Post War Australian Art Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Post War Australian Art - Essay Example Imants  Tillers' greatest motivation is the production of pieces of artwork that show concerns regarding locality and place while also making evocations of the Australian landscape. Between 1974 and 1975, Imants produced Conversations with the bride. The piece of art typifies the installation media category. The installation provides a notable dialogue between Imants’ painting and Marcel Duchamp’s well-known painting entitled The bride stripped bare by her bachelors, even. Duchamp’s painting is also referred to as The large glass. Imants’ Conversations with the bride is a compilation of at least 112 miniature photographs and paintings (Hart & Tillers 2006, p. 9). These photos and paintings are set on multiple aluminum tripods with every image in the compilation being appropriated from The large glass by Duchamp.In addition, Conversations with the bride also appropriates images of Hans Heysen’s watercolor Summer of 1909, which had a characteristic Australian landscape, consisting particularly of gum and eucalyptus trees. This calls to mind the magnificent forces of nature that is similar to the 19th century Romantic landscapes. The large glass and Summer were painted approximately the same time, and as a consequence, Imants perceives them as equally representative of Australian cultural values (Stephen 2003, p. 16). These art pieces were sympathetic to Imants’ views at the time, especially with regard to Imants’ feelings regarding the element of the fourth dimension, which is also evident in Duchamp’s artwork. Imants researches a lot of sources, collecting necessary documentation vital for the compilation of the images inherent in the Conversations with the bride compilation. Conversations with the bride represent the painter’s post-modern strategy, which encompasses approaches such as intertextuality. Here, Imants’ artistic work elucidates the link between the artwork, the viewer and the ar tist. This relationship is exemplified through the use of layering whereby contemporary and historical references from both literature and art are comingled.  

Plato, Greek Art and Censorship Essay Example for Free

Plato, Greek Art and Censorship Essay It is imperative that we begin the illustration of Plato’s pursuit for censorship with the definition of his times, the context by which his beliefs on music and poetry were formulated.   Greece during Hellenic times was distinctively marked by a superior regard to the polis or the city-state. With what the civil wars wrought to its citizens, the Greeks developed a strong inclination towards the attainment of what they believed to be the kallipolis or the ideal state, one that is marked by justice, order and harmony, and will do everything in its power to preserve it. The general concession of its superiority justified acts which would have been highly condemnable in the present times. Acts like infanticide and common life are surely not to arouse the approval of the many. One of the necessary steps that Plato strongly advocated for the attainment of the idea state, was the censorship of the arts, music and poetry alike. In summary he claims that the polis needed to constrain its arts, to mitigate its negative influences and curb the dangerous effect of its mimeric nature if they were to avoid the disruption of the state, more like its demise considering how pervasive arts was during the Hellenic period. Plato’s definition of censorship came in the form of 1) the prohibition of music that was intrinsically bad, and 2) the sanctioning of tales that were weaved from a state of madness, thereby promoting false virtues.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   On Music – It was a general belief during those times that there existed some form of music that was intrinsically bad or an aberration to the natural harmony of the universe. These were the songs whose words upheld false virtues and songs whose musical tones were derived from the improper order of interval. There in the sequencing of its notes lay a palpable sense of disharmony and discordance which mathematicians and philosophers went to great lengths to prove.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   It is to be said too that the soul is part of a force called Harmonia – a force that brings to union all elements of the universe, good and bad. The soul acts like a sponge, is its modern rhetoric equivalent, absorbing the discordance of the notes and sending the soul to a confused state as it cannot adequately grasps the things it acquires (Republic 78). The faculties of the physical body become misguided and the resulting man is one who is corrupt and unable to discern what is just from not. Hence, guardians, producers and rulers were considered susceptible to music’s negative influences and must be then censored by the polis if it were to protect man’s virtues. Rhythm and harmony penetrate the inner part of the soul and that gracelessness, bad rhythm and disharmony are akin to bad words and character (Republic III)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   This was perhaps the first attempt to advance the concept of the subliminal meaning. The Doctrine of Ethos – music’s ability to form one’s character – still remains on solid ground after centuries. I find sense in what these early philosophers claim. How else do we explain the anarchic proclivities of Rock Music and Rap’s inclination towards street violence despite shifts in paradigm of the many generations that have passed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   On Poetry – Here Plato refers to drama, tragedies and words of a song without the musical notes.   Unlike the subliminal effect of some music, poetry has a more direct and invasive effect to one’s character.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Plato’s Theory of Forms states that Nature is an imperfect representation of the ideal and perfect reality of Forms; that man ought to take actions that will bring him closer to the reality of Forms. If poetry represents that which is already imperfect, the resulting work ushers man away from the light and further into the shadows. Without the light, man now becomes a slave to the shadows he continuously imitates.   Moreover, when exposed to poetic illusions man naturally takes on what he sees and starts to assume the character of the poetic subject, in whole or in parts. This mimeric nature, Plato says, is dangerous as this will distract man from achieving his highest state of being.   It is better to stick to one craft and be good at it than to acquire all trades but be good at none. Guardians must be prohibited to learn the trade of the poets. This is   to ensure that his optimum self is achieved.   Otherwise he starts to neglect his duties to the state.   Also, the process of producing poetry sends the artist in a temporal state of divine inspiration or madness, simply that he loses all sense of rationality, he weaves one that is not according to Reason’s dictates but that of his many passions, ignorance and possibly appetites albeit the poetic charm. Anything that is far from Reason is necessarily deemed unhealthy for the kallipolis. Clearly the Hellenic times were defined by their end goals. Plato and others saw censorship, along with many state policies, as a justified means to their end. The present times, however, see a completely different paradigm. People have long shown the world that the morality of the means is just as considerable as the end itself. Censorship to a substantial part of the world is unacceptable. Now, it’s all about rights to freedom of speech and expression. When New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority decides to cut off offensive language from the radio, immediately journalists are tagging it as discrimination. In US alone how many controversial lawsuits, to include a high school valedictorian as complainant, have been filed because people have been forbidden to make religious references. Plato would have been shocked, even enraged at this underlying idea of the Individual catching up with the State; or the state policies being subservient to Individual Rights. He would have thought it a narrow insight and I completely agree.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   All this talk on Rights and Freedom of Expression is based on the faulty assumption that 1) everyone is capable of responsible and sensible expressions, and 2) everyone is capable of judicious interpretations of these expressions. When truth of the matter is that when people make tirade speeches against a group , they almost always fail to consider the sensibilities of whose who are being attacked. One’s unguarded   expression becomes another one’s discrimination. To compound things, people are impressionable. Plato was correct when he said that man naturally adopts the things he sees and hears no matter how unjust and far from virtues. Man doesn’t generally step back and take a moment to carefully weigh what he perceives. To those who can, notice that they don’t go out of their way to educate the public. These educated minds have become an elite preferring apathy. This is what turns expressions into social disturbances. Sooner or later when more people start to believe, these expressions become acceptable truths. Eventually they become imbibed as values. With the advent of the digital age, things are even escalated. The cyberspace contains practically all sorts of information, educated, trash, pornographic and otherwise, which can be accessed by anyone even those who are not in the right minds to discern right from wrong. Censorship, contrary to what people believe as a tyrannical act against freedom, is simply responsible regulation. It is to ensure that information is accessed   by the right audience and that the propensity of these expressions to stir and rouse disturbances is curbed. This time it is to preserve not the State but the Society with the Individual at its core and Values at stake. Each processes information or whatever elements one picks up from the cosmos in various ways and degrees. What misguided minds process as motivation for unjust ways may be an educated mind’s trigger for higher knowledge. But if takes only one out of a thousand and perhaps millions of minds to have his virtues corrupted because of unregulated information, that for me, and should so for the progressively liberal states, provide more than enough justification for censorship.   It is a rational step to reduce freedom’s excesses especially in a time where the universe presents wider, freer and borderless ways by which man can inflict harm to another, even to himself. Works Cited Plato. â€Å"The Republic†, translated by Benjamin Jowett, http://classics.mit.edu

German Public During WW2

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

Kirk Hammett Role Model :: essays research papers

Kirk Lee Hammett is the lead guitarist for the thrash metal band Metallica. He is particularly admirable to me for his eloquent lyrics and quotes, stunning guitar solos and the accomplishments he has achieved in life. He is and always has been a most influential person in my life since I discovered Metallica in 1996. The lyrics Kirk places in his songs are, to me, the most expressive and meaningful of any songs. It is a persons ability to correlate and understand lyrics that makes it so they can truly appreciate the meaning. Kirk’s quotes are sharp but hold merit. One of my favorite quotes by Kirk is, â€Å"In the time between albums, we wondered, 'How does Metallica fit into all this?' and then we realized we didn't fit into it at all, never have, never will." It is his habit of originality that strikes me as someone to look up to. He says, "We never let mainstream music filter into our psyches too much. We try not to let ourselves be influenced too much by what goes on around us musically." His guitar solos are masterpieces within themselves. His mixture of classical guitar and heavy metal is unsurpassed in the heavy metal guitar world. He will always be considered to me, the greatest guitarist of rock music. He picked up a guitar for the first time at the age of fifteen. He was fascinated by the art of guitar and worked hard towards becoming a guitar legend. He took lessons from Joe Satriani, another guitar prodigy, where he learned a method of playing guitar that has yet to be found defective. In this aspect he has encouraged me to follow my dreams. Kirk inspires me, in the biggest way, because of his success over obstacles that stood in his way. Alcoholism was his main obstruction in life. His problem brought him to depression numerous times until he decided that enough was enough. He took care of his problem by going to special programs to help him with his alcoholic lifestyle. At one time during this â€Å"intoxication period† the band actually split up until Kirk changed his life.

A reasonable Doubt

My friend had been staying with his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s best friend in one room for a period of one year when he got accused of rape and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. This has really affected me and the fact that after serving for 5 years the accuser came out and said it was a plot to get him since she had a crush on him!It was in a small town in the outskirts of the main city. Housing was expensive and as we were trying to achieve a few dreams of our lives, we didn’t consider renting a big house a priority since our income was not so much. I had grown up together with Ian and we knew each other so well. We shared most of our dreams.When Ian met Julie the love of his heart, he was so sure that she was the woman for her. They had dated for sometime and all along the dating period Julie was sharing a room with some other two friends of hers. One of which was her best friend while the other was a girl they had been together with in the university.They kne w that all along they would become financially stable and each would go their way as soon as their income could allow them to afford rent each one on her own.When Julie and Ian decided to come and live together, it was at first not difficult since the two girls shared the rent between themselves. Julie and Ian had stayed together for 3 months when a need arouse for Karen to move out of the town. (Karen is the other girl from the university who was now left living with Tina) Tina is Julie’s best friend.When the news reached Julie that Karen was planning to leave the town she was a bit worried about her best friend since she knew that Tina would not afford to live in there alone.However it was a tough thing to think about since the only left option was to ask Ian if he could allow Tina to come and stay with them even if for some days before she get someone to share a room with or perhaps until she could afford to stay alone.She knew that she had to prepare on the best approach to present this request to Ian. She was worried that may be it might turn out that Ian would refuse that kind of a thing.But she needed to ask him the soonest possible. A thought came into her that it would be necessary to first speak to Tina maybe she might have a different idea.She made her short journey and visited her best friend whom she found in tears. They talked after comforting her and Tina was more than happy to have realized that her friend thought about her in such ways. She knew that her problem was half solved since the only remaining part was now to approach Ian. They agreed that as soon as Ian gave a feedback Julie would let Tina know soonest possible.When Tina returned home that evening she was so restless yet she found it hard to start it to Ian. It was until Ian noticed that her concentration was divided and that she seemed a little bit disturbed. Ian walked to where Julie had sat and sat on the arm of the chair that she had occupied. He looked at her with concern and asked her ‘sweetheart is everything okay? How was your day?’Julie knew right inside her that this was the perfect moment; she knew that a chance had come and she was not going to waste any time about it. She replied to him ‘everything has been fine but I only worried about my best friend Tina, she is being left by Karen in that room we used to live the three of us. Karen needs to move out of this town as she has got a job elsewhere so she is only around here for a month.The problem here is that we had opted to stay the three of us since none could afford living alone. Just three months after I left Tina to stay with Karen now Karen is about to leave. Tina can not afford it alone’. As she spoke all these Ian just listened without interruption but when she posed Ian asked ‘so what is the problem?Are you suggesting that you want to go back there?’ she knew that this would worry Ian, he would do anything to have in his room and so she said to him ‘you see that is the only other option since it might not be ideal to you to have her here staying with us’ do you think Tina agree to come and stay with us? This was Ian asking. Julie told him that she was not sure about it but if Ian would not have a problem with it then she would ask Tina when they met next about it.Then Ian said; ‘ that is not something to worry about to the point of losing concentration, all is going to be okay for her, we can stay with her if she agrees if she refuses then it means she has a better option and therefore the problem will be solved.

Context of practice education Essay

Sunita has been in mentor’s area of clinical practice for few weeks; she gives the impression to have some difficulties in coordination, still lacks confidence, and appears to be poorly organized. The mentor is going to focus on the possible reason why Sunita is having difficulties in planning and linking evidence base and theory to clinical practice whilst underperforming. Sunita might be struggling with learning difficulties or feeling stress as she has other family commitment as a mature student. My role as mentor is to support my student and critically examines the reasons for underperformance. Mentor will look at how stress and learning difficulties would affect Sunita and how this affecting her ability in meeting the requirements for the episode of patient care in the clinical placement area. It is also vital for the person to recognize areas that are being shunned and strive to discover other ways of overcoming the struggle. Once they qualify, student nurse will be expected to function independently in this case. Hence mentor must make sure that Sunita is being evaluated on all required proficiencies as well as not shunning areas they find challenging RCN (2010). Morris and Turnbull, 2006 states that nurses with learning difficulties are normally very mindful of their potential challenges and strengths. So they are really cautious about verifying issues they are less assertive about sequentially to avoiding mistakes, mostly all individuals that engage in patient care, however educational standards should not be expected to be lower in order to accommodate disabled learners Corlett, (2004). All student nurses must meet all the requirements for learning competencies and skills, as well as those are have acknowledged a disability, as they are expected to give a demonstration they are fit for practice as highlighted by the royal college of nursing (RCN 2010). Mentor will Student an evaluation form based on the theory by Honey and Mumford (2000). As there are numerous theories on learning styles. Honey and Mumford (2000) is model broken down into four Reflector, categories Activist, Pragmatist, and Theorist. The characteristics of a reflector are cautious observers. An activist is open minded, passionate and enjoys engaging themselves in new skills while using all the evidence available to them to make decisions. Pragmatist acts right away on notions and is eager to put new procedures into practice. Finally, Theorists think stuff through in a reasonable manner and value logically and objectivity. The delegation was the skill that mentor and Sunita aimed at in this practice. Therefore it was appropriate to demonstrate this skill by giving Sunita the opportunities to shadow mentor and other colleagues at placement and prior to that Sunita will be encouraged read through some journals and guideline regarding delegation. Mentor and student will then discussed possible reasons why as a nurse you would be responsible for the day to day smooth running of your shift, despite each day has its own differences. According to Gopee 2010, there must also be loyalty to work linked to policies and protocols, and also to the professional codes of practice. As a reflective student mentor felt that I should enlighten Sunita how her knowledge and ability and knowledge of delegation would help her when employed as a qualified nurse in the futures as mentor tries to relate to practice. We then went through the process presenting with allocating clinical or non-clinical care or treatment to a compe tent person as nurses will remain responsible for the overall management of the service users, and accountable for their decision to delegate (NLIAH, 2010).

Effect to the Investment Essays - Transport, Volkswagen Group

Effect to the Investment Essays - Transport, Volkswagen Group Effect to the Investment As a result of the diesel emissions scandal, Volkswagen has said it will cut investment by $1.1billions a year. They are now focusing on "repositioned itself for the future" as the efficiency and technology would be the company's watchwords. A greater focus on hybrid and electric vehicles will be given. VW's Dr. Herbert Diess said " We are becoming more efficient, we are giving our product range and our core technologies a new focus, and we are creating room for forward-looking technologies by speeding up the efficiency programme " . According to the Analysis: Theo Leggett, BBC business correspondent, it is no surprise of Volkswagen cutting their investment. It is facing potentially huge fines, class action lawsuits and possible criminal penalties, in the US and quite possibly other countries as well. The 6.5billions Euro to cover the costs of the scandal is said to be enough. Effect to the Trading In order to captivate back customers, the carmaker is offering bigger discounts. The German carmaker has admitted using software to allow diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests. According to Germany's Automobilwoche , Volkswagen raised discounts up to 1681 euros ($1.896.17) to boost used car trade. This came to an existence because a Volkswagen spokesman said that the promotion in Germany around the same level as competitors. Furthermore, discounts were common measures that allowed company to act in a flexible way to comparable offers from rivals. Thomas Zahn, head of sales and marketing for passenger cars has admitted that Volkswagen had not won back trust as fast as expected. He further says that they have not met the ir own plans and expectations. Effect to the Profit of the Company Earlier in 2016 the car sales of Volkswagen continued to fall and the profit tumbled nearly 20% due to the emission scandal. A year before, the company's profit were nearly 4billions Euro. According to the company, their revenues were decreased about 3.4% due to the decline in their vehicle sales and negative exchange rates. Volkswagen also recorded its first annual loss in more than 20 years for 2015, after the 16.2biliions Euro were set aside to pay for costs related to the scandal. The German carmaker admitted it had installed software to cheat US emissions tests in 11m diesel vehicles. The carmaker will buy back about 500,000 cars and give compensation to the owners under the deal struck with the US Department of Justice.