In A Time Of War Poem Essay Example for Free

In A Time Of War Poem Essay The title of Rothenbergs poem In a Time of War seems to encapsulate the poems subject-matter, written with uncomplicated words of the English vocabulary makes the poem stand out in a stark manner. This method is used by Rothenberg to illustrate to readers exactly how he sees war, as it is. One outstanding feature of this poem is its structure. Rothenberg appears to want to isolate the first stanza from the rest of the poem. At a closer reading, the first stanza is concerned with the poets thoughts of war, while it is taking place, whereas the remaining stanzas talk about his feelings on the notion of war, irregardless of whether it is occurring or not. This distinction is further enhanced by the language and degree of imagery of the stanzas. Note that in stanza one, there is more emphasis on description, with the constant use of pastoral imagery, daisies wilt and the war sucks up the dew. The mood generated from it, is dark, gloomy and miserable. However, reading on, the mood apparently lightens up, especially from stanza three. The word love begins to appear. The pastoral imagery transforms to a more hopeful state, a love that floats like butterflies and flowers in the endless night. Rothenberg is probably telling the reader that all is not lost, even a year of war wont hide or tame [moon acacia water lily star]. There is hence, no predominant gloomy mood or atmosphere to this poem as there is a shift from a state of hopelessness to one with some optimism present. Even so, we cannot overlook the fact that Rothenberg is saying that since we can move on from the aftermath of war, we can then take war lightly. The poet, apart from telling readers not to lose faith when war comes, is also signaling to us that war [is] waiting in the gateway to the hive. The lesson Rothenberg is conveying to the readers that war may strike us anytime, and so we should prevent it at all costs if not things might return to how he describes it in stanza one. The structure of stanza one consists of many short lines, even a word alone  constitutes a line as seen in the tenth line nightingales. Rothenberg compels the reader to pay attention to each and every line. He wants us to feel, as closely as possible of the horrific experiences that war can bring out. Wars sometimes take decades before it ends and the literal length of the stanza symbolizes this. And yet, as we move on the next stanzas, lengthwise, they grow shorter and the lack of commas causes the reader to move from one stanza to the next rather swiftly until we approach stanza seven where Rothenberg cautions us of the unpredictability of war. And if we fail to take his advice in hand, we return to the state that stanza one illustrates. The poem may have ended with stanza seven, but Rothenberg has cleverly twisted it. A vicious cycle is formed, if humans refuse to prevent war, another war will always emerge. The poem is overall an excellent portrayal of the world in a time of war.

Career Development in Generation X Essay -- Generation X Work Essays

Career Development in Generation X Generation X refers to the population cohort following the Baby Boomers. Sources differ as to the exact years during which this cohort was born. Coupland (1991) suggests 1960 to 1970; Bradford and Raines (1992) propose 1965 to 1975; and Howe and Strauss (1993) suggest 1961 to 1981. Whatever the birth years, it is their common life experiences that give this cohort an identity. Individuals born in Generation X are reputedly more global, technologically oriented, and culturally diverse than the generations before them. Coming of age when the linear career path no longer exists, where average income is falling, and where continuous change is the norm, does this generation have different values, work ethics, and attitudes toward work and career development? As the myths and realities of this question are explored, it is important to remember that the characteristics, habits, and traits attributed to individuals in this cohort are mere generalizations, presented to afford a better underst anding of the generation called Generation X. Myth: Individuals in Generation X Are Slackers, Lacking Career Drive and Ambition Various books, articles, and surveys have described individuals in Generation X as slackers, cynical about the future and resentful of Baby Boomers who have "taken all the good jobs" (Kruger 1994). This description is based on observations that Generation X workers jump from job to job, are unwilling to conform to organizational demands that do not suit them, and leave jobs that bore them and are not "fun" (Wyld 1994). Although persons in the two generations before Generation X-the Silent generation (1925-1945) and Boom generation (1946-1964)-interpret these behaviors as indi... ...eneration X at Work." Training 31, no. 4 (April 1994): 21-27. (ERIC No. EJ 480 564) "Generation X-onomics: Job Insecurity among Young People." Economist 330 (March 19, 1994): A27. Howe, N., and Strauss, B. 13th Generation. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Kruger, P. "Superwoman's Daughters." Working Woman 19 (May 1994): 60. Lancaster, H. "Managing Your Career: You May Call Them Slackers; They Say They're Just Realistic." Wall Street Journal, August 1, 1995, p. B1. Quinn, J. B. "The Luck of the Xers." Newsweek, June 6, 1994, p. 66. Wilkinson, M. H. "It's Just a Matter of Time: Twenty Somethings View Their Jobs Differently than Boomers." Utne Reader(May-June 1995): 66-67. Wyld, D. "The 13th Generation and Its Revolutionary Definition of `Career.'" Journal of Career Planning and Employment55, no. 1 (November 1994): 26-28, 58-60. (ERIC No. EJ 497 317)

How Does Priestly Present Birling in Act One and Two

Birding is presented as very smug and egotistical when Priestly uses the stage directions ‘confidently' and ‘laughs complacently. These show Birding is not afraid to show his importance and status. It also shows his arrogant nature that emphasizes he wants to dominate the situation, yet when the inspector arrives he loses his authority. ‘Complacently' shows he thinks other people with a lower status are stupid and unimportant.Priestly wants the audience to see Brings inflated opinion of himself and show Birding is the opposite of Priestly moral. Birding especially expresses his self- righteousness to the Inspector when he says ‘l don't see that its any concern Of yours how I choose to run my business'. This shows that Birding thinks he is higher class and more important than the Inspector and he therefore is not worthy of an opinion. It also shows Birding does not like to be challenged so will show off to prove he is better and assert authority.Birding is reve aled to be very selfish and have no understanding of community this is shown when e says ‘a man has to make his own way'. This shows Birding is only worried about himself and his money. It also conveys his lack of empathy towards those not as fortunate as him. Brings selfish philosophy conflicts with Priestly message about responsibility and community which is empathetic by the doorbell. The doorbell gives the audience a clue of what the moral of the play is. Priestly uses dramatic irony to show that Birding is patronizing and as an archetypal capitalist Birding looks down on others.He says ‘that'll have ergot all these capitalist versus labor agitations and all these silly little war scares'. It displays that Birding thinks that Labor are just lower class people that don't know what they're talking about. Also Brings narcissistic attitude emphasizes his lack of empathy like how he doesn't see his employees as people but just cheap labor. Priestly uses dramatic irony to make the audience suspicious of Brings judgment and wonder what else he could be wrong about.In Act Two Birding is shown to be very arrogant when e says ‘l protest against the way in which my daughter, a young unmarried girl is being dragged into this'. This implies Birding is more caring towards Sheila than Eric. This is because Sheila is marrying a rich, respectable man that can be bring good to Brings business whilst Eric isn't doing anything to help Birding make money. ‘Unmarried girl' suggests Birding feels a woman is not strong without a man by her side and see's women as something to make his life more comfortable.In conclusion I think Priestly presented Birding in n exaggerated way that would show the audience what he thinks the world is like. Priestly is showing that he thought the people of 1 912 needed to learn to become a community and be responsible for each other as a war and other horrors is coming soon. He then uses dramatic irony to show that if people h ad seen that they are responsible for each other than a war could have been avoided. Priestly, as a model socialist, therefore wishes that in 191 2 he could have done more about helping others to realist just like the Inspector did.

The French-Indian War in America

The French-Indian War was fought between Britain and  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹Ã¢â‚¬â€¹France, along with their respective colonists and allied Indian groups, for control of land in North America. Occurring from 1754 to 1763, it helped trigger – and then formed part of ​the Seven Years War. It has also been called the fourth French-Indian war, because of three other early struggles involving Britain, France, and Indians. Historian Fred Anderson has called it the â€Å"most important event in eighteenth-century North America†. (Anderson, ​​The Crucible of War, p. xv).​ Note Recent histories, such as Anderson and Marston, still refer to the native peoples as ‘Indians’ and this article has followed suit. No disrespect is intended. Origins The age of European overseas conquest had left Britain and France with ​territory in North America. Britain had the ‘Thirteen Colonies’, plus Nova Scotia, while France ruled a vast area named ‘New France’. Both had frontiers which pushed against each other. There had been several wars between the two empires in the years preceding the French-Indian war – King William’s War of 1689–97, Queen Anne’s War of 1702-13 and  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹King George’s War of 1744 – 48, all American aspects of European wars – and tensions remained. By 1754 Britain controlled nearly one and a half million colonists, France around only 75,000 and expansion was pushing the two closer together, increasing the stress. The essential argument behind the war was which nation would dominate the area? In the 1750s tensions rose, especially in the Ohio River Valley and Nova Scotia. In the latter, where both sides claimed large areas, the French had built what the British considered illegal forts and had worked to incite French-speaking colonists to insurrection against their British rulers. The Ohio River Valley The Ohio River Valley was considered a rich source for the colonists and strategically vital because the French needed it for effective communications between the two halves of their American empire. As Iroquois influence in the region declined, Britain tried to use it for trade, but France began building forts and evicting the British. In 1754 Britain decided to build a fort at the forks of the river Ohio, and they sent a 23-year-old Lieutenant Colonel of the Virginian militia with a force to protect it. He was George Washington. French forces seized the fort before Washington arrived, but he carried on, ambushing a French detachment, killing French Ensign Jumonville. After trying to fortify and receiving limited reinforcements, Washington was defeated by a French and Indian attack led by Jumonville’s brother and had to retreat out of the valley. Britain responded to this failure by sending regular troops to the thirteen colonies to supplement their own forces and, while a formal declaration didn’t happen until 1756, war had begun. British Reverses, British Victory Fighting took place around the Ohio River Valley and Pennsylvania, around New York and Lakes George and Champlain, and in Canada around Nova Scotia, Quebec and Cape Breton. (Marston, The French Indian War, p. 27). Both sides used regular troops from Europe, colonial forces, and Indians. Britain initially fared badly, despite having many more colonists on the ground. French forces showed a much better understanding of the type of warfare North America required, where the heavily forested regions favored irregular/light troops, although French commander Montcalm was skeptical of non-European methods, but used them out of necessity. Britain adapted as the war progressed, lessons from early defeats leading to reforms. Britain was helped by the leadership of William Pitt, who further prioritized the war in America when France began to focus resources on war in Europe, trying for targets in the Old World to use as bargaining chips in the New. Pitt also gave some autonomy back to the colonists and began to treat them on an equal footing, which increased their co-operation. The British could marshal superior resources against a France wracked with financial problems, and the British navy mounted successful blockades and, after the Battle of Quiberon Bay on November 20th, 1759, shattered France’s ability to operate in the Atlantic. Growing British success and a handful of canny negotiators, who managed to deal with the Indians on a neutral footing despite the prejudices of the British command, lead to Indians siding with the British. Victories were won, including the Battle of the Plains of Abraham where the commanders of both sides – the British Wolfe and the French Montcalm – were killed, and France defeated. The Treaty of Paris The French Indian War effectively ended with the surrender of Montreal in 1760, but warfare elsewhere in the world prevented a peace treaty being signed until 1763. This was the Treaty of Paris between Britain, France, and Spain. France handed over all its North American territory east of the Mississippi, including the Ohio River Valley, and Canada. Meanwhile, France also had to give the Louisiana territory and New Orleans to Spain, who gave Britain Florida, in return for getting Havana back. There was opposition to this treaty in Britain, with groups wanting the West Indies sugar trade from France rather than Canada. Meanwhile, Indian anger over British actions in post-war America led to an uprising called Pontiac’s Rebellion. Consequences Britain, by any count, won the French-Indian war. But in doing so it had altered and further pressurized its relationship with its colonists, with tensions arising from the numbers of troops Britain had tried to call upon during the war, as well as the reimbursement of war costs and the way Britain handled the whole affair. In addition, Britain had incurred greater yearly expenditure on garrisoning an enlarged area, and it tried to recoup some of these debts by greater taxes on the colonists. Within twelve years the Anglo-Colonist relationship had collapsed to the point where the colonists rebelled and, aided by a France eager to upset its great rival once more, fought the American War of Independence. The colonists, in particular, had gained great experience of fighting in America.