Symbols and Symbolism - Pearl as Living Symbol in The Scarlet Letter :: Scarlet Letter essays

Pearl as Living Symbol in The Scarlet Letter      Ã‚  Ã‚   Pearl.   A child born of sin.   Conceived by lust.   Created by impurity.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   As the result of her parents fall from grace, she represents the sinfulness of their act, and is a continual tool for the recollection of their dubious deed.   Sent, was she, from the Almighty God as a gift, and a burden of the heart.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   "'God gave me the child?' cried she.   'He gave her in requital of all things else, which ye had taken from me.   She is my happiness!- she is my torture, none the less!   See ye not, she is the scarlet letter, only capable of being loved, and so endowed with a million fold the power of retribution for my sin?   Ye shall not take her!   I will die first!'"(109)      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   "'There is truth in what she says,' began the minister, with a voice sweet, tremulous, but powerful, insomuch that the hall reechoed, and the hollow armor rang with it - 'truth in what Hester says, and in the feeling which inspires her!'"(110)...      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   "'I must be even so,' resumed the minister.'" " 'This child of its father's guilt and its mother's shame hath come from the hand of God, to work in many ways upon her heart, who pleads so earnestly, and with such bitterness of spirit, the right to keep her.   It was meant, doubtless, as the mother herself hath told us, for a retribution too; a torture to be felt at many an unthought-of moment; a pang, a sting, an ever-recurring agony, in the midst of a troubled joy!   Hath she not expressed this thought with the garb of the poor child, so forcibly reminding us of that red symbol which sears her bosom?'"(110-111).      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pearls gestures, and the essence which her presence pours forth, insinuate to the child's evil roots and the effect there of.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   "the child could not be made amenable to rules.   In giving her existence, a great law had been broken, and the result was a being whose elements where perhaps beautiful and brilliant, but all in disorder."... "Above all, the warfare of Hester's spirit, at that epoch, was perpetuated in Pearl.   She could recognize her wild, desperate, defiant mood, the

With whom does responsibility for the Holocaust ultimately lie?

The Holocaust was a shameful display of the exploitation of power to cause great pain and suffering to many. An operation of that magnitude could not have been controlled and implemented by one individual. There are many parties which were involved with Germany and need to be considered when determining where ultimate responsibility lies. Hitler did as early as 1935 make his feelings about the Jewish race clear by making his anti-Semitism public policy in the Nuremburg Race laws. But aside from in â€Å"Mein Kampf†, Hitler made little indication until the last minute that he had given approval for the extermination program, ( even Mein Kampf is not that reliable, because it was written by a young man imprisoned for his beliefs, and he was bound to exaggerate to get his message across and to raise sales profits ). He seems to have kept out of the actual planning and implementation of the killing process, leaving that in the more than capable hands of the Nazi officials, including Himmler, Frank and Heydrich. Many of the ideas such as Ghettos and mass transportation were left under their control, for them to act on their own innitiative. Although he was seen by the public as heavily involved with politics and decision making for Germany, it has since been revealed that Hitler spent a large part of his day relaxing at home, and was often happy to sign papers after only a brief glance. After the virulence shown in â€Å"Operation Barbarossa† towards the Russian Jews, Hitler in speeches tried to convince the public that a good solution had been found to ‘the jewish problem' and should be continued throughout the rest of Europe, hiding the intensity of the mass genocide going on in the country next door to them. He also reffered to the transits as ‘resettlements' for â€Å"appropriate labour duties†, which made the program seem more civilised. Amongst the Nazi leaders, talk was rarely directly about the actual business of the â€Å"final solution† agenda, reffering as Hitler did to program as of â€Å"legalised removal† and â€Å"resettlement†. But it was reported at the trial of Eichmann in 1960 that within private meetings the â€Å"talk was of killing, elimination and liquidation†. Obviously the top officials like Himmler and Heydrich didn't want to give the public the impression that they were intently malicious, but it is clear that they did not have reservations about ordering the police, Wehrmacht and S. S. to carry out there instructions. Himmler was able to directly comit the 800 000 strong S. S. to the tasks of operating the death camps, and so needed no other authority. Most of them believed that they were just doing their duty for Germany and could contently do their tasks without moral objections. Other leaders like Goebbels were passionately anti-semitic and outright about it, but Goebbels with all of his propaganda experience probably conveyed it tactfully. At the Nuremburg trials, many leaders tried to claim ignorance of the program however preposterous that may seem after looking at the evidence, but there is little actual proof of their actions, so there is not much firm indication to support the claims of their responsibility. The earlier T-4 ( euthanasia program ) had been in effect a development program for the search for efficient means of large and refined killings. Some officials such as Bouhler and Brack had been largely involved with T-4 and were able to pass on their extensive knowledge, and implement it in death camps like Treblinka and Belzec. T-4 also demonstrated that mass killings could be carried out by ordinary individuals without hesitation. Having said this, it would be eminently hard to prove that anyone involved with T-4 could have known that their methods would be used to wipeout a race, a process significantly larger and more important (to them) than what they were originally doing. The German army and police were undoubtedly involved to some extent in the program because of the logistics of the operation, but it would be unfair to try to blame them entirely for what they were doing. Some tried to keep a clear conscience by thinking of their victims as â€Å"not men but monkeys in human form†. But on the whole they were just following their orders and doing their jobs. A lot of the German people had, before Hitler came to power in 1933, been Anti-Semitic in varying degrees. Hitler only had to play on their feelings, making his policies reflect what the people wanted to hear. High ranking people, in the civil service, Army and churches, were among the Anti-Semitic thinkers. Prostestants in Germany had for a long time been Anti-Semitic since the time of Martin Luther and the Reformation in Europe. Some policies were frowned upon and met limited opposition, the Catholic church against euthanasia for example, but the actual ‘Holocaust' was affected very little by public protest. The public were often made aware of what was happening to the Jews by allied radio broadcasts, leaflet drops and stories brought home by soldiers who had been on the Russian front. But to many these were just rumours and not taken seriously. Everyone involved with the holocaust was each partly to blame. Hitler was the driving force behind most Nazi policies, but not many were his own. He was blamed by the German people, to forget their own responsibility. Himmler and Heydrich came up with and implemented many plans themselves, and were valuable to Hitler to keep his regime going. There was not enough opposition to earlier programs such as T-4 to stem the violence then, and it spiralled out of control. General public opinion, and even whole national organisations opinions, were too well established in their dislike of Jews to be changed even by mass violence. If it had been changed against Hitler's regime, there would not have been sufficient power to do what the regime achieved.

The Real Lincoln A New Look At Abraham Lincoln, His...

Dilorenzo, Thomas J. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War New York: Three Rivers Press. Thomas J. Dilorenzo is the author of the book The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. Dr. Dilorenzo is an economics professor at the Sellinge School of Business and management, where he published over eleven books. His focus is mostly on economic history and political economics. It became evident to Thomas that the teachings at the college defied the common belief of the purpose behind the Civil War. After giving a speech on the subject in 1997, Former Prima Publishing acquisitions editor Steven Martin suggested writing a book on the subject. With funding, Dilorenzo published his book that supposedly unmasks the truth of who Lincoln was. Despite his sources being reasonable, directly from the lessons taught at his school, it does not exactly mean an economics professor is capable of making an accurate book on historical accounts. If he personally discussed it with a historian or mentioned history professors as a source rather than simply saying the lessons, the book may be more credible to what he has to say. But the fact that he did use a reasonable lead in his research does at least mean his opinion can be a respectable opinion. The book is best appreciated by historical enthusiasts, dominantly those into American history and more so for those centered around the Civil war and Abraham Lincoln.Show MoreRelatedThe Real Lincoln : A New Look At Abraham Lincoln1366 Words   |  6 PagesThe Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, he reveals the truth about Abraham Lincoln and attempts to get rid of the myths that many have told. He reveals the agenda of Lincoln and the real purpose behind the Civil War. One question that some have is why did it take a war to end slavery? In the book it is stated that, â€Å"dozens of countries†¦ ended slaver y peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries†(x). Many argue the fact that Lincoln wasRead MoreThe Myth of Abraham Lincoln1304 Words   |  6 Pagesmyth of Abraham Lincoln, no myth in American history is more prevailing or enduring. Good old Honest Abe, The Great Emancipator, Defender of the Union. We have come to a crossroad in this country. It is a time of great peril; freedom is in its maximum hour of danger. We must put to rest this myth, which only serves to propagate tyranny and undermine liberty. Abraham Lincoln was not a great man trying to free the slaves; he was a racist, power hungry, tyrant who really fought the civil war to stopRead More Abraham Lincoln Essay1550 Words   |  7 Pagesnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin located in Hodgenville Kentucky on the twelfth of February in the year of 1809. His parents were Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln. Lincoln had one older sister (Sarah) who was born in 1807. Three year s after Abraham was born, his mother gave birth to a baby boy they named Thomas. The family was faced with devastating turmoil when Thomas died while he was still an infant. When Abe was nine years old he was kicked in the head by a horse, which caused his familyRead MoreThe Real Lincoln : A New Look At Abraham Lincoln1756 Words   |  8 Pagescontroversial book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, a new light is shed upon the historic President Lincoln. It challenges ideas and beliefs that students are taught in grade school, and incorporates a new way of thinking. Above all, this book provides insight into the real life of Lincoln, and remains controversial due to its impeding and harsh criticisms. DiLorenzo, an economic historian, is often questioned about his ethics and credibility toRead MoreThe Real Lincoln : A New Look At Abraham Lincoln1757 Words   |  8 Pagescontroversial book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, a new light is shed upon the historic President Lincoln. It challenges ideas and beliefs that students are taught in grade school, and incorporates a new way of thinking. Above all, this book provides insight into the real life of Lincoln, and remains controversial due to its impeding and harsh criticisms. Dilorenzo, an economic historian, is often questioned about his ethics and credibility toRead More A Critique of DiLorenzos The Real Lincoln Essay1913 Words   |  8 PagesA Critique of the Real Lincoln The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo completely shatters the illusion of the 16th President as the liberator of the slaves. DiLorenzo provides convincing evidence for Lincoln’s overt racism as expressed in his documented views on racial supremacy as stated in his desire to colonize all American blacks outside the United States (p. 4); Lincoln’s views were matched by the majority in the North whoRead MoreAfrican American Leaders Post- Reconstruction Essay1320 Words   |  6 Pages In 1854 Abraham Lincoln gave his Peoria, Kansas speech opposing slavery stating the Kansas Act had a declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because† it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world†. Abraham Lincoln became the sixteenth Presiden t of the United States in 1861. Growing up in non-slave territories as a child and disapprovingRead MoreThe Real Lincoln : A New Look At Abraham Lincoln1868 Words   |  8 PagesThe Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War is written by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. He is the professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He has received the George F. Koether Free Market Writing Award and his works have been published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He has written another book titled Hamilton s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution —Read MoreThe Real Lincoln By Thomas J. A Brief1724 Words   |  7 Pagesâ€Å"The Real Lincoln written by Thomas J. Dilorenzo published in 2002 gives us details into the Lincoln presidency It shows how Lincoln wanted a more central government he was not a man for all people but for the north. It shows that Lincoln was not the reason for the split in the country but a sense of pride was to blame. He did not support equal rights in slave and white americans. He was for the â€Å" American system† and the expansion of America. Lorenzo is a member of the faculty at Loyola UniversityRead MoreMinority Marketing1869 Words   |  8 PagesAnd it’s Impact Following the Civil War History 121: American History to 1877 10 December 2011 The Reconstruction era was the attempt to restore the Union after the Civil War or The War for Southern Independence. Its perception was viewed differently by Southerners, Northerners, and newly freed former slaves. After the Union won the war in 1865, their job was to begin the reconstruction of the Unites States. This era started at the end of the Civil War in 1865 and ended in1877. The goal