Act According to Your Real Nature Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Act According to Your Real Nature - Essay Example One monkey pretended that it was about to faint, but in reality, its health condition was not that tragic. But another young monkey that began to cry, invited the attention of all. â€Å"I saw some flies land on my banana and I am sure that they are the agents of dengue. I suggest that we lodge the bananas in our mouth, one on each side, for the safety of our health. We are certainly not eating the bananas.† The suggestion was accepted and the monkeys complimented the young one for his foresight and concern. Some time passed by. â€Å"Since the health issue has cropped up, I need to say something,†. I stay on a tree adjacent to the private hospital of a reputed doctor. I have heard doctors often discuss with nurses and patients that the food items need to be chewed properly, to assist the process of digestion. Why not chew the bananas and keep the stuff ready to swallow, the moment the fast is terminated?† They chewed and chewed, and they did not realize when the food reached their stomach through the food pipe. The entire exercise was over in minutes, and all the monkeys, including the senior citizen, had a hearty laugh. â€Å"Never attempt anything that which is not in your real nature,† the senior citizen repeated the advice. I recall what Ronald R. Sims argued, â€Å"Human Resources management is particularly concerned with all the activities that contribute to successfully attracting, motivating, and maintaining a high-performing workforce that results in organizational success.†

Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution Essay Example for Free

Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution Essay In the 1850s, Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. His theory proposed that species evolved gradually through subtle changes from one generation to the next by means of natural selection. By natural selection, the most desirable hereditary traits become more common from one generation to the next while the less desirable, weaker traits die out. This gives rise to an organism that is more capable—fitted to—of surviving in the surrounding environment. At the time Darwin formulated his idea beginning with his trip on the HMS Beagle in the 1830s, some scientists resorted to the idea that God had preordained life by natural laws rather than by miraculous feats. While logical and correct, the idea still refers to a divine power, indicating a religious bent, so perhaps it was obvious that the ideas addressed could lead to religious controversy. As is common in science, Darwin’s concept arose from ideas garnered from a number of scientists of his time. Some researchers of the time believed that natural laws were responsible for life. While Darwin’s ideas did not account for the processes believed to account for life at the time, there was a theory at the time thought to account for life. Most thought that species were transmuted from one species into another. The problem with transmutation, an idea that is similar to evolution in some respects, is that a species may change through transmutation, but it will still be the same species. A dog may change into a different type of dog, but it will still be a dog; likewise, for a cat or any other species. Evolution dictates that the entire animal kingdom can grow through stages from one species into another over time. Birds came from reptiles, mammals came from birds and humans came from non-humans. (Lewontin, 1981) The data is unequivocal. During his voyage on HMS Beagle, Darwin found fossil remains of gigantic mammals that were recently extinct with no indication that their extinction had been caused by climate changes or catastrophic events. Although he believed that the remains he found were related to species in Africa or Europe, examination of the remains Darwin found showed that they were only related to other species found only in the Americas. Creationists insist that life came about from God in six days. While most evolutionists attack creationism on the grounds of scientific facts, there is another line of evidence virtually unnoticed by those who support evolution theory. Historians and archeologists have learned that the biblical story of creation came from the myths of another culture. Stories presented in the Bible evolved slowly over time, long before religions existed, and incorporated tales from many cultures. The story of the Garden of Eden, the serpent and the Tree of Life, for example, are said to have been depicted on an Akkadian Cylinder Seal nearly 2500 years before Christ. The serpent itself was viewed as a deity. Notice: No one familiar with the mythologies of the primitive, ancient, and Oriental worlds can turn to the Bible without recognizing counterparts on every page, transformed, however, to render an argument contrary to the older faiths. In Eves scene at the tree, for example, nothing is said to indicate that the serpent who appeared and spoke to her was a deity in his own right, who had been revered in the Levant for at least seven thousand years before the composition of the Book of Genesis. There is in the Louvre a carved green steatite vase, inscribed c. 025 BC by King Gudaea of Lagash, dedicated to a late Sumerian manifestation of this consort of the goddess, under his title Ningizzida, Lord of the Tree of Truth. p. 9. The Serpents Bride. Joseph Campbell. Occidental Mythology, The Masks of God. Arkana. New York. Viking Penguin Books. 1964, 1991 reprint The information in the Old Testament dates from about 1450 BC until 200 BC. This means that, contrary to the strongly held beliefs of most Christians, the creation story of Genesis is actually derived from the myths of ancient Sumerians. Therefore, the story is a myth. This means that those who against Darwin’s ideas on religious grounds based on their beliefs in the accuracy of the story in Genesis have unknowingly chosen to accept myth over facts. While they believe the myth to be factual, archeological evidence demonstrates otherwise. The scientific evidence leans heavily in support of Darwin’s ideas. While we may not fully understand some aspects behind the mechanism of evolution, we are continuously learning more about those mechanisms. (Dobzhansky, 1973) Dobzhansky states: Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. Theodosius Dobzhansky, â€Å"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Evolution†, American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed. , ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983. Darwin (1859) believed that whales evolved from bears based on a scenario where selective pressures might cause this evolution, but he was criticized for this idea and removed the suggestion. Gould, 1995) Today, there is much more fossil evidence for the evolution of many species thus supporting the idea of evolution as a general biological principle, including the evolution of whales from lower animals. Evidence in support of evolution exists at many levels. There is paleontological evidence based on fossils, morphological evidence that relate the body morphology of higher animals to lower animals, evidence from molecular biology and from embryology. Added to this, the chronological picture that results is consistent with other lines of evidence. For example, the evidence for the evolution of whales from lower animals is convincing. Whales have been closely studied with respect to evolution. If evolution is valid, transitional stages from one level of evolution to another should exist. Although the fossil remains of whales spotty for a long time, recent fossil discoveries have more than adequately lent support to the concept of evolution for whales. Researchers state that independent lines of evidence from different disciplines confirm the pattern of evolution in whales. John Ray recognized that whales were mammals rather than fish in 1693 based on their similarity to terrestrial mammals. (Barnes, 1984) In 1883, Flower (see Barnes, 1984) found that whales had vestigial characteristics in common with terrestrial mammals just as humans have vestigial tails, the coccyx. Findings similar to these led to the concept of ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. ’ This concept is briefly explained in further detail below. Flower (1883) recognized that the whales have persistent rudimentary and vestigial features characteristic of terrestrial mammals, thus confirming that the direction of descent was from terrestrial to marine species. On the basis of morphology, Flower also linked whales with the ungulates; he seems to have been the first person to do so. Today, we know that whales have vestigial features in common with lower animals. For example, they have vestigial olfactory nerve, protruding hind limbs, pelvic fins and diaphragms. Like humans, during embryological development, whales develop features similar to lower animals and abandon them as development progresses. During their development, there is also evidence that whales have terrestrial ancestors. Some whales even develop hair while in the womb although they do not retain it. In 1985, Goodman et al. demonstrated that whales are more closely related to ungulates than to other animals. (Goodman, 1985; Miyamoto and Goodman, 1986) Some studies have identified genes, enzymes and other proteins that connect whales to extinct animals. (Irwin et al. 991; Irwin and Arnason, 1994; Milinkovitch, 1992; Graur and Higgins, 1994; Gatesy et al, 1996; Shimamura et al. , 1997) We have already noted above that the creation story in the Bible was taken from the text of an ancient culture that predates the Hebrew account. Rather than to openly acknowledge that the Bible’s story of creation is a mythical legend that explains evolution and the appearance of life on ea rth, some religious groups resort to far-fetched, fictitious, generally ridiculous concepts such as ‘creationism’, ‘creation science’ and ‘intelligent design’ to dismiss or explain away the science and replace it with fantasy. Embryology and developmental biology have a concept, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, that simplifies and briefly but succinctly expresses the concepts presented in the first chapter of Genesis. This is like explaining a complicated scientific concept, take conception and birth for example, to a little child by using a fairy tale rather than detailed research information. The fairy tale is not accurate, but the general information it communicates is true. With this single phrase, the first chapter of Genesis is summarized and explained. The phrase means that the embryological processes of development, ontogeny, depict and encapsulate the evolutionary history of the species, phylogeny. For example, during development of the human embryo, the fetus briefly has gills and a tail like its phylogenetic ancestors. In other words, during development, the developing embryo goes through some of the same stages that humans went through as the species developed from lower animals to humans. The concept makes perfect sense and explains many aspects of human development. Obviously, we cannot provide a comprehensive review of the evidence support evolution in a few pages, and we certainly cannot provide realistic evidence against it in light of all that exists to support it. While the evidence in support of the evolution of whales is plentiful, much evidence exists for evolution in general, including in humans. As has been reported here, the evidence is not just from scientific research, but also from archeology and history. That evidence shows, among other things, that the biblical story of creation in Genesis predates the Bible by hundreds of years. Despite all the evidence in support of evolution and against the idea of the biblical creation as being anything more than a myth, we can be certain that the argument in support of the biblical creation as being the real story and representing the real facts will not go away. Humans being what we are, we will always be faced with living with the Genesis myth as if it were fact, and coping with those who insist that the earth all the universe was created in six literal days. That concept certainly will never go away no matter what facts exist to disprove it.

Trade off theory and pecking order theory

Trade off theory and pecking order theory The way we think about capital structure in the modern day is based around the Modigliani and Miller(MM) theorem. It states that a market absent of tax, bankruptcy costs and asymmetric information, and in an efficient market, a companys overall market value will not be affected depending on how it is financed. This then forms the basis of the trade off theory and the pecking order theory. As there is no perfect market conditions each aspect will have an effect based on the way the capital is structured. There are two theories behind the way the structure should be controlled, the pecking order theory, which was created by Stewart C. Myers and Nicolas Majluf in 1984[1], and the trade off theory, which was considered to be pioneered by back to Kraus and Litzenberger but many including Modilgliani himself are understood to have developed the theory. The way that a companys finances are structured is particularly important in light of the latest world recession. As seen in the Asian crisis in 1997 where all share markets became very volatile. It is not that capital structure has a large affect on a causing financial crisis, but rather that it will decide the impact on a firm during the financial crisis. This is relevant especially in the banking industry where assets are put under severe strain during a crisis [2]. I have chosen to approach the issue by setting out the basics of the theorys and their respective advantages and disadvantages, along with the premise behind why they are valid in capital structure. It will be backed by empirical evidence conducted from studies to back up my proposals. Pecking order theory suggests that companies should prioritise the way in which they raise finance. The pecking order relates to the hierarchy that the company follows, from the most appropriate to the least. The pecking order claims that the least preferred method is through equity financing. Rather to initially use internal sources and then issue debt until it is no longer suitable. The basic idea was developed around the original the Modigliani and Miller theorem. In contrast though a true market does not poses the same attributes as the MM theory. From the original paper by Myers and Majluf (1984) [4] developed a model that showed that capital structure was designed to limit the inefficiencies of caused by informational asymmetries. The informational asymmetries states that a manager will know more about the assets of a firm and their future growth prospects than the average outside investor, causing inequality in the market. From Murray Z. Frank Vidhan K. Goyal (2002) [6] I have established that though debt on the other hand is subject to minor adverse problems, equity causes a major adverse selection problem. For an outside investor, equity is construed to be riskier than debt. Equity finance premiums have the higher negative consequence on the firm, and as it is virtually impossible to finance fully from Therefore, an outside investor will demand a higher rate of return on equity than on debt. Thus leading to the pecking order of finance structure. To confirm the theory on asymmetric information, Viet Anh Dang [5] put forward that this model leads to a potential unfavourable selection problem due to the risk of the method of finance. Resulting in the fact that, investors will predict a decision not to issue securities to signal good news and vice versa. This problem leads to a pooling market equilibrium in which new shares can only be offered at a marked-down price. The empirical specification for the test takes the following form: it PO it it  Ã¢â‚¬Å¾D â‚ ¬Ã‚ ½Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Ã‚ Ã‚ ¡Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ «Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Ã‚ Ã‚ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  DEF â‚ ¬Ã‚ «Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Ã‚ Ã‚ ¥Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (III-9) where it  Ã¢â‚¬Å¾D denotes net debt issued, it DEF cash flow deficit in year t (all variables in levels) and it  Ã‚ ¥Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  the well-behaved error term. In equation (III-9), the strict version of the pecking order theory holds if  Ã‚ ¡Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ½Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  0 and â‚ ¬Ã‚ ½Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  1 PO  Ã‚ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  , i.e., when the deficit in cash flow is entirely offset by the change in debt. The financing choice should be in favour of the financing instruments that are less risk and less sensitive to mis-pricing and valuation errors. Where again we find that equity is the most prone to inaccuracy followed by debt and finally internal sources which are absent of mistakes in valuation. The earliest accredited study that found empirical evidence supporting all these theories was conducted by Baskin. J (1989)[6], this then led to further studies, though these have resulted in conflicting evidence as to the legitimacy of the theory. In the original Myers Majluf (1984)[4] study the table below lists how firms were financially structured It shows that firms had adopted the pecking order method to a degree by selecting to finance internally first followed by debt then last resort equity finance, but as this is a summary of countries each individual firm will differ. This is the exact problem with the pecking order theory, it isnt individually tailored to best suit each business. This was proved by the table below Ziad Zurigats (March 2009) study of the differing effect pecking order theory had on small and large firms. His findings showed, the estimated coefficients are lower for PDEF (0.421 and 0.592) for small and large firms respectively) than for NDEF (0.569 and 0.648), implying that small and large Jordanian firms are less sensitive in increasing debt for financing than in reducing debt for soaking up surplus. However, as cleared, small Jordanian firms are less sensitive than large ones in increasing debt to finance their positive financial deficit and retiring debt to soak up surplus. The Trade-Off Theory of Capital Structure employs to the concept that a firm is able to manipulate the levels of debt and equity finance by balancing the costs and benefits to be most advantageously structured. As mentioned in the introduction it goes back to Kraus and Litzenberger who considered a balance between the dead-weight costs of bankruptcy and the tax saving benefits of debt. To ensure that the debt is balanced the firm will consider the marginal benefits and the marginal costs, as the more debt is taken on the marginal benefit will decrease while the marginal cost will increase. When the marginal benefit is equal to the marginal and the firms value is optimised, there will be a trade off as to the point that debt becomes more detrimental than equity which will form the d/e ratio for the firm. As stated before under a perfect market condition with no tax the finance structure is irrelevant, but as tax comes into play equity is again favoured in the trade off theory, this is because interest on debt reduces the tax liability of a firm in turn increasing the profits, this is called a tax shield. The cost of financial distress should equal the tax shield at the point of equilibrium. The custom economic model used when interpreting the trade-off theory is the partial adjustment model (Jalilvand and Harris, 1984; Shyam-Sunder and Myers, 1999; Ozkan, 2001 and Fama and French, 2002), which is made up of two parts; a static part to describe how the ideal amount is determined and the dynamic partial adjustment process: Where, yt = a firms financial ratio in period t, yt-l = a firms financial ratio in period t-1, yt*= the target level of a particular ratio ÃŽÂ » = the speed of adjustment coefficient i.e. how fast the firm returns to its target debt ratio3 Empirical Evidence supporting the trade off theory Here we can see that from the research done in the paper the table is drawn from, it has been found that there are some explanatory variables which do not act as expected. Although this may be interpreted as the trade off model being inaccurate, there are still factors which do affect the businesses total debt as expected. The most important factors drawn from the table above are the business size, total debt ratio, effective tax rate and the non-debt tax shields. The reason why explanatory variables such as growth opportunities do not act as expected may be due to the differing size of businesses examined; splitting the data in to business size may be advantageous here. The benefit of the trade off theory is that it is unique to each companys situation, for example a company with safe, tangible assets that also generate high levels of income would likely seek a high debt target ratio as to fully Companies with safe, tangible assets and plenty of taxable income to shield ought to have high target ratio to fully utilise the tax shield. In the opposite direct a company that is Unprofitable with risky, intangible assets will usually rely on equity finance as it becomes the less risky option. As the uncertainty surround its income could make the tax shield non existent One key flaw that was not in the original Modigliani and Miller (1963) study is that of the effect on personal income tax. Miller (1977) took this into account in his study and proved that in fact the total tax saving at the point of equilibrium was zero when income tax increase was applied to the tax shield. The following equations shows that the tax shield can even be detrimental for example if the tax rate on stock is less than the tax rate on bonds the result will be a negative impact on profits. The author further suggests that there should be no optimal debt ratio for any individual firms. Where G ­L is the leverage gain for the shareholder Tc is the corporate tax rate Tps is the personal income tax for common stock TPB is the personal income tax for bonds BL is the market value of the levered firms debt There have been questions to the mutual exclusivity of the two theories, Carmen Cotei and Joseph Farhat (2009) studied this theory, and their conclusion was that The empirical results of the factors affecting the proportion of debt financing (reduction) and factors affecting the rate of adjustment imply that the pecking order theory and the trade-off theory are not mutually exclusive. Firms may strive for a target debt ratio range and within this range, the pecking order behavior may describe incremental decisions or, over time, firms may switch between target adjustment and pecking order behavior. Conclusion reflection on theories which is best suited? Does it differ between businesses, are they both legitimate ways of structuring capital? In reflection it is clear that both theories offer a potential theory of dealing with capital structure, but the empirical evidence seems to suggest that the trade off theory is the more well rounded option. As it holds well in the custom economic model, outperforming the pecking order model in the key areas. There has been also some convincing proof in favour of the relationships between gearing and the conventional determining factors (except profitability), as predicted by trade-off structure. Non-debt tax shields and growth opportunities have been argued to be inversely related to debt ratio, while collateral value of assets and size are found to have positive effects upon gearing. I do believe that to some degree the theories are simply a base to capital structure, and that each individual company must do its own assessment on the best way to structure capital in order to produce the best results.

Robbery of Freedom: The Ultimate Injustice :: history

Robbery of Freedom: The Ultimate Injustice WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED IN ALABAMA My story is told to you as honestly and as accurately as can be. Over the years, I have felt like I've had to 'defend' something, but I have realized that, as bizarre as it is, just tell the truth and let that be it! I was released in April 10,2001, and my quest for justice has only gained momentum. I am the victim of small town politics where the locals have met very little resistance in doing things their own way, regardless of the law. In fact, I am the first one who has ever been known to challenge that state court of Bullock County, Alabama (City of Union Springs) for their misconduct and gross miscarriage of justice. I feel that I must preface my story with events that led up to the conspired, bogus lie, and malicious accusation against me. My accuser, John Will Waters, whom I was never allowed to face in court, is a king pin drug lord. He operates out of that small town, but reaches as far as Colombia, South America. My parents grew up in that same town. Waters was from a long line of moonshiners and crooks. He is very liberal and seems to think money will do anything. He and my parents have always been on the opposite side of issues, i.e., they opposed the building of a state prison there, Waters was for it. They are Republicans, he's a Democrat. My father started, owned and operated a tire business there for 45 years. During the latter years, he depended strictly on out of town business, because the locals prevented county vehicles, school vehicles, and any other county business to be done there. Nevertheless, the business did very well. In 1993, my father had double knee replacement surgery. The business fell behind a few payments on a mortgage loan from a local bank. My father had done business with that bank since 1951. After very few months, the bank began foreclosure proceedings. My father immediately sold a large inventory of tires, raised $10,000. He offered the bank the $10,000 to pay the arrearage plus a few payments in advance to show good faith. Every possible attempt was made to satisfy the bank, but everything was turned down except the $50,000 required to pay the loan off in full.

The Rise of Colonialism and its Impact on Modern Society

In the middle of the 1 5th century, as the Roman Empire was weakening, the fall of Constantinople marked a bigger impact than anyone could have considered. The Ottoman Empire had reign to advance into the Mediterranean, and that meant that traveling east on land was not an option. With the Renaissance about to emerge, it became a springboard for the development of advanced ships. This marked the beginning of the Age of Exploration and Colonialism. The Europeans had every advantage.Their immune system had seen all the diseases in the Old World, while he native conquered people's immune system had only seen a few diseases. The Europeans had far more superior crops and domesticated animals. Cows, pigs, and chicken are considered super animals compared to their wild counterparts, although the wild counterparts do not even exist in the New World. The same could be said for rice, barley, and wheat. The New World had never seen these types of food. The conquered spent their days looking for sustenance while the Europeans were developing guns and telescopes.Because the backbone of the European nations was so developed and stable, their technology and power skyrocketed. With the power, colonization and slavery thrived. From Africa and Asia to the New World, pockets of colonies emerged and developed. Often conquering the entire continent, the colonizers went to work to extract what they thought was important. There were no rights for the conquered. They were in the European man's world and had to go along for the ride. Racial prejudice rears its ugly head throughout the two World Wars and exists even today.The concept of racism was developed during the Age of Colonialism. The thought that any particular type of person based on looks and color was better did not exist ecause it is not true. But during and after the Age of Colonialism, racism was taught to Europeans and enforced to non-Europeans. Europeans thought that looks and color of the Anglos meant more trustworthine ss and intelligence. Unfortunately, the majority of Europeans did not realize that trustworthiness and intelligence are both learned behaviors, and that non-Europeans were taught to be â€Å"uncivilized†.With the conviction of superiority, the Europeans subdued and dominated regions throughout the planet. Africa, in particular, has a long history of colonization from the Europeans. Conquest is defined as the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by the use of military force. Major parts of Africa were conquered by the Europeans since ancient times. From the 7th century, Arab trade with sub-Saharan Africa led to a gradual colonization of East Africa, around Zanzibar and other bases.Although trans-Saharan trade led to a small number of West African cities developing Arab quarters, these were not intended as colonies, and while Morocco attempted to conquer areas of the Sahel in the Moroccan war, it was soon forced to withdraw its troops atter pillaging the a rea. Early European expeditions concentrated on colonizing previously uninhabited islands such as the Cape Verde Islands and S ¤o Tom © Island, or establishing coastal forts as a base for trade.These forts often developed areas of influence along coastal strips, but, with the exception of the Senegal River, the vast interior of Africa was not colonized and was little-known to Europeans until the late 19th century. Vincent Khapoya mentions Ali Mazrui's three interrelated broad reasons for European exploration of Africa: to increase knowledge, to spread Christianity and to increase national esteem. European enslavement of Africans, and visa-versa, existed along the coasts of East and West Africa since ancient times. The business exploded, however, after the Age of Colonialism was under way.During what was called by the European powers as, â€Å"The Scramble for Africa,† colonization was motivated by the European hunger for African resources. The subsequent exploitation of t he African people and the uprooting of their spiritual values by Christian missionaries would leave a permanent European stamp on the continent. Britain took the largest piece of the African cake, rom Cairo to Cape Town, in addition to Nigeria and a few West African regions. It was also the British Empire that in 1894, imposed an arbitrary boundary around the many diverse ethnic groups and kingdoms that would make up modern day Uganda.By exploiting linguistic, ethnic, and cultural differences between the different ethnic groups, Britain's divide and rule policies created tensions between the divided ethnic groups that helped maintain British rule. Officially, between 1884 and 1906 the Congo was controlled by a company entirely owned by King Leopold. The area was referred to as the ‘Belgian Free State. Until the end of the 1800s this company primarily exported ivory and palm-oil, a lubricant, from the Congo. Only a small profit was made from these products. At the end of the ce ntury, however, the world discovered rubber.Soon everyone wanted it to make tires, hoses, tubes, valves and many other products. Rubber is produced from a latex ‘sap' that came either from a tree or a vine, both of which grew exceptionally well in the Congo Jungle. Because of the new demand, the Belgian companies began demanding massive amounts of rubber from the Jungle and forced the natives to find massive amounts of it and eliver it to them. King Leopold became incredibly wealthy from the sale of rubber and the Congo paid the price. The method that most harvesters used to get the sap destroyed the trees and vines they took it from.Soon the Belgians began to hire soldiers to make sure that the natives produced the raw material. They threatened them with starvation, mutilation or even death if they did not produce enough rubber. Many times they followed through with the threats. Between the 1880s and 1903 the population of the Congo was reduced from over 20 million people to about 8. 5 million. Joseph Conrad, an author who was there during this time, in his book Heart of Darkness, best illustrated what was going on there when one character on his death bed comments on the situation by simply saying: â€Å"the horror, the horror. The term ‘imperialism' should not be confused with ‘colonialism'. Robert Young writes that imperialism operates from the center, it is a state policy, and is developed for ideological as well as financial reasons whereas colonialism is nothing more than development for settlement or commercial intentions. The Age of Imperialism was a ime period beginning around 1700 when modern, relatively developed nations were taking over less developed areas, colonizing them, or intluencing them in order to expand their own power.Although imperialist practices have existed for thousands of years, the term â€Å"Age of Imperialism† generally refers to the activities of nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, It aly, Japan and the United States in the early 18th through the middle 20th centuries, the â€Å"The Great Game† in Persian lands, the â€Å"Scramble for Africa† and the â€Å"Open Door Policy† in China. Genocide is the eliberate or systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, caste, religious, or national group.The Germans decided that certain ethnic groups were to be eradicated in Namibia. German Lieutenant-General Lothar von Trotha said, ‘l wipe out rebellious tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge'. Von Trotha brought with him to German South West Africa 10,000 heavily-armed men and a plan for war. During the period of colonization and oppression, many women were used as sex slaves. â€Å"To receive omen and children, most of them ill, is a serious danger to the German troops. And to feed them is impossible.I find it appropriate that the nation perishes instead of infecting our soldiers. † In the Herero work camps there were numerous children born to these abused women, and a man called Eugen Fischer, who was interested in genetics, came to the camps to study them. He decided that each mixed-race child was physically and mentally inferior to its German father and wrote a book promoting his ideas: â€Å"The Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene†. Adolf Hitler read it hile he was in prison in 1923, and cited it in his own infamous pursuit of â€Å"racial purity'.We can see a trend that follows. For the colonized, life became a living hell. For the colonizers, life became extravagant and easy. These give and take relationships created the modern global economy that we have today. The scars of the past still haunt the wounds of today. Third world countries are still struggling for survival while the well fed first world nations are aligning themselves together to maintain their dominance. While the obvious means of colonizat ion may not be visible, the same characters are in control.

Free Essays on God And My Dad

. "I have to lead my life in faith, without seeing Him" 2 Cor. v. 7 And Hab. 2 v. 3 "Though it tarry, wait for it" For a time we are conscious of God's attentions, then, when God begins to use us in His enterprises, we take on a pathetic look and talk of the trails and the difficulties, and all the time God is trying to make us do our duty as obscure people. None of us would be obscure spiritually if we could help it. Can we do our duty as obscure people. Can we do our duty when God has shut up heaven? Some of us always want to be illuminated saints with golden haloes and the flush of inspiration, and to have the saints of God dealing with us all the time. A gilt-edged saint is no good, he is abnormal, unfit for daily life, and altogether unlike God. We are here as men and women, Not as half-fledged angels, To do the work of the world, and to do it with an infinitely greater power to stand the turmoil because we have been born from above. Though it tarry, Patience is not indifference: patience conveys the ides of an immensely strong rock withstanding all onslaughts. The vision of God is the source of patience, because it imparts a moral inspiration. Daniel endured, not because he had a vision of God. He â€Å"endured, as seeing Him Who is invisible.† A man with the vision of God in not devoted to a cause or to any particular issue: he is devoted to God Himself. You always know when the vision is of God because of the inspiration that comes with it: Things come with largeness and tonic to the life because everything is energized by God. If God gives you a time spiritually, as He gave his Son actually, of temptation in the wilderness, with no word from Himself at all, endure, and the power to endure is there because you see God. If we try to re-introduce the rare moments of inspiration, it is a sign that it is not God we want. We are making a fetish of the moments when God ... Free Essays on God And My Dad Free Essays on God And My Dad When I reflect on Chapters 1 & 2 I think of Pauls words. "I have to lead my life in faith, without seeing Him" 2 Cor. v. 7 And Hab. 2 v. 3 "Though it tarry, wait for it" For a time we are conscious of God's attentions, then, when God begins to use us in His enterprises, we take on a pathetic look and talk of the trails and the difficulties, and all the time God is trying to make us do our duty as obscure people. None of us would be obscure spiritually if we could help it. Can we do our duty as obscure people. Can we do our duty when God has shut up heaven? Some of us always want to be illuminated saints with golden haloes and the flush of inspiration, and to have the saints of God dealing with us all the time. A gilt-edged saint is no good, he is abnormal, unfit for daily life, and altogether unlike God. We are here as men and women, Not as half-fledged angels, To do the work of the world, and to do it with an infinitely greater power to stand the turmoil because we have been born from above. Though it tarry, Patience is not indifference: patience conveys the ides of an immensely strong rock withstanding all onslaughts. The vision of God is the source of patience, because it imparts a moral inspiration. Daniel endured, not because he had a vision of God. He â€Å"endured, as seeing Him Who is invisible.† A man with the vision of God in not devoted to a cause or to any particular issue: he is devoted to God Himself. You always know when the vision is of God because of the inspiration that comes with it: Things come with largeness and tonic to the life because everything is energized by God. If God gives you a time spiritually, as He gave his Son actually, of temptation in the wilderness, with no word from Himself at all, endure, and the power to endure is there because you see God. If we try to re-introduce the rare moments of inspiration, it is a sign that it is not God we want. We are making a fetish of the moments when God ...