How effective was Richard III as a king from 1483 †1485? Essay

At first, to associate Richard II with effectiveness seems an odd thing to do. He is a king with one of the shortest reigns in English history. He came to a violent end and his death was not only the end of the Yorkist dynasty, but also an end to the male line of the Plantagenet dynasty that had been on the throne since Henry VI in 1154. Richard III has always been one of the better-known losers of history, with an appalling reputation for excessive ambition and ruthlessness. He was also in the only king to die in battle with the exception of Harold II (Godwinsson) in 1066. On the other hand, there is some evidence of his being an effective monarch. He was an active and hardworking king who wanted to se his ideas firmly established across England. He was also a pious man with a well-used book of hours. He had ability as a soldier and administrator. He also courted popularity by many means. He was dedicated to the promotion of justice, especially for the poor. This was shown in a proclamation issued in Kent following the 1483 rebellion, â€Å"the king’s highness is fully determined to see due administration of justice throughout his realm†¦and to reform, punish and subdue all extortions and oppressions the same.† In addition to the proclamation, Richard also showed his desire to enforce law and order with equality by supplications. This meant access to law was opened up to people who could previously not afford it. Richard’s first act as king was to deliver a strict lecture to his judges in Westminster Hall on the impartial administration of justice for all his subjects. Another way of improving his popularity was to abolish benevolences, which had been greatly resented during Edward IV’s reign. This began to happen when, after his coronation, he went on progress around and made a point of declining benevolences offered to him, stating that he would not practice the extortions of his brother’s reign. The official abolition occurred in 1484. He also established the College of Arms in 1484 and transferred Henry VI’s remains to Windsor, a political gesture, showing that he was respectful towards the dead. Although Richard III had a fairly narrow power base, he did use patronage effectively, especially towards the nobility. This can be shown by his generosity to the duke of Norfolk. His rewards included his duchy, his share of the Mowbray inheritance and the estates of the earl of Oxford. Another nobleman who benefited from Richard’s patronage was the duke of Buckingham, who was amply rewarded for his involvement in Richard’s usurpation, receiving the constableship of England among other things. Richard III showed his courage and his ability to use his powers as king in the speed of his suppression of the 1483 rebellion. The uprising occurred in October in the counties south of the Thames, led by former servants of Edward IV. The duke of Buckingham joined it at a later stage. Large parts of the south were rebelling for over a month, but although the rebellion was serious and threatening, it failed. This was largely due to Richard’s vigilance and effective use of spies. He used the duke of Norfolk to crush the rebels in the South East, and concentrated his own efforts effectively against Buckingham. Due to a combination of Buckingham’s failure to raise support from his tenantry, an exceptional storm that kept him trapped in Wales and his betrayal in Shropshire, Buckingham was brought to Salisbury under Richard’s power and executed in December 1483. In two months the rebellion had been effectively quashed. An important measure of good kingship is the domestic government. Richard continued and developed the Yorkist system of government, including the chamber system begun by his brother, Edward IV. He continued the policy of recovering lapsed feudal dues and improved the Crown’s demesne through forfeiture. He was particularly vigilant in the promotion of law and order as explained previously, establishing the master of requests, John Harrington. He also established the Council of the North to fill the power vacuum he had left under his nephew, the earl of Lincoln. This meant that no one noble was given extreme power, thus limiting opposition to the crown. However, there is an equal amount of evidence suggesting that Richard III was an ineffective king. Although some aspects of his domestic government were strong, as explained in the previous paragraph, his foreign policy was largely unsuccessful. This is shown by the fact that Henry Tudor gained foreign backing to enable him to invade England in 1485. Part of Richard’s failure was due to bad luck. He had inherited a conflict with Scotland and strained relations with the French, as a result of the treaty of Arras in 1482. The situation was worsened after the death of Louis XI because a situation similar to that before Richard’s usurpation had arisen. The French Government did not want noblemen attempting usurpations after being in contact with Richard III, so shut down relations further. By making a truce with Brittany, Richard III suggested the possible renewal of the Triple Alliance and a possible English invasion to the French Government, which increased their hostilit y. Although Richard III continued and developed the chamber system that had proved so effective during Edward IV’s reign, however, his expenditure was greater than his income and he had growing financial problems by 1485. He was frequently accused of wasting the surplus gained in his predecessor’s reign, although Edward’s military expenses, his funeral and Richard’s own coronation, had considerably reduced it. By 1485 it was necessary for him to request loans from his greater subjects, which were largely not granted and deeply resented. There is also another side to the argument concerning the 1483 rebellion. Richard’s speedy reaction to the rebellion meant that a lot of the danger was reduced; however it did continue to have a detrimental effect on his authority and power-base throughout his reign. Many of the rebel leaders had escaped and crossed the channel to join Henry Tudor in Brittany forming a court in exile. This turned Henry Tudor into a more serious threat and lost Richard a great deal of support. The rebellion also signified the failure to project himself as Edward’s natural successor due to the high number of his brother’s servants who rebelled. Therefore he attempted to impose his rule upon the southern subjects by putting members of his northern retinue in positions of power in the South. This only served to increase resentment as the southern gentry felt these positions were rightly theirs. Only one member of the southern gentry fought with Richard III at the battle of Bosworth. Richard failed to swing the opinions of the â€Å"super-magnates† in his favour. These were a few very powerful men scattered around the country whose support really mattered. This can be shown with the earl of Northumberland. Although he was instrumental in Richard’s rise to power he wasn’t given power over the North as he had expected, and was under the control of the Council of the North chaired by the earl of Lincoln who was an outsider to northern affairs. Thomas Lord Stanley was also important by his ability to change sides at the most opportune moment. Due to Richard III’s failure to firmly secure Lord Stanley on his side, Stanley intervened at the battle of Bosworth at a crucial time against Richard and aided in his loss of the battle. Propaganda was another weak area of Richard’s kingship, which is demonstrated by the ineffectiveness of his 1484 act. This was meant to confirm the validity of Richard III’s claim to the throne and act as proclamation against Henry Tudor. This stated the marriage of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV was invalid; therefore any children were illegitimate; that the children of Clarence were debarred from the succession by his attainder; condemned the government of Edward IV due to the Woodville influence, described as harmful to English security, immoral and corrupt. Very few of Richard’s subjects believed the content of the proclamation and it did no good to Richard III’s popularity. Although some of the problems during Richard’s reign were doubtless caused by his personal mistakes almost all of them were reinforced by bad luck. For example, the breakdown of relations with France was already begun in Edward’s reign due to the bitterness caused by the terms of the Treaty of Arras. There is another argument that Richard III could never be a truly effective king due to the nature of his rise to power. This idea means that he was not ineffective because of his own personal abilities but his actions in 1483 meant he faced continual opposition from the day he seized power. Despite how historians have attempted to justify Richard’s usurpation, it was unique in the murder of his nephew’s, showing an extreme level of naked aggression, which shocked even the most hardened of hearts. Although all usurpations have a certain aspect of aggression and ambition, Richard alone isolated so many key groups and is essential the only failed, not establishing his dynasty successfully, usurpation in English history. The case against Richard III concerning the princes in the tower is extremely strong. The rumours concerning their death were politically harmful to Richard III and could easily be scotched by producing the Princes. However, Richard failed to ever offer any alternative evidence to their disappearance. His only counter-argument was under the pretext of protecting them, which did not satisfy his subjects. This lack of faith in Richard III led to the emergence of a Tudor-Woodville alliance as an alternative leadership. Many important members of the English gentry joined the Tudor-Woodville alliance, notably Buckingham when he joined the 1483 rebellion. More members of the gentry joined Henry Tudor in Brittany following the rebellion, as Richard did not succeed in executing the leading rebels. This led to the creation of an alternative court in Brittany allowing Henry Tudor to build up his support base and strengthen his position. Many contributing factors led to Richard II’s failure to widen his power-base. Although he had a very large retinue, who he relied on implicitly, it was too narrow a political base to be secure. This was partly due to Richard’s own personality; he was a suspicious man in general, generous to those who earned his trust, but unwilling to let many close to him. However it was also due to the hostility of a large portion of the population towards him. Richard was never popular in the south and many others could not overcome their personal worries about his self-serving ambition. This meant he was entrapped within the narrow base of his northern support. Although I have explained previously in this essay many ways in which Richard III attempted to win popularity, none seemed to work. The methods employed by Richard, when other kings in history had used them did succeed in gaining support, so it was not due to Richard’s own effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Again the opposition towards him appears to have been based on the events of 1483 where his actions were interpreted as desperate, ruthless and hypocritical. It was not only his supposed murder of his nephews that caused resentment, people in the City of London were also against his murder of Lord Hastings during his time as protector, and uproar was only prevented through the use of Richard’s retinue. Overall I believe that Richard III was ineffective as a monarch between 1483 and 1485. However, this is not wholly because of his individual character, but mainly the events and singularly ambitious nature of his usurpation that he could not conquer by any means. As A.R. Myers said in England and the Late Middle Ages â€Å"Had he come to the throne in the normal way, his ability†¦might have given him a long and successful reign. As it was†¦[his] qualities were not enough to overcome the formidable hostility to him.†

Pure Hatred Essay

Introduction It is so depressing to say that hate, the most powerful of human emotions is still rampant in today’s world. Despite decades of struggles for civil rights, sad stories of hatred are still being told. A lot of individuals have to walk the streets of cities, the halls of schools and offices, and even the rooms of their own houses in fear. Around this world people are still being attacked because of their race, their sex, or their religion. In this new millennium, is it going to be possible to create a safer environment for all people? Can each country become the â€Å"Land of the Free†? Sadly, individuals and groups that espouse hate are still active in the country. The horrific events of September 11, 2001, and the terrorism that has followed in its wake have made it even more important now than in the past to understand the nature of hate. Given the overwhelming displays of hate currently being displayed in the world, we have a responsibility to seek an understanding of hate, its causes, and its consequences and how to combat it and achieve a culture of peace (Brenes & Du Nann Winter, 201; Brenes & Wessells, 124). Typical Definitions of Hate The typical formulations of hate, those by Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, and Darwin are notable for their contradictions. For Descartes (1694/1989), hate was an awareness of an object as something bad and an urge to withdraw from it. For Spinoza (1677/1985), it was a case of pain (sadness) accompanied by a perception of some external cause. For Aristotle (trans. 1954), the distinguishing phenomenological fact about hate was that it is pain-free (in addition to being incurable by time and striving for the annihilation of its object). Hume (1739-1740/1980) argued that neither love nor hate can be defined at all, because both are irreducible feelings with the introspective immediacy of sensory impressions. Darwin (1872/1998) also saw hate as a special feeling, one that lacks a distinct facial sign and manifests itself as rage. Hatred is causes of bitter sorrow. We find ourselves in repugnance and anger in the presence of one we hate. The joy of hate is being caused by the suffering, loss of power and reputation of the hated person. Shand (192) described hate as a syndrome, or a bundle of episodic dispositions united by a common emotional object or a common category of such objects. The key feature of such a syndrome is that a person may be legitimately characterized as having it without being imputed any corresponding episodic state. Modern Conceptions of Hate Sternberg (123) recently proposed that both disgust and contempt are special kinds of hate, â€Å"cold hate† and â€Å"cool hate,† respectively (see also Oatley & Johnson- Laird, 87, for a claim that hate is a derivative of disgust). Steinberg’s proposal is part of a broad theoretical typology based on the principle that, like love, hate can be characterized in terms of three action-feelings components: (a) intimacy (more precisely, the negation thereof), (b) passion, and (c) commitment. The feelings and actions associated with the first (negation of intimacy) component include revulsion-disgust and distancing, respectively. Fight-or-flight is the action pattern, and anger-fear are the feelings attending the passion element. The last (commitment) component involves an attempt to devalue the target of hatred through contempt. On the basis of this triangular structure, Sternberg posited a variety of hates. There is, for example, the already mentioned â€Å"cool hate,† composed solely of disgust, and â€Å"hot hate,† composed solely of the anger-fear combination. There are also â€Å"cold hate† (devaluation through contempt alone), â€Å"boiling hate† (disgust + anger-fear), â€Å"simmering hate† (disgust + contempt), â€Å"seething hate† (passion + commitment; also called â€Å"revilement†), and, finally, â€Å"burning hate,† which includes all three action-feelings components. True hate, he argued, is an emotion of intimacy, respect, and strength—†There can be no hatred in weakness† (Solomon, 326); he saw this equality of power as part of hate’s special mythology, ensuring that the antagonism involves an element of â€Å"mutual respect.† Though Solomon referred to hate as an emotion, the general affective construct that appears to fit best his own characterization of hate dynamics is that of a syndrome. Types of Hate Hate as an Emotion The hate as an emotion occurs based on the individual emotional experience. It is an emotion where people have to experience that affect the way they live. People come to hate other people whom have mistreated them. Hate that we learn as an Idea It is a long-standing hatred even of people they have never met, simply on the basis of belonging to groups in conflict or as an idea. Prejudice and Discrimination Prejudice is a negative attitude toward an entire category of people, often an ethnic or racial minority. People who have an obvious difference make prejudice easier. If you resent your roommate because he or she is sloppy, you are not necessary guilty of prejudice. However, if you immediately stereotype your roommate on the basis of such characteristics as race, ethnicity, or religion, that is a form of prejudice. Prejudice tends to perpetuate false definitions of individuals and groups. One important and widespread form of prejudice is racism, the belief that one race is supreme and all others are innately inferior. When racism prevails in a society, members of subordinate groups generally experience prejudice, discrimination, and exploitation. In 1990, as concern mounted about racist attacks in the United States, Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. This law directs the Department of Justice to gather data on crimes motivated by the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In 2000 alone, more than 8,063 hate crimes were reported to authorities. Some 54 percent of these crimes against persons involved racial bias, whereas another 18 percent involved religious bias, 16 percent sexual orientation bias, and 11 percent ethnic bias (Department of Justice 2001a). A particularly horrifying hate crime made the front pages in 1998: In Jasper, Texas, three White men with possible ties to race-hate groups tied up a Black man, beat him with chains, and then dragged him behind their truck until his body was dismembered. Numerous groups in the United States have been victims of hate crimes as well as generalized prejudice. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, hate crimes against Asian Americans and Muslim Americans escalated rapidly. Prejudice is also happening against Arab Americans and Muslims who live in the United States (226). The activity of organized hate groups appears to be increasing, both in reality and in virtual reality. Although only a few hundred such groups may exist, there were at least 2,000 websites advocating racial hatred on the Internet in 1999. Particularly troubling were sites disguised as video games for young people, or as â€Å"educational sites† about crusaders against prejudice, like Martin Luther King, Jr. The technology of the Internet has allowed race-hate groups to expand far beyond their traditional southern base to reach millions (Sandberg, 105). Hate causes Violence Hate is the most powerful human emotion exists that causes violence. It is a disease like tuberculosis. It may infect others, but it inevitably destroys the hater, diminishing his humanity and perverting the purpose and promise of life itself.   A special case of ostensive formulation might be found in the concept of the so-called hate crime. Hate crimes can be defined as criminal offenses in which the defendant’s conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of another individual or group of individuals. A more extensive definition can be found in the California Penal Code, which says that: â€Å"Hate crimes . . . means any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force, or the threat of physical force directed against any person, or family, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by the hostility to the real or perceived eth nic background, national origin, religious belief, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear and intimidation.† Hate crimes are not separate offenses, however, and it is important to realize that many types of felonies can be prosecuted as hate crimes. Hate crime laws, which have developed during the past decade or two, simply enhance or increase the penalties associated with serious offenses that fall into the â€Å"hate crimes† category. At the 1994 is typical of such legislation. The act provides for enhanced sentences where a federal offense is determined to be a hate crime. The federal Hate Crime Statistics Act, signed into law by then-President Bush in April 1990, mandates an annual statistical tally of hate crimes throughout the country. Data collection under the law began in January 1991. Yearly statistics show approximately 10,000 reported instances of hate crimes, including about a dozen murders. Most hate crimes (approximately 65 percent) appear to be motivated by racial bias, while religious hatred (15 percent) and sexual orientation (12 percent) account for most of the remainder. Many hate crimes that are reported fall into the category of â€Å"intimidation,† although vandalism, simple assault, and aggravated assault also account for a fair number of hate crime offenses. Notable in recent years has been a spate of church burnings throughout the south where congregations have been predominantly African-American. A few robberies and rapes are also classified under the hate crime umbrella in any given year. Hate crimes are sometimes also called bias crimes. One form of bias crime that bears special mention is homophobic homicide. Homophobic homicide is a term that refers to the murder of homosexuals by those opposed to their lifestyles.   Some hate crimes are committed by organized hate groups. According to the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center (457) organized hate groups operated in the United States in 1999. Another so-called â€Å"patriot† organizations, many with separatist leanings based on race or ethnicity, existed throughout the country. Some hate crime laws have not passed constitutional muster, often because they have run afoul of First Amendment concerns over free speech. In 1992, for example, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a St. Paul, Minnesota, city ordinance designed to prevent the bias-motivated display of symbols or objects, such as Nazi swastikas or burning crosses. Also in 1992, in the case of Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, the Court held that a county requirement regulating parades was unconstitutional because it also regulated freedom of speech—in this case a plan by an affiliate of the Ku Klux Klan to parade in opposition to a Martin Luther King birthday celebration. Some writers have noted that statutes intended to control hate crimes may contravene constitutional guarantees if they: (1) are too vague, (2) criminalize thought more than action, (3) attempt to control what would otherwise be free speech, and deny equal protection of the laws to those who wish to express their personal biases. Examples of effective hate crime legislation can be found in a Wisconsin law that increases penalties for most crimes when the offender â€Å"Intentionally selects the person against whom the crime . . . is committed or selects the property that is damaged or otherwise affected by the crime . . . in whole or in part because of the actor’s belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the actor’s belief or perception was correct.†Wisconsin’s penalty enhancement statute was upheld in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that Mitchell, a black man whose severe beating of a white boy was racially motivated, could be punished with additional severity as permitted by Wisconsin law because he acted out of â€Å"race hatred.† The Court called the assault â€Å"conduct unprotected by the First Amendment† and upheld the Wisconsin statute saying, â€Å"[since] the statute has no ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad.† In 2000, however, the Supreme Court, in the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey,struck down a New Jersey law that allowed judges to sentence offenders to longer prison terms for crimes motivated by racism or other bias. The law did not require that prosecutors prove to a jury that an offense was a â€Å"hate crime† under state law. Are there Any Cures for Hate? There is no magic bullet cure for hate. There are several possible steps, however. Indeed, Staub (240, 124) devised a program for intervening in cases of mass killings and violence (see also Veale & Dona, 147). At the very least, one can start by modifying negative stereotypes, which can be done with some success (Blair & Banaji, 219; Mackie, Allison, Worth, & Asuncion, 156). In general, people need to: †¢ understand the triangular nature of hate and its escalation with successive triangular components so that one can recognize its often subtle presence; †¢ understand how hate is fomented through stories, often by way of propaganda; †¢ understand how hate can lead to massacres and genocide through the translation of feeling triangles into action triangles; †¢ combat feelings of impotence with constructive rather than destructive responses, and act against hate and its consequences rather than stand by as passive observers, as the world so often has done; †¢ realize that passive observation and often attempts at reason enacted in the hope that hate-based massacres and genocides will go away are perceived as weaknesses and tend to encourage rather than to discourage violence; and †¢ combat hate with wisdom. There is no complete cure for hate. Cognitive comprehension of a destructive psychological process does not insulate people from experiencing it. But given the destruction hate has caused over time and geography, there is a need to understand it, its consequences, and ways to at least try to combat it through understanding and especially through action. Indeed, there are few areas of psychology for which it equally can be said that action speaks louder than words. Many of the ways of combating hate are the same that one would use in resolving conflict situations and achieving peace (Christie, Wagner, & Du Nann Winter, 238), including creation of win-win situations, building trust between groups, sharing information, each side asking questions of the other, generating multiple alternative options, and seeking understanding of groups to which one does not belong (Boardman, 149; Isenhart & Spangle, 259). Sometimes when a group communicates to the other the story of what its members have experienced, they can come to an understanding of each other that is not possible when people stay silent and fail to communicate (Albeck, Adwan, & Bar-On, 162). When wrongs have been committed, no solution may be possible unless both sides are willing to forgive (Azar& Mullet, 95). Building tolerance and creating a culture of peace and a society in which people share equally in rights and in participation in the society can go a long way toward resolving problems of violence and hate (Christie & Dawes, 2001; Miall, Ramsbotham, & Woodhouse, 199; Montiel & Wessells, 221). The question is whether people have sufficient good will to achieve this goal. Combating hate requires, first and foremost, taking responsibility for it, its perpetrators, and its consequences. Ultimately, the best way to combat hate may be through wisdom (Steinberg, 198). Intelligent people may hate; wise people do not. People like Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and Nelson Mandela had the same human passions as any of us, but in their wisdom, they moved beyond hate to embrace love and peace. The balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 198) defines wisdom as the application of intelligence, creativity, and experience toward a common good by balancing one’s own interests with others’ interests and institutional interests over the long and short terms. By definition, wise people do not hate others because they care about the individual’s (or group’s) wellbeing as well as their own or that of their group. They seek solutions that embrace the legitimate interests of others as well as of themselves. Someone who cares about another’s interests and well-being cannot hate that person, in part because he or she cannot dehumanize that other. Schools typically teach children knowledge and to think intelligently. But they rarely teach for wisdom. Indeed, in many schools across the globe, they teach hate for one group or another. Ultimately, if society wishes to combat hate, its schools and institutions need to teach students to think wisely. They then will realize that hate is not the solution to any legitimate life problem. Indeed, it foments rather than solves problems. But to teach for wisdom requires wisdom, and so far, the possession of that wisdom is a challenge that many fail to meet, not because we cannot meet it, but rather, because we choose not to. It is to be hoped that, in the future, people will make the better choice—for wisdom rather than for foolishness and the hate that can arise from it. Conclusion To sum up, despite much recent attention to hate as a topic of discussion and intervention, there currently exists no generally accepted definition and cure of hate. More grievously, there is nothing approaching a consensus on how to delimit the domain within which such a definition would fall. Meanings of hate differ both across and within contexts. Thus, it remains unclear if different authors are indeed discussing or intervening against the same thing. The situation raises a number of questions: Why this cornucopia of meaning? How are psychologists to characterize the underlying disagreements? How they to decide which disagreements are are substantive and which are purely semantic? How are people to decide who is right and who is wrong? What would it mean to be right or wrong in this context? These are just some trying questions about hate, to which the answers are still unclear. But one thing is clear, definitely hate is not the answer and we have to control ourselves emotionally and change our minds for the better. WORKS CITED Albeck, J. H., Adwan, S., & Bar-On, D. Dialogue groups: TRT’s guidelines for working through intractable conflicts by personal storytelling. Peace and Conflict: journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 301-322, 2002. Aristotle. The rhetoric and the poetics o fAristotk (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). New York: Modern Library, 1954. (Original work written ca. 340 B.C.) Azar, F., & Mullet, E. Willingness to forgive: A study of Muslim and Christian Lebanese. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 17-30, 2002. Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1142-1163, 1996. Boardman, S. K. Resolving conflict: Theory and practice. Peace andConftict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 157-160, 2002. Brenes, A., &. Du Nann Winter, D. Earthly dimensions of peace: The Earth charter. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 157-171, 2001. Brenes, A., & Wessells, M. Psychological contributions to building cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 99-107, 2001. Christie, D. J., & Dawes, A. Tolerance and solidarity. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 131-142, 2001. Christie, D.J, R. V. Wagner, R.V. & Winter, D.D. 2001, Peace, Conflict and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.,106, 2001. Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. (Original work published 1872) Department of Justice. Hate Crime Statistics, 2000. Washington, D C: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001a (Accessed October 16, 2002). Descartes, R. On the passions of the soul (S. Voss., Trans.). Indianapolis, IN, 1989. (Original work published 1694) Hume, D. A treatise of human nature. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1980 (Original work published 1739-1740). Isenhart, M., & Spangle, M. Collaborative approaches for resolving conflict. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000. Mackie, D. M., Allison, S. T., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1992). The generalization of outcome-biased counter-stereotypic inferences, journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 43-64, 1992. Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. Contemporary conflict resolution. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1999. Montiel, C. }., & Wessells, M. (2001). Democratization, psychology, and the construction of cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7,119-129, 2001. Shand, A. F. The foundations of character (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan, 1920. Solomon, R. The passions. New York: Anchor Books, 1977. Spinoza, B.Ethics. In E. Curley (Ed.), The collected works of Spinoza (Vol. 1, pp. 408-617). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. (Original work published 1677) Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Sternberg, R. J. Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36, 227-245, 2001. Sternberg, R. J. A duplex theory of hate and its development and its application to terrorism, massacres, and genocides. Review of General Psychology, 7, 299-328, 2003. Veale, A., & Dona, G. Psychosocial interventions and children’s rights: Beyond clinical discourse. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8,47-61, 2002.

A personal performance manifesto based on the 21st century

A Manifesto is a document that seeks to pass certain information about a certain issue as viewed by somebody.   Personal performance Manifestos as such, are therefore documents that consists of an Individual’s views, about how an artiste presentations should be created and presented.Performance Manifesto history   can be traced back to the early 1910’s when groups of artists   which included futurists, Dadaists and the likes, used them   to express their views on what art really   was and what it encompassed.There after performance manifesto have been recurrently used with main embassies associated to avant-garde Modernism.   Thus rise in the use of personal performance manifesto can be also associated to the emergence of internet technology which has created a potential world wide audience.According to Tristan Tzara (A historical artist), A performance manifesto is like a communication made to the whole world, whose main pretension is on the discovery of an instant cure for political, social, astronomical, economical artiste and literary syphilis. (Lee   Scivner ).   Performance of artiste presentations since their start hundreds of years back has undergone a series of transformation.This has been occasioned by things like, changing level of technology and preferences of people among many other reasons.   Performance of hundred years back is very different with contemporary performances in many aspects ranging from the styles, genres among many other aspects.However, these changes are not enough to satisfy the needs of the contemporary society.   Worse still the rapid change have caused some other valuable aspects which were common in historical performances to be ignored. Due to the above two reasons personal performance manifestos have been on the increase especially from critics and friends of theatre.A keen scrutinization of majority of this performance manifesto shows a uniform, a similar and a common argument, that the c ontemporary society is becoming more informed day by day and hence needs retirement and competency in general theatric performance.To begin, it would be fair to say that the contemporary society is dying to see a performance that is socio-political, economic, and erotical, mystical, that does not just make people amused for exchange of their hard-earned cash.The contemporary society needs performances that grows up not knowing it is performance at all, a performance given the chance of having a string point of zero.(Harron, C. and Wood, P (2006) Art in Theory, 1900 – 2000 an anthology of changing ideas. 2 ed. USA Blackwell Publishing).The above things can only be achieved by doing away with bourgeois sickness, commercialized culture, work of dead performance, imitation, artificial performance, Abstract performance, illusionist performance and Mathematical performances.   Inn addition all people including both materially and morally (Fluxes manifestation by George Meckonaz à ¢â‚¬â€œ 1963).Once more contemporary society is desperate for performance that will integrate many cultures of the world.   We are living in a world full of socio-political and economic injustices and therefore any avenue which seeks to take us away from these injustices is highly welcomed.In many instances performances have been staged with the main aim of addressing these injustices but sincerely speaking it has not been enough.   Therefore there is a great need form performance which will integrate the diverse cultures in view of addressing the above injustices which in most cases are brought about by cultural differences.Art, Music and Poetry the three mean genres of performance need to be fully recognized by the relevant authorities.   It is only by due recognizers that the quality of performance will be improved. This is because potential and practicing performances will start taking their work seriously and therefore give a performance which is in line with 21st Century performance expectations.   The relevant authorities have included Ministries in charge of social affairs and governments.The above views and opinions about the fate of performance in respect to 21st century expectations do not mean the state of performance as of now are pathetic.   This is only an eye opener to the stakeholders in the performance industry so that they can pull up their socks and live to the standards of the changing world.As a matter of fact contemporary performance can be said to be among the very many sectors which have struggled to stay in level with changes of time and technology.   It is not a surprise therefore new styles of performance have sprouted all over.For instance in Music new styles have come up with the latest being hi-hop music.   Contemporary artists (sculptors, painters) Writers, Poets are also doing a commendable job but t is imperative that they put more efforts in their work to stay in level with the 21st Century demands.Another area sensitive to performance industry is production of artistic works.   This is where contemporary performance is failing as compared to historic performances.   With emerging technology it is obvious production of artists work is done with care and without any problems arising, but it is sad to not that unscrupulous   pirates are making use of improvement in technology to come up with illegal publications of these artistic works without the consent of the artists producer.This needs to be done away with once and for all, so as to let the real beneficiaries of royalties coming from the sale of their music.This manifesto also covers the improvement of performance instruments and equipments as another key method of taking performances in general to a higher level in relation to 21st Century.   Most of artistic performances require the accompaniment of instruments. As such, therefore latest instruments and equipments need to be invented and pt into constant use.   Many are time when potential performers are limited to the option of producing their items.   This is sometimes due to lack of enough funds to access the equipments.There is dire need also to change the mode of presentation of performances..   A new mode or language of presentation should be introduced so as to help save the audience of the usual common place methods of performance presentation.Lastly it is important that the actors and the audience collaborates and share ideas as to what really needs to be addressed in the contemporary performances.   This will enable actors and artists to come up with only those performances that are morally upright and help the contemporary society in solving mysteries of nature.This manifesto is not in any way exhaustive as to what needs to be done or not in contemporary performances to meet the 21st century demands.   Therefore the above listed views and opinions may be challenged but of importance to note is that they were arrived at after a careful scrutization of the current and historical performance trends.   They are practically possible to implement and therefore result driven.A Critical Reflection of the above Personal Performance ManifestoOnce again it is in order to note that the writing of Manifestos is not a practice which has started just the other day as explained above.Manifesto writing has been with us over the last one hundred years.   Critics and artists write manifestos so as to relay a message of dissatisfaction of a previous practice and therefore put forth a correctional course of action.   In relation to the above manifesto for the 21st century it is crystal clear that the previous practices employed in performance industry needs to be overhauled if the 21st century demands and expectations are to be realized.The manifestos recommendations are therefore not in any way hollow, they are commonplace†¦. Yes but greatly serves to put the level of performances in the right track towards the 21st cent ury expectations.The Manifesto talked of performances that are in themselves informing.   It is just sad to note that even today people continue staging performances which are substandard despite many efforts by other people who are determined to take performance industry a level higher.This point seeks to bring out the difference between what contemporary performance should give its audience as compared to the historical performances when things were very different from what they are today.In respect to Karen Finley who is currently based in New York, performance need also to take a different dimension if they will continue being used as a tool for informing, educating and also entertaining.Karen has pushed beyond the boundaries of normal practices and natural acts and as a result her works have drawn a lot of attention.Although this much attention led her in to waling along the corridors of justice following low suits filed against her work by politicians it is a nice piece of w ork for the 21st century.

What do Ain't I a Woman and Address to the People of the Free States Essay

What do Ain't I a Woman and Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy tell us about the divisions between people in United States during the 1860s - Essay Example Division between black and white people was on the basis that, black people were considered slaves while white people were considered citizens. Black people at that time did not enjoy any individual rights as citizens they were property to be owned. However, white people were full citizens with rights, and they owned black people as their own property. Davis in his speech said â€Å"†¦.in the Southern Confederacy†¦.slaves and their children†¦.considered as property†. Truth said, â€Å"†¦negroes of the South†¦are talking about rights†. The division caused white people to see black people as being lesser of humans and thus making them properties and slaves. Ethnicity and hatred, between blacks and white escalated due to the division among them (Rodriguez 110). Women during the 1860s fought to have same rights as men did. In this case, both black and white women suffered. White women were oppressed in the South with their husbands same as the way Negroes were also oppressed in the South. Women together with Negroes were denied rights because of they were less educated. Truth says â€Å"a man in black†¦says women cannot have rights as men†. The division caused women to be seen as the weaker sex in capable of doing duties on their own. On the women side, they started fighting to have same rights as men and overcome male chauvinism (Rodriguez 105). The division between the people living in Northern and Southern United States came as a result of declaring slavery to be illegal in the Northern part of the United States. Abraham Lincoln declared slaves to be free in the all the Northern states in America. This made the Southerners separate with the Northerners since in the South slavery was still legal. According to Davis â€Å"..Lincoln has declared that slaves†¦may be incorporated in the Army and Navy†. Truth asserts that â€Å"the negroes in the South†¦women, in the North, talk about rights†. The division between the South