 bombing possibly dragging on for years the invasion was still the only considered option. However even the land invasion could cause long term issues; if Japan wasn’t defeated quickly the Soviet Union may also invade setting up even more tension.Thankfully for the United States government, the Manhattan project succeeded in producing the world’s first nuclear bomb, and on August 6th 194 5 atomic bomb ‘Little Boy’ was dropped on Hiroshima. Over eighty thousand people died in the first few seconds, yet the Japanese still refused to surrender on American terms. It took a second nuclear bomb, ‘Fat Man’, being dropped on Nagasaki before they surrendered. Word Count 517 Part C: Evaluation of Sources The two sources of evidence to be critically examined are Hiroshima and Nagasaki-Fire from the Sky by Andrew Langley and The Kemble Kollection by Mike Kemble.Hiroshima and Nagasaki-Fire in the Sky is a novel of the events leading up to and repercussions that followed the dropping of the two nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Published in 2006, and written by accomplished historical author; Andrew Langley. One thing to note about Andrew Langley is that he specializes in writing children’s novels. Although that fact doesn’t compromise the truth behind the writings, it does however indicate that the novel is no t as in-depth as other sources could be, instead providing a broad overview of the events.However despite being oriented towards children it does not hold off on the cruel hard facts such as eighty thousand dead in the blast alone. Although the novel is considered a secondary source it does use real quotes from thoughts of the men dropping the bomb, people involved in making the bomb and from the people being bombed, as well as numerous real pictures. Andrew Langley, using the pictures and the narration makes it very clear that everyone involved with the bomb regretted it –a clear bias, which brings onto the topic of limitations.The novel seems more oriented to educate children on the horror of nuclear war, rather than to educate on the reasons why it was chosen. In fact it does not explore other possibilities that were considered by generals involved and by President Truman himself. The reader would come out of it believing that the only plan was to use the terrible bomb, wh en in reality it was almost not considered. The second source to be evaluated is the Kemble Kollection, here author of On a Sailors Grave (No Roses Grow); Mike Kemble writes about a large variety of different aspects to do with World War II.Mike Kemble makes it clear on his main page that his articles are ideal for education and referencing. The article of particular interest for this assignment is titled U. S. Plans to Invade Japan in World War 2. Why America Was Right to Drop the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima ; Nagasaki. In this article Mike Kemble details operation Downfall, Olympic and numerous other options that were considered by President Truman’s military advisors and generals at the time, as well as the inevitable result of using the atomic bomb. His site is very popular with over 1. 3 million views and all his articles include references to external sites and sources.One thing to question is who Mike Kemble actually is; his site does not mention anything about his crede ntials or any education he may have. Further research says he’s a retired ex-army NCO now working for Legion Security, part of the Royal British Legion. When it comes to limitations on his work, there are very few. Besides some form issues such as poor in-article referencing there really isn’t that much to say he covers most aspects of a topic and explains the reasons for the decisions made. One possible limitation for the particular article used is that most of the ources he references in his collection are not primary ones; however, it is not a huge issue. Word Count 545 Part D: Analysis President Truman, like all presidents, was bound by the demands of the public; they wanted a quick end to the war for numerous reasons. However that statement alone is not necessarily the case, an article for a newspaper written by Admiral William V. Pratt makes it clear that there was another option to invasion and the bomb, a simple navy war of attrition, one with few casualties th at will simply last longer a slow and steady sort of approach.Of course at this point there are clear lines as to who supports what, each branch of military supporting its own particular route to victory. Then there’s the bomb itself, today there is still debate as to whether it was the morally sound way of ending the war. Historian Ralph Raico (a senior scholar of the Mises Institute) argues the what-if scenario. He points to the fact that if the Nazis used an atomic bomb, and the allies still won, then the use of the weapon would be considered a war crime and the Nazis would be hanged –not that they weren’t already.That is undoubtedly true, however an article written by Matthew Seligmann (reader in history at the University of Northampton, and author of Does Peace Lead to War? ) for The Guardian argues the opposite, he states that Japanese controlled territory was suffering from starvation and that four hundred thousand Asians died each month, meaning that the use of the bomb was the morally right thing to do. For the invasion the range of casualties is extremely broad, anywhere between a million to two hundred thousand. Of course each number has its own uses especially if the three military branches were each striving to be the one that ended the war.Former army-man and author Mike Kemble argues that Japan’s population would have been able to survive a navy siege, using its farms and that the bombing could only damage the cities. His main support for this argument is that over half of Japan’s population was in rural areas and even within cities residents often had gardens for fruit and vegetables, often even wheat. With public support for the war slowly dying, Truman had to find a way to quickly end the war. Both a naval blockade and continued bombing were considered ineffective.The only viable solution besides the atomic bomb is the invasion; however with potential for a million casualties and the Soviet Union invading Ja pan, it would have simply not been fast enough. The end of the war was a question of speed, what would force the Japanese to quit, and what would do it the fastest. The fact that two of Japan’s cities had to be destroyed is further proof that carpet bombing, blockades or endless city combat would not have brought the war to a close. President Truman’s best option was to use the two atomic bombs; Fat Man, and Little Boy. Word Count 486 Part E: ConclusionTiming was key for President Truman; all the options presented to him would take too long to end the war and would only bring further complications. The only option he had was to use the two atomic bombs to force the surrender of Japan. Andrew Langley’s book Hiroshima and Nagasaki –Fire from the Sky, because it is directed at the younger audience, it provides an excellently summarized view of the events leading up to the droppings of the atomic bombs. Andrew Langley himself is a well experienced author with plenty of publications and the book from which this investigation takes evidence is filled with primary sources.The bias against the bombs is due to the nature the bombs played in the Cold War, not against the use of the bombs themselves. The Kemble Collection, by Mike Kemble goes in-depth at answering the whys of history, not documenting the flow of history itself but looking at the other options of the times. His work provided some of the greatest plethora of knowledge on the different options Truman faced, and despite the sources that Kemble uses being mostly secondary, his sources are plenty and well founded, and he makes a point of making it well referenced for the sake of education.List of Sourcesâ€Å"The Decision to Use the Bomb†, Book Mice. Net. December 2008.[online] http://www. bookmice. net/darkchilde/japan/atomic. html Seligmann, Matthew.â€Å"The alternatives to bombing Hiroshima were not morally superior†. Guardian. Friday 15 August 2008. Guardian News and Media Limited 2009.[online] www. guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/nuclear.japan Langley, Andrew. Hiroshima and Nagasaki

My Heritage Essay

My heritage is something that I am immensely proud of. The origins of my heritage began along the Andean region of South America. The depth of my culture is represented through Ecuador’s musical and gastronomical roots. My family strictly follows a strong religious background which has influenced my life greatly. Besides cultural gastronomy and religion, the celebration of holidays is very important to my family as well. Therefore, there are many different factors that my heritage is composed of. One part of my heritage, that I particularly enjoy, is the music and cuisine which pertains to my culture. Ecuador has a wide variety of music ranging from Incan tribal music to current traditional Ecuadorian music. Every time a song is played, it tells a different story, allowing the listener to visualize and experience the rhythm first hand. Among the many plates Ecuador has to offer, a few in particular have been established as my favorites; one of them is called â€Å"Locro†, which is a thick soup made from potatoes, cheese, and meat. Locro is usually served with a light salad, topped off with cilantro and avocado. The aroma emanating from this culinary concoction sends my mind into a state of euphoric tranquility. Therefore, the combination of these two can make any event a moment to savor. In addition to the music and the food, religion plays an important role in my heritage as well. Catholicism is the dominant religion in Ecuador, and the religion with which I was raised. The Roman based religion has a high influence amongst my people. I remember during my childhood how important it was to go through my religious sacraments. As a Catholic, going to church with my family every Sunday was a never broken tradition. Although I am respectful of all religions, my religion has played an important role and has allowed me to flourish. Among the many rituals that are practiced within the Catholic religion, we show a significant amount of respect to Catholic holidays. Holidays are a very important ceremonial event which is glorified amongst my family. Once a year, my family gathers together for a much acclaimed event, the birth of Jesus Christ. To some, this day is known to be filled with folktales about a gift giving Santa Clause hidden in the North Pole. In my family, we are  taught from childhood about the son of God, Jesus Christ, and the many miracles and sacrifices he had to endure for us. Another part of this tradition was attending midnight mass to show respect for the birth of baby Jesus. This religion and its holiday are not only pertinent to the country of my origin but also a large part of what I consider to be my heritage today. In conclusion, my heritage is drawn from different factors all of which depend on the types of influences that are present in a person’s life. The parts of my heritage which I consider important include the gastronomical and musical roots of Ecuador, Catholicism, and lastly the celebration of an important religious holiday. These combinations have had a substantially large influence on what I consider my heritage today.