Late Imperial Russia Essay Example for Free

Late Imperial Russia Essay How was Russia set up to be the nation it is today? Introduction: Imperial Russia all started in the 17th century where a man named Tsar Ivan IV the terrible battled and defeated the Mongols which were the previous rulers of Russia. He appointed himself the emperor of Russia and his heirs would carry on his principles and his way of ruling throughout the centurys to build a strong nation. The Tsars of the Romanov dynasty would carry on ruling till the last reign in 1890-1917 which was held by Tsar Nicholas II son of Tsar Alexander Ill, it was his and is fathers reign which changed Russia from having its own system (tsarism) to become a nation with a fair government Just like the European nations of their time. At first glance the Tsars were thought to be grateful to Russia e. g. ictory over the swedes which transformed Muscovy into a great power of Europe and Alexander II the liberator ended serfdom and restored the government of Russia after losing the Crimean war. However there were many situations, problems in governments and people that caused Russia to change from having Tsarism to having an official government such as parliament. Tsar Tsarism: The system of Tsarism was governed through three organisations: Firstly there was the imperial council, which were a group of advisers to the Tsar. Secondly there was the Cabinet of Ministers, which ran the government departments of the Tsar. Thirdly there was the Senate, which were the supervisors of the law. All three of these governmental bodies were ranked under the Tsar so every organisation they run, laws they make or suggestions, the final word or decision has to be from the current Tsar ruler, e. g. To quote Reaction and Revolution They were appointed, not elected nd they did not govern. This is because their roles are basically to give advice because whatever they say has to go through the Tsar. The Tsar which caused most problems were as I mentioned above Nicholas II and Alexander Ill because of what they tried to do to the Russian empire as well as what they didnt try to do, unlike their reforming heirs, they didnt fight for Russia or change for Russia, they only did what they did to benefit them, not the rest of Russia. By the time of Nicholass reign Russia stretched a distance of 5000 miles from west to east and 2000 miles from outh to north, this of course made ruling Russia even more difficult because one family couldnt possibly enforce their system on their own unless they had an actual government like other European countries of their time. Even though the sheer size of Russia gave it a well-known powerful image that its a nation of strength, it didnt prove that because parts of the landscape are either unreachable, uninhabitable or just not worth the time to build upon. Considering these facts Tsar Nicholas II wasnt indeed that powerful as well as the Tsarism system which soon lead to changing into communist government ruled by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Overall the system of Tsarism is the system the Tsar family ran to rule the nation of Russia, this involved only them having command and if any governmental bodies have any ideas to change/improve Russia they could only advise it as only the Tsars nad control. How did the geography of Russia compare to other nations in Europe and effect the Tsar: As IVe mentioned above, Russia consists a land mass of 16,093,440 Kilometres Squared which makes it 2 and a half times bigger than the USA and a whole lot harder to rule, this is because Russia of this time is being ruled by one family which nly cause poverty, social segregation and a failed work force, if you compare it to the USA of its time its doing far better than Russia because the USA is a democracy unlike Russia which is a socialist nation. The differences are that the USA vote and elect, they have different Parties which have different Jobs to run the country when Russia is run by one family which tries to do everything and when they do make laws or enforce something, it only rewards them not the nation. The advantage the Tsars had is that the size of Russia made them seem untouchable which explains the lack f countries invading or taking over Russia, this is the only way that the geography of Russia affects it positively, IVe mentioned how it affects Russia negatively e. . bad landscape, too much to rule over, cannot handle to control such a large area. Ruling Russia back then was difficult even with the Trans-Siberian Railway, sure it provided a way to cross the 5000 miles from west to east but it still caused neglect to places like Vladivostok and Irkutsk because they arent at all near the capitals such as Moscow and St Petersburg. How did the people of Russia effect the Tsar and what did they do to respond to the ays of the tsar: The people of Russia were so constricted because of Tsarism it caused many problems, one of the catalysts to the problems was that it was a criminal offence to go against the Tsar or Tsarism, therefore if anyone decided they wanted to reform the tsarism system they had to go through the Tsar themselves and of course if it goes against their wishes theyll say no and arrest the person responsible. There has been Reforming Tsars which improved transport, improved efficiency of the army, re-built cities so they could change Russia for the better, but ventually it was all done for nothing because whenever an heir gained the throne from a reformed Tsar they always went back to the strict ways. This did effect the nation greatly but not as much until the last Tsar ever: Nicholas II, he was meant to carry on the rulings his tatner made to help build Russia into a stronger nation e. g. mproving standard of living, education, employment etc. but he decided to go back to the old socialist ways that caused poverty, distrust of the nation and weakening the barrier between a fair command and compete domination of the people of Russia. People didnt Just stand around been ruled or told off by the tsars, there have been a few moments where theyVe risen up, worked together to eradicate the current Tsar leader or went underground to discuss what differences they could make on their own without the permission of the Tsar. For example since free speech was a common myth in the reigns of Tsar, various people most likely in political activist groups decided to go to extremism. They thought the only way they could get their word out or make a change is through threats or by force, for example in 1881 Tsar Alexander II was blown up by a bomb thrown from the Peoples Will hich were a terrorist group, they went this far because they didnt want to be plagued by the Tsar or Tsarism anymore. However other people of the nation went down low and created societies or non-activist groups which wouldnt allow the Tsars to see how theyre changing Russia in a non-obvious fashion, but eventually after they started to plan a revolution the Tsar caught on and decided to infiltrate them with their own secret police known as the Okhrama. They were issued to perform raids, arrests, imprisonments and infiltrations to stop the secret societies so the Tsar could carry on running the government. The only thing that was good that the Tsar provided to the people was an Orthodox Church in every city (ST. Petersburg Moscow), the people encouraged this because the church was a part of Russian culture and because it didnt rely on any foreign influence or governmental body. Of course the Church supported the tsarist system throughout the centurys right up to the 19th century where it became well opposed to political/governmental change which caused it to so low in growth, unlike the industrial part of Russia. Consider the fact the only 0. 5% of Russia is the Tsar and their advisors, 12% is military and the last 3. 9% is the public, the public consist of merchants, factory workers and owners, land owners and mainly peasants. This causes issues because of course the Tsar allow the chance that people can buy/own/sell land, but it comes with a price, considering most workers soon save up to buy a farm land but then it comes with a mortgage thus causing them to be in debt and nearly as poor as the peasants. This effected the economy massively because by these statistics 80% of the population were peasants, and they knew peasants were illiterate and have a lack of skills, this portion of the opulation was the catalyst to everything the people did in response to what the Tsar did to Russia. This made the Tsar lower the ranks of the army so they could be filled with conscription (the forcing of large numbers of peasants to Join the armed services), these were often called the Dark Masses. The problems caused by botn Tsarism and the People ot Russia : The issues that were caused by the Tsar effect Russia more frequently and at a higher scale after Alexander the seconds reign, this is because he was the first reforming Tsar for a while and what he did was for the better interest of the nation not himself; People tarted noticing his reforms in 1861 when he emancipated the Serfs, he restored Russias governing structure after the loss in the Crimean war and he set up a network of elected councils in the rural areas which were called Zemstvos, even though it seemed with these elected bodies that anyone could vote, that wasnt the case because of strict voting regulations only the land owners not the peasants could take part in the voting. Alexander II has obviously made a difference to his nation because of this evidence, but it still did solve the problem that there might be a hance that the next Tsar could ignore his reformative ways and create discipline, poverty and all the other problems again like other Tsars before him. He also feared that since hes doing all of this, hes not committing to his Tsar duties, so near the end of his reign he goes back to the old ways which doesnt affect much but leads to his assassination in 188111880. His successor Alexander Ill caused all sorts of problems, problems so bad that everyone in the nation felt oppressed during his whole reign, after he was replaced by Nicholas II things got even worse because he didnt like the eforming that alexander II did, so he carried on the repressive policies of his predecessor, which made Alexander the seconds reformation worth nothing, this of course angered the intelligent, richer and educated class of Russia known as the intelligentsia. The army of Russia was weakened by Nicholas II because he decided to lower ranks in the military so that even peasants could Join, this made becoming a high ranking officer easier therefore more of a chance to affect the tsarism system that Nicholas II has moulded. This weakened the force or strength of the military reatly, so much that the people created their own group called the Militia which basically had their own form of Justice against criminals. If the military was going downhill so was the Tsar because Just about 50% of their expenditure was funding the army which was only able to produce a million and nalt me, which does sound powerful but most of which were peasants and land owners. People of Russia had less specific reasons of why the army, or their nation is so bad, they thought that the Tsar civil service was corrupt and the evidence to show it was that its the nation hose tried and tried again to reform itself but always goes back and corrupts itself again. Many citizens accused the Tsar of sucking the blood of the people which refers to the fact that they control them, they corrupt them and they use them. Overall many people of Russia either appreciated the reformation to be on par with other nations or hating the reformation, the people which wanted the reformation were known as the Westerners because they wanted Russia to adopt aspects of European nations so they wont live in horrendous conditions e. g. destroyed towns/ cities because of wars. Or have economic problems e. g. iving in poverty. The people who wanted Russia to stay the same were known as Slavophiles they wanted to preserve the best aspects of Russia, yes solve the problems but not via adopting features of other European nations. Conclusion: The system of Tsarism is the system the Tsar family ran to rule the nation of Russia, this involved only them having command and if any governmental bodies have any ideas to change/improve Russia they could only advise it as only the Tsars had control. The geography of Russia effects its government greatly because it made them seem stronger when actually the tsar couldnt possibly control the whole of Russia, also because of the vast landscape they couldnt industrialise as fast as other nations could therefore putting them at a disadvantage as a nation. The people of Russia lived in poverty because of the strict rulings of the tsar, that the tsar couldnt control all of them, they were in debt if they paid for land, even if theyre factory workers everyone couldnt possibly benefit the whole nation. Because of the constant change of reforming tsars to cruel tsars the people of Russia didnt know what to do and what they can do, which lead to assassinations, societies being created and being invaded by military or police.

Richard Nixon and the Election of 1969 Essay -- President Richard M Ni

Richard Nixon and the Election of 1969   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Richard Nixon, was born on January 9th, 1913, in Yorba Linda, California. Fifty-six years after he was born he became the 37th president of the United States. In the election Nixon only defeated the democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, by about 500,000 in the popular vote. Nixon is considered one of the most controversial politicians of the twentieth century. He used his political experience, his background, the communist scare of the late forties and early fifties, and some other factors to become the President of the United States.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When people are deciding whom they will vote for an important factor they look at is the candidates’ educational background. Nixon grew up in a southern California Quaker family. He was stressed about the importance of hard work and integrity. He was always a good student in school and had the chance to apply to Harvard and Yale. He had to turn down the offer though because of a family illness which caused him to stay closer to home. He decided to attend Whittner College, where he graduated second in his class. He went on to attend law school at Duke University where he graduated third in his class. It is important to have a good education because you will look much more competent in the eyes of the people voting for you. By receiving and doing very well in his education Nixon got the support he would later need to become President.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Another very important factor was Nixon’s previous experience in politics. After graduating from Duke University, Nixon joined the navy during World War II. After returning from the war Nixon jumped right into politics. He answered a Republican Party call in the newspaper. They were looking for someone to run against the five-term Democratic Congressman Jerry Voorhis. John Ehrlichman once said of Richard Nixon, â€Å"He is like a race horse specially trained to run a particular race and no good for pulling wagons. He’s for running the race to be president, and that’s what he lived for (Matusow 1).† That just gives you an idea about Nixon’s attitude. He would do whatever it took in order to win. The style of Nixon’s first campaign for congressman set the tone for the early part of his political career. An example would be that while running against Voorhis he accused him of being a communist. He even had campaign workers ma ke calls to voter... ... by Robert Finch, â€Å"He wasn’t nearly as attractive, physically, as some of the other candidates, but he was so intense; he was a strong personality. You regarded him as a comer, someone who would be effective and successful in political activity. I was impressed by his obvious political skills, his intelligence, and his drive (Strober 31).† This definitely sounds like some qualities that would make a good president and the public agreed by electing him President.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Nixon although considered one of the most controversial politicians used his political experience, his background and the communist scare of the late forties and early fifties to become President. It took Nixon about four years but eventually he put an end to the Vietnam War. He promised the American people that when he took office his highest priority would be putting an end to the horrible war. He did what he promised and deserves credit for that. Although things did not always work out for him he came back from the events a smarter man. He used his knowledge to win the election. It takes a smart man to learn from his mistakes and Nixon did that. That is why he deserved to be President of the United States.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  

Violating Social Norms

For this assignment, I decided to violate the social norm of not talking on the phone while watching a movie in a movie theater. Before the movie started, I tested my sister and asked her to call me during the movie. When she did so, I proceeded to have a 2-3 minute conversation with her and spoke loudly so that those around me would notice and be distracted. The people around me In the theater were obviously bothered by my behavior and annoyed. Several people turned around to stare at me or whispered under their breath to their friends.A few Just Just shook their heads or sighed. The social norm of refraining from talking on the phone during In a movie theater was an example of an explicit (In this case), Injunctive norm. The norm was explicit because during the movie previews, there was an advertisement that read â€Å"Please no talking on the phone or testing during the movie. † Through this ad, everyone In the theater was made directly aware of the social norm. Not talking on the phone In a movie is an injunctive norm because it is observed as the socially acceptable and polite thing to do.It is perceived that people approve of this behavior because it shows respect and consideration for those who want to watch the movie free of distractions or disturbances. This social norm is typically enforced through compliance. Even if a person might originally consider talking on the phone in a movie theater, they usually comply with the theater's directly stated request to not do so in the pre-movie â€Å"Please do not talk on the phone or text during the movie† message. My violation of this social norm elicited various mechanisms of social control from those surrounding me.As mentioned above, fellow movie-watchers tried to make me feel guilty for my â€Å"rude† behavior by fidgeting in their seats, loudly sighing, frequently turning around to stare at me, and muttering complaints to their friends. A woman at the end of my row even turned to face me and loudly said â€Å"Really!? Please get off your phone. † During my violation of a social norm, I felt extremely uncomfortable and self- conscious. I felt like all the attention in the theater was focused on me, and that everyone was negatively Judging me. As a result of the hostile responses around me, I let very attacked, anxious and embarrassed.I wanted to remove myself from the awkward situation as soon as possible. I think the people around me In the movie theater would explain my behavior with the assumption that I have a blatant disregard for others. They would probably attribute my violation of the social norm to what they see as self-centeredness, disrespect, and social awkwardness because compliance with the norm of not using your cell phone in a movie theater attempts to show decency and concern for the enjoyment of others. Since I used my phone and did not try to control my volume, people logically assumed that I Just didn't care about those around me.Violat ing Social Norms By calligrapher's would notice and be distracted. The people around me in the theater were obviously The social norm of refraining from talking on the phone during in a movie theater was an example of an explicit (in this case), injunctive norm. The norm was explicit talking on the phone or testing during the movie. † Through this ad, everyone in the theater was made directly aware of the social norm.

Lords of the Fight by William Golding - 966 Words

After a robotic bell sounds across a high school, hordes of students exit their classrooms and enter the hallway. After a minute, the congested hallway shows a variety of categories of student types. Those quick to get to their next class condense to their lowest form, while socialite trouble-makers shove each other in hopes of a â€Å"domino effect† of falling bystanders. Standing next to the two are the elitist seniors who, tired of high school, force through any cluster of students preventing their access. Luckily, these chaotic transition periods only last for a few minutes, but with a longer timeframe, more permanent damage is virtually guaranteed. Although fictional, William Golding predicts this type of situation in Lord of the Flies,†¦show more content†¦The group tries to ignore the accusation, but later on, it is used in the destruction of their society. When Jack attempts to form a new tribe, he promises that his hunters â€Å"will protect [them] from the beast† (150). What once was considered a silly myth is now a dividing point between the castaways. †¦ Besides the Beastie, the littluns get into a stinky situation with their ignorance of lavatories. Ralph, during a meeting, explained how they â€Å"chose those rocks right along beyond the bathing pool as a lavatory†¦. [as] The tide cleans the place up† (80). Fallen to the divide of the leaders and littluns, a forgotten group of the older children have the unused possibility of keeping any society together. One of the prime members of this group is Simon, a meditative and introverted boy. He does not fall for the trap of hunting and murder as some of the others, but realizes the downfall of their society faster. At one point, in a state of distress, Simon reports that he â€Å"thought of the beast†¦the picture of a human† (103). He is actually forgotten to a point where they mistaken him, in a terrible state, as the beast. A ritual, in session during the discovery of Simon, escalated to a point when â€Å"The sticks fell†¦.The beast was on its knees in the center†¦.It was crying out†¦.The beast struggled† (152-153). Another forgotten character, Piggy, showed similar wisdom. â€Å"I know there isn’t know beast†¦but I know thereShow MoreRelatedWilliam Golding s Lord Of The Flies1200 Words   |   5 Pagesopportunity, human nature will revert back to the inherent savagery that lies within. In the book Lord of the Flies a British plane crashes on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. The only survivors are a group of boys, and without any adults, the kids are left to fend and govern for themselves. Throughout the rest of the book, groups start to form and fight against each other. When the two groups fight for authority against each other things start to get out of hand. The two leaders for each groupRead MoreWilliam Golding s Lord Of The Flies1389 Words   |  6 PagesA response to Lord Of The Flies Imagine an airplane crash. The heat of flames scorch passengers’ backs in addition to the wind burning their faces. Lucky, this crash was over water and near an island so most passengers survive, with an exception of the airplane staff and the pilot. Even though alive, many are in fits of fear and panic, and others are in shock. After hurried deliberation, a lone member of the group is elected leader in hopes that they will calm the panic, and make the hard, but necessaryRead MoreLord Of The Flies By William Golding Essay1475 Words   |  6 Pages Outline Introduction Short intro for Lord of the Flies Short intro on Gangs The bullying and group mentality demonstrated in gangs has resemblances to the characters in Lord of the Flies. II. Bullying/Group mentality Gangs Drugs/Loyalty B. Lord of the flies Jack kills the pig/Jack and Ralph fight III. Effects B. Lord of the flies Jack killing the pig aftermath Violence IV. Conclusion Gangs are considered a group of people that have a common link togetherRead MoreLord Of The Flies Pig Head Analysis1023 Words   |  5 PagesSeptember 2017 The Symbolic Meaning of the Lord of the Flies â€Å"We are civilized people, which means that we are all savages at heart but observing a few amenities of civilized behaviour.† Tennessee Williams, a prize winning playwright once stated about civilized humans. In the book Lord of the Flies by William Golding this quote depicts what the book is trying to point out and display to us. The quote ties in with the pig head on a stick, otherwise known as the Lord of the Flies. The pig head was killedRead MoreEssay Thesis Statement For Lord Of The Flies909 Words   |  4 PagesThesis Statement: The novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding portrays the theme that regardless of each person’s different background and characteristics, every individual has the ability to commit brutal acts. While this book depicts Ralph and Piggy as the most civilized characters, and Jack and his hunters as young English choir boys, their actions reveal that they all have the capability to act violently. While Jack and his hunters started out as just choirboys, they become obsessed withRead MoreLord of the Flies: William Golding and Jean Jacques Rousseau708 Words   |  3 PagesWilliam Golding and Jean Jacques Rousseau had very different points of view on society. Golding thought what all humans are born evil and that is what makes society horrible. Rousseau things the complete difference he thinks that all humans are born pure, nice, and innocent and that society is what corrupts humans. I agree with Rousseau because I don’t believe that all humans are born evil. This topic about these different views on society is what the book Lord of the Flies is about. The book writtenRead MoreEvil In The Lord Of The Flies Analysis1135 Words   |  5 Pagesto the life of Ralph on Conch Island from Lord of The Flies by William Golding. He has to try and stay alive while dealing with a not so physically adapt ally and a pack of monsters society would call little boys. The only way to co ntrol them is with a conch until the boys, hopefully, get saved unless the monster destroys them all. That monster, of course, is the evil within everyone’s hearts. All throughout the story, Lord of The Flies by William Golding the theme ‘evil is within everyone’ was pressedRead MoreLord Of The Flies Hobbes Analysis1069 Words   |  5 PagesMany of Hobbes’ beliefs are portrayed in Lord of the Flies by Golding. Hobbes believes that people are naturally evil and bad and many characters in the book, such as Jack, represent this. William Golding fulfills Hobbes’ ideas about man with Lord of the Flies in the moments when Jack and his group tries to raid Ralph to get Piggy’s glasses to make fires, when Jack and Ralph continuously argued over the best way to lead the group, and when Jack planned on killing Ralph to get full control and powerRead More Essay on Behavior in All Quiet on the Western Front and Lord of the Flies1313 Words   |  6 PagesComparison of Human Behavior in All Quiet on the Western Front and Lord of the Flies  Ã‚         An authors view of human behavior is often reflected in their works. The novels All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque and Lord of the Flies by William Golding are both examples of works that demonstrate their authors view of man, as well his opinion of war. Goldings Lord of the Flies is highly demonstrative of Goldings opinion that society is a thin and fragile veil that whenRead MoreLord of the Flies a Microcosm to Our Society1306 Words   |  4 PagesWilliam Golding s novel Lord of the Flies significantly symbolizes characters, objects and the setting to represent our world as a whole. Golding uses those symbols to make the island similar to society and to show the difference between living in a civilised society and savagery. The novel takes place on an island during World War II, this is significant since the isolation forms a sort of civilization and community, a sort of microcosm to the real world and to human civilization. Lord of the Flies