Hamlet And Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead free essay sample

Essay, Research Paper # 8220 ; How has the composer of the modern-day text used the earlier text to state something new? # 8221 ; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, written in the sixtiess by dramatist Tom Stoppard, is a transforation of Shakespeare? s Hamlet. Stoppard efficaciously relocates Shakespeare? s drama to the sixtiess by reevaluating and revaluating the subjects and characters of Hamlet and sing nucleus values and attitudes of the 1960s- a clip significantly different to that of Shakespeare. He relies on the audience? s already established cognition of Hamlet and transforms a retaliation calamity into an Absurd play, which shifts the focal point from royalty to common adult male. Within Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Stoppard uses a drama within a drama to film over the line that defines world, and in making so creates confusion both onstage- with his characters, and offstage- with the audience. Using these techniques, Stoppard is able do a statement about his society, making a drama that reflected the attitudes and fortunes of the sixtiess, hence doing it more relevant and relatable to t he audiences of that clip. We will write a custom essay sample on Hamlet And Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The transmutation of a Shakespearian Revenge Tragedy into an Absurd Drama means a considerable alteration in construction from a well-structured and stiff format, into a helter-skelter and amorphous drama. Stoppard intentionally alters the constellation of the drama to make a confusing ambiance, which creates the exact feeling of society in the 1960s- no definites or certainties to trust on. Language portrays significance in both plays- the linguistic communication of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead differs to that of Hamlet. Stoppard employs nonmeaningful conversational exchanges, such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? s inquiry game, which strongly contrasts to Shakespearean elaborate and poetic poetry, as seen throughout the drama, particularly in Hamlet? s soliloquies- ? There is particular Providence in the autumn of a sparrow. ? This is thoughtful and philosophical. Stoppard? s usage of linguistic communication farther extends the thought of aimlessness and insignificance. Stoppard brings two comparatively undistinguished characters for Hamlet into focal point in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Common adult male into the? limelight? , as he represented the bulk of society- sixtiess? audiences were interested in characters that they could sympathize with and associate to. By concentrating on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard brings offstage Hamlet onstage. This alteration in orientation gives audiences a new position on Hamlet and a different reading of Shakespeare? s most celebrated drama. The subjects of Man? s ability to take action, every bit good as Destiny and Death in Hamlet, are maintained in Stoppard? s drama, but he brings into the text an consciousness and apprehension of his society, and through these subjects, explores different values that were built-in in the sixtiess. Man? s ability to take action is an single? s willingness to accept duty for his actions and take control of his life. In Hamlet, Shakespeare uses his characters to demo the power a adult male has when he accepts his intent, which was preordained by God. Stoppard revises this Elizabethan value through the portraiture of his characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who refuse to take an active function in the running of their life. He reflects on the differences between the societies, and demonstrates the confusion and conflicting beliefs and attitudes of the sixtiess as shown in Stoppard? s characters that, out of complete confusion do non understand the ultimate world of their conditions and hence do non cognize how to move. Their refusal to move is the cause of their ruin. Stoppard portrays Destiny in the sixtiess, as a higher power that can non be altered, stressing deficiency of will persons had in the sixtiess. The convulsion and shattered beliefs of the clip meant that people felt defenseless and incapable of taking charge- they thrive on external satisfaction to supply way and intent. As Guildenstern inquiries this authorization, ? Who Decides? ? , the Player justly answers him- ? Decides? It is written. ? The rubric chosen by Stoppard besides tells audiences the destiny of these two helpless characters. We are told from the really get downing that these two are destined to decease. It is merely before this decease that they realise that? there must hold been a minute, at the beginning, where we could hold said- ordinal number? However, it is excessively late. Stoppard acknowledges Shakespeare? s belief that the credence of destiny empowers an person, but he chooses to research the effects of declining one? s given purpose- the likely pick in the sixtiess. Death in Hamlet is given significance and value due to Elizabethan society? s strong ties to faith. The uncertainness of the hereafter made the decease cryptic, but besides greatly feared. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, nevertheless, since life is seen as purposeless and directionless, decease is seen as instead insignificant. The value of life after the Second World War was questioned and finally lost. This pettiness was communicated by Stoppard as merely disappearing- characters were no longer stuff or bing. The drama within the drama is besides utilized efficaciously by Stoppard to do a statement about his society. In Hamlet, there is clear differentiation between world and moving but this is non instance in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. By befoging the audience? s perceptual experience of what is existent and what is all an act, he introduces the inquiry of whether adult male is merely playing a function. Identities and intents fuzz and one can non state whether a character is echt or moving. This is shown when Guildenstern appears to hold killed the Player. Audiences, every bit good as the character are fooled into believing that the stabbing was existent, but one time once more, we are mistaken. By playing with world, Stoppard casts uncertainty on audience? s opinion, coercing us to oppugn our ain abilities. Stoppard takes advantage of audiences? cognition of Hamlet, when utilizing the secret plan of Shakespeare? s drama as the driving force of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. An apprehension of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead relies on this footing, to set up a greater consciousness and comprehension of 1960s society. Without this false cognition of Hamlet, one can non truly appreciate Stoppard? s drama, which informs society about their nature and defects. Tom Stoppard is able to do clear statements about the society that has influenced him to make Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. He basically takes elements of Shakespeare? s Hamlet and transforms them to do a opinion on society. By switching the focal point of his drama to common adult male, he is able to convey values that are relevant to the sixtiess. He develops characters that allow audiences to derive a new position on Shakespeare? s drama and get a more informed perceptual experience of themselves. Stoppard makes a statement about 1960s society? s deficiency of way and pleads viewing audiences to take an active function in bettering their ain state of affairs.

Cohesion Definition and Examples in Chemistry

Cohesion Definition and Examples in Chemistry The word cohesion comes from the Latin word  cohaerere, which means to stick together or stay together. In chemistry, cohesion is a measure of how well molecules stick to each other or group together.  It is caused by the cohesive  attractive force between like molecules. Cohesion is an intrinsic property of a molecule, determined by its shape, structure, and electric charge distribution. When cohesive molecules approach each other, the electrical attraction between portions of each molecule holds them together. Cohesive forces are responsible for surface tension, the resistance of a surface to rupture when under stress or tension. Examples A common example of cohesion is the behavior of water molecules. Each water molecule can form four  hydrogen bonds with neighbor molecules. The strong Coulomb attraction between the molecules draws them together or makes them sticky. Because the water molecules are more strongly attracted to each other than to other molecules, they form droplets on surfaces (e.g., dew drops) and form a dome when filling a container before spilling over the sides. The surface tension produced by cohesion makes it possible for light objects to float on water without sinking (e.g., water striders walking on water). Another cohesive substance is mercury. Mercury atoms are strongly attracted to each other; they bead together on surfaces. Mercury sticks to itself when it flows. Cohesion  vs. Adhesion Cohesion and adhesion are commonly confused terms. While cohesion refers to the attraction between molecules of the same type, adhesion refers to the attraction between two different types of molecules. A combination of cohesion and adhesion is responsible for capillary action, which is what happens when water climbs up the interior of a thin glass tube or the stem of a plant. Cohesion holds the water molecules together, while adhesion helps the water molecules stick to glass or plant tissue. The smaller the diameter of the tube, the higher water can travel up it. Cohesion and adhesion are also responsible for the meniscus of liquids in glasses. The meniscus of water in a glass is highest where the water is in contact with the glass, forming a curve with its low point in the middle. The adhesion between the water and glass molecules is stronger than the cohesion between the water molecules. Mercury, on the other hand, forms a convex meniscus. The curve formed by the liquid is lowest where the metal touches the glass and highest in the middle. Thats because mercury atoms are more attracted to each other by cohesion than they are to glass by adhesion. Because the shape of the meniscus depends partly on adhesion, it will not have the same curvature if the material is changed. The meniscus of water in a glass tube is more curved than it is in a plastic tube. Some types of glass are treated with a wetting agent or surfactant to reduce the amount of adhesion so that capillary action is reduced and also so that a container delivers more water when it is poured out. Wettability or wetting, the capacity for a liquid to spread out on a surface, is another property affected by cohesion and adhesion.

Week #6 Learning Activity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Week #6 Learning Activity - Essay Example Allegra gains various benefits from its strategic planning commitment. Specifically, these benefits are the following: (1) Better communication and relationship with franchisers who are attracted to and appreciate Allegra’s Profit Mastery Program; (2) Efficient time management outcomes that reduce error rates; (4) Lower error rates that reduce production costs and increase profits;(5) Higher customer satisfaction because of reduced error rates; and (6) Improved quality management dedication and outlook (â€Å"Chapter 13† 34) inside the company and among franchisers. Many small businesses fail to do strategic planning because of the following reasons: (1) Business owners do not know or apply the process of strategic planning; (2) They do not have time management skills that can help categorize different tasks by urgency and importance (â€Å"Chapter 13† 5); and (3) They have not built the needed relationships and connections with important stakeholders who will help them in the strategic planning process. Buying a franchise decreases the need for strategic planning because the franchisor designs the strategic plan, since the latter owns the franchise. Nevertheless, franchisers should and can still contribute to the strategic planning process by offering ideas/suggestions and informing the franchisor of issues and problems. In addition, being a franchisee changes the strategic planning process because the franchisee has less autonomy and control over the decision-making process. Franchisers are more of participants than the final decision-makers, especially when compared to sole

In Alice Walkers Everyday Use,----------The Seagull Reader Essay

In Alice Walkers Everyday Use,----------The Seagull Reader - Essay Example This story demonstrates that traditional people have the right to preserve their beliefs and practices without interference from modern-thinking individuals, because modernity and traditions are both valuable and no one is superior to another. Traditional people deserve the same respect and tolerance as modern-thinking individuals. Mama decides that the quilt belongs to Maggie, because they represent the African tradition of using quilts for their functional purposes. The quilt represents rural tradition that only Maggie understands and supports. The quilt has never fundamentally changed and has only expanded, as generations passed it from one family to another. Since Mama knows that Maggie will proudly continue this tradition, she asserts to Dee that Maggie deserves these quilts more than her. Dee reasons with her mother that: â€Å"[Maggie is] probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use† (Walker). She looks down on Maggie for being a rural woman with no education and â€Å"breeding.† She believes that by treating this quilt as an artifact, she provides a better use for her heritage. Mama, however, is tired of people belittling rural folk. She knows that the quilt belongs to Maggie, because unli ke Dee, Maggie will use it for everyday use. And that is what their tradition is for- to be lived each day of their lives. Modernity and traditions are both valuable to human identity. Mama and Maggie have not changed their traditional attitudes and lifestyles, while Dee completely chooses to change her identity, because she is ashamed of her rural background. Mama and Maggie live simple, rural lives. Mama milks cows, kills boars, and wears flannel nightgowns to bed and overalls throughout the day. Maggie helps her mother in their everyday farm and house chores. By describing how Mama and Maggie love their work, Walker argues that rural people are also happy and content with their lives. Dee is also pleased as a liberal woman. She is the kind of person, who:

Law of property Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 2

Law of property - Essay Example The unity of interest element requires parties to a joint tenancy to have the same type of interest and equal share in the property5. If the unity of interest requirement negated, this results in severance of the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common6.With regard to the unity of title requirement, this stipulates that the parties’ proprietary interests in the property must derive from the same legal title and at the same time. Commonly this will require evidence through deed or will7. Unity of time can often be problematic and academic discourse has significantly criticised this requirement particularly due to the requirement that property rights must vest in each joint tenant simultaneously8. In applying these principles to the current scenario, Albert used the proceeds of the sale of Sunrise Lodge to purchase Greengables. It is evident that Barbara’s mortgage payments to Sunrise Lodge accounted for 30% of the overall purchase costs and as such, the proceeds of the sale of Sunrise Lodge were held on trust for Barbara under constructive trust9. With regard to Greengables, Albert, Barbara and Charles bought the Property together in 1997 with the conveyance expressed as being in the joint names of all three parties. On this basis, it would appear that at the time of purchase, the four unities requirement for the existence of a joint tenancy have been complied with. Accordingly, at the time of purchase, Albert, Barbara and Charles held the Property as joint tenants in equal shares. However, the legal joint tenancy can be rebutted if the factual reality of the ownership arrangement falls within the equitable presumption of a tenancy in common10. The conditions for the equitable presumption of a tenancy in common were extrapolated in the case of Robertson v Fraser11, where Lord Hatherley highlighted that any

Stalin and the Korean War

Stalin and the Korean War To what extent was Stalin’s policy the principle cause of the Korean War (1950-53)? Introduction The Korean War is often referred to as a battle between communism and capitalism. It succeeded the end of the forty-year Japanese occupation of Korea. When Japan fell during the Second World War, Korea was free, and hoped to finally decide the fate of their own country. In the years following, both radical and nationalist groups became apparent, aiming for independence, however these groups failed to unite in one national movement.[1] The majority of Koreans fought for a unified state.[2] The United States and the Soviet Union, however, had alternative thoughts. The President of the United States, Harry S. Truman, wanted to stop Russia gathering anymore territory[3], therefore the United States countered by encouraging the establishment of democracy.[4] At the Potsdam Conference, in Germany, Korea was divided at the 38th parallel between the North and the South. The thought was that South Korea would be capitalist and North Korea would be communist. The Republic of Korea (ROK) was se t-up in the South and led by Syngman Rhee who was undemocratic and anti-communist but was recognized as the sole legal government of Korea.[5] The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was set-up in the North and led by communist Kim Il-Sung. There was hope that one day the unification of Korea would commence.[6] The Korean War is one that killed over 2.5 million people.[7] The conditions of the Korean war were inconsistent; Korea is a country with freezing snowy winters and boiling hot summers, which made conflict extremely difficult on both sides. The war began at 4:30 AM on June 25, 1950 and lasted for three straight years, the bipolar weather conditions meant that the soldiers were constantly fighting disease, malnutrition and frostbite.[8] Dean Acheson (1893-1971), the U.S. Secretary of State, once said that â€Å"if the best minds in the world had set out to find us the worst possible location in the world to fight this damnable war, the unanimous choice would have been Korea.†[9] The failure to unite Korea after WWII was an important factor in the beginning of the Korean War. In 1945, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Harry Truman, and, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, gathered in Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2. It was agreed to temporarily divide Korea and accept joint responsibility for reinstating Japanese forces. They decided upon an essentially arbitrary line which was the 38th Parallel which was to be used as a division between the North and South. The 38th Parallel is a circle of latitude which is 38 degrees north of the equator, it happened to roughly divided Korea in the middle, therefore was chosen to divide the two Koreas. The Role of Stalin When Kim voiced his frustration that his bid for reunification remained heavy on his mind, he reached out to both Joseph Stalin (the leader of the Soviet Union) and Mao Zedong (the chairman of the communist party of China). The definite reason for Stalin giving Kim permission to invade South is uncertain to this day. Either the victory of Communist China, or the Soviets gain of the atomic bomb could have led to Stalin’s decision being made.[10] One of Stalin’s main aims was to avoid conflict with the United States, he did this in many ways, one of which was denying Kim’s strategies for the war. The withdrawal of American troops from South Korea were significant, however, Stalin was under the impression that a harsh military campaign wouldn’t go unanswered, therefore he decided against refutation in the moment[11]. Stalin had promised both cultural and economic aid to North Korea, during a meeting between Stalin, Kim, and representatives from both governmen ts, on March 5, 1949. Regarding military operations across the 38th parallel, Stalin was not yet prepared to support Kim’s political and strategic objectives of reunification.[12] Stalin brought Kim to Moscow to ensure that Korea did not fall under the influence of the new People’s Republic of China (PRC).[13] According to Stalin’s interpreter, in the Spring of 1949, in the course of a meeting between Kim and Stalin, â€Å"Kim complained that ‘†¦the southerners are making trouble all the time. They are violating the border; there are continuous small clashes.’ Stalin became gloomy; ‘What are you talking about? Are you short of arms? We shall give them to you. You must strike the southerners in the teeth.’ After thinking for a while, he repeated, ‘Strike them, strike them.’†[14] This extract from the meeting reinforces the point that Stalin was providing North Korea with weapons and supplies, which demonstrates t hat the Korean War wouldn’t have occurred without the help from Stalin and The Soviet Union. Stalin decided that he needed to bring Korea into the Soviet sphere of influence. The Soviets wanted to expand the sphere of communist influence into Korea, this was because Stalin and the Soviet Union wanted to be surrounded by communist countries as a layer of protection for Russia and so if the threat of invasion or war occurred they would have support around them. Stalin was afraid that Mao was considering opening China to capitalist influence; therefore, he decided that he could not allow North Korea to do the same.[15] Throughout the spring and summer of 1949 that Kim was making significant strides to increase the potency of the KPA (Korean people’s army). Stalin was essentially only interested in how the Korean War would affect his relations with the United States[16]. On September 3rd, 1949, Kim sought permission from Stalin and the Soviet Union to commence military operations against the south.[17] Kim most likely believed that Korea would be next in line for the Asian communist movements; thus in early 1950, Kim renewed his requests for military reunification with Stalin[18]. In January 1950, the first Soviet Ambassador to North Korea, Terentii Shtykov, feared that Kim was looking to move forward toward reunification without approval from Stalin, so he sent a telegram with a forlorn warning: â€Å"Kim Il-sung is constantly nurturing his idea about an attack.†[19] In 1950 Stalin eventually began to support the plans for a war as at this point he was more hopeful about winning. The Communist victory in China and the development of the USSRs first atomic bomb persuaded Stalin to act and help North Korea. The USSR was using the Korean war as a proxy war, a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved. The Role of Truman   Ã‚   At the Council of Foreign Ministers Moscow Conference, in December 1945, the USA and the Soviet Union agreed to create a temporary government in Korea that would lead to independence[20]. However, independence was never achieved and the Cold War developed individuals of higher power who became less willing to co-operate. Separate governments emerged on both sides of Korea. Both Kim Il Sung and Syngman Rhee fought the Japanese during the occupation and wanted to end the division of Korea, however they had different ideas for how to do so. The failure of uniting the two Koreas led to the permanent governments of Korea. The USA was also using the Korean War as a proxy war. The Americans enforced the idea of containment, a foreign policy used to contain the spread of communism. The US was fearful that if a united Korea became communist if would lead to a ‘domino effect’ and the spread of communism around the world would occur[21]. Truman feared that the next ‘dominoâ⠂¬â„¢ would be Japan[22]. The possible reaction from Stalin had to be taken into consideration if the U.S. did involve themselves in the Korean War. On a similar note, the Truman administration was concerned of the possible expansion of the Korean War into a larger war taking place over Europe.[23] Nevertheless, it was clear that there was little indication that the United States or even the United Nations could shy from the war.[24] It is thought that the US and UN feared what would happen if North Korea won the war and subsequently Kim Il-Sung came to power, with the support of Stalinist regime and the Soviet Union. President Truman believed if the aggression from North Korea went unnoticed, it would encourage Communist aggression elsewhere.[25] The UN Security Council accepted the abuse of force to aid the South Koreans. This is noteworthy because Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) is one of the permanent seats upon the UN council, however, interestingly, the Soviet Union did not oppose the use of force against North Korea, even though the Soviet Union were responsible for sending troops and supplies into the war. This demonstrates that the Soviet Union were confident in the ability of their troops, so confident that in fact they did not fear the force that would be against them. The Truman administration, however, continued to restrict themselves from sending soldiers because according to their advisors, North Koreans could be stopped by purely both naval and air power. Subsequently, immediately upon hearing this news, the U.S. began utilizing whatever air and naval forces that they could, to help with the war.[26] Following China’s input into the Korean War, General MacArthur landed two divisions 150 miles in the South Korean port of Inchon. Following a seize of communication between them and the US, the North Koreans are reported to have fled North, escaping[27]. â€Å"If we let Korea down,† Truman said, â€Å"the Soviet[s] will keep right on going and swallow up one [place] after another.†[28] General Douglas MacArthur, Chief of staff of the United States Army, believed that only a total victory was an acceptable outcome for the US. President Truman disagreed but MacArthur was adamant.[29] The Role of Mao Unlike America, China decided to take a passive response during the initial stage of the Korean War.[30] The People’s Republic of China, in October 1950, was only one year old. The Beijing regime was already facing difficult tasks of economic reconstruction and regime consolidation.[31] Therefore it was predicted that China would have little to no interference in the Korean War. There is some evidence that suggests that there was an exchange of views between Kim, Mao Zedong and Stalin on the North’s plan of military invasion.[32] However, besides giving Kim moral support, only material support was provided by China at beginning of the war. They sent approximately 14,000 Korean Chinese soldiers who were then serving in the Peoples Liberation Army back to Korea.[33] Mao’s reasons for supporting North Koreas invasion of the South are often debated. Some believe that Mao was an unwilling participant in the war due to the concerns about the effect it would have on China[34]. Mao feared that if he supported North Korea it would have a negative impact on China as it could trigger an invasion from America, due to their aid for the South. Some others further argue that Mao was in some way manipulated or compelled into sending troops to North Korea by Stalin and Kim-Il-Sung.[35] On June 27, President Truman revealed that America was supplying South Korea with air and naval support, which lead to the Chinese leaders reassessing American intentions towards China and redeploy some of its troops to the Northern border.  [36] Mao asked if Stalin would send air support to North Korea and he would send troops. Stalin decided against sending air support. Mao, after a substantial amount of thought, sent Chinese troops into Korea on 19 October 1950, even though he was currently dealing with a difficult military situation himself[37]. This fundamentally changed the relationship between China and the Soviet Union forever. Barely 12 days after the Chinese troops had enrolled in the war, Stalin soon declared that the Soviet Air Force could provide air cover, and aid to China[38], due to North Korean assistance from China. The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, which was signed in February 1950, mentioned that ‘all-out’ support would be supplied by the Soviet Union if China was entangled in any military conflict with the ‘imperialist countries’.[39] This treaty ensured that if China intervened in the Korean War, there would be less of a threat from an American invasion because of the support from Stalin and the Soviets. The security treaty therefore significantly decreased the possibility of an American invasion. The Communist China Party (CCP) had a Marxist-Leninism ideology that greatly influenced the decisions of senior members, especially Mao[40]. Presumably, it was this ideology that lead them to assist North Korea in the war, because turning the whole of Korea into a communist country would be not only be beneficial to Russia and the Soviet Union, it would also benefit Mao and the CCP. The Role of Kim Il-Sung In September 1948, the North founded the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), founded by Kim Il Sung, recognized as the communist side. Kim Il Sung was the leader of North Korea from 1948-71. Kim was born born to Kim HyÃ… ng-jik and Kang Pan-sÃ… k. They originally bestowed upon him the name of Kim SÃ… ng-ju, however, he later changed his name to Kim Il-Sung. Unsurprisingly, the Kim family, like an abundance of Korean families, were opposed to the Japanese occupation of the Korea, which began on 29 August 1910.[41] Kims parents, especially Kims mother, is said to have played a role in the anti-Japanese struggle that was sweeping the peninsula.[42] This is suggested to be where Kim Il-Sung’s anti-imperialism attitude originates. In October 1926 Kim founded the Down-With-Imperialism Union[43], in order to fight against Japanese imperialism and to promote Marxism-Leninism[44]. As previously mentioned, both Kim Il Sung and Syngman Rhee wanted to reunify Korea on their own terms, however neither side could unify Korea on their own due to lack of strength and supplies. Kim understood that his goals of reunification would require help from another communist’s patron, namely the Soviet Union or China. This suggests that Kim knew he didn’t have the army or the weapons that he needed to begin the war himself, he knew he needed support from elsewhere. With this growth of the North Korean army in mind, Kim renewed his request to unify Korea with Stalin. One likely reason that Kim renewed his efforts at this time was that since June 29, 1949, the American military had withdrawn troops from South Korea.[45] Kim was convinced that the U.S. would not enter the Korean War, or even if they did enter the war, they would not hold sway over the destiny of the war.[46] Kim had little concern if the South had the support of the US as he doubted the impact of their influence. Stalin ultimately contemplated the request from Kim to begin the war for approximately a year, even though he did say ‘no’ several times, he did eventually approve the proposal.[47] Conclusion The role of individuals in the causes of the Korean War are essentially insignificant. Ultimately, the Korean War wouldn’t have occurred without the division of Korea, after the Japanese occupation, decided at the Potsdam conference. But this decision wasn’t made by one person, it was made by the three super powers, Stalin, Churchill and Truman. But then, the war also wouldn’t have occurred if Stalin and the Soviets hadn’t appointed Kim Il-Sung as the leader of the north as he was the one who thought of invading to conquer the south. Mao was influenced by Stalin to participate in the war, therefore China’s input was down to Stalin. Stalin’s influence was powerful as Kim didn’t have the army, weapons or supplies to be at war for 3 years. This proves that it wasn’t just the work of one influence, these put together influenced the beginning of the Korean War. To answer the question of â€Å"to what extent was Stalin’s policy the principle cause of the Korean War (1950-53)?†, Stalin had an obviously large impact on the initiation of the Korean War. It can, however, be concluded that the Korean War was a combination of civil and international conflicts. Bibliography Buzo, A., 2002. The Making of Modern Korea. 1st ed. London: Routledge. Study.com. 2017. United States Involvement in the Korean War: Causes and Effects. [ONLINE] Available at: http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-korean-war-causes-and-effects.html. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. Study.com. 2017. United States Involvement in the Korean War: Causes and Effects. [ONLINE] Available at: http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-korean-war-causes-and-effects.html. [Accessed 1 March 2018].  The Editors of Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica. 2016. Syngman Rhee. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Syngman-Rhee. [Accessed 24 January 2018]. History.com Staff. 2009. Potsdam Conference. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/potsdam-conference. [Accessed 2 January 2018]. Allan R. Millett. 2017. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War. [Accessed 1 March 2018].History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018].History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018].Dr. Evgeni Bajanov on, Kim, D., 1995. The Korean War: An Assessment of the Historical Record : [report of a Conference Held]. 1st ed. Washington DC, United States: Georgetown University.Millett, A., 2005. The War for Korea, 1945-1950: A House Burning. 1st ed. United States: University Press of Kansas.Digital Archive International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1949. Meeting between Stalin and Kim Il Sung. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112127. [Accessed 2 March 2018].Thornton, R., 2001. Odd Man Out. 1st ed. United States: Brassey’s Inc.Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press.Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press.Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press.Digital Archive: International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1949. Telegram from Shtykov to Vyshinsky. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112129. [Accessed 2 March 2018].Digital Archive International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1949. Meeting between Stalin and Kim Il Sung. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112127. [Accessed 2 March 2018].Digital Archive: International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1950. Telegram Shtykov to Vyshinsky on a Luncheon at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112135. [Accessed 2 March 2018].Avalon Project: Yale Law School. 2008. A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Moscow. [ONLINE] Available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decade19.asp. [Accessed 4 March 2018].History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018].History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018].Rhees, D., 1964. Korea: The Limited War. 1st ed. United States: St Martin’s Press.Rhees, D., 1964. Korea: The Limited War. 1st ed. United States: St Martin’s Press.History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018].History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018].Rhees, D., 1964. Korea: The Limited War. 1st ed. United States: St Martin’s Press.Michael Hickey. 2011. The Korean War: An Overview. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_hickey_01.shtml. [Accessed 2 March 2018].History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018].History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018].Hao, Y. Zhai Z., 1990. China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited. 1st ed. United States: The China Quarterly.Sheng, M., 2014. MAO’S ROLE IN THE KOREAN CONFLICT: A REVISION. 1st ed. United States: Routledge, Twentieth Century ChinaGoncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press.Hao, Y. Zhai Z., 1990. China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited. 1st ed. United States: The China Quarterly.Zhou, B. 2015. Explaining Chinas Intervention in the Korean War in 1950.. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1069. [Accessed 4 March 2018].Sheng, M., 2014. MAO’S ROLE IN THE KOREAN CONFLICT: A REVISION. 1st ed. United States: Routledge, Twentieth Century ChinaChen, J., 1994. China’s Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation. 1st ed. United States: Columbia University Press.Zhihua Shen. 2010. China and the Dispatch of the Soviet Air Force: The Formation of the Chinese–Soviet–Korean Alliance in the Early Stage of the Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402391003590291?journalCode=fjss20. [Accessed 2 March 2018].Zhihua Shen. 2010. China and the Dispatch of the Soviet Air Force: The Formation of the Chinese–Soviet–Korean Alliance in the Early Stage of the Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402391003590291?journalCode=fjss20. [Accessed 2 March 2018].Chen, J., 1994. Chinas Road to the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Columbia University Press.Christensen, T., 1992. Threats, Assurances, and the Last Chance for Peace: The Lessons of Mao’s Korean War Telegrams. 1st ed. United States: International Security.Bong, B., 1973. Kim Il Sung: Biography [I]From Birth to Triumphant Return to Homeland. 1st ed. Japan: Miraisha.Bong, B., 1973. Kim Il Sung: Biography [I]From Birth to Triumphant Return to Homeland. 1st ed. Japan: Miraisha.Lydia Smith. 2014. Kim Il-sung Death Anniversary: How the North Korea Founder Created a Cult of Personality. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kim-il-sung-death-anniversary-how-north-korea-founder-became-cult-personality-1455758. [Accessed 21 February 2018].Official webpage of the DPR of Korea. 2011. Songun Politics. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.korea-dpr.com/songun.html. [Accessed 21 February 2018].Korea Institute of Military History, 2000. The Korean War: Volume 1. 1st ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press.Ex-Patt Magazine of Foreign Affairs. 2015. The Decision to Invade: Stalin in 1950. [ONLINE] Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=ex-patt. [Accessed 18 January 2018].Zhou, B. (2015). Explaining Chinas Intervention in the Korean War in 1950. Interstate Journal of International Affairs, 2014/2015(1). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1069 Books: Cumings, B., 2011. The Korean War: A History. 1st ed. United States: Modern Library.Harden, B., 2013. Escape from Camp 14. 3rd ed. England: Pan Books.Lee, H., 2015. The Girl with Seven Names: Escape from North Korea. 1st ed. Great Britain: William Collins.Chol-Hwan, K., Rigoulot, P., 2006. The Aquariums of Pyongyang. 1st ed. Great Britain: Atlantic Books.Jin-Sung, J., 2014. Dear Leader. 1st ed. England: Rider. [1] Buzo, A., 2002. The Making of Modern Korea. 1st ed. London: Routledge. [2] Study.com. 2017. United States Involvement in the Korean War: Causes and Effects. [ONLINE] Available at: http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-korean-war-causes-and-effects.html. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [3] History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [4] Study.com. 2017. United States Involvement in the Korean War: Causes and Effects. [ONLINE] Available at: http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-korean-war-causes-and-effects.html. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [5] The Editors of Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica. 2016. Syngman Rhee. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Syngman-Rhee. [Accessed 24 January 2018]. [6] History.com Staff. 2009. Potsdam Conference. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/potsdam-conference. [Accessed 2 January 2018]. [7] Allan R. Millett. 2017. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [8] History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [9] History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [10] Dr. Evgeni Bajanov on, Kim, D., 1995. The Korean War: An Assessment of the Historical Record : [report of a Conference Held]. 1st ed. Washington DC, United States: Georgetown University. [11] Millett, A., 2005. The War for Korea, 1945-1950: A House Burning. 1st ed. United States: University Press of Kansas. [12] Digital Archive International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1949. Meeting between Stalin and Kim Il Sung. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112127. [Accessed 2 March 2018]. [13] Thornton, R., 2001. Odd Man Out. 1st ed. United States: Brassey’s Inc. [14] Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press. [15] Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press. [16] Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press. [17] Digital Archive: International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1949. Telegram from Shtykov to Vyshinsky. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112129. [Accessed 2 March 2018]. [18] Digital Archive International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1949. Meeting between Stalin and Kim Il Sung. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112127. [Accessed 2 March 2018]. [19] Digital Archive: International History Declassified. Terenti Shtykov. 1950. Telegram Shtykov to Vyshinsky on a Luncheon at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK. [ONLINE] Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112135. [Accessed 2 March 2018]. [20] Avalon Project: Yale Law School. 2008. A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Moscow. [ONLINE] Available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decade19.asp. [Accessed 4 March 2018]. [21] History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018]. [22] History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018]. [23] Rhees, D., 1964. Korea: The Limited War. 1st ed. United States: St Martin’s Press. [24] Rhees, D., 1964. Korea: The Limited War. 1st ed. United States: St Martin’s Press. [25] History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018]. [26] History.com Staff. 2009. Domino Theory. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/domino-theory. [Accessed 4 March 2018]. [27] Michael Hickey. 2011. The Korean War: An Overview. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_hickey_01.shtml. [Accessed 2 March 2018]. [28] History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [29] History.com Staff. 2009. Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war. [Accessed 1 March 2018]. [30] Hao, Y. Zhai Z., 1990. China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited. 1st ed. United States: The China Quarterly. [31] Sheng, M., 2014. MAO’S ROLE IN THE KOREAN CONFLICT: A REVISION. 1st ed. United States: Routledge, Twentieth Century China [32] Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press. [33] Hao, Y. Zhai Z., 1990. China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited. 1st ed. United States: The China Quarterly. [34] Zhou, B. 2015. Explaining Chinas Intervention in the Korean War in 1950.. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1069. [Accessed 4 March 2018]. [35] Sheng, M., 2014. MAO’S ROLE IN THE KOREAN CONFLICT: A REVISION. 1st ed. United States: Routledge, Twentieth Century China [36] Chen, J., 1994. China’s Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation. 1st ed. United States: Columbia University Press. [37] Zhihua Shen. 2010. China and the Dispatch of the Soviet Air Force: The Formation of the Chinese–Soviet–Korean Alliance in the Early Stage of the Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402391003590291?journalCode=fjss20. [Accessed 2 March 2018]. [38] Zhihua Shen. 2010. China and the Dispatch of the Soviet Air Force: The Formation of the Chinese–Soviet–Korean Alliance in the Early Stage of the Korean War. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402391003590291?journalCode=fjss20. [Accessed 2 March 2018]. [39] Chen, J., 1994. Chinas Road to the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Columbia University Press. [40] Christensen, T., 1992. Threats, Assurances, and the Last Chance for Peace: The Lessons of Mao’s Korean War Telegrams. 1st ed. United States: International Security. [41] Bong, B., 1973. Kim Il Sung: Biography [I]From Birth to Triumphant Return to Homeland. 1st ed. Japan: Miraisha. [42] Bong, B., 1973. Kim Il Sung: Biography [I]From Birth to Triumphant Return to Homeland. 1st ed. Japan: Miraisha. [43] Lydia Smith. 2014. Kim Il-sung Death Anniversary: How the North Korea Founder Created a Cult of Personality. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kim-il-sung-death-anniversary-how-north-korea-founder-became-cult-personality-1455758. [Accessed 21 February 2018]. [44] Official webpage of the DPR of Korea. 2011. Songun Politics. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.korea-dpr.com/songun.html. [Accessed 21 February 2018]. [45] Korea Institute of Military History, 2000. The Korean War: Volume 1. 1st ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. [46] Goncharov, S., Lewis, J., Xue, L., 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. 1st ed. United States: Stanford University Press. [47] Ex-Patt Magazine of Foreign Affairs. 2015. The Decision to Invade: Stalin in 1950. [ONLINE] Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=ex-patt. [Accessed 18 January 2018].

Learning to Read and Write: Language on the Brain :: Biology Essays Research Papers

Learning to Read and Write: Language on the Brain When I was little, my favorite book was Happy Birthday Moon. For a while, it was my nightly bedtime story. Anyone who offered to read aloud to me was immediately proffered this book. After some time, I knew the story by heart, word for word. I could not quite read the book but I had memorized the framework of it and so could tell the story myself. The day that I learned to finally recognize the words themselves was so exciting. When the blur of squiggly lines on the page became letters with sound and meaning, a whole new dimension opened up. Every form of human expression is codified within some framework of language. As an English major, I study how people manipulate and interpret language in order to communicate. As a tutor with a reading enrichment program, I sometimes encounter kids who do not share this love of reading and writing. As it is my job to help them master and gather more enjoyment from their dealings with language, and since brain equals behavior, I thought this web paper the perfect opportunity to ask few questions. How does the brain process language? Why do some people enjoy reading and writing better than others do? Why is it easier for some people to learn to manipulate language? And which came first the brain, or the linguistic framework that defines and identifies it? I have learned that language, like the nervous system, is a complicated blueprint which humans use to communicate with, navigate, and interpret, the world. For most people, the parts of the brain that process language are located in the left hemisphere (3). The primary sections in the brain that allow us to read, write, and speak communicably are: the left frontal cortex or Borca's Area, the posterior part of the temporal lobe or Wernicke's Area and a bundle of nerves called the arcuate fasciculus (3). The angular gyrus, at the back of the brain, interprets the words and letters that compose language (4). In order for a word or a sentence to be understood when it is read, an action potential must travel the network of these various parts. First, the information must get from the page to the primary visual cortex. From there is must go to the posterior angular gyrus, near Wernicke's area. Then, if the word or sentence is to be read aloud, it must travel to Borca's Area and the primary motor cortex (3).