Columbus Day Essay Example for Free

Columbus Day Essay When asked should Columbus Day be celebrated? The answer we get is yes because we have a holiday on Monday of the second week of October. Columbus Day is the celebration of the day Christopher Columbus apparently discovered America. If I was asked that question I would say most definitely we shouldn’t celebrate Columbus Day. First, he brought disease that spread around the Americas killing 9off the Native Americans. Second, most people think that by celebrating Columbus Day we are celebrating the discovery of America, which is not true. Third, he destroyed Native Americans and their culture. Firstly, he brought a boat load of disease that spread around the Americas killing off the Native Americans. When Christopher Columbus came to America he brought many diseases that Native Americans weren’t immune to. Some of the diseases he brought were measles, mumps, smallpox, and many more. Smallpox was one of the most know disease he brought to America. The Native Americans had never been exposed to these types of diseases and millions of them died from it. The diseases would kill the entire families and villages and cause of that Native American tribes and cultures were damaged. By celebrating Columbus Day we are celebrating the damage he produced to Native Americans. Secondly, most people think that by celebrating Columbus Day we are celebrating the discovery of America, which is not true. How can America be ever discovered by him if there were people living there? America was already exiting and you can’t discover something that already exists. Christopher Columbus did not find North American on purpose and he was not the first to find it either. Leif Ericsson of the Viking found North America first. So technically Christopher Columbus didn’t discover America so why should we have a day just for him? It just doesn’t make sense to have a holiday for someone but there is no really reason behind it. Thirdly, he destroyed Native Americans and their culture. Christopher Columbus was an uncaring and a harsh person. He mistreated Native Americans when they tried to be welcoming to him and his crew. He killed many Native Americans and slaves, the killing led to culture and tribes damaging. The only thing he was after for were Gold and Slaves. He took so much from the helpless Native Americans and was selfish and heartless. He neglected them in every nasty way possible and gave them cruel and unusual punishments. Why should we celebrate a day for a person that has mistreated our people? That like saying you have used me many times but I will still go back to you. We shouldn’t celebrate a day for a person that was as careless, and heartless as him. In conclusion, in America every year we celebrate a day called Columbus Day. Many people believe we celebrate Columbus Day because he discovered America. It’s not possible for him to discover America if there were people living there already. If you look deep into what worthy and cruel things Columbus had done for us, most of them will be cruel things. I don’t think we would want to have a national holiday for the person who has done so much cruel things to us. Firstly, he brought lots of disease that spread around the Americas killing off the Native Americans. Secondly, most people think that by celebrating Columbus Day we are celebrating the discovery of America, which is not true. Thirdly, he destroyed Native Americans and their culture. In my opinion we should not Celebrate Columbus Day.

Ethical And Unethical Factors Of Leadership Management Essay

Ethical And Unethical Factors Of Leadership Management Essay Ethical leadership is important to achieve organizational long term goals. There are some factors that influence the ethical leaders traits in the organization. These factors include leaders morality, trustworthy, honesty, authenticity, and authority. Some unethical and toxic leaders effects organizational objectives. The primary objective of this study is to present the factors that influence ethical and unethical behaviours of leaders in the organizations. Ethical decision making is done by ethical leaders through organizational ethical code of conduct and decision rules. Next, it is followed with organizational top management (effective leaders) importance in implementation of ethical programs to their subordinates. This is also explains the importance of corporate culture to achieve effective ethical leadership. Next part of this study describes Leader Member Exchange (LME) theory. Importance of this theory is also elaborated. This is followed with people and task orientation lea dership roles. Nature of this ethical leadership style is explained with CISCO chairman and CEO, John Chambers. Lastly, this study explains the transformational ethical leadership with five dimensional model of transformational leadership. This study differentiates ethical and unethical behaviours incorporated in transformational leadership style. Organizational ethical behavioural improvement strategies are effectively illustrated at the end. Ethical and Unethical Factors Ethics is a code of moral principles and values that governs a person behavior with respect to what is right or wrong (Daft, 2008). Organization success is mostly depends on different leaders. Leadership in the organization is important to achieve the objectives and goals because they provide direction and process to the employees. Leaders have to establish the ethical standards and moral values in the organization. This will help the followers to change their behaviors. Every leader in the organization should act as ethically. Ethical leader characteristics are identified in the organization based on some set of factors. These factors include leaders moral behavior, vision, communication, collective environment, and program (task) procedures (Daft, 2008). These factors should implant with organizational social and ethical values. Organizational leaders with these ethical characteristics are identified as ethical leader. The factors that influences the unethical leadership is due to growing complex of the business, increase speed of information flow, and augmented pressure from top management about employee performance (Toor and Ofori, 2009). These factors influence the ethical leader to be act as unethical. Leadership is to act purposively and ethically according to the organizational needs. Toor and Ofori (2009) said that collective components of integrity, ethical standards, and strong relationship with employees are most important characteristics of the ethical leaders. Ethical leaders in the organization are strong moral persons and managers. Strong moral persons have characteristics of honesty, trustworthiness and reliable to others. When it comes to moral manager, they are very open to their followers by explicitly talks about the ethical standards and empower employees to achieve goals in the organization. Toor and Ofori (2009) have given some dimensions to the ethical leadership. They are mo rality and fairness, role clarification, and power sharing. These dimensions are adopted from fellow multi cultural leaders behaviour. One more important factor that influences the ethical or unethical leadership behaviour is decision making process. Ethical leaders have vision to achieve long term goals of an organization. This is key factor that influence the decision making process. It means that effective ethical leaders are not interested in short term goals. This kind of thinking helps the leaders to maintain good relationships between employees. This will achieve the effective communication between the employees. In order to implement this kind of ethical bevaiours, leadership requires high motivation, influence process strategies and self transformation of ethical standard conduct. Most of the authors research works suggested that there is special importance on organizational top senior executives because these people have ability to lead the company in ethical way (Athure and Melea, 2006). Most of the employees in the organization believe that their leaders are more ethically and honest. These kinds of beliefs bring some impact on the corporate culture of an organization. It means that organizational code of ethics should be incorporate with corporate culture (Athure and Melea, 2006). This can be done through ethical leadership because most of the employees in the organization are motivated by these ethical leaders. Ethical organization is build through the support of top management (Carlson et al., 1995). It means that the top management should support the local ethical leaders to establish ethical organization. For instance, McDonald has established ethical code of conduct through companies CEO and senior management because they are effective ethical leaders of that company (Carlson et al., 1995). These senior management and CEO have effective communication with their subordinates to achieve ethical requirement into new employee ethical training programs (Carlson et al., 1995). In order to build ethical behaviours, company has started some ethical programs such as ethical training to change internal values of employees, reorganization of ethical violations and finally increase awareness on organizational ethical code of conduct among the employees. This kind of organizational ethical behaviours can be constructed only through effective and efficient ethical leader. Effective ethical leadership is measured through two key factors. Those are degree of empowerment of employees by their leaders and identify leaders motivation and character towards organizational objectives. Leader Member Exchange (LME) Leader Member Exchange (LME) theory is implemented for ethical leaders to achieve ethical leadership behavior. This theory will provide good relationships between the leaders and subordinates. This helps the leaders to clearly specify job roles, task, and role ambiguity in effective manner. The relationship between LME and ethics is to respond ethically with employees in the organization when they have any ambiguities in the workplace. There two major leadership roles in the organization. They are people and task orientation leadership roles. Ethical leadership in people orientation role has mutual trust and more openness between the leaders and employees (Mendonca and Kanugo, 2007). Job roles and tasks are effectively defined in task orientation role by the ethical leader (Mendonca and Kanugo, 2007). For instance, John Chambers who is the chairman and CEO of CISCO systems. Chambers used to use the following statement. That is We want to create the greatest company in the history and We want to change the world (Chambers, 2009). This is kind of leadership represents people orientation leadership styles because Chambers is uses to use a word called WE. This represents collaborative work through people orientation leadership style. Chambers is achieving task orientation leadership through people orientation leadership style. This is also represents transformational leadership style as well. Transactional and Transformational Leadership According to Kanungo (2001), authenticity and authority of the leadership behavior is expanded through leaders moral standard conduct and integrity. Most of the transactional leaders are self centered, untrustworthy, more authorities, and manipulative (Toor and Ofori, 2009). According to Toor and Ofori (2009), transformational leaders have different ethical bevaviours such as moral character, strong concern for self and others, and ethical values. These ethical values are deeply manipulated with organization vision. Ethical leaders are very important to the organization to achieve its long term goals effectively. According to the recent research works, the transformational or charismatic leaders ethical behaviour reaches to higher moral standards (Kanungo, 2001). These kinds of ethical behaviours are contrasted by transactional leaders. Transactional leaders establish control strategies to influence the followers. When it comes to transformational leaders, they use empowering techniq ues rather than control strategies. These empowering strategies demonstrate exemplary behaviours, helps to increase confidence, provide more resources to accomplish the objectives of the followers (Kanungo, 2001). These kinds of empowering strategies will improve human conduct and ethical objective of the leader as well as his/her followers (Kanungo, 2001). Some transactional leaders have consensus on organizational rules, rights, and responsibilities. This kind of behaviours influences the followers ethically because these are collectivistic transactional behaviours. According to Kanungo (2001), the ethical nature of the leaders behavior is judged based on three factors. They are leader motivation, apparent behaviour, and social context where ethical behaviours are presented. Leaders should improve their motivation, behavioural strategies and techniques, and understand the social situations in the organizations. Hence, these three factors keep the leaders ethically. Leaders have to be show high ethical standards on their behaviours and actions that should be followed by the employees in the organization. Effective organizational governance can be achieved through efficient ethical leadership (Toor and Ofori, 2009). There are also some unethical leaders in which they exploit organizational management loophole to accomplish their desires. However, leaders ethical or unethical behaviors changes according to the organizational changes. However, leaders with highest social responsibility are more ethical to the organization (Toor and Ofori, 2009). Servant, transformational and spiritual leaderships are more ethical to the organizations because these leaders are very honest, fair, helping to their subordinates, behaving ethically, and having more motivation towards work and employees in the organization (Toor and Ofori, 2009). Bass and avolio (Tervino and Brown (2004), 2000) has developed five dimensions of transformational leadership. They are individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and inspirational motivation. Idealized influence is a first dimension that contains high moral values. These moral values are transformed to subordinates without any self interest of the transformative leaders. The outcome of this dimension could be employee work satisfaction, high job performance, and organizational commitment. The leader is used to establish collectivistic direction in the followers rather than selfish manner. This will help the followers to increase self efficacy. When this idealized influence is mixed with inspirational motivation then it represents the charismatic leadership. In third dimension, leaders motivate the followers through clear future goals (Baucus, 2005). This is used to establish an attractive and optimistic visualization of the organization in followers perspective. The next dimension is intellectual stimulation. Leaders are used to accept challenges with clear directions. Intellectual stimulation in transformational leadership is effective because leaders creates effective work environment that the followers can able to accept the challenges. Leaders should have listening skills to improve collectivistic performance in the organization otherwise the team get into conflict situation. This conflict situation has occurred due to misunderstanding between leaders and followers. These kinds of situations are avoided with transformational leadership. The last dimension is individualized identification (Baucus, 2005). It is most important dimension that leaders should perform effectively to improve collaborative work environment. This dimension helps leader to identify individual subordinate skills but leaders should have some time to observe these skill set of the followers (Armstrong, 2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of transformati onal leadership is depends on leaders behavior. It is represented in below showed figure. This figure contains three input values to transformational leader in which instrumental and terminal values are ethical values and undesirable values are unethical values (Armstrong, 2008). Transformational leadership produces either ethical or unethical behaviour based on these three input values (Armstrong, 2008). Each and every task of the transformational leaders is represented with above discussed five dimensional transformational leadership models. Ethical leaders are more ethical to their organizations because these leaders are moral persons with honest and trust worthy characteristic. These leaders can do anything for their subordinates. These ethical leaders are used to perform right thing in their professional and usual life. Ethical leaders used to make decision based on organizational ethical values and decision rules. Ethical leaders are more significant social person in the organization because they have very clear objectives and more ethical to their followers. According to Tervino and Brown (2004), ethical leaders are come under the category of transformational leadership style because they are highly motivate and consistent with organizational objectives. Tervino and Brown(2004) has define the relationship between leadership and organizational ethical conduct based on two factors. They are social learning and social exchange. Leaders become role models for their followers if they are ethically embedded with organizat ional ethical conduct. This kind of relationship is represented with social learning because followers are motivated through ethical leaders. Even more, ethical leaders actions are very clear to the organizations as well as his/her subordinates. Eventually, ethical leaders maintained social exchange relationship through leaders ethical values such as trustworthiness, maintaining collaborative workplace, perceived fairness and moral behavior (Grojean et al., 2004). Hence, ethical leaders are used to help their subordinates by differentiating the ethical and unethical conduct of an organization values. According to Tervino and Brown (2004), leaders power and control is important to make effective ethical decisions but it is used to maintain at lower levels. Improvement of Organizational ethics Organization can improve the ethical behaviour through transformational leadership. Triveno and brown (2004) has suggested five dimensional transformational leadership. This model clearly differentiates ethical and unethical behaviours of transformational leaders. Even transformational leaders are highly moral persons and motivated to organizational ethical values. This transformational leaders highly implements collectivistic team work through better communication. Even information flow between ethical leaders and followers are very effective. People and task orientation leadership is also effective in the organization to develop effective ethical leadership because the leaders are more legitimate and open to their subordinates. And even these leadership styles have clear job role and objectives. Ethical leaders should have some certain characteristics which are discussed in above. Organization top management should implement ethical training programs (Athure and Melea, 2006). Organ izational ethical values are integrated with all employees through these training programs (Athure and Melea, 2006). Organization should follow Leader Member Exchange (LME) theory to effectively implement ethical relationship between leaders and subordinates. Conclusion: Leaders have to take initiatives to develop ethical practices in the organizations. Organizational leaders not only create ethical code of conduct but also integrate these ethical standards into subordinates. Leader has to show some examples of ethical leaders to their fellow subordinates that build an ethical organizational context. This study differentiates transformational and transactional leadership by using transformational five dimensional model. Factors that affect leadership behavior have to provide solutions to ethical behaviours.

Stalinization: Justifying the Terror :: Russian Russia History

Stalinization: Justifying the Terror No other nation has developed at a more fast and alarming rate than Russia under the control of Comrade Joseph Stalin. The 'Stalinization' of Communist Russia may have seemed brutal and unjust, however, many historians agree that many of Stalin's actions were completely necessary for Russia's industrialization. Some of the actions taken included the Five Year Plan for Industry, Five Year Plan for Agriculture, and rapid urbanization. These are the three most important aspects of transforming The Soviet Union into a world economic power. It was soon realized that Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy) could not continue for much longer. It was granting Russian farmers to own they're own land and to sell they're produce for a profit. The NEP may have been effective for a short while to pull Russia out of her economic slump, but Marxist beliefs dictate that farms must be collectivized. This was the only way that the farms might be able to meet they're target for grain production (which had fallen short by nearly 7 million tons under the NEP). In light of this, Stalin introduced the new Five Year Plan of Agriculture. There was about 25 million plots of privately owned land that were too small to be effective for Grain production. So under the Agriculture Plan, the walls between these small holdings were knocked down and the farms were collectivized. This meant that land could be cultivated much more efficiently with the use of fertilizers, tractors, and other such machinery that otherwise could not be used in a small, privat e holding. Thousands fled the countryside in fear of collectivization to join newly built cities. This led to a rapid urbanization of cities such as Novosibirsk and Moscow, that were expecting to house little more than three million, instead found themselves having to support over six-and-a-half million people that were finding jobs in the industrial work force. This was, however, very hard on the living conditions of the Russian people in these cities. Many people found it hard to get work. Others, with the highest paying jobs, still, were forced to have they're families share one bedroom accommodations with one or two other families! With so many people in urban areas of Russia there were twice the amount of people working in the coal mines and drilling more oil wells. This in turn helped with Stalin's Five Year Plan for Industry.

The Link Between Heart Disease and Cancer :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

The Link Between Heart Disease and Cancer Recently, on a visit to my mothers' house, I pulled out my parents' wedding album. As I flipped through the pages of the wedding album, it was exciting to see pictures of my parents and our family members. Everyone seemed to be joyous except my grandmothers. They both had sad and angry expressions on their faces as their children made their vows to each other. I, too, was saddened as I noticed my paternal grandmother's figure because one of her breasts was wider, flatter and higher than her other breast. It appears that she had attempted to fill her bra cup with some type of soft cloth. I did not know that she had succumbed to breast cancer and had a radical mastectomy so early in her life. Although my maternal grandmother is still alive today, she has had advanced heart disease most of her life. We called my grandmother "GM" (grandmother). Although GM is a kind and gentle woman, she is quite temperamental. I believe these emotions and worry spike her towering blood pressure. As I continued to go through my parents' wedding album, I noticed that mostly everyone in my family has died of heart disease or cancer. Although my father had diabetes, he died of a massive heart attack. My great uncle died of prostate cancer and his wife died after having a massive heart attack. According to the 1995 Monthly Vital Statistics Report, heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death in the United States; in fact, heart disease and cancer have been linked to diet and exercise. "I believe that 80 and 90 percent of cancers can be prevented because they are caused by environmental, dietary or nutritional factors," according to Dan Colbert, M.D. and author of Walking in Divine Health. The most common cancers in the United States-- colorectal cancer and breast cancer and prostate cancer--are linked to consumption of red meat, fats, and toxins in diet. In Leviticus 3:17, it is written, "This shall be a perpetual statue through out your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood" (The New King James Bible).

The Ultimate Reality

â€Å"Matter is the ultimate reality: hills, trees, cities, and starts are not simply ideas in the mind of observing individuals†¦ â€Å"This quote assumes that an objective reality is not impacted by the observer; that there is a reality â€Å"out there† that is completely independent. It is up to us, the observer, to learn about and interpret that reality. We can therefore be mistaken about the fundamental nature of reality: as when the earth was believed to be flat. Similarly, when change occurs in nature, it always does so in accordance with the laws of nature. If human beings are surprised, they should not attribute such anomalies to supernatural forces. Rather, they should acknowledge that they need only learn more about the physical universe. Similarly, realists believe that values, as well as reality, are â€Å"permanent and objective. † The purpose of education is to ensure that each student becomes an integral part of his or her social universe. Students are not taught so that they become superior or unique individuals. The aim is to create students that are â€Å"tolerant and well-adjusted,† in harmony with their physical environments and social realities. A teacher is entrusted with the responsibility to impart the tools required for such psycho-social and mental adjustments. The student, in turn, is responsible for doing his or her part in mastering the tolls of education. Both in academic advancement and in social adaptation, the student must rise to the expectations of the teacher. The ideas the teacher imparts are time-tested and true. All human beings are rational beings, capable of critical thought and reason. Science, reading, writing, and math are the key subjects in early childhood education. In a realistic classroom, the student also learns the material within a proscribed time frame according to the historical norms of the society. Absorption refers to retaining the subject matter; the â€Å"traditional method† refers to the Socratic method of lecture-based instruction. The school serves as a sort of training ground; while not necessarily an atmosphere a student will always appreciate, the work of the school in a â€Å"necessary but unattractive task. † Especially in early childhood, such methods work in lieu of the student being unable to truly exercise the muscles of educated free will.

English Language Varieties Essay

English has spread rapidly, even since independence, either as a first language or as a medium of education for non-native speakers (Platt and Weber, 2002). The actual range of varieties of English is much greater than is found in the British Isles. On the one hand we can speak of an acrolect or high status variety, and on the other a basilect or low status variety, with the mesolect occupying the intermediate position. These terms are usually descriptive of what is known as a post-creole continuum—that is the range of non-discrete varieties in a post-colonial situation ranging from the acrolect, which is generally very close to the standard language of the colonial power, through to the basilect, which structurally resembles a creole. It is sufficient here to characterise a creole as a mixed language, resulting historically from contact between speakers of different and mutually unintelligible languages. Creoles are usually associated with colonial situations and are generally assigned a very low social status. Basilectal speakers, who occupy the lowest position in a post-creole continuum, are often quite unintelligible to speakers of the acrolect. All speakers occupy a range on this acrolect—basilect continuum, which correlates closely with their social status, shifting along it according to social context in much the same way as British speakers manipulate linguistic variables. Of course, the extent of linguistic difference is much greater. Such continua have been described in Jamaica by De Camp (2001) and in Guyana by Bickerton (1995), and it is likely, we should note, that these studies will be of increasing relevance to an understanding of the sociolinguistic structure of ethnic minority communities in Britain. A detailed account of the structure and function of pidgins and creoles is not directly relevant here, but interested readers are referred to Todd (2000) for an introductory account of the social, political and linguistic issues involved. Although respectable Victorians were already reacting strongly against the prescriptive attitudes of the eighteenth century, the most extreme anti-prescriptive statements, as far as we know, are those made by some members of the ‘American structuralist’ school of linguistics. Bloomfield (1993:22) felt that discovering why ain’t is considered bad and am not good is not a fundamental question in linguistics, and he thought it strange that ‘people without linguistic training’ should devote ‘a great deal of effort to futile discussions of this topic’. Bloomfield was certainly implying that the study of prescriptivism was not of central interest to linguistics; he was thereby limiting the field of linguistics to a descriptive study of form and system in language which takes relatively little account of language as a social phenomenon. Some of Bloomfield’s followers have gone further than this and have attacked ‘unscientific’ approaches to language with missionary zeal. C. C. Fries (1997) seems to have equated traditional school grammar with prescription (which was by definition ‘bad’ and ‘unscientific’ in the view of structural linguists of the time), and in his book on English syntax he went so far as to even reject traditional linguistic terms such as ‘noun’, ‘verb’ and ‘adjective’. Fries’s work was directed towards the educational system at the ordinary consumer. Anxious to assure all his readers that their use of language was just as good as that of anyone else, he proclaimed that there is no such thing as good or bad, correct or incorrect, grammatical or ungrammatical, in language. English in Western Europe and America Although linguistic scholars would certainly dispute the details of this pronouncement, they have continued (for the most part) to assert or assume that their discipline is descriptive and theoretical and that they do not deal in prescription. In Western Europe and America most theoretical linguists would still affirm that all forms of language are in principle equal. As Hudson (2002:191) has put it: Linguists would claim that if they were simply shown the grammars of two different varieties, one with high and the other with low prestige, they could not tell which was which, any more than they could predict the skin colour of those who speak the two varieties. Although some evidence from work by social psychologists (Giles et al. , 2000) lends some support to Hudson’s point, we do not, in fact, know whether standard languages can be conclusively shown to have no purely linguistic characteristics that differentiate them from non-standard forms of language (the matter has not really been investigated). It appears to be an article of faith at the moment that judgments evaluating differences between standard and non-standard varieties are always socially conditioned and never purely linguistic. However, we shall later suggest that the process of language standardisation involves the suppression of optional variability in language and that, as a consequence, non-standard varieties can be observed to permit more variability than standard ones (e. g. in pronunciations of particular words). Thus, there may be one sense at least in which the linguistic characteristics of non-standard varieties differ from those of ‘standards’. Standard English: UK Variety In the UK, one vehement critic of the supposed malign influence of linguistics on English language teaching is John Honey (1997-2003). He has named an array of linguistic scholars (including—astonishingly—Noam Chomsky, who has never been concerned with educational or social issues), as encouraging a neglect of Standard English teaching in schools. This is an entirely false claim. It is true that there has been some opposition to the teaching of English grammar, but in our experience this has arisen mainly from the preference of lecturers for literature teaching. Far from discouraging ‘grammar’, university linguists have been closely involved in maintaining and encouraging its teaching. No one has ever opposed the teaching of standard English, and many of those named by Honey as ‘enemies’ of standard English have devoted much of their careers to teaching it—training students to write clear and correct standard English. Experienced teachers will not take kindly to an attack that simply appears to them as ignorant, presumptuous and pointlessly offensive. The linguist’s academic interest in the human capacity to learn and use language is not a threat to the teaching of Standard English, and it can be a great benefit. It does not follow from the educational necessity to focus on the standard that we should neglect to examine and explain the different norms and conventions of speech and writing, or that we should fail to acknowledge that standardised usage is most fully achieved in writing. Nor does it follow that we should neglect the fact that non-standard spoken vernaculars have grammars of their own. To investigate the structure of language varieties is an intellectual requirement that cannot be compromised, and which in no way contradicts the importance of the teaching of literacy in a standard language. Amongst other things, research on real language in use can help us to clarify and understand what standard English actually is and appreciate more exactly what its roles and functions are. We will not improve practical language teaching by ignoring such matters or by maligning those who study conversational speech and non-standard vernaculars as ‘enemies of standard English’. The authors of elementary books on linguistics, however, have usually been anxious to dissociate their account of the subject from that of traditional handbooks of correctness. As we have seen they usually dismiss prescription routinely, and assert that linguistics is descriptive. Their general point—that, if one is to study the nature of language objectively, one cannot make prior value-judgments—is frequently misunderstood, and it has sometimes called forth splenetic and misinformed denunciations of linguistics as a whole. One example amongst many is Simon (2002). In an essay entitled ‘The Corruption of English’ (2002), Simon blames structural linguistics and literary structuralists for an alleged decline in language use and for permissive attitudes to language: ‘What this is, masquerading under the euphemism â€Å"descriptive linguistics†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦is a benighted and despicable catering to mass ignorance under the supposed aegis of democracy. ’ His essay is outspoken and full of emotive language (‘pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo’, ‘rock-bottom illiteracy’, ‘barbarians’, ‘vandalism’, etc. ), and it betrays ignorance of what linguistics is about. To Simon, linguists are almost equated with some menace that is threatening Western (i. e. American) civilisation from outside. It is unfortunate that misunderstandings and misapplications of the American structural linguists’ teaching should have made it seem reasonable for anyone to write in this ignorant way. As many people still interpret descriptive linguistics as inimical to standards of usage, there has clearly been some failure of communication between linguistic scholars and the general public. One reason for this is that ‘mainstream’ linguistics has concentrated more on the abstract and formal properties of language than on language in its social context. Bloomfield (1993), as we saw above, considered that prescription was irrelevant to linguistics as a ‘science’. Yet some linguists have been directly interested in prescription. Haas (2002), for example, has pointed out that prescription ‘is an integral part of the life of language’. By refusing to be interested in prescription, he adds: ‘linguists only ensure that every enterprise of linguistic planning will be dominated by ignorant enthusiasts and incompetent pedants’ (Haas, 2002:3). Since Haas made these comments, some social and educational linguists have been very active in commenting on public attitudes and educational policies, and some have represented the subject on advisory committees. A general linguist, R. A. Hudson, is responsible for the Language Workbooks series, published by Routledge. Several relevant books on language variation have appeared, and linguistic correctness was the topic of the 1996 BBC Reith Lectures, delivered by Jean Aitchison (1998). In the USA much of the interest in language differences has been driven by public concern about the language of ethnic minorities. In 1997, the Linguistic Society of America published a document inspired by a controversy about ‘Ebonics’ (African American Vernacular English), which was recognised by the Oakland (California) School Board as a legitimate form of language. It ended with the following comments: There is evidence from Sweden, the US, and other countries that speakers of other varieties can be aided in their learning of the standard variety by pedagogical approaches which recognize the legitimacy of other varieties of a language. From this perspective, the Oakland School Board’s decision to recognize the vernacular of African American students in teaching them Standard English is linguistically and pedagogically sound.

Moral Order in “King Lear” Essay

Tragedy is an essential aspect of many of Shakespeare’s most critically acclaimed plays. A.C. Bradley, one of the foremost thinkers of Shakespeare’s works, created a theory that explored these tragic dramas. The concept of Good and Evil become essential to humanity, and as a result, figure prominently in a balance of what he refers to as a moral order. A. C. Bradley found a common link or thread that remains to this day consistent with all theories regarding tragedy – that the ultimate power in the tragic world is a moral order. According to A. C. Bradley, the main source of calamity and death in the tragic play is never good. In Shakespeare’s drama, evil is the force responsible for the phenomenon of tragedy. This force is â€Å"not mere imperfection but plain moral evil† (A. C. Bradley 689). In King Lear, evil takes its core power from greediness and ingratitude of king’s two daughters, Goneril and Regan. Their intentions and deliberate actions are pure evil, â€Å"Beneath is all the fiend’s. There’s hell, there’s darkness, there is the sulphurous pit†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (4.6. 143-144). The reason why the two sisters praise their father in the beginning of the play is justified by their desire to inherit Lear’s kingdom and supremacy. Goneril’s and Regan’s declarations of their great love for King Lear are insincere, because their actions contradict with what they proclaim, â€Å"His [Lear’s] daughters seek his [Lear’s] death†¦Ã¢â ‚¬  (3.4. 163). Because of Goneril’s utter ungratefulness and lack of love or compassion, she mistreats her father and insults his dignity, â€Å"She [Goneril] has abated me [Lear] of half my train; Looked black upon me; struck me with her tongue, Most serpent-like, upon the very heart† (2.4. 175-178). Her sister, Regan, due to her alike vile nature, shows her entire support and endorsement to such a behavior. Edmund’s character comes from the same evil ground as the one of the two vicious sisters. He is, too, engrossed by the desire to own his father’s land, and thus, commits treachery and deceit, â€Å"†¦thou [Edmund] art a traitor, False to thy gods, thy brother, and thy father†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (5.3. 159-160). The wicked qualities and the intentional wrong doings of these evil characters are the main cause of grief and suffering in the King Lear tragic play, â€Å"How sharper than a serpent’s it is to have a thankless child† (1.4. 291-291). Therefore, in Shakespearean drama the commotion of tragedy proceeds primarily from the  actions of the ominous characters in the play. If the evil purpose disturbs the peace and order in the world, then, this ultimate order must be inimical to this power and be akin to good. Next, A. C. Bradley diverts his attention to the main character in Shakespearean play, the tragic hero. To be thought of as an honorable and highly admirable individual, the tragic hero still shows some evident imperfection or dreadful flaw. This tragic trait of the hero is vile in its nature, and therefore, contributes to the tragic effect of the play. King Lear’s fatal decision to banish his youngest daughter, Cordelia, and his most trusted servant, Kent, is incited by king’s excessive vanity and hastiness, â€Å"†¦he [Lear] hath ever but slenderly known himself†¦ Such unconstant stars are we like to have from him [Lear] as this of Kent’s banishment† (1.1. 322-330). Lear is not happy with Cordelia’s simple, though true, declaration of love for him, â€Å"†¦I [Cordelia] love your Majesty According to my bond, no more no less (1.1. 97-98). The king is not satisfied with such a mere and unaffected answer due to his arrogance and strong sense of superiority. Thus, he makes a grave decision to exile Cordelia from his kingdom, and gives all of his land to Goneril and Regan, which leads to his tragic disappointment, emotional breakdown, and death, â€Å"Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all! O, that way madness lies†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (3.4. 25-26). The ultimate power in the tragic world is distressed by the evil acts and decisions of the dramatic character. Then, this ultimate moral power must have an opposing reaction to the wickedness in order to repair the essential order of the universe. Another aspect of the evil power that A. C. Bradley conveys in his article, The Shakespearean Tragic Hero, is that evil reveals itself everywhere as a negative, weakening, destructive effect. â€Å"It isolates, disunites, and tends to annihilate not only its opposite but itself† (A. C. Bradley 690). The evil effect in King Lear spreads and poisons lives of all soul characters, causing death and destruction in the play. Goneril and Regan are also affected by their own wickedness, â€Å"Each jealous of the other†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (5.1. 67). Due to their selfishness and sinister nature, the two sisters try to raze one another in their competition for power and control. In conclusion,  Goneril poisons her sister in the sake of winning Edmund’s favour. Nevertheless, Edmund is retributed by his brother, Edgar, who slays him in a fair fight. Goneril, who is not able to abide her disgraceful downfall, commits suicide. Although, these characters die, the reader does feel pity for them because their death is necessary factor of retribution in a tragic play, â€Å"This judgment of the heavens, that makes us tremble, Touches us not with pity† (5.3. 275-276). If there was no punishment for evil performance and immoral behavior, then evil power would predominate the world, and there would be no means for the moral order to exist among the humanity,If that the heavens do not their visible spiritsSend quickly down to tame these vile offenses,It will come,Humanity must perforce prey on itself,Like monsters of the deep (Act IV, Scene 2, 52-56). Hence, the existence of the ultimate moral order in the tragic world fundamentally depends on the goodness of humanity. Since the tenor of evil is belligerent and destructive to such an existence, then, people of the universe must yield to good. In essence, the power of the moral order presents the revenge and the concept of justice in the tragic world. Therefore, it suggests the idea of fate. Still, although the retribution is served, there is no indication of â€Å"poetic justice†. Moral order functions according to its righteous nature. It reacts to the attack of the evil force in order to sustain and balance itself. During this equilibration, evil is isolated and goodness triumphs over the tragic world. WORK CITED PAGEAndrew Cecil Bradley. The Shakespearean Tragic Hero. 1904William Shakespeare. King Lear. Canada, ON.: Academic Press Canada, 1964.