12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay Example for Free

12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay Introduction: This movie analysis will focus on the movie 12 Angry Men. There will be comparisons between the movie and the different negotiation tactics used in the movie and even in class. There were lessons learned from this movie and it gave new ways of thinking. This movie does a great job of using negotiation to win over a case when you are the odd man out. Summary: This movie focuses on a jury deliberating a first-degree murder charge on an eighteen year old boy. The boy is accused of stabbing his father to death. If found guilty of the charges, the eighteen year old boy will face the death sentence. There are many reasons as to why the boy looks guilty. He has a weak alibi, he claims to have lost the knife he bought, which was the same knife found at the murder scene, and there are witness’s saying they either saw the killing or saw the boy leaving the apartment. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven of them think the boy is guilty, except one. This is juror number eight. He claims he just does not know if the boy is guilty or not guilty, and wants to talk. The entire juror’s quickly begin naming all the reasons why the boy is guilty. For each reason, juror number eight questions each reasoning the other jurors bring up. He states a lot in the movie â€Å"is it possible?† This question starts to put doubt in the other juror’s minds about the boys’ guilt. Also with the ongoing deliberation, the jurors are starting to learn more about themselves and their personalities and this is causing them to vote â€Å"not guiltyâ€Å". Some realize they are prejudice or are holding grudges, or they are simply voting guilty because of their backgrounds. With each reason and deliberation, juror number eight continues to attempt to convince the other jurors that voting â€Å"not guilty† may not actually be correct. Juror eight is hesitant about sending a boy to die without talking about it first. He does think that from the trial the boy is guilty, but he’s just not too sure about it. He remains calm throughout the whole deliberation. The only time he shows signs of anger is when two other jury members start playing tic-tac-toe. This bothers him because everyone should be paying attention to what is going on and not playing games. He questions every incident with â€Å"Is it possible?† The best negotiators spend time asking questions, staying curious, and uncovering the other side’s views of the situation, facts, interests, and priorities. Throughout the deliberation, he uncovers information never presented at the trial, and helps the other jurors to think that it just may not be possible the boy could be guilty. Characters Personalities: Each character in the movie has a different personality about them which influences their decision on the verdict and they each express their own opinions based on their characteristics. Each juror plays a part in the movie where their personalities reflect back on a certain argument in the case. Juror one (Martin Balsam) is also known as the foreman of the group. He is put in charge to run the deliberation between all of the jurors. He likes that he has authority to run the group, but isn’t very assertive in doing so. Juror two (John Fiedler) is quiet and goes along with what everyone else says. He changes his vote early, though, to not guilty. He mentions about the height difference between the father and the boy, and how the boy would go about stabbing him. Juror three (Lee J. Cobb) is the angry member of the group. He is convinced the boy is guilty no matter what anyone says. He sees no point in discussing the boy’s innocence. There comes a time in the movie where he discusses that when his son was fifteen, he got in a fight with him and his son hit him. He hasn’t seen his son ever since. Juror three is angry with his son for his actions and for leaving, that he is taking out this anger on the boy in trial. Juror four (E.G. Marshall) is very convinced that the boy is guilty. He shows no sign of emotion and is able to recall much of what happened throughout the trial. He gets nervous though, as he cannot recall a certain movie he saw the other night, just as the boy could not do the same. Juror five (Jack Klugman) is a shy man. He lived in a slum all his life and can almost relate to the boy on trial, for he lives in a slum as well. He is an expert at using a switch knife, which comes in handy during the deliberation. Juror six (Edward Binns) is quite during the deliberation. He questions the boys’ motive for wanting to kill his father. Juror seven (Jack Warden) wants the deliberation to be over as quick as possible because he has tickets to a baseball game later that evening. He votes not guilty and does not wish to discuss why or why not. Juror eight (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty from the start of their meeting. He doesn’t know for sure if the boy is not guilty; he just wants to talk about it. He manages to cast reasonable doubt with the jurors on the boy’s innocence based on many aspects of the trial. He remains clam and patient throughout the deliberation. Juror nine (Joseph Sweeney) is an old man. He is the second person to vote not guilty, for he wants to hear more about the case. He is very observant, as he notices something about one of the witness’s during the trial. Juror ten (Ed Begley) is also an angry man. He is racist, and also very prejudice against people who come from a slum, which is why he believes the boy is guilty. Juror eleven (George Voskovec) takes the trial seriously. He stands up for what he believes in. He questions the boy’s actions a lot; such as if he really would have returned the his house three hours after the murder happened. Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is a smart man. He works for an advertising agency and has a hard time explaining his choice for changing his vote to not guilty. During the deliberation, certain parts of the character’s personalities play a part for different concepts. One example is with Juror five. During the trial, the boy was convicted of murdering is father using a switch knife as the weapon and stabbing his father down in the chest. Juror two makes a point on the height difference between the boy and his father, and how the boy would proceed to kill his father, meaning how he would have stabbed him. Juror five explains that he used to play with switch knives when he was around the boy’s age, and knows how to use one. During the trial, it was stated that the boy was an expert at using a switch knife. Juror five goes to demonstrate exactly how the boy would have pulled out the knife and stabbed his father: from underneath. He said it would take too much time to switch hands and stab down in his chest. Without Juror five having the knowledge and his personal characteristic of using a switch knife, the jury would have never learned how an experienced knife handler would have used the weapon. Tactics: In this section we will talk about a few of the tactics that we got the actors/characters using during the film. A few of this tactics were talked about during our class and case studies but some of the tactics were commonly used in everyday negotiations by everyone. We talked about power and how you could use power to get your way; you could use facts against the other party because facts are something you cannot ignore and emotions. Emotions are a hard tactic to master because you need to set aside your emotions so you can make a fair and honest judgment or answer. Power: Juror eight shows power over the other jurors. He has information the other jurors do not know about, and he is able to negotiate with them more. Information power is derived from the negotiator’s ability to assemble and organize facts and data to support his or her position, arguments, or desired outcomes. The other jurors only listened to what was presented in the trial. But Juror eight actually thought about the facts presented, and went out to look for more information. One way he did this was with the knife. The boy had bought the same knife used to kill his father the same night the murder happened. The boy claimed he had lost the knife, as it had fell through his pocket on his way to the movies. The owner of the shop where he had bought the knife claimed it was very unique, and he had never seen any other kind like it in his store. Juror eight asks to see the knife found at the crime scene. Everyone else is convinced this is the same knife the boy had bought, until Juror eight surprises them and pulls out the exact same knife. He says that he went out walking the previous night in the boy’s neighborhood and came across a shop just two blocks away from the boy’s house. He saw the same knife and bought it at a cheap cost. He proved to the other jurors that it is possible the boy could have dropped his knife, because that knife isn’t as unique as the thought. Another part where Juror eight has power is when they are debating about whether or not the old man heard the boy scream â€Å"I’m going to kill you!† According to the testimony, the boy had yelled those words right as the L-Train was passing by the window. Is it possible the old man heard the boy scream that? Juror eight stated that he had lived in an apartment next to the L tracks before and the sound of a train passing by is unbearable. Another juror said he had just finished painting one of the apartments and agreed that the sound is very loud. Juror eight had power over the others for he himself knew that the sound was very loud and it may not be possible the old man heard the boy say these things. Presentation of Facts: The way the facts were presented during the movie were all facts the jurors figured out themselves while deliberating, and not during the trial. There were many unanswered questions during the trial which caused Juror eight to question whether the boy was guilty or not. The defense attorney left out a lot of important information that was uncovered during the jury’s deliberation. One of these facts dealt with the old man who claimed he saw the boy running down the stairs from his apartment. The more the jury talked about the old man and what he said, the more Juror eight questioned if he had really seen the boy or not. One of the jurors pointed out that the man was dragging his left foot behind him, but trying to cover it up because he was ashamed. During the trial, the old man stated he heard a body hit the floor, and someone starting to run. He then said it took him no more than 15 seconds after he heard the body hit the floor to run out of his apartment and to the stairs to witness the boy running down them. Juror 8 thought then if it really could have taken him 15 seconds if he was dragging his left leg. This is when the jurors played out the scene to figure it out themselves. They were able to get a diagram of the apartment and measure out the dimensions of the room they were in. Juror eight walked the length of the room and back, while Juror two timed him. As he approached the end, Juror 2 said it took 41 seconds to walk the length they had measured out. By playing out the scene of the old man, this proved the fact it could not have taken the man 15 seconds, and he could not have seen the boy running down the stairs. Another important fact happened during the very end of the deliberation. At this point, everyone but two people believed the boy was innocent. Juror four says his reasoning for believing the boy is guilty is because of the woman across the street who claims she saw the murder herself. As he is talking, he takes his glasses off and begins rubbing the outside part of his nose where his glasses lay. Juror nine notices this, and asks him why he rubs his nose like that. Juror four says it is from his glasses, that they bother his nose, so he rubs him. Juror nine notices the markings on his nose from his glasses, and recalls the woman had the exact same markings on her face. He then asks Juror four if there is any other possible way to get those same markings on his nose, and he replies no. Juror eight then starts to say that the woman was lying, for she did not see the boy kill his father, for she was trying to fall asleep, and she wouldn’t be wearing her glasses to bed. These two examples show how hidden facts slowly come out. This is information left out from the trial that everyone missed, until now. After proving these statements, the jurors started to have doubt in their minds about the boy. It’s important to look at every aspect in as much detail as possible or you could miss out on something. Sure, the old man can say it took him 15 seconds, but as it turns out, it took him longer than that. And sure, the woman can say she saw the boy kill her father, but really all she saw was a blur, for she did not have her glasses on. You can’t always go by what you hear. You have to dig deeper to discover any hidden information that could help against your situation. This is what Juror eight did and it helped support his case. Also from these two examples, it goes to show that you can’t always believe what you hear. The witness’s both were under oath as they spoke in trial, but they could just be doing that for attention. Juror nine points this out for the old man, as he can relate. He is old and unnoticed. He just wants attention, so he could have made himself believe he saw the old man when he really didn’t. As for the woman and the glasses, she didn’t wear her glasses to the trial because she wanted to upgrade her appearance. So she said she saw the boy, seeing as if she didn’t wear glasses at all, but really she did for she had the markings on her nose. Emotions: Negotiations often evoke a variety of emotions, especially fear and anger. Emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down. Juror three from the start showed angry signs of emotion throughout the whole deliberation. He stated how he hadn’t seen his son in two years, and all his anger from his son is taken out on the boy on trial. Juror three wants everyone to agree with him. No matter what information is presented, he sticks with his vote of guilty. He gets mad whenever evidence is brought up or someone proves something wrong. His emotions reach a peak whenever Juror eight calls him a sadist. At this point, Juror three lunges toward Juror eight saying â€Å"I’ll kill him!† Then Juror eight replies, â€Å"You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?† This proves his point about how sometimes people say things they really don’t mean. His emotions got the best of him, and he realized that he really wouldn’t kill the juror. Having your emotions from your personal life come into play during a negotiation is not always a good thing. Juror three should not have taken his anger out on the boy or even on Juror eight because of his son. He was angry at his son for leaving, but he should have put that aside for the deliberation. Having your emotions lay out like that on the table can cause you not to think about the important facts that need to be focused on. Juror eight shows emotion in a positive way. He stays very calm throughout the whole deliberation. By showing no sign of angry emotion, this allows him to keep his composure and control of what he is trying to get across. If negotiators feel positively attracted, they are more likely to feel confident and, as a result, to persist in trying to get their concerns and issues addressed in the negotiation and to achieve better outcomes Bias: I’d like to spend some time discussing an issue that I feel is very important to recognize when it comes to negotiations. This is the issue of bias. We had several discussions in class about bias. The thing that most fascinates me about the concept of bias, is that everyone tends to have a different opinion about it. It can be a very grey area, and many people have varying feelings on its presence and its effect on people’s behavior. Personally, I feel that it’s impossible to completely eliminate all bias from a situation. Even when looking at something objectively, bias still exists. It comes from personal characteristics, experiences, and opinions. This movie does a great job of showing how bias can have an effect on negotiations. I’d like to cite an example from the film regarding juror number ten. This juror is an old man who is very set in his ways. He is among the eleven jurors who found the boy guilty of murder. However, his reason for voting guilty comes from a very different place than the others. The evidence seems to favor a guilty vote, but the film shows us that this gentleman’s vote was sealed the minute he learned the boy was from a slum. During the deliberations, this juror seconds an argument made by a fellow juror. He says, â€Å"Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl out of these places are real trash.† Regardless of this evidence, this shows a bias against the boy from the start. This man is allowing his prejudice against â€Å"slum dwellers† to influence his decision about the verdict. The juror across the table then takes offense to this comment. â€Å"I’ve lived in a slum all my life,† says the juror. This should quell the old man’s argument, but it doesn’t. He still feels strongly about his position, even though a man from a similar background clearly hasn’t followed a path that â€Å"trash† might follow. This demonstrates the power of bias. The greatest example of overcoming bias in this film occurs in the very last minutes. By this point, the jury has reached a vote of 11 to 1 for â€Å"not guilty.† The lone juror who still maintains the boy’s guilt is juror number three. This is the man who hasn’t seen his own son in over two years. Earlier in the deliberations, he explained how he and his son got into a fight when the boy was still a teenager. His son hit him, and things were never the same between them. As the talks between the jurors continues, it becomes more and more evident that this man has a bias against the boy on trial because of what transpired with his own boy. He wants to see this boy killed because he resents his own son for what occurred between them. The initial juror who voted â€Å"not guilty† went as far as calling him a â€Å"sadist† and a â€Å"public avenger.† In the final scene, that juror asks the man to defend his arguments one last time. There is a re asonable doubt in the minds of eleven jurors, and he wants to know why there isn’t one in his. Juror number three begins explaining, yelling the entire time. You can see him getting more and more upset as he continues to pour over evidence that the other men have already proven shaky. Finally, he rips up the picture of him and his son that has slid out of his wallet on the table. He then bursts into tears and cries, â€Å"Not guilty, not guilty.† It was clearly painful for him to confront what happened with his son head on like that. This was creating his bias the entire time. When the evidence appeared to support the boy’s guilt, his bias was less prevalent. But when the evidence that started out convincing ended up being questionable, his bias began to show. He still wanted the boy to be found guilty because of it. This really makes you wonder how often this occurs in the real world. How many innocent men and women have been sent to jail because of biased members of a perceived â€Å"impartial† jury? It’s an imperfect system, dealing with a very i nexact science. Recognizing this is very important. From this course, and from analyzing this film, I have strengthened my belief that bias can’t be eliminated. All a negotiator can do is recognize that bias is constant, and do their best to minimize its effect on their decision making process. If a negotiator recognizes this, they can do more negotiating based on facts and figures rather than personal biases and opinions. Power and Persuasion: An interesting aspect of this movie, as it continues to relate to this course, is the use of power and persuasion. What I find most interesting about power, is the myriad of ways through which it may be obtained. In class, we discussed several ways that power is obtained, and also how it can be used. In this movie, there are many circumstances where the jurors attempt to use power to persuade one another. Perhaps the most prevalent example at an attempt to use power to persuade the others is shown by juror number three. This juror often exudes power when talking down the case with the man who hasn’t turned in a â€Å"guilty† verdict. He begins by explaining all of the evidence again. He discusses the old man who claims he heard the boy, the old lady who says she saw the boy, and the knife discovered by the police who arrived at the murder scene. He is very confident in this evidence, and feels as though he has the power because of it. After taking this course, I find that this is the best way to gain power in a negotiation. The more information you have to support your argument, the more power you have. In turn, this often results in achieving your goals in the negotiation. However, as the process continues, the juror voting â€Å"not guilty† starts to sway the room. The oldest man on the jury is the first to change his vote. The juror from the slums changes his vote not long after that. As this is happening, it appears that juror number three feels as though he is losing power in this negotiation. To counter this, he begins raising his voice when talks. Before long, he is all but yelling at the other jurors who have changed their votes. He attempts to retain his power through intimidation once he sees that the evidence, which he thought was solid, is shown to be shaky and imprecise. Another example of how power is used to persuade others in this film is demonstrated by the stock broker, otherwise known as juror number four. It appears that this juror feels an immediate sense of power in this scenario because he is one of the most, if not the most, accomplished gentleman of the group. He feels that he is probably the most intelligent man on this jury, and demonstrates that when talks. He recalls much of the information from the trial very accurately, and with no notes. He also explains very clearly why he feels the way he feels. Power through intellectual superiority can be very persuasive, and influential. The man he is attempting to persuade does a very good job of keeping his composure. He doesn’t challenge the broker’s power. In fact, he affirms it. He appears to respect that the juror is making valid points and supporting his argument. He goes a different route. He simply takes an issue and asks, â€Å"Is it possible?† While the other jurors refute this claim, the broker remains quiet. As the man slowly begins to disprove some of the testimony from the case, you can see the broker questioning his verdict more intently. Finally, he changes his vote to not guilty. This is where everything turns. The other jurors picked up on the quiet power exuded by the broker, and respected it all along. Once he turned in a â€Å"not guilty† vote, it was only a matter of time before the others joined him. This is convincing tell that this man had a great deal of power in this negotiation. In a less successful attempt to gain power, the angry old man attempts to convince the man of the boy’s guilt through a â€Å"power in numbers† technique. He feels very comfortable with his verdict of â€Å"guilty† because the others feel the same way. During the initial discussions in the deliberation room, he continuously says, â€Å"You know what I mean?† This is an attempt to keep others on his side while he tries to persuade the rogue juror to vote â€Å"guilty.† He feels he has power in this negotiation because he has the majority on his side. This is a common tactic in negotiations. As the film progresses and more and more jurors change their verdict, you can easily see the power leaving the angry old man. He is forced to confront his prejudice and accept that he was wrong. When he is no longer in the majority, his sense of power quickly fades. He becomes defensive and weak as more and more people leave his side. This is most prevalent in the scene where he attempts to defend his â€Å"guilty† vote one last time. He stands up, and continues yelling and shouting his narrow minded opinions, much as he’d done the entire time. His arguments, now more than ever, are being entirely disregarded, and for good reason. Each point he is making is based solely on prejudice. He thinks he is powerful, but nothing he is saying is based on fact, or really has anything to do with the case. One by one, the other jurors begin getting up from the table and ignoring him. Even the juror who was consistently making wise cracks during the deliberations is looking away from him. Soon, no one in the room is backing him. He then retires to the corner, alone. He not only lost the majority, he lost the support of the other men who were still turning in a â€Å"guilty† vote. This is a great example of power shifting, which we discussed in class. You asked us if it’s possible for power to shift during a negotiation, and this is a good demonstration of how it can. Works Cited: Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C.K.S. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100-123. Diamond, S. (2010). Getting More: How to Negotiate to Achieve Your Goals in the Real World. New York City, NY: Crown Publishing Group. Earley, P.C., Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Gates, S. (2011). The Negotiation Book: Your Definitive Guide To Successful Negotiating (1st ed.). United Kingdom, UK: John Wiley and Sons LTD. Shell , R. G. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People 2nd Edition (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: The Penguin Group. Thompson, L. L. (2008). The Truth About Negotiations . Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Instability of the Spanish Colonies

Instability of the Spanish Colonies Section 2: Investigation Many Historians would agree that Spains instability gave their colonies autonomy theyve been waiting for. Spain was ruled by a monarch while Spanish colonies were organized as vice-royalties whose loyalty was with the king. Spain attempted to control every aspect of colonial life through thousands of regulations, by increasing tax revenue, and replacing Creole officers to peninsulares (Strang). Despite Colonies restricted trade, the growing Creole American identity, and the disrespect peninsulares had toward creoles which created discontent among creoles, Spanish colonies did little to change the status quo. Although there were some uprisings in the 1780s such as the Tupac Amaru rebellion, they fought not for their independence and rights but for a change in the system under the monarchy; their slogan was viva el rey y muera al mal gobierno (long live the king and death to bad government) (Strang, popular sovereignty and decolonization). Colonies call for independence was instead tri ggered by an external force: The collapse of Spain (Blaufarb, the Western Question).Napoleons invasion of Spain and the accession of Joseph Bonaparte onto the Spanish throne sparked revolts in Latin America (Strang, popular sovereignty and decolonization), because Bonaparte wasnt seen as their legitimate king. In cities not yet controlled by the French and in Spanish colonies, Juntas were created in the name of the absent king: Ferdinand VII (Strang, popular sovereignty and decolonization). Although the colonies were still loyal to the monarchy, the idea that the power would be given to the people became increasingly prevalent; each city now only had their own interests in mind due to the fact that they couldnt answer to the king. The first two juntas established were the junta of Chuquiasaca in todays Bolivia and of la Paz; the junta of Bolivia was created to reassure its allegiance to the junta central in Spain while Junta of la Paz was created because they wanted to separate from the crown (Donghi, The Contemporary History of Latin America). The establishment of la Paz created tensions in the Americas. Bolivian Historiographers believed it to be the beginning of their struggle for independence (Donghi, The Contemporary History of Latin America). Many juntas created from then on wanted to be part of a government of liberty and independence (Donghi, The Contemporary History of Latin America). Meanwhile in Spain, Bonaparte was still ruling the empire, and was instable more than ever. The invasion depleted Spains assets which started a debate over the nature of sovereignty which will start a civil war (Blaufarb, the Western Question).Communication was also severed between Spain and its colonies after France took control of Spain. The collapse of the Spanish empire and its weakened authority, created an international competition over Spanish colonies (Blaufarb, the Western Question). After the invasion Britain attempted to keep Spanish America together in order to exploit their resources and also keep France from taking control of the colonies (Blaufarb, the Western Question). Since Spain was in chaos, they couldnt enforce trade restrictions giving colonies the freedom to trade with any nation which benefited Britain. Britain therefore had an incentive to use its naval power to keep France from taking over.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   Britain loosened their control of the Atlantic aft er the war was over. In 1815, although business went back to normal, tensions increased within the Spanish monarchy; wartime unity among Spaniards to fight against France disappeared after Ferdinand VII regained power, and some even turned against Ferdinand and allied with Latin American rebels to end the monarchy (Blaufarb, the Western Question).To take advantage of Spains instability and declare independence would be seen as treacherous, additionally the colonies were optimistic that Ferdinand would embrace reform which wasnt the case. After it became clear that the colonies will not return to obedience, Ferdinand established oppressive policies (Blaufarb, the Western Question).). As compromises became unattainable, uprisings against the monarchy began to take form and more people were sacrificed. Although many historians agree that the collapse of Spain was caused by the invasion which led to colonies call on independence, historians of the reform era consider the Bourbon reforms to be a crucial cause of the revolts. The colonies started to develop an identity separate to that of Spain because of those reforms(lynch). The change was so great that some historians, such as John Lunch, described them as a second conquest of the Americas (Lynch, the Spanish American Revolutions). During the 2nd half of the 18th century, Bourbon Spain sought to change its economy, society, and institutions; the main reasons of those reforms were the decline of Spains productivity (Lynch, the Spanish American Revolutions). Their goal was to strengthen the kings power, centralize state power through reforms, increase production with trade within the colonies, and increase revenues going to Spain (Lynch, the Spanish American Revolutions). Although those reforms were established in order to bring the colonies closer under Spains control, it isolated the Creole population, strengthened their American Identity and laid groundwork for the wars of independence during the 19th century (Lynch, the Spanish American Revolutions). In an effort to increase silver, and gold production (most revenues comes from mining), the monarchy decreased their taxes in half (Lynch, the Spanish American Revolutions). Bourbon monarchs prevented colonies from competing with goods exported from Spain by reinforcing laws that restricted colonies from trading with other empires with the exception of Spain; laws such as the legal code of 1778 regulations and royal tariffs for free trade (Kuethe and Andrien, The Spanish Atlantic World in the Eighteenth Century). Creole elites unhappy with those restrictions aggravated their sense of alienation from the crown. Measures taken to increase mining production increased workers and slaves labor which also led to their discontent. They succeed their goals of increasin g trade, and royal revenues but also weakened elites and lower classes sense of loyalty to the crown. Spain also established two new viceroyalties (of New Granada and of Rio de la Plata), and excluded most creoles to increase royal control and weaken creoles influence whom they thought had grown too large (Kuethe and Andrien, The Spanish Atlantic World in the Eighteenth Century), again heightening creoles negative sentiments towards Spain. As part of efforts to reinstate royal supremacy, the crown negotiated with Rome giving them a greater authority to nominate and appoint religious authorities (Kuethe and Andrien, The Spanish Atlantic World in the Eighteenth Century). But the most significant religious bourbon reform was the expulsion of the Jesuits who had economical, political and religious power; Creoles who were educated in Jesuits colleges and those who had the same views as Jesuits found their expulsion in 1767 disturbing (Kuethe and Andrien, The Spanish Atlantic World in the Eighteenth Century). The Jesuits expulsion drove another wedge between the crown and Creole elites. The bourbon reforms as a whole ultimately failed to achieve their goals mainly because it deepened divisions between the colonies and Spain. The rising nationalist sentiments in the Americas enabled the formation of a separate American identity and thus laid the groundwork for the wars of independence after The Napoleonic invasion of Spain. The bourbon reforms did weaken colonies loyalty to the crown; it created discontent among Creole elites but wasnt enough to declare independence from Spain. Without the decline of the Spanish empire and Britains naval power which kept France from controlling the colonies, colonies would have never known what true autonomy was like. Although the war for independence would have happened sooner or later, The Napoleonic invasion precipitated those uprisings. The instability in Spain gave colonies a sense of political legitimacy and power. Authority came from the king, laws were obeyed from it came from the king, but now there was no king to obey. The colonies were able to govern themselves as power was now in the hands of the people, allowing them to trade freely. The majority of the colonies waited until Ferdinand VII regained power mainly out of fear, but after it became clear that the king wanted the colonies to return to obedience, the colonies started to revolt for their independenc e. On the other hand, Latin American independence would have eventually happened because of the growing tensions before the Napoleonic war, new enlightened ideas, the American and French revolutions, the financial dependency Spain had which was revealed by the bourbon reforms, and the rise of Creoles influence; the Napoleonic war merely   precipitated the revolts.

Human Nature :: essays research papers

Human nature Grade: B Language: English System: Country: Taiwan Our life is full of problems. Reasoning is a usual way to response to problems which we concern about. We reason in response to everyday problems. For instance, asked by friends to go out dinner at a time when we have planned something else, we must decide which one is more important for us at that moment of time, and whether to decline or to adjust our schedule. Reasoning appropriate to problems like this has often been called practical. Practical reasons might be said to be reasons for acting, and it is in some sense point toward action. Practical reasoning has been much discussed by philosophers, and it is catalogued under Moral Philosophy. For Aristotle’s moral philosophy, as it appears in his document now called the Nicomachean ethics, reflects his teleological (goal-oriented) metaphyics. In the Nicomachean ethics, where Aristotle considers a science of doing, and acting in certain way to seek rational ends. The notion of Goal, or Purpose, is the principal one in his moral theory. Aristotle noted that every act is performed for some purpose, which he defined as the "good" of that act, the end at which the activity aims. We perform an act because we find its purpose to be worthwhile. Either the totality of our acts is an infinitely circular series: Every morning we get up in order to eat breakfast, we eat breakfast in order to go to work, we got to work in order to get money, we get money so we can buy food in order to be able to eat breakfast, etc., etc., etc., in which case life would be a pretty meaningless endeavor because this is just bunch of repeated and vain activities practicing if without a purpose. Or there is some ultimate good toward which the purpose of all acts are directed. If there is such a good, we should try to come to know it so that we can adjust all our acts toward it in order to avoid that saddest of all tragedies – the wasted and vain life According to Aristotle, there is general verbal agreement that the end toward which all human acts are directed is happiness; therefore, happiness is the human good since we seek happiness for its own sake, not for the sake of something else. In a sense, realizing the end of attaining happiness is an activity of making, and it’s the activity aims to make a certain kind of man, living in a certain kind of society. Happiness might be explained as the

Poverty and Domestic Violence

The topics chosen from the given scenario are domestic violence, poverty and feminism. Women's Aid (2009) defines domestic violence as physical, sexual, psychological, or financial. This takes place within an intimate or family type relationship. All forms of domestic violence come from the abuser's desire for power and control. The perpetrator is most commonly male but can be female. For the purpose of the assignment I will use the terminology domestic violence rather than domestic abuse because although the latter is the preferred term a lot of the texts still refer to this as violence. One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime; many of these on a number of occasions. One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute and on average two women are killed by a current or former partner every week (Women's Aid, 2009). These statistics speak volumes as to the enormous problem we as social workers face. This assignment will briefly discuss interventions employed to ease poverty in history. Social policy and laws pertaining to domestic violence will be highlighted. Feminism will be used to mention the origins and dynamics of domestic violence. The Ecological Theory and its relevance to social work practice will be demonstrated. Personal reflection will be given and finally a conclusion will draw together the aforementioned topics. History and political development Domestic abuse can be resultant of social structural factors such as bad housing, unemployment and poverty. One can not plot the history of domestic abuse because historically it was seen as a private family matter rather than a societal issue but it is possible to look at a potential causal issue: poverty. An act which was designed to alleviate poverty was the English Poor Laws introduced in 1601 this dictated that the poor and disabled were taken care of by the working able bodied and the local parishes. The work houses accommodated thousands of poor people who had no choice but to enter these foreboding establishments if they could not find work. Prior to this the poor were cared for by charity (Marshall, 2002). Enlightenment arose in the eighteenth century as a result of the French addressing their problem of poverty, this was more a way of thinking than a movement but this spread across Europe. This belief was that the government should reward efforts of those working and should not make those poorer when they are willing to work by failing to provide employment. (McStay Adams, 1991). Less known for helping the poor is the contribution of religious women, one such example being the Sisters of Mercy who for many years during the 1800's provided direct aid to the poor. The Sisters of Mercy helped establish social welfare systems and according to Luquet (2005) contributed to what became social work. In 1942 the Beveridge Report highlighted what was referred to as the ‘five giants'. These were idleness, squalor, want, disease and ignorance. As a result of this a programme of employment was introduced, new houses were built, benefit schemes were initiated, free healthcare was available to everyone and free secondary education was provided by the state (Aslangul et al, 2000). Thatcherism is the term referred to during the period between 1979 and 1991 when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. During her time in office she was concerned with controlling Britain's money supply, known as monetarism. She began privatising public companies and introduced the controversial poll tax. When New Labour was elected they merely retreated further from a commitment to welfare. Basically, they moved away from their traditional roots (McAuley, 2003). Social policy and law Social work has witnessed unprecedented changes as a result of the ever changing social policies and new laws which in turn have forced social work to adapt at an alarming rate. Humphrey cited in Davies (2008) in reference to domestic violence wrote; significant barriers are apparent when working in this area but the increase in awareness has resulted in the development of legislation, policy and practice. The Women's Movement in Britain during the 1960's and 1970's was influenced by radical feminism from USA. The ideology of this was to campaign for equal pay, job opportunities, education, reproductive freedom, childcare, financial and legal independence and end violence against women (Dobash and Dobash, 1992). The acknowledgment of violence in families was over 150 years ago when The Act for Prevention and Punishment of Aggravated Assaults on Women and Children 1853 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (McKie, 2005). The first legal recognition in recent history was given to domestic abuse and the women's need to escape from violence in their homes with the introduction of The Domestic Violence Act 1976 (Pascall, 1997). Interagency collaboration is essential when working in the area of domestic violence. Working Together provides comprehensive and detailed guidance for professionals (Department for Education and Skills, 2006). To protect the victim of domestic violence the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is in place which can be used to protect someone from behaviour which causes psychological injury. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 extend this power (Brayne and Carr, 2008). The Adoption and Children Act 2002 was amended to include the definition of harm, which now states ‘impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another'. Those vulnerable because of domestic violence or the threat of violence are given priority for housing according to the Homeless Act 2002 (Alcock, 2008). Chung et al (2001) reported that the government suggested to gp's to consider routinely screening women for domestic violence to try and increase rates of identification. However, it is only recently that this concept has been implemented in midwifery but has yet to become commonplace in general practice. This is disappointing because more women are seen by gp's. Also, women may see their doctor about something which may appear unrelated but as Humphreys and Thiara (2003) explain depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and self harm are so prevalent amongst abused women these are referred to as ‘symptoms of abuse' which could be picked up and acted upon by gp's. Feminism Dutton (2007) wrote that psychiatry in the early twentieth century had determined that women remain in abusive relationships because the punishment fills an unconscious need in them. Fortunately, this viewpoint was seen as victim blaming by feminists. Feminists all share the same basic philosophy of wanting fairness and equality. There are however several feminist theories such as radical feminism. It was feminists who first highlighted domestic violence and other taboo issues which were previously beyond public scrutiny because it was thought these belonged to the private sphere of the family (Hester and Pearson cited in Trevithick 2005). Research shows there is a link between domestic violence and child abuse. Women with learning disabilities have been found to be vulnerable as are physically disabled women (Humphries cited in Davies, 2008). A very powerful statement by Stacey and Price cited in Pascall (1997) wrote domestic violence is a way men assert power over women. Foucalt (1979) disputes this suggestion because he says power is not used against another and power is not seen as a property or possession. Karl Marx highlighted women's inequalities and their oppression within society but capitalism was mentioned as being the main reason for this (McAuley, 2003). According to Harris (2005) feminists criticise the media especially the film industry for the film industry for their explicit portrayal of sex and glorifying male violence against women. Similarly, reported allegations of rape are increasing while convictions in the UK decline (McKie, 2005). This knowledge does not instil much confidence in women and in my opinion damages the feminist principles that have taken so long to construct. It must be recognised that only a small number of men are interested in pro-feminist theories and ideas. Ecological theory, social work practice and reflection. The ecological theory in sociology has a direct connection to human interactions. It explores the relationship of the physical environment and human culture (Macionis and Plummer, 2005). Using this theory it attempts to link violence in the family to the broader social environment. As a social worker one must recognise women who are being subjected to domestic violence and need a network of support. These include cultural, formal, informal social family networks, the closer family setting and circumstances and family history. It is important to know the policies and laws pertaining to domestic violence. Also, it is beneficial to have knowledge of safe houses, counselling services and practical support. My personal opinion about domestic violence has not changed over the years. Although, I have recently recognised and accept the relationship between low self esteem and domestic violence. I had a fortunate upbringing and my father always instilled in me the importance of having self respect first and foremost when meeting people. I did have a friend who was subjected to domestic violence but she did not confide in me until her boyfriend had left her for another woman, which I told her was a blessing for her. The thought of someone being violent towards another human being makes me feel sick and I can not comprehend what motivates anyone to abuse another person. Conclusion This assignment has explored domestic violence, poverty, history and politics in relation to poverty. Policies and laws were mentioned which protect those subjected to domestic violence. Feminism was discussed, the ecological theory was briefly applied to domestic violence and an explanation was given to its relevance to social work. Finally, I reflected on my own thoughts and feelings in relation to domestic violence. Having completed this assignment and read widely on the subject of domestic violence I feel this is an emotive area which requires much empathy and support. I believe the most important qualities when working with this issue is to be the victims advocate and empower them on their terms.

Heating Design essays

Heating Design essays In this task we were asked to make a house that would be thermally efficient and thus energy efficient to heat and cool. Energy is transferred through three mediums, conduction surfaces contacting and transferring energy through them, convection natural air cycles etc, and radiation energy transferred without a medium. I have firstly focused on convection, pumping insulation into the walls and fiberglass roofing insulation as well as think underlay insulation underneath the think carpet. Reverse cycle air conditioning which provides the house with heating and cooling, ducts are placed in most rooms alongside reversible ceiling fans, using the fans air can be cycled around, and hot air can be recycled and cool air more effectively cool and heat rooms. In the roof there are tiles with a reflective foil underneath which helps to insulate and with fiberglass insulation in the ceiling, the roof cavity would then be a huge insulator so a large extracting fan is in the roof with a cover so in summer it can extract heat and in winter it can be covered to avoid heat loss. The windows are double-glazed which saves a lot of heat escaping or keeps the heat out. On the interior the windows have heavy curtains, which are lined to help insulate. In summer the west side of the house is receiving lots of sun light and energy because the sun is in that part of its cycle by the afternoon so the house heats up more in the afternoon in summer than any other time. Evergreen trees are placed to the west of the house and no windows so heat transfer is reduced on the west walls. On the south walls the windows are small and unobstructed. On the east, grass replaces concrete; grass does not reflect as well as concrete so it avoids heat reflection into the small windows, which I did not include because it is even more effective to have no east and no westerly facing windows. ...

eisenhower essays

eisenhower essays 1. Eisenhower's goals were to break the dead lock in peace negotiations by going to Korea, facilitate the passing of the Cold War by dealing with the USSR, and in communicating so well with oversea relations, he turned out to be an excellent foreign policy maker. 2. Eisenhower was an open-minded individual who listened to all sides before decisions were made. He promoted peace, wanted to eliminate blame, wanted to help others, and wanted to make the UN effective as a force. Eisenhower went to Korea to have a peace talk, he signed a treaty in Manila to create SEATO, protected all anti-Communists as stated in the Eisenhower doctrine, and in doing so, extended Americans hand out to foreign countries. On the other hand, he had no tolerance for extreme Rightists or Leftists. 3. When critical decisions needed to be made, they were all made after careful weighing of consequences. For example, during the Suez Canal crisis, the US worked through the UN and demanded a cease-fire, which would have turned into something huge if we didn't. Also, Eisenhower did everything he could to resolve conflict and end disputes, which would be agreed upon by today's society. 4. Eisenhower appointed mixed people to important positions. Some were very good, others, such as Secretary of Treasury Robert Anderson, got into trouble. Some of his better appointments are George M. Humphrey and Marion Folsom. 5. The president instituted no major policies of his own (besides the Eisenhower doctrine), but continued the domestic and foreign programs of his democratic predecessors. His relationship with Congress was pretty balanced, for there were no major disagreements. They did, however, work together in order to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. 6. Eisenhower was the first Republican since Herbert Hoover, and he therefore brought his party back to a central position in American politics. He continued the good policies as those presidents before him, making ...

All About Exterior Paint Problems and How to Fix Them

All About Exterior Paint Problems and How to Fix Them What are the safest ways to remove paint? Does exterior paint need to be taken off down to the bare wood? Do heat guns really work? These are questions homeowners around the world face. You are not alone. Fortunately, the paint problems of one persons home are the same faced by other homeowners. Believe it or not, the  U.S. Department of the Interior has come to the rescue. It wasnt until 1966 that the U.S. became serious  about preserving its historic heritage. Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act and charged the  National Park Service (NPS)  with supporting historic preservation programs and activities. Their handy series of preservation briefs are geared toward historic buildings, but the information is great professional advice that anyone can use. Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork,  Preservation Brief 10, was written by Kay D. Weeks and David W. Look, AIA for the Technical Preservation Services. Although written back in 1982 for historic preservationists, these recommendations are good starting points for homeowners to come to terms with what needs to be done. Here is a summary of the historic preservation guidance and expertise for painting exterior wood siding - with links to more information from the original brief. Selecting the Safest Method to Remove Paint Removing paint involves work - that is, the manual labor of abrasion. How much time and effort are put into paint removal (or paint preparation) is a judgment call and may be the most difficult decision you make. Basically, you can remove paint from your homes exterior siding by three methods: 1. Abrasive: Rubbing, scraping, sanding, and generally using friction. Use a putty knife and/or a paint scraper to dislodge anything loose. Then use sandpaper (orbital or belt sanders are okay) to smooth each area. Do not use rotary drill attachments (rotary sanders and rotary wire strippers), do not water blast or pressure wash, and do not sandblast. These abrasive methods may be too harsh to the siding itself. Pressure washing above 600 psi may force moisture into places where it should not go. A gentle garden hose for cleaning up is okay. 2. Thermal and Abrasive: Heating paint to a melting point and then scraping it from the surface.  For thick layers of built-up paint, use an electric heat plate, an electric heat gun, or a hot air gun that heats from 500 °F to 800 °F. The blow torch is not recommended. 3. Chemical and Abrasive: Using a chemical reaction to soften the paint to make it easier to scrape away. For many reasons, use chemicals only as a supplement to other methods of paint removal. They are too dangerous for you and the environment. Two classes of chemicals are solvent-based strippers and caustic strippers. A third category is biochemical, which may be marketed as bio- or eco- but its the chemical part that makes it work. Paint Removal Precautions Any house built before 1978 may have lead-based paint. Do you really want to remove it? Also, dont substitute speed for safety. Only use the recommended methods listed above. Keep yourself safe and your house in one piece. Paint Surface Conditions and Recommended Treatments Ask yourself why you want to paint your house. If there is no paint failure, adding another layer of paint may actually be harmful. When paint builds up to a thickness of approximately 1/16 (approximately 16 to 30 layers), say the authors of Preservation Brief 10, one or more extra coats of paint may be enough to trigger cracking and peeling in limited or even widespread areas of the buildings surface. Repainting buildings for cosmetic reasons are not always good reasoning. Sometimes you dont need to remove old paint at all, especially for these conditions: Dirt and Grime: Sometimes road dirt and salt can make siding look worse than it is. Clean it with l/2 cup of household detergent in a gallon of water with a medium soft bristle brush and then a gentle hosing.Mildew: Clean with a medium soft brush using one cup non-ammoniated detergent, one-quart household bleach, and one gallon of water. Try to open the area to the sun to avoid further mildew.Paint chalking is that white film on the surface of old paint that is breaking down. Clean the area with a medium soft brush using l/2 cup household detergent to one gallon of water.Stained paint occurs most often from metal or wood becoming moist and coloring the painted surface. Determine the cause of the stain, but its usually unnecessary to remove the paint. Limited paint removal can be considered for these conditions: Paint Crazing: Crazing is fine, jagged interconnected breaks in the top layer of paint. It happens when a house has many layers of paint that become hard and brittle, not allowing expansion and contraction with the wood. Sand off a layer and repaint.Paint Blistering: To distinguish between solvent blistering and blistering caused by moisture, a blister should be cut open.Wrinkled Paint: This happens when the paint has been put on incorrectly. The authors call this an error in application. In a historic building, leave a small out-of-the-way patch untouched for archival purposes. A record of all of the paint layers through the history of the house is useful for future historians. Unfortunately, some conditions require complete removal of exterior paint: Paint Peeling: Before painting, remove sources of moisture inside and outside, as described by the authors: Excess interior moisture should be removed from the building through installation of exhaust fans and vents. Exterior moisture should be eliminated by correcting the following conditions prior to repainting: faulty flashing; leaking gutters; defective roof shingles; cracks and holes in siding and trim; deteriorated caulking in joints and seams; and shrubbery growing too close to painted wood.Cracking and Alligatoring: These symptoms are advanced stages of crazing. General Paint Type Recommendations Paint type is not the same aa s paint color. The type of paint to choose depends on the conditions, and most old (historic) homes will have oil-based paint somewhere in the mix. Remembering that this article was written in 1982, these authors seem to like oil-based paints. They say, The reason for recommending oil rather than latex paints is that a coat of latex paint applied directly over old oil paint is more apt to fail. Justification for Paint Removal A major purpose for exterior paint is to keep the moisture out of your home. Often you dont need to remove paint down to the bare wood. To do so usually requires harsh methods that may damage the wood. Also, the layers of paint on a house are like the rings of a tree trunk - they provide a history that future owners may want to analyze in a laboratory during an architectural investigation. Painting a house every 5 to 8 years protects exterior wood siding from moisture penetration - and can add some zing to your homes curb appeal. Regular maintenance of a house will include mere cleaning, scraping, and hand sanding. Where there is a paint failure, determine and fix the cause before you even begin a painting project. Treating paint problems often means a total painting of the structure may be unnecessary. However, if you determine that you need to paint your house, keep two things in mind before you repaint: (1) only remove the top layer of paint down to the next sound layer; and (2) use the gentlest means possible. The authors summarize their findings by repeating their cautious approach to painting and paint removal. The bottom line is this: There is no completely safe and effective method of removing old paint from exterior woodwork. Learn More PDF Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, Reconstructing Historic Buildings by Kay Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, 1995, revised 2017 by Anne E. GrimmerNotes: Headings are linked to the complete section of Preservation Brief 10 on the NPS website. Quotations are from that online version. The order of sections on this page may differ from the official version. A 12-page, black and white PDF version of Preservation Brief 10 is also available.