The Cinematic Spectator

The Cinematic Spectator The cinematic spectator Both Hugo Munsterberg and Rudolf Arnheim took particular interest in the cinematic spectator and how the moving pictures on the screen affected them. Through close psychological analysis and the formulation of processes, each had their own take on the spectators engagement in the cinematic experience. Through close analysis we can get an insight and clearer understanding of why people are drawn to motion pictures and what happens to them when they arrive. Munsterberg describes viewing as an aesthetic experience while Arnheim deems it an unreal experience. This aesthetic experience Munsterberg acknowledges is where the film is a detachment or isolation from our daily routine and real time and reality are left behind, an experience that is entirely self contained (Andrew, 26). This experience begins when the picture does as slowly the spectator is disengaged from their reality and engaging with the reality on the screen. They are content in perceiving everything during that moment, isolated from all outer surroundings. This experience, according to Munsterberg, is attained through ones mind and this was the foundation for his conclusions. Based in Gestalt psychology, Munsterberg saw the mind composed as several levels where the higher were dependent on the operation and functionality of the lower. When each level was engaged, the spectator could fully engage with the picture by resolving what Munsterberg referred to as undistinguished stimuli, subconscious renderings that are summoned while viewing the work, creating a world which one could relate emotionally to the events and objects. The spectators mind, according to Munsterberg, then creates an internal object through a phi-phenomenon where emphasis is placed on the active powers of the spectator giving the film fluidity by bringing the mind to a state of full engagement and contentment, mentally held in a state of rapt attention. Munsterberg writes we do not see objective reality but a product of our own mind which binds the pictures together (The Means of the Photoplay, 411-412) which is accomplished through the means of what Munsterberg deemed photoplay. Photopl ay tells the story of the outside world through the manipulation of events to the forms of the world on the screen. This is accomplished by taking the outer space, time, and causality and adjusting the inners attention, memory, imagination and emotion. He sees the spectator as one who undergoes a psychological connection with the moving images presented on the screen and draws rational relations to them through their own personal experiences. Rudolph Arnheim sees the spectator as an active viewer who pays attention to the films form. He feels the meaning is a pattern rather than individual stimuli and shifts the focus away from the psychological side, Munsterbergs main basis, and shifts the focus to the material itself, the happenings of the film. This material Arnheim claims must be all factors which make it a less than perfect illusion of reality (Andrew, 28). This unreality takes on all aspects of the medium by manipulating the film elements such as projection, reduction, lighting, color, framing and editing. The artist controls and manipulates these elements for their own expression in trying to tell the story and to keep the viewer interested in what is presented on the screen. These aspects also make up the fabric of what Arnheim deemed film art. Arnheim says film art is based on the manipulation of the technically visible, not the humanly visual (Andrew, 29) meaning the elements and technical aspects used to create the medium must be manipulated in a way which tap into human emotions, experiences and surroundings. Trying to present these elements, however, did not come without limitations, which challenged the artists and their limits of expression. When all of the elements were presented in cohesion, Arnheim said the viewer underwent a transformation. This is shown clearly in Charlie Chaplins 1936 film Modern Times where the viewer is able to fully engage with the main character as he gracefully fumbles through his work day around the factory. We are transformed from our everyday lives into this comedic wonderland and are left wanting more. During the 1920s and 30s, spectators along with the artists were still adapting to this developing medium. Portraying and projecting posed a challenge for the filmmakers as to how they were going to take a 3D image to 2 dimensional and still be able to express themselves artistically. Arnheims take was art begins where mechanical reproduction leaves off, where the conditions of reproductions serve in some way to mold the object. And the spectator shows himself to be lacking in proper aesthetic appreciation when he is satisfied to see the picture as purely objective (PP, 1933 edition, 68-69). Since the images constantly moving and portraying body language, facial expressions and interacting with other things, the viewer must be active and engaged, not just observing the film for its images. Our eyes work with our other senses which allow us to experience the medium itself while we become lost in the illusion on the screen. These are the means by which Arnheim said the spectator can tr eat the film as such rather than reality. There are many reasons people were and still are drawn to motion pictures. We are mesmerized by the stories, images and meanings. The cinematic experience is of both mind and body. We draw from our life experiences, memories and knowledge and are transcended into another world. The experience heightens the senses; it can make you laugh or cry, leave you happy or sad. The images and thoughts from our own minds are activated and we relate to them passing on the screen. We live vicariously through the character(s) for that moment in time, we are detached from reality, emotionally attached, transcended from our daily routines.

German Public During WW2

German Public During WW2 To what extent were the German people supportive of Nazi anti-Semitic policy? Only a few years ago, a remarkable book exploded on to the academic scene which initiated a heated and sometimes acrimonious debate amongst historians. The Harvard historian Daniel Goldhagen had argued in his book Hitler’s willing executioners[1] that Germans were culturally predisposed to mistreat and kill Jews. This essay will look the extent to which Germans were supportive of Nazi anti-Semitic policy mainly through the lens of the Goldhagen debate. It will have to explore three interrelated but distinct conceptual questions. Firstly, it will have to determine the nature of the anti-Semitic policies themselves. Secondly, the essay needs to clarify what type of support was typical amongst Germans. Thirdly, the essay needs to ask how support was articulated and how reliable the various types of historical evidence is to reach so dramatic conclusions as Goldhagen did in his work. Goldhagen’s thesis can be summed up briefly by saying that he believes to have identified the single most important motivation of Germans to kill Jews. He writes: ‘[There was a] widespread profound German cultural animus towards Jews that evolved from an early nineteenth century eliminationist form to the more deadly twentieth century incarnation.’[2] While Germans throughout the past two centuries harboured this ‘eliminationist anit-Semitic attitude’ towards the Jewish people, ‘only with the control of Eastern Europe could Germans finally act upon Hitler’s pre-existing exterminationist intentions.’[3] Goldhagen attributes to Germans a general voluntarism and enthusiasm for cruelty in performing their assigned and self-appointed task of exterminating Jews.[4] Goldhagen maintains that all other ways of explaining German anti-Semitic behaviour during the various phases of discriminatory Nazi policy have failed for some reason. The only viable explanation must be, so Goldhagen argues, that Germans were somehow pre-disposed to kill Jews. His claims rests on an analysis of the actions of ordinary Germans, the Police Battalion 101 and their general willingness to execute the exterminationist orders of the Nazi leadership. He then claims that ‘all conventional explanations explicitly or implicitly p osit universal human traits’[5] so that explanations must hold true for everyone. Something Goldhagen insistently rejects. This, he exclaims, is ‘obviously and demonstrably false’[6]. He uses a two-pronged, methodologically questionable, strategy however. First, his thesis undergoes a daring generalisation when he claims that the actions of some Germans, those who willingly engage in mass murder, are indicative of the attitudes of all Germans (something that implicitly accepts by the way the Nazi assumption that assimilated German Jews are not Germans!). The second step is even more audacious methodologically. On some grounds he now claims that this attitudes is a trait specific only to Germans, no one else. He writes: ‘The one explanation adequate to these tasks holds that a demonological anti-Semitism, of the virulent racial variety, was the common structure of the perpetrators cognition, and of German society in general.’[7] In short, Germans killed Jews because they were Germans, and every German would be subscribing to the same eliminationist anti-Semitic attitude. If that is the case, the extent to which Germans were supportive of Nazi anti-Semitic ideology and policy is clear. All Germans potentially supported them, even or especially if this included the physical elimination of the Jewish people. They did so, not because they found Nazi ideology particularly persuasive, or were convinced that this is for the better good of German society, but simply because they were Germans. This identification of an ethnic group with a particular character trait of course is, strictly speaking, no explanation at all.[8] It is a conjecture that awaits evidence and elaboration. Goldhagen provides neither. His logic, as Josef Joffe writes, is simplistic and defies any reasonable historical method. ‘The killers were ordinary Germans, ergo the ordinary Germans were killers.’[9] Goldhagen’s book therefore lack the rigorous methodological standards of any decent historical work. Methodologically his work offers a circular thesis and is conspicuously devoid of argument and evidence. If such a simplistic approach fails to provide an answer to the question, we should look further. First, what was Nazi policy towards the Jews? Historians stress that Nazi policy greatly differed throughout the years of their twelve-year terror reign. Although Hitler had sketched the main outlines of his anti-Semitic attitude even before January 1933 and although Hitler and others were very sympathetic to the sporadic killings, beatings and other reprisals against Jews in German cities, they also feared this would diminish the widespread popular support that the Nazi government enjoyed in the first months after the appointment of Hitler as chancellor. What was needed was to reign in and organise properly the anti-Semitic actions, effectively basing them on a more legal basis and thereby giving them a faà §ade of legitimacy. Behind this problem stood the issue of competency of policy, and a constant state of confusion as to who was responsible for what in the many layers of the new regime. The fact however that Hitler and his inner circle deemed it necessary after coming to power to curtail the actions of the SA and place an ti-Semitic boycotts on a more legal basis indicates that, although many Germans agreed with Hitler’s assessment that Jews had a too prominent role in German economic and social life, they did not necessarily support haphazard, extralegal and sporadic anti-Semitic attacks on a daily basis. The Nazi leadership hence adjusted their policy and from now on favoured a slower approach to eliminating Jews from German public life. Graml notes that a process took place that may be termed the ‘disciplining the persecution of Jews’. He writes: ‘Disciplining the persecution of the Jews meant above all a move away from the terror of the stormtroopers to formal anti-Semitic legislation.’[10] Another significant difference in anti-Semitic policy is equally overlooked by Goldhagen but of great relevance to the question of why Germans supported Nazi policy. With the start of the war in 1939 and the occupation of Poland and other Eastern European countries is became clear that Nazi policy towards Jews distinguished sharply between assimilated German Jews and Sephardic Eastern European Jews. While the former were gradually frozen out of German public life, East European Jews suffered from exterminationist policies almost immediately after the start of the war. The goal of the Nazi leadership with respect to them was immediate and radical obliteration of any Jewish culture and life in this area, something that was eventually extended to the German Jewry as well but only as late as 1943. The difference of treatment is significant since it may indicate that Germans harboured different attitudes to their widely assimilated neighbours and Eastern European Jews. Eventual exterminat ion of German Jews may have been anticipated by the Nazi leadership fairly early on, but the regime lacked the popular support to introduce any radical measures to initiate this process. In fact, historians point out that the progrom of 1938 (Reichskristallnacht) was received with widespread horror and disapproval amongst the German population.[11] The government never engaged in similar boycotts and overt actions against German Jews until the beginning of the war. Graml writes: ‘[to implement] the anti-Semitic message into policy was not simple, other priorities existed, amongst others to solidify their [the Nazi’s] power base. The brutal and open anti-Semitic agitation practiced by the Nazi party failed to make any positive impression at all on the majority of the population.’[12] That does not mean that German Jews did not suffer a horrifying slow marginalisation in German society which culminated in the visible stigmatisation and discrimination of Jews in all parts of public life. Jews were rapidly becoming second class citizens and this process was visible and obvious to every German. It is this process of gradual marginalisation of Jews in German society that probably received most support from ordinary Germans, and which eventually led to a broader acceptance of their ‘final destination’: physical extermination. The broad catalogue of discriminatory measures against German Jews were in effect removing them from German society and ensured that the final step, their physical obliteration, was accepted as inevitable fate as they were increasingly associated with the guilt for war in Nazi propaganda.[13] To summarise, the differences in policy vis-à  -vis Jews in Germany and the occupied territories after the start of the war also elicited different responses by Germans and hence indicate different levels of support. Kulka notes that Germans probably viewed ‘racial legislation as a permanent solution of social, cultural and biological segregation but conditional upon the preservation of public law and order.’[14] Thus Germans distinguished between Eastern European and German Jews, although this differentiation grew less and less significant as the war progressed and as Nazi ideology managed to portray German Jews as similar to those of the Sephardic Jews. The second important issue concerns the constituency of supporters of Nazi ideologies and policy. Who were they? Did they all equally endorse anti-Semitic policies? Goldhagen claims that all ordinary Germans were in fact anti-Semites, and bases this claim on his account of the role of ordinary Germans in the mass killings that occurred in Eastern Europe. His conclusion is a swift and methodologically flawed one: ordinary Germans did the killing, so every ordinary German must potentially be a killer. In this logic, all ordinary Germans would be supportive of the most radically eliminationist policy. A closer look at the evidence reveals a different picture however. Goldhagen was not the first who looked at ‘ordinary Germans’ and emphasised their voluntary and at times sadistic attitude to mass murder. In fact not even the particular focus of his inquiry, the Police Battalions operating in the hinterland of the Eastern front were original. Christopher Browning already published a book on the unparalleled brutality of the Police Battalion 101 and attempts similarly to identify a plausible explanation for the behaviour of the policemen. Although Browning is equally perplexed by the cruelty and viciousness that the policemen displayed throughout the murderous procedures, he rejects any simplistic explanations but instead argues that a whole range of factors may are contributed to the callousness of the men. He stresses in stark contrast to Goldhagen, that at the root of every action lies an individual decision which must be accounted for in individual not generalist terms; an explanatory approach that deeply resonates with the opinion of other scholars.[15] Therefore, dealing with a whole group of murderers, explanations can only sketch some of the most significant factors which may have played a role in stripping the men of their humane and cultural inhibitions. Browning does not shy away from references to the wider German society, but the tone of his propositions is remarkably different to that of Goldhagen. Browning writes: ‘The men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101, like the rest of German society [sic], were immersed in a deluge of racist and anti-Semitic propaganda.’[16] However, he declines to extrapolate from his evidential base to German society as a whole. Instead he is sympathetic to a complex social explanation of their actions. ‘Insidiously, most of those who did not shoot only re-affirmed the ‘macho’ values of the majority according to which it was a positive quality to be ‘tough’ enough to kill unarmed, non-combatant men, women, and children – and tried not to rupture the bonds of comradeship that constituted their social world.’[17] According to Browning, the men were motivated by a raft of socio-psychological aspects not by simply being German. This should illustrate that talking about Germans as a collection of individuals who feature that same preternatural anti-Semitic disposition makes little sense. It fails to acknowledge the variance of opinion on Nazi ideology and policy as well as cannot explain why some become inhibited murderers and others do not. Their ethnic identity (being German) does not add up to be a plausible explanation of their allegedly eliminationist anti-Semitism since it cannot take account of the fact the Germans frequently intermarried with Jews since their emancipation in 1867. German had long ceased to be a homogenous ethnic group, tied together by ‘purity of blood lines’ as Nazi ideology suggested. Now let us proceed to the last issue, the forms in which Germans may have expressed their support for anti-Semitic policies. Again, a methodologically difficulty lies at the heart of this issue. How to distinguish between those who gave their tacit support and those who engaged in demonstrative actions of support? Which form was a more accurate reflection of endorsement for Nazi policies? Historians have pointed out that about half a million Germans were actively involved in the Final Solution, the physical extermination of Jews after 1943. This included administrative work as well as the actual killings. Important sections of the economy and government were directly involved in the killings by providing crucial assistance in terms of resources, material and time to the Holocaust.[18] Interestingly, we do not have to engage in a flight of fancy guess work but have some hard facts that may shed some light on the forms and extent of support for anti-Semitic policies amongst the German population. Nazis as well as the victorious armies conducted extensive surveys that were supposed to demonstrate the extent to which anti-Semitism messages were favourably received by the German population. Kulka sums up the evidence: ‘the post 1945 surveys†¦ give [us] a reliable indication of attitudes amongst Germans: twenty percent were supportive of Nazi policies towards Jews; nineteen percent were generally in favour [of anti-Semitic policies] but said that Hitler had gone too far. Overall the surveys found that identification with the Final Solution was quite widespread among the public in the Third Reich.’[19] The question however remains whether the silence on the Holocaust was due to indifference or reflected endorsement of physical elimination of Jews. Norbert Frei argues that the extent to which workers had been won over by Nazi policies may give us a reliable clue as to the amount of support. He argues that the Nazi slogan of Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community) somehow captures the essence of anti-Semitism and the gradual acceptance of this idea would in turn show how far Germans had consented to discriminatory measures against Jews. By the mid 1930s, Frei argues, the German workers had virtually be convinced the idea of people’s community was constitutive for German society, a concept that would preclude any participation of Jews in German public life.[20] This hints at those pockets of resistance to Nazi propaganda which many historians conventionally identify as conservative, catholic milieus and whose resilience to Nazi propaganda can only be explained by social and cultural factors, an explanation that Goldhagen explicitly rejects. Overall, to what extent were Germans really supportive of anti-Semitic policies? The question evokes a complex answer. Policy changed throughout the regime and hence the degree of support differed. Also, policies varied with regard to different ethnic groups of Jews throughout Europe, and so did the response and support of Germans for these policies. And finally, German people were not a unitary entity. Their responses to Nazi policy was influenced by their educational, cultural, religious and social background, by the different level of sympathy for the wider Nazi ideology, as well as by the way in which they were affected themselves by Nazi policies throughout the regime. Given this wide range of variances, no serious historian can offer only one universal portrait of German support for anti-Semitic measures. Bibliography Christopher R. Browning. Ordinary Men. Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Collins 1992. Norbert Frei. People’s Community and War: Hitler’s Popular Support. In Hans Mommsen (ed.). The Third Reich between Vision and Reality. New Perspectives on German History 1918-1945. Oxford New York: Berg 2001. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. London: Abacus 1996. Hermann Graml. Anti-Semitism in the Third Reich. Oxford: Blackwell 1992. Josef Joffe. ‘The Killers were ordinary Germans, ergo the ordinary Germans were killers’: The Logic, the Language and the Meaning of a Book that conquered Germany. In Robert R. Shandley (ed.). Unwilling Germans? The Goldhagen Debate. London: University of Minnesota Press 1998. Otto Dov Kulka. The German Population and the Jews: State of Research and New Perspectives. In David Bankier (ed.). Probing the Depths of German Anti-Semitism. German Society and the Persecution of the Jews, 1933-1941. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem 2000. Hans Mommsen. From Weimar to Auschwitz. Essays in German History. Cambridge: Polity 1991. P.G.J. Pulzer. The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria. New York e.a.: Wiley 1964. Roger W. Smith. ‘Ordinary Germans’, the Holocaust, and Responsibility: Hitler’s Willing Executioners in Moral Perspective. In Franklyn H. Littell (ed.). Hyping the Holocaust. Scholars answer Goldhagen. Merion Station 1997. 1 Footnotes [1] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. London: Abacus 1996. [2] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.375. [3] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.375. [4] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.375. [5] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.389. [6] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.389. [7] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.392. [8] Cf. Roger W. Smith. ‘Ordinary Germans’, the Holocaust, and Responsibility: Hitler’s Willing Executioners in Moral Perspective. In Franklyn H. Littell (ed.). Hyping the Holocaust. Scholars answer Goldhagen. Merion Station 1997, p.48-49. [9] Josef Joffe. ‘The Killers were ordinary Germans, ergo the ordinary Germans were killers’: The Logic, the Language and the Meaning of a Book that conquered Germany. In Robert R. Shandley (ed.). Unwilling Germans? The Goldhagen Debate. London: University of Minnesota Press 1998, p.217. [10] Hermann Graml. Anti-Semitism in the Third Reich. Oxford: Blackwell 1992, p.96. [11] Hans Mommsen. From Weimar to Auschwitz. Essays in German History. Cambridge: Polity 1991, p.241. [12] Graml, Anti-Semitism, p.89. [13] Otto Dov Kulka. The German Population and the Jews: State of Research and New Perspectives. In David Bankier (ed.). Probing the Depths of German Anti-Semitism. German Society and the Persecution of the Jews, 1933-1941. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem 2000, p.274. [14] Kulka, Population, p.273. [15] Cf. P.G.J. Pulzer. The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria. New York e.a.: Wiley 1964, p.31. [16] Christopher R. Browning. Ordinary Men. Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Collins 1992, p.184 [17] Browning, Ordinary Men, p.185. [18] Mommsen, Weimar, p.225. [19] Kulka, Population, p.279f. [20] Norbert Frei. People’s Community and War: Hitler’s Popular Support. In Hans Mommsen (ed.). The Third Reich between Vision and Reality. New Perspectives on German History 1918-1945. Oxford New York: Berg 2001, p.63.

Trouble Down South Essay -- US-Mexico Border

Early in our school years we are taught the importance of staying away from drugs and their harmful effects. We live in a nation surrounded by drugs and the culture that surrounds them. Drugs inhabit our everyday lives through the mediums we come in contact with on a daily basis. Most people cannot go through their day without running into a drug reference of some sort on their phones or televisions. However, with all the drugs in our nation, many Americans do not take the time to wonder where they came from or how they got here. The most common answer is the U.S.-Mexico border (Gootenberg 2). As officials worry about the number of illegal immigrants that sneak into the nation, they seem less concerned about the amount of drug content that is smuggled in as well. With high-powered groups such as Los Zetas and the Sinaloans controlling Mexico’s drug world with violence and terrorism, our southern neighbor has a problem that has remained uncontrollable for the past twenty years (Gootenberg 4). Mexico has not always been infested with drugs. The current drug problems stem back to the cocaine boom of the 1980s in Columbia and U.S. efforts to eliminate trades in the 80s and 90s (Gootenberg 1, 2). During the boom, Columbian drug systems were organized in major cities such as Miami and New York. As the mid-80s approached, there were an approximated 22 million cocaine users in the United States (Gootenberg 2). With such success came a rapid expansion of the cocaine market, and it also led to more competition. As this competition rose, the Columbians were forced to insert hit men into the U.S to fight off their Cuban rivals (2). The violence caused by the Columbian markets forced the U.S. president to get involved. Presidents such as Rea... ...iven a broader base in the U.S. President Calderon is visibly unable to control the cartels in his own country, and is in dire need of some assistance. It is a responsibility of the United States to help its’ neighbor before it is too late. Mexican drug cartels have been rising to power since the demise of the Medellin cartel in 1980. They came to power thanks to the blowback effect caused by the United States (Gootenberg 3). With recent U.S. presidential decisions, our nation is doing little to help its neighbor (Kellner and Pipitone 37). Mexico has been left to find its own solution; it will be up to the minds of president Calderon and his fellow governors to find a peaceful way to eliminate the terror that has gripped their nation by the throat. That is, if the competition and hunger for territory and power don’t cause the cartels to destroy each other first.

Responses to Human Crises Revealed in The Rite by Hiroko Takenishi Essa

Responses to Human Crises Revealed in The Rite In the short story "The Rite," Hiroko Takenishi tells of some of the horrors that took place during and after the bombing of Hiroshima. This story was a creative response to the actual devastation Hiroko witnessed. She may have chosen to write this story as fiction rather than an autobiography in order to distance herself from the pain. This work may have served as a form of therapy, by allowing her to express her feelings without becoming personal. She could accomplish this by attributing her own feelings and thoughts to Aki, the narrator of this story. The crises to which this work responds was the total annihilation of Hiroshima and the aftershock experienced by those left behind. Those who witnessed this devastation were left to make sense of it, and then attempt to carry on with their lives. Aki had temporarily managed to go on with her life until she went to visit her friend Tomiko. At her friends house she saw "two small jars"that contained "fetuses that had been miscarried"( Takenishi 1895), most likely an after affect of being exposed to the bomb. The sight of these fetuses must have stirred some deeply buried feelings, because shortly afterwards, Aki started to have very disturbing flashbacks and dreams of the devastating event that took place during her childhood. Through these dreams and flashbacks it becomes apparent that Aki is unable to acquire any closure regarding this horrible event. This feeling of deficiency could be, in part, attributed to her feeling that there was a shameful lack of consideration shown for the "rites" owed to those who died. In her eyes they were never properly laid to rest; Therefore they" will not rest in peace" (Takenishi 18... ...in it brought with it ( Takenishi 1907). She felt these memories held a lot of value, and it was important to hold onto them. As she said " someone who can just casually wipe out the memory of his own history will not be fit ... to play the role of the great hero" (Takenishi 1907). I believe she wants to preserve these memories out of respect for those who died, and possibly, as a contribution to their rite. Hiroko Takenishi used the framework of a fictional story to tell of a real life tragedy. As mentioned before, this may have been done to create distance from the writer and her painful memories. This story was a creative and interesting way of allowing others to experience the devastation felt by those who lived through this crises. At the same time it makes clear the suffering and injustice that was inflicted on innocent lives, and the senseless evils of war. Responses to Human Crises Revealed in The Rite by Hiroko Takenishi Essa Responses to Human Crises Revealed in The Rite In the short story "The Rite," Hiroko Takenishi tells of some of the horrors that took place during and after the bombing of Hiroshima. This story was a creative response to the actual devastation Hiroko witnessed. She may have chosen to write this story as fiction rather than an autobiography in order to distance herself from the pain. This work may have served as a form of therapy, by allowing her to express her feelings without becoming personal. She could accomplish this by attributing her own feelings and thoughts to Aki, the narrator of this story. The crises to which this work responds was the total annihilation of Hiroshima and the aftershock experienced by those left behind. Those who witnessed this devastation were left to make sense of it, and then attempt to carry on with their lives. Aki had temporarily managed to go on with her life until she went to visit her friend Tomiko. At her friends house she saw "two small jars"that contained "fetuses that had been miscarried"( Takenishi 1895), most likely an after affect of being exposed to the bomb. The sight of these fetuses must have stirred some deeply buried feelings, because shortly afterwards, Aki started to have very disturbing flashbacks and dreams of the devastating event that took place during her childhood. Through these dreams and flashbacks it becomes apparent that Aki is unable to acquire any closure regarding this horrible event. This feeling of deficiency could be, in part, attributed to her feeling that there was a shameful lack of consideration shown for the "rites" owed to those who died. In her eyes they were never properly laid to rest; Therefore they" will not rest in peace" (Takenishi 18... ...in it brought with it ( Takenishi 1907). She felt these memories held a lot of value, and it was important to hold onto them. As she said " someone who can just casually wipe out the memory of his own history will not be fit ... to play the role of the great hero" (Takenishi 1907). I believe she wants to preserve these memories out of respect for those who died, and possibly, as a contribution to their rite. Hiroko Takenishi used the framework of a fictional story to tell of a real life tragedy. As mentioned before, this may have been done to create distance from the writer and her painful memories. This story was a creative and interesting way of allowing others to experience the devastation felt by those who lived through this crises. At the same time it makes clear the suffering and injustice that was inflicted on innocent lives, and the senseless evils of war.

Copper Mountain Essay -- Environmental Issues

It’s a sunny October afternoon and I’m listening to the breeze gently rustle the tree tops above me. I look down into the creek as I sit here munching on some cashews, and I see trout gliding effortlessly through the crystal-clear water. I revel in how incredibly lush the area is†¦although it’s been a dry summer the ground is still moist, plants are bright and colorful, and wildlife is abound. After I finish my snack and tuck my trash away into my backpack, I continue my hike up this parcel of land that is may soon become barren with towers of steel and wire draping the landscape. I wonder to myself what will become of these fish, or the fresh clean water that runs into the Reeder Reservoir, the source of Ashland’s drinking water. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ski area expansions are the most ecological damaging task that an area can undertake. In a plan revision for the White River National Forest in Colorado, regarding the Copper Mountain Ski Resort expansion, the EPA hammers that point home when they say that â€Å"†¦no other land management prescription on the Forest directly results in more stream-water depletion, wetland impacts, air pollution, permanent vegetation change, or permanent habitat loss†¦ more wetland impacts and stream depletions resulted from ski area expansion and improvement than from all other Forest management activities combined, including many direct and indirect impacts that are permanent (irreversible and irretrievable).† Meanwhile, skier numbers nationally have only increased just two percent since 1978(source). Which begs the question, why have ski area sizes more than doubled in acreage to the tune of 107%(source)? Mt. Ashland’s future expansion surely isn’t needed due t... ...ts past development and expansion of the Copper Mountain ski area as major factor in the degradation of the watershed and local water quality. Impacts include: increased peak flows, increased water temperature, increased erosion and sediment transport, and decrease flow due to snowmaking activities. The USDA has taken exhaustive steps to help mitigate the damage caused by the expansion at a great financial cost to taxpayers. The USDA has had to redesign all stream crossings to allow for higher stream flows and to withstand expected floods. They also performed physical modifications of the stream patterns and stream geometry to improve long term stream health. Environmental Scorecard Concerned locals first brought attention to the Environmental Scorecard in November of 2008 after an article published in the local newspaper, Ashland Daily Tidings, appeared.

Because of postmodernist changes in economic conditions

The current business environment is characterized by a considerable level of competitive rivalry and therefore businesses have to constantly reengineer their internal processes in order to build and maintain a competitive advantage. In this respect, a business organization has three strategies at its disposal: differentiation, cost-minimization and focus (cited in Dess, 2007).Because of postmodernist changes in economic conditions, businesses have been globalizing their operations in order to implement the strategy of cost minimization. This is because in some countries lower labor costs reduce the cost of operations. This enables businesses to build a competitive advantage.However given the high state of competitive rivalry in the current business environment, achieving sustainability is the critical success factor. Strategies of differentiation, cost minimization and focus cannot meet this objective of achieving sustainability. In order to meet this objective, the top management ha s to build the right organizational culture.Organizations structures must adapt constantly to the changes taking place in the external environment. As a result, the process of managing change becomes a critical success factor in the organizational context. When it comes to managing change involving an IT project, the strategic alignment process becomes relevant.This alignment takes place between IT strategy, business strategy, organizational issues and information systems issues. Managing change is a difficult process because alignment with strategic focus must be maintained. Otherwise the value of managing change will have been lost.In this regard, the critical consideration is to minimize the level of employee resistance. Most change management projects fail because of employee resistance. However the management can avoid this problem by involving the employees in the process from the beginning. In this respect, building an organizational culture based on ownership, responsibility and accountability is the critical success factor.This enables the management to enhance employee motivation.According to Hammer & Champy 1994, the process of reengineering internal business processes is best facilitated through implementing the balanced scorecard methodology. This methodology becomes particularly relevant in the context of David Harvey’s account of post-modernity. According to David Harvey’s account of post-modernity, the process of international business has facilitated the high speed of labor mobility.This means that working conditions cannot be monitored sufficiently. This is because businesses are reengineering their internal business processes in terms of globalizing their operations. The balanced scorecard methodology views the organization from four perspectives: financial, customer, learning and growth, and internal business processes.The advantage in managing change under the framework of the balanced scorecard is that this process emphasize s the interconnectedness between different process chains. This facilitates the development of the project management team.Because the different process chains are interconnected, managing change means that more than one department will be affected. This enhances the complexities of managing change. However the management must maintain the continuous improvement program as a result of post-modernity as described by David Harvey.This is because the rising level of competitive rivalry forces businesses to seek new segments of the market in order to maximize shareholder wealth. This leads to the process of globalization. Normally this would increase the cost of production since the supply chain must be managed on an international basis.However in the context of post-modernity as described by David Harvey, the management in an international business can conduct the process of global segmentation in order to standardize operations across political boundaries. This facilitates the impleme ntation of the strategy of cost minimization.This confirms the need for business process reengineering as described by Hammer & Champy, 1994. As a result of this framework for strategy formulation, the competitive advantage becomes sustainable.One of the critical considerations when it comes to globalization is the need for delegation of authority. This is because consumer tastes and preferences vary across political boundaries. As a result, businesses have to vary their strategies in order to target the local market effectively. However the international business environment is characterized by a fast pace of change and therefore, local business units must be given the autonomy to formulate their own strategies.However these strategies must be in alignment with the corporate strategic focus. For this reason, delegation of authority must be supported by an efficient and effective world-wide communications structure. However in the business environment characterized by post-modernity , businesses have to reengineer their internal operations in order to meet the demands of consumerism.This standardizes demand patterns to some extent and as a result reduces the cost of operations. This also leads to the development of a sustainable competitive advantage.

The First World Problems

America worries about problems that people in other countries would never get to dream of or even get to talk about in their lifetimes. America’s â€Å"first world problems† are things that usually are taken for granted. For example, the next updated electronic coming out or out and pair of tennis shoes put out on display at the stores. As Americans know that those items are all good to them, they don’t understand how a person from the eastern hemisphere struggling in a sweatshop for low pay deals with trying to get through to the day.In Where Sweatshops Are A Dream by Nickolas Kristof from the New York times, he agrees that sweatshops are bad yet proclaims that they are needed. His argument seems to kind of contradict each other. He emphasizes by exclaiming that poorer countries that do not have sweatshops have it worse because they have no work at all. As if he is trying to prove that some work is better than no work. He supports his argument by talking about h ow countries without the shops forced to plumage through garbage have it worse because they are more prone to injury and disease.Yet, he doesn’t inform readers about the situations in the actual sweatshops themselves. He doesn’t note that people in sweatshops are treated horribly every day. Sweatshop workers deal with getting lied to about pays, hours, beaten to severe injuries and even death. Kristof implies that having work is better than none and people in shops are better than in the streets. He may think they have things a little easier but it doesn’t mean that sweatshops are worth the effort and putting up more will change anything. If anything, it would increase the competiveness market, hence losing more jobs and other out in to the streets.