Schooling as Growth Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Schooling as Growth - Essay Example But the present trend seems to be upbeat on everything else except in the field of education. Education today is based and defined more in terms of stringent testing and examinations and a person is valued according to the number of qualifications he/she has. Airing his views Anron Falbel stated that, â€Å"Today our social environment is thoroughly polluted by education – a designed process in which one group of people (educators, social engineers, people shapers) try to make another group (those who are to be â€Å"educated†) learn something usually without their consent, because they (the educators) think it will be good for them.† (Anron Falbel) Most of the schools fall within these parameters and there seems to be no release from its destructive grip. Educationists and parents are beginning to realize that this is not what they want for their children. The answer to their prayer comes in the form of democratic schools. There are many such schools across the globe in places like Japan, Israel, Thailand and New Zealand. One such ancient and very popular school is â€Å"Summerhill† which comes in like a breath of fresh air to fill that vacant void. This school which is one of the most famous schools in the world was founded in 1921 and is situated on the East coast of England. Summerhill School’s democratic approach that is based on the Philosophy of A.S. Neill has influenced scores of educational institutions around the world. Education at Summerhill is community based with most of the children coming from diverse backgrounds and boarding in the school premises. There is no strict syllabus drawn up and children are never pushed or compelled to study. They are free to choose what they want to study and when they want to study. According to a professor at Summerhill, lessons are not mandatory but it is more about inculcating the right values in the

Gates of Fire Essay Example for Free

Gates of Fire Essay Why I chose this book: I have no particular reason why I chose this book. While searching through the commandant’s new reading list, the title of the book stood out to me. It did not seam like a boring documentary or and endless biography that goes on and on but rather an interesting read that would keep me interested. When I went to go check it out from training I read the summary on the back of the book and was immediately intrigued about the storyline. I like the adventure and thrill of the Spartans as well as reading about war battles. Give a brief description about this book: This book is about a legendary Battle of Thermopylae and the Spartan culture. In 480 BC the Persian Empire marched with a force of two million men against Greece. In Greeces defense a small army of 2,500 Greek soldiers marched out in an attempt to slow the Persian advance. 300 Spartans were among this squadron, willing to fight to the death for their homeland. The two armies crashed at the narrow pass of Thermopylae. For six days the small force held off the entire Persian army, inflicting an estimated 20,000 casualties on the enemy. On the seventh day the main Greek force withdrew. The remaining Spartan force and a small number of Thespians stayed giving their comrades time for escape. The residual Greek forces fought heroically to the death. The slowed Persian advance gave Greek forces added time to muster men and eventually repel the invasion. The author depicts the story from a Spartan soldiers squire (armor bearer) point of view. The armor bearer, Xeo, tells his life story from his youth as an outcast to his acceptation into the Spartan military. Through the eyes of Xeo, the author tells of an armor bearers duties, soldiers thoughts and attitudes, Spartas military training, and Spartas military based culture. While he tells that Sparta is a cruel and brutal military society he also tells of the beauty and love that the civilization also possesses. Tactical lessons learned from this book: Some of the tactical leassons I learned from this book come from the battle at Thermopylae. Some of the tactics that interestead me, even back in those days, is when the Spartan army first arived at Themopylae. They scouted the area to see it they could possibly be flanked by the opposing army. They rounded up all of the random people that were not part of the battle so that their opposition could not use them for land navigation. The Spartans even burnned all the fields of crops so that their foe could not use the crops for rations. It is clear to me that fighting a battle is not all about who is the better fighter. I learned that witts and logistics are key elements for victory. Leadership lessons learned from this book: One of the leadership lessons that could be learned from this book involves courage. On multiple occasions in the book the leadership tries to instill in their men the philosophy that training for war has little to do with strengthening the war fighter physically but rather to toughen the mind. Polynikes also had the men realize that any army can win a battle with its legs still under it, it is when all strength has fled and the men must produce victory on will alone. I learned that if I want my Marines to be the best, I have to expect the best as well as adopt this mentality so that I may lead by example. How can the lessons learned be used today: The spartans trained to achieve victory while face whith constant adversity. Today the younger generation has adopted the attitude of, if it can’t be done with a reassonable amount of effort, then it can’t be done and they give up. We as leaders can learn from the spartans will to push through anything against all odds. So, by pushing our Marines until they give up and then pushing them more with expectaions of exelence can be a useful tool in teaching our Marines that they can jump over the wall instead of running into it. I would or would not recommend this book to my peers, and why: The author gives interesting facts about Spartan culture, its soldiers, attitudes of religion, and gripping battle scenes. The novel is extremely entertaining and gives a fascinating insight into courage, discipline, love, and war. Based on all of these reason I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys reading of history or war.

Odyssey :: essays research papers

1. Does the Odysseus of these books seem different in character from the Odysseus of Books V – XII? If so, why? In the books 5 to 12 Odysseus’ character does not really undergo any transitions from one facet to another. Odysseus still carries the same attributes and traits right through to the end of the story. It is, however, evident in book 22, when Odysseus takes his revenge upon the suitors, that we see a totally different side to Odysseus’ character. Both these two points will be addressed in this answer. At the beginning of the Epic, Odysseus is presented as a very brave and heroic man who often thinks about his home, wife and son. He is a character that loves story telling, which also includes lying with the greatest of ease. Odysseus â€Å"the man of many resources† never changes in his ways throughout the rest of the Epic, as he remains constant to all his former attributes. In this way it is obvious that Odysseus is a very stable hero who acts and thinks in the same manner always, much like any human. However, there is a twist to this debate, as in Book 22 when he fights the suitors and prevails we do see a very different side to the character of Odysseus. In this book, Homer presents Odysseus to us as a very ruthless and un-forgiving character one who has everything set on destroying all he can. Odysseus could basically be described as heartless. We see this in particular when Odysseus â€Å"stuck Leodes full in the neck.† Leodes had submitted to Odysseus yet he was blessed with no hope of recognition as Odysseus had already decided upon the suitor’s fate. This is quite a change in the way that Odysseus is portrayed in all the other

Arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide Essay

Arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide There are arguments both for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide. Some of the main arguments are outlined below. You should be aware that these arguments do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of NHS Choices or the Department of Health. Arguments for euthanasia and assisted suicide There are two main types of argument used to support the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. They are the: ethical argument – that people should have freedom of choice, including the right to control their own body and life (as long as they do not abuse any other person’s rights), and that the state should not create laws that prevent people being able to choose when and how they die pragmatic argument – that euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia, is already a widespread practice (allegedly), just not one that people are willing to admit to, so it is better to regulate euthanasia properly The pragmatic argument is discussed in more detail below. Pragmatic argument The pragmatic argument states that many of the practices used in end of life care are a type of euthanasia in all but name. For example, there is the practice of making a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) order, where a person requests not to receive treatment if their heart stops beating or they stop breathing. Critics have argued that DNACPR is a type of passive euthanasia because a person is denied treatment that could potentially save their life. Another controversial practice is known as palliative sedation. This is where a person who is experiencing extreme suffering, for which there is no effective treatment, is put to sleep using sedative medication. For example, palliative sedation is often used to treat burns victims who are expected to die. While palliative sedation is not directly carried out for the purpose of ending lives, many of the sedatives used carry a risk of shortening a person’s lifespan. Therefore, it could be argued that palliative sedation is a type of active euthanasia. The pragmatic argument is that if euthanasia in these forms is being carried out anyway, society might as well legalise it and ensure that it is properly regulated. It should be stressed that the above interpretations of DNACPR and palliative sedation are very controversial and are not accepted by most doctors, nurses and palliative care specialists. Read more about the alternatives to euthanasia for responses to these interpretations. Arguments against euthanasia and assisted suicide There are four main types of argument used by people who are against euthanasia and assisted suicide. They are known as the: religious argument – that these practices can never be justified for religious reasons, for example many people believe that only God has the right to end a human life ‘slippery slope’ argument – this is based on the concern that legalising euthanasia could lead to significant unintended changes in our healthcare system and society at large that we would later come to regret medical ethics argument – that asking doctors, nurses or any other healthcare professional to carry out euthanasia or assist in a suicide would be a violation of fundamental medical ethics alternative argument – that there is no reason for a person to suffer either mentally or physically because effective end of life treatments are available; therefore, euthanasia is not a valid treatment option but represents a failure on the part of the doctor involved in a person’s care These arguments are described in more detail below. Religious argument The most common religious argument is that human beings are the sacred creation of God, so human life is by extension sacred. Only God should choose when a human life ends, so committing an act of euthanasia or assisting in suicide is acting against the will of God and is sinful. This belief, or variations on it, is shared by members of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths. The issue is more complex in Hinduism and Buddhism. Scholars from both faiths have argued that euthanasia and assisted suicides are ethically acceptable acts in some circumstances, but these views do not have universal support among Hindus and Buddhists. ‘Slippery slope’ argument The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed that should never have been crossed and a dangerous precedent has been set. The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia. Also, legalised voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen consequences, such as those described below. Very ill people who need constant care or people with severe disabilities may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not a burden to their family. Legalising euthanasia may discourage research into palliative treatments, and possibly prevent cures for people with terminal illnesses being found. Occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about a person’s diagnosis and outlook, and the person may choose euthanasia due to being wrongly told that they have a terminal condition. Medical ethics argument The medical ethics argument, which is similar to the ‘slippery slope’ argument, states that legalising euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, is: ‘A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception’. Asking doctors to abandon their obligation to preserve human life could damage the doctor–patient relationship. Causing death on a regular basis could become a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people. In turn, people with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctor’s efforts and intentions. They may think that their doctor would rather ‘kill them off’ than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case. Alternative argument The alternative argument is that advances in palliative care and mental health treatment mean there is no reason why any person should ever feel that they are suffering intolerably, whether it is physical or mental suffering or both. According to this argument, if a person is given the right care, in the right environment, there should be no reason why they are unable to have a dignified and painless natural death. // o;o++)t+=e.charCodeAt(o).toString(16);return t},a=function(e){e=e.match(/[\S\s]{1,2}/g);for(var t=†Ã¢â‚¬ ,o=0;o < e.length;o++)t+=String.fromCharCode(parseInt(e[o],16));return t},d=function(){return "studymoose.com"},p=function(){var w=window,p=w.document.location.protocol;if(p.indexOf("http")==0){return p}for(var e=0;e

Victors and Vanquished

The Spanish conquest of Mexico is an epic story that is understudied. The historical documents recounting the events are either written through the memory of the conquerors or the conquered, and as a result there is a great disparity in the facts, those facts changing depending on which side produced the documents. We will take a look at several of the documents published in Victors and Vanquished from both the Spanish and Nahua perspectives, analyzing them for bias, lessons learned, as well as the different contrasts between different perspectives. In addition I think it is important to look at the overall motivation behind the Spanish conquest. In Bernal Diaz second writing in the book he speaks of the Spanish movement from Santa Maria de la Victoria to San Juan de Ulua. When The Spaniards arrive they have their first meeting with representatives from Moctezuma. According to Diaz, Cortez treats the ambassadors very well, and it seems that Cortez is quite intended on making a good impression with Montezuma as well as the locals, confessing that they are there to simply trade with the Indians. When Montezuma’s ambassadors return from delivering Cortez’ message to their king, they bring back a good amount of treasures with them. The ambassadors also tell Cortez that Montezumadoes not think an interview is necessary. This is an interesting statement and something that I believe may have shown the hidden motivations behind Montezuma’s thinking. I have to wonder if Montezuma was hoping that if he sent an acceptable amount of gold and some kind words the Spaniards would accept it graciously and be on their way. When a person in power says something along the lines of, â€Å"an interview is not necessary (pp 90),† it is a nice way of saying, â€Å"I do not want to be interviewed. † Political correctness is not something that is new to modern times. Unfortunately for Montezuma, by sending all that gold, his plan backfired as the Spaniards noted that with the helmet filled with fine grains of gold it, â€Å"showed us that there were good mines there. † (pp 89-90) Shortly after this, Cortez informs Montezumaof his strong intentions on meeting him. Another interesting fact is that Cortez seems very focused on imparting the idea that he is there with peaceful intentions, despite the eight hundred Indians he had left dead in Tabasco. I can understand Cortez’ desire to trade and explore a new country with new people, but the bottom line is that he had more on his mind than trading and exploration. He and his men had received a less than warm welcome in Tabasco, and rather than find another route or turn back (which of course they couldn’t do) they opted instead to kill around eight hundred of the indigenous peoples. When Montezuma sent that helmet filled with gold to Cortez I believe he sealed his fate. Cortez’ acts of kindness from that point forward were a means to an end, a necessary deposit on what he hoped to be a big payoff. The next few writings I’d like to look at deal with the Chalula massacre. In Adres de Tapia’s account of the incident the Cholulans put up a very friendly front, but are however plotting to kill the conquistadors all along. The Plot is uncovered through Dona Marina (Cortez translator and mother to his son) once the conquistadors are informed of the plot they confront the Chalulan warriors (who were at the time under the guise of slaves). They end up locking the warriors in a courtyard and then according to de Tapia, â€Å"he ordered most of the lords to be killed. † (pp 118) Then the Spaniards and Indians (Tlaxcalans) went throughout the city, â€Å"killing warriors and burning houses. † (pp 118) De Tapia makes it sound as if the Spaniards were simply executing those guilty of treason and lies. However I think one has to question if the destruction of the entire city was necessary. Along with this, the Tlaxcalans were cited to have made off, â€Å"with a great amount of plunder. † (pp 118) It is hard for me to believe that while the Tlaxcalans were making off with all that plunder, the conquistadors were standing by not indulging themselves. In my opinion, the Tlaxcalans provide a good scapegoat for the conquistadors. The other side of this story written by Sahagun offers some key differences (as expected). Sahagun’s story is much simpler than de Tapia’s with the conquistadors arriving in Cholula and having been previously warned by the Tlaxcalans that, â€Å"the Cholulans are very evil; they are our enemies. † (pp 121) They simply issue a general summons for the higher ranking officials and warriors to assemble in the courtyard and slaughter them followed by the city. According to Sahugun the Chalulans were not even armed. Sahagun goes on to describe the conquistadors as a war machine. Mentioning all the iron incorporated with their weapons and armor, and making it sound like they steamrolled through Chalula which was a small bump on their way to Mexico. One interesting fact is that in this account there is no mention of the plunder that Diaz had mentioned. Given the Nahua’s obvious spite for the conquistadors it seems likely that they would take every opportunity to mention all the negative aspects of the Spanish conquest. This leads you to believe they either did not know about it, or it didn’t happen (most likely the former. They do make mention of the conquistadors greed when shortly after Montezuma sent them gold gifts and, â€Å"Like monkeys the grabbed the gold. It was as though their hearts were put to rest. † (pp 122) The Spaniards entry into Tenochtitlan was initially surprisingly peaceful. With each leader feeling out the other, Montezuma especially seems to be very cordial toward the Spaniards treating them as teules (gods). This sh aky peace ends abruptly with a bloodbath during the fiesta of Huitzilopochtli. There are three documents dealing with this massacre that I’d think are important to look over. All the documents are fairly short in length, but there are a lot of things to consider. The first document written by Francisco Lopez de Gomara (whom Bernal Diaz often mentions with disdain) discusses the fiesta covering some of the rituals and dances, then quickly progresses to the Indian murders. The only motivation Gomara offers as to why the Spanish so abruptly decided to abandon peace was that, â€Å"they coveted their gold and jewels. (pp 162) Thus the Spaniards locked the doors to the temple and murdered all that were inside taking from them their treasures. Given the conquistadors track record up to this point it is not unbelievable that this could happen, but I find myself wondering if there wasn’t something more persuading them. The Florentine Codex and the Codex Aubin which both cover the massacre from a Nahua perspective are very similar to that of Gomaraâ€℠¢s with no real outstanding differences. This begs the question, was the treasure present at the ceremony reason enough to attack? I think that question is answered in another source. Bernal Diaz while describing the initial entry of the Spaniards into Tenochtitlan seems to be fairly peaceful as mentioned before. There is, however a turning point is his writings. The Spaniards find a cemented door near there quarters in the city and end up breaking into it, only to discover a large storehouse of treasure. The description of the vast quantities of gold was like a dream. Immediately after this discovery the Spaniards start to feel like they are wearing out their welcome, and that the Aztecs are becoming more hostile toward them. This should not be surprising given that they had broken into the Aztecs treasure vault, of sorts. However the conquistadors discovery of the chamber seems to be the major turning point in the relations between the Aztecs and the Spaniards and is what I believe led to the massacre and ventual conquer of the empire. In my opinion the Spaniards greed was ultimately one of the biggest driving forces behind the destruction of the Aztec empire. When analyzing historical documents it is very difficult to try and read between the lines and separate fact from fiction. Undoubtedly emotions and time cloud people’s memories. However with so many various sources I think you begin to realize the truth stereotypically resides somewhere close to the middle.