The theatrical drama Essay Example for Free

The theatrical drama Essay Eddies life is very good to him at the start of the play and his ideas of manliness never really come under threat. That is until Marco and Rodolpho arrive. Marco and Rodolpho are Beatrices nephews and have illegally emigrated from Italy. Marco and Rodolpho are at the two furthest points away from each other on Eddies manliness scale. Marco is very manly, more so than Eddie. He is very strong, very quiet and cares more about the necessities of living than having a good time. Rodolpho on the other hand does not conform to Eddies views of manliness at all and this creates minor conflicts on a regular basis, but Eddie really begins so dislike Rodolpho when he starts to have a relationship with Catherine. Eddie begins to tell everybody that Rodolpho aint right and is no good. He accuses Rodolpho of being effeminate and suspects that his blond hair isnt natural and says that his singing makes him sound like a chorus girl. Eddie makes these links because he is intellectually limited and acts by instinct and prejudice. Eddies lack of intelligence eventually leads to him actually believing all of the things hes made up about Rodolpho. This leads to conflicts, as he feels threatened when he tries to justify his accusations and ends up being quite comical. An example of this is when he goes to see Mr Alfieri (his lawyer). Eddie is asking Mr Alfieri what he can do to stop Rodolpho marrying Catherine. Mr Alfieri is telling Eddie that he cant do anything and he can only deal in whats provable and the only thing thats provable is that hes an immigrant. Eddie then begins to get annoyed and tells Mr Alfieri that The guy aint right and hes a blond guy. Like platinum But Mr Alfieri cannot understand what Eddie is trying to say. This is because Eddie really doesnt know whats hes saying, hes just making it up as he goes along. This is highlighted by the constant pauses when he is speaking. Eddies constant stuttering as he tries to make Mr Alfieri understand what he is trying to say, shows the audience that he is lying/making it up. Eddies dislike of Rodolpho bubbles under the surface throughout Act One and in Act Two Eddie and Rodolpho have a conflict, which is a pivotal moment in the structure of the play. Eddie comes home drunk to find that Catherine and Rodolfo have been in the bedroom together. He immediately thinks the worst and tells Rodolfo to get out of his house. Catherine argues with him and then decides that she has to leave as well but Eddie grabs her. Rodolfo reacts angrily to this and flies at Eddie in attack. To this Eddie pins him to the floor and unexpectedly kisses him. Eddie gets up with tears rolling down his face and laughs, mocking Rodolpho. This is a big moment as it is the first time Eddie has acted to back up his displeasure of the way Rodolfo has acted but it evidently hasnt helped his cause of getting Catherine to split up with him and has in fact caused more of a friction between himself and Catherine. It is also the first time that Eddie has shown very non masculine behaviour, by firstly kissing Rodolpho on the lips which completely contradicts Eddies accusations of Rodolpho being a homosexual and shows Eddie as being a hypocrite and secondly by crying, although both of these things could be blamed on Eddies drunken state. It is usually when someone is drunk that they forget to carry on their charade and reveal who they really are.

A Study Of The Negro Policeman: Book Review :: essays research papers

A Study of the Negro Policeman: Book Review Nicholas Alex, assistant professor of sociology at The City University of New York, holds a Ph.D. from the New School for Social Research and a B.S. from the Wharton School. He was formerly a research assistant with the Russell Sage Foundation, an instructor at Adelphi University, and has had working experience in his academic specialty-the sociology of professions and occupations-while an industrial engineer in the aircraft industry, later as business manager of the Walden School. This is his first book. In this book Alex made an effort to examine the peculiar problems of Negro policemen who live in an age which has not yet resolved to problem of inequality in an assertedly democratic society. He drawn heavily on the reflections of forty-one Negro policemen who made plain to me the difficulties involved in being black in blue. Alex was concerned with the ways in which the men were recruited into the police, the nature of their relations in regard to their immediate clientele, their counterparts, and the rest of society. In the broadest terms, the book examines the special problems that Negro policemen face in their efforts to reconcile their race with their work in the present framework of American values and beliefs. The research for the study was based on intensive interviews collected over a period of eleven months, from December 1964 to October 1965. During that time the author talked with Negro police engaged in different types of police specialties, and men of different rank and backgrounds. Alex was interested in preserving their anonymity, and substituted code numbers for names. The language in which their thoughts were expressed is unchanged. Most of the interviews were obtained either at the policeman's home or the authors. Some were held in parks, playgrounds, and luncheonettes. All of the interviews were open-ended. All the policemen refused to have there conversations taped. "I know too well what tapes can do to you," said one. "I can refute what you write down on that pad, but I can't if it's taped. We use tapes too, you know." The author was dealing with a highly expressive and literate group of men who thought of the study as a way in which they could make themselves heard. This book is organized very well. It consist of eight chapters, and each chapter is broken into subdivisions. The first chapter talks about the policemen in the community. Within this chapter mainly describes the police as and occupation, and states how the policemen's job is uncertain. The second chapter deals with the recruitment of Negroes for police work.

Response Paper on “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut

The short tale of Harrison Bergeron is something that isn't very new to me. Way back in high school, we were tasked to read this in one of our Literary Circles sessions. I took a quick look at it and particularly enjoyed how short the story was. Today, having finally read a good selection of interesting stories, I decided to take a deeper and much more complete look at it. I can definitely say that despite it being rather short, Harrison Bergeron was a story just oozing in meaning and symbolisms. Harrison Bergeron makes us think twice on just how far we want to go to push for equality. In 2081, total equality is achieved but at a cost – sacrificing freedom and individual skill and talent. The three main characters also symbolizes different types of people who have different views toward the law set by the Handicapper General. George Bergeron to me was pretty much your average Joe. Despite him being blessed with substantial intelligence, he simply decides to get by and observe all the rules properly, being content with the system and afraid of consequences. Hazel Bergeron on the other hand, was really just an oblivious girl in a place where oblivious and unaware was the new â€Å"average†. She had nothing special to offer, therefore was never even handicapped. Her obliviousness and outright stupidity simply shadows over her kindness and good intentions. And finally, Harrison Bergeron, who was the perfect specimen. He literally had it all, which made the government fear him and did everything in it's power to contain him. Harrison wanted to showcase his abilities to the world and this ultimately led to his death. With this, we are shown that superiority amongst others will not be tolerated. To end, I feel like this story faces us with a dilemma, whether to simply get by, and live with rules and laws that are clearly unfair and wrong or be like Harrison, who is condemned for being the gifted and talent-laden man that he truly was. I'd also like to point out how this story takes on a completely different angle as a slight jab to faulty governments. Vonnegut may just be trying to show us how the government tries to control and ultimately, censor our very thoughts and ideas, hence limiting our potential to grow and become more aware and active with regards to such issues.

Thomas Jefferson and the Embargo Act of 1807

The Embargo Act of 1807 was an attempt by President Thomas Jefferson and the U.S. Congress to prohibit  American ships from trading in foreign ports. It was intended to punish Britain and France for interfering with American trade while the two major European powers were at war with each other. The embargo was precipitated  primarily by Napoleon Bonapartes 1806 Berlin Decree, which announced that neutral ships carrying British-made goods were subject to seizure by France, thus exposing American ships to attacks by privateers. Then, a year later, sailors from the USS Chesapeake were forced into service  by officers from the British ship HMS Leopard. That was the final straw. Congress passed the Embargo Act in December 1807 and Jefferson signed it into law on December 22, 1807. The president hoped that the act would prevent a war between the United States and Britain. At the same time, Jefferson saw it as a way to keep ships as military resources out of harms way, buy time for the preservation, and signify (after the Chesapeake event) that the U.S. recognized that a war was in the future. Jefferson also saw it as a way to cease non-productive war-profiteering which was undermining the coveted but never achieved goal of American autarky—economic independence from Britain and other economies. Perhaps inevitably, the Embargo Act was also a precursor to the War of 1812. Effects  of the Embargo Economically, the embargo devastated American shipping exports and cost the American economy about 8 percent in decreased gross national product in 1807. With the embargo in place, American exports declined by 75%, and imports declined by 50%—the act did not completely eliminate trade and domestic partners. Before the embargo, exports to the United States reached $108 million. One year later, they were just over $22 million. Yet Britain and France, locked in the Napoleonic Wars, were not greatly damaged by the loss of trade with Americans. So the embargo intended to punish Europes greatest powers instead negatively impacted ordinary Americans. Although the western states in the Union were relatively unaffected, as they had at that point little to trade, other parts of the country were hit hard. Cotton growers in the South lost their British market entirely. Merchants in New England were the hardest hit. In fact, discontent was so widespread there that there was serious talk by local political leaders of seceding from the Union, decades before the  Nullification Crisis  or the  Civil War. Jeffersons Presidency Another result of the embargo was that smuggling increased across the border with Canada, and smuggling by ship also became prevalent. So the law was both ineffective and difficult to enforce. Many of those weaknesses were addressed by a number of amendments and new acts written by Jeffersons Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1769–1849), passed by Congress, and signed into law by the president: but the president himself essentially ceased active support on his own after signaling his decision to not seek a third term in office in December 1807. Not only would the embargo taint Jeffersons presidency, making him fairly unpopular by its end, but the economic effects also didnt fully reverse themselves until the end of the War of 1812. End of the Embargo The embargo was repealed by Congress early in 1809, just days before the end of Jeffersons presidency. It was replaced by a less restrictive piece of legislation, the Non-Intercourse Act, which prohibited trade with Britain and France. The newer law was no more successful than the Embargo Act had been, and relations with Britain continued to fray until, three years later, President James Madison obtained a declaration of war from Congress and the War of 1812 began. Sources and Further Reading Frankel, Jeffrey A. The 1807–1809 Embargo against Great Britain. The Journal of Economic History 42.2 (1982): 291–308.Irwin, Douglas A. The Welfare Cost of Autarky: Evidence from the Jeffersonian Trade Embargo, 1807–09. Review of International Economics 13.4 (2005): 631–45.Mannix, Richard. Gallatin, Jefferson, and the Embargo of 1808. Diplomatic History 3.2 (1979): 151–72.Spivak, Burton. Jeffersons English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979.