The Labor Movement in the 1920s Essay Example for Free

The Labor Movement in the 1920s Essay As a correction to the wartime effort, inflation and unemployment increased because there was not a need to mass-produce products for war, and America had to return to normalcy. The amount of labor unrest increased during this time period, which is very obvious by the increase of labor strikes. There was a strike by the United States Steel Corporation workers in 1919. They were annoyed with their seven 12 hour workdays a week. The leader of the American Federation of Labor joined the International Workers of the World (which was a communist group dedicated to freeing the bonds of workers) after the strike. A committee published a report that illustrated the horrible working conditions, which eventually caused steel companies to reduce to an eight-hour day. The United Mine Workers went on strike in hope of receiving better wages and a shorter workday. Attorney General Palmer got a court order that told the strikers to return to work. Lewis formally declared the strike over, but it continued for another month until Wilson appointed an arbitrator to decide the remaining issues. The Mine Workers received a 27 percent pay increase, but the same hours. The police in Boston wanted pay raises and sent a group to commissioner Coolidge, to hear their demands. Coolidge fired the group and the rest of the force went on strike. The National Guard restored the peace and Coolidge hired a new police force and granted the demands of the strikers. During this time period a group of stores called chain stores were becoming popular, they spread throughout the country, were owned by one person, and charged lower prices for products. The 122 million U.S. citizens began losing their jobs because of the throng of migrating immigrants who worked for low wages, modern technology becoming useful in the make of products. Working men had a hard time adjusting to women that were also fighting against inequality for the right to work. Because of prosperity, labor unions lost membership from 5 million in the early 20s to 3.5 million by  the late 20s. Corporate and Government attack on labor strikes became extremely intense. People who participated in strikes were beaten and sometimes killed. And last a small fact, the average annual income for the typical American worker was only $1,574.

The Findings Of Our Group Presentation Social Work Essay

The Findings Of Our Group Presentation Social Work Essay From the findings of our group presentation, it can be said that quality means doing things right, but the things which the operation needs to do right will vary according to the kind of operation. For example, in the hospital, quality could mean making sure that patents get the most appropriate treatment, that the treatment is carried out in a medically correct manner, it would also include such things as ensuring that the hospital is clean, and that the staff are well informed and friendly towards patients. Its not surprising that all operations regard quality as a particularly important object. In some ways quality is the most visible part of what an operation does. Furthermore, its some thing that a customer finds relatively easy to judge about the operation. By asking is it right or wrong? Is it the way its supposed to be? There is some thing fundamental about quality. Because of this, its clearly a major influence on customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Quality then is simple meeting the customer requirements, and this has been expressed in many ways:‘Fitness for purpose or use, ‘Conformance to requirements, and in many other ways. Clearly, part of the acceptability of a service will depend on its ability to function satisfactorily over a period of time, and it is this aspect of performance that is given the name reliability. It is the ability of the service to continue to meet the customer requirements. It is important to realize that the meeting the customer requirements definition of quality is not restrictive to the functional characteristics of services. A report on your contribution to the group and to the work that was presented I contributed a great deal in the planning and writing up of the presentation. Our group communicated amongst itself both efficiently and effectively. Although we gathered on only one occasion outside academic hours as a whole group, the meeting was extremely constructive as we were able to discuss and arrange the main sections of the presentation. My role within the group was to design the slides and research on the topic I was allocated as a member of the group. Firstly, I decided to research on the theory of variation and the Deming cycle, and attempted to link these theories to the results of the care quality commission report on the two care homes of our choice. The other role in the work of the group involved introducing the main points of the presentation and writing up on one of the key points in the conclusion. A report on how the group worked together Group work has been defined by various authors, however Kurland and Salmon (2003) states that for some group work is just another way of talking about teamwork, however, working in groups is often presented as a good way of dividing work and increasing productivity. It can also be argued that it allows for the utilization of the different skills, knowledge and experiences that people have, (Cory and Cory, 2002). Kurland and Salmon (2002) describes team work as partnership, therefore he goes to describe partnership working as a variety of arrangements with different purposes, time scales, structures, operating procedures and members between groups and the community as a whole. Lowndes (2002) adding that partnership/group working achieves what would be difficult or impossible for a single person to do on their own therefore collaborative working is also known as partnership working. However, (Wildridge et al, 2004) argues that partnership working is not in and of itself a good thing. Y alom (2005) claims that for a group work to be effective 10 characteristic should be present: Develop goals and plans, Enhance communication among members, Develop and maintain positive relationships among members, Solve problems and make decisions on a timely basis, Successfully manage conflict, Facilitate productive meetings, Clarify roles for team members, Operate in a productive manner, Exhibit effective team leadershipand Provide development opportunities for team members. Our group work lacked the communication skills, hence working in a group proved difficult. Donovan (2005) states that good communication is critical to effective teamwork; it is far more than talking and listening. It is sometimes a complex and puzzling process. However, effective communication is possible with the right approach, techniques and some practice. Our group could have worked better as a team. The main flaw was our inability to meet up, discuss ideas and become all aware as to which stage of drafting we are. We at times thought different things were occurring and we didnt all pull in the same direction until towards the end when editing the slides.[1] These are the sessions where we worked well as a group. When editing, we looked at the slides and any idea brought up by one of our group members were considered. This process happened several times and this ensured us that we were all happy with the final copy of our presentation. Another disappointing thing about our group was the lack of met deadlines. However, this directly came as a consequence as a lack of deadlines set. Although the work was shared between the group, it was much disorganised as to when it should be done. It was very difficult for this reason to know whether we were ahead or behind schedule with the only dates determined was the final deadline for all work (15/04/2010). My experience in group work has showed that there are many problems that accompany group work that is people dont pull their weight and one person who dont turn up leaving other person to complete the task. There are problems with time management as some people might not attend time set because of other commitment and lack of commitment towards the task resulting in people not doing what was given to them, this is a big de-motivation factor in group as it pulls the whole group down and effects work. The day we met for the first time to prepare our presentation, our strategy involved first gathering all information on Deming using research skills like using reputable sources from the Internet, newspaper and articles for the next meeting. On the first of three meeting we covered what points were relevant and how would we structure the presentation and had an agreement on the type of care home we will use for our presentation. The following week we gathered our research together and highlighted the important and relevant information and set our specific points for each person to cover and what to research, we also began our PowerPoint presentation. My point was to design the slides and prepare a clear explanation of the theory of variation and the Deming cycle. On the final week we brought in our final version on what each of us would cover and finalised the presentation and practice our presentation and corrected each other if there were any faults and gave inputs to each other on how they improve it even further. What I learnt in group work with my colleagues while preparing for presentation that people who have good decision making skills will set a vision of what need to be accomplished and setting a structure of how should we aim to achieve it. This part involves being good at making decisions, as it is very crucial part in-group work and a good academic skill to have. This motivates other to decisions rather then leaving it to the end, as it helpss set a goal to aim for. There are also couple of skills that are crucial they include setting prioritise, communicating between colleague and inter personal skills. For example giving constructive criticism like our group did when we were carrying out presentation to each other.[2] (Rose et al,1989) It could have been wise to adopt Tuckmans literature on group development, based on a meta-analysis of the complex models which had previously been developed. It has the virtue of being memorable, but the limitation of being rather rigid.[3](Tuckman, 1965) [1] Davis,B.G.(2009)(2nd ed.) Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [2] Brower,A.M.,Rose,S.D.(1989) Advances in Group work research. London: Eurospan/Haworth. [3] Tuckman,B. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups Psychological Bulletin 63 pp. 384-399

Explination Of Butlers Thesis :: essays research papers

Bret Hribar Q1:  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Butler’s theory of desire separates all desires into two groups, the desire for â€Å"self-love† and the desire for â€Å"particular affection†, which are all other desires like hunger, sleep, or sex. â€Å"Self-love† is a person general desire for happiness, this, as Butler states is an internal desire, a desire for our own enjoyment and satisfaction. Butler separates this desire from the desire for â€Å"particular affections† because these are all external desires, the desire for objects around us that fulfill those desires. He says that these desires are not based on reason, but may follow from it. For example a person instinctively wants to eat or drink but may not know why he needs to eat or drink. Therefore that desire for food is not a conscious decision, â€Å"I should eat now because I need the energy to live,† but rather it is an innate desire, â€Å"I want food because I am hungry.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  His distinction separates all the desires into the reasoning section of the mind, that a particular action would be in the best interest of themselves, â€Å"self-love†, and the animalistic desire for a certain thing. For example a person who wants to smoke a cigarette does so because of the need for nicotine, â€Å"a particular affection†, whereas the person knows the cigarette is bad for them and that they shouldn’t smoke, which is self interest. Q2:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In order to show that all actions are not motivated by self-love Butler gives reasons why all actions might be motivated by self-love and them tries to disprove them. He states that all desires are self motivated, even the ones that appear not to be. A person may donate money to help the less fortunate but they are not motivated to do so because of a need to decrease someone else’s suffering but are motivated by a need to ease their own guilt.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The point he is making is that all actions done by a person are motivated by the desire for their own happiness and since all desires are ones own, all desires must be aimed at self-love.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The reason, Butler points out, that this deduction is wrong is due to the target of the desire. Some things are pursued because we know that they will make us happier, the reason or target of this desire is internal, that self motivated action is self love. Not all desires are based on our own best interest though, you may hate another person and want to hurt them, but by doing so may not be in your interest, he might break your face.

Gothic Art :: essays research papers

Gothic Art began in 1137 with the rebuilding of the chair of the abbey church of St. Denis. Gothic Art is the style of art produced in Europe from the Middle Ages up to the beginning of the Renaissance. Typically religious in nature, is especially known for the distinctive arched design of its churches, its stained glass, and its illuminated manuscripts. Gothic, although symbolic, is a lot more anecdotal and naturalistic than Romanesque. In the late 14th century, anticipating the Renaissance, Gothic Art evolved towards a more secular style known as International Gothic. One of the best-known artists of this period is Simone Martini. Simone Martini was a Sienese painter who greatly influenced the development of the International Gothic style, and was a major figure in the development of early Italian painting. Giovanni Pisano was an Italian sculptor, as was his father Nicola Pisano. His work shows a mixture of French Gothic and the classical style. Among his works are: Pulpit for the Duomo di Siena, Sculptures and architectural design for the facade of the cathedral in Siena, Pulpit for the church of S. Andrea in Pistoia, The five reliefs on the pulpit are the Annunciation and Nativity, the Adoration, Dream of the Magi and Angel warning Joseph, the Massacre of the Innocents, the Crucifixion, and the Last Judgement, and the Pulpit for the Pisa Cathedral. The extraordinary painter Hieronymus Bosch stands apart from the prevailing Flemish traditions in painting. His style was unique, strikingly free, and his symbolism, unforgettably vivid, remains unparalleled to this day. Marvellous and terrifying, he expresses an intense pessimism and reflects the anxieties of his time, one of social and political upheaval The Gothic era in painting spanned more than 200 years, starting in Italy and spreading to the rest of Europe. Towards the end of this period, there were some artists in parts of the North who resisted Renaissance influences and kept to the Gothic tradition.

Comparing how the poets Levertov and Brathwaite use poetic techniques E

Comparing how the poets Levertov and Brathwaite use poetic techniques to convey ideas about belonging to a particular culture Both poets Brathwaite and Levertov describe how people belonging to a culture are changed by a more powerful culture. This is done in both poems by an amount of force. There are symbols and powerful techniques to bring you into this. In the poem ‘Limbo’, unable to protect and defend themselves, the West Africans find themselves exploited by the Europeans. Clearly, poetic techniques and structure are used to convey and influence the meaning of the poems. In the poems ‘Limbo’ and ‘What were they like?’, the poets create powerful symbols which can convey a range of key ideas. Levertov focuses on how the people of this particular culture live before an...

A Study of Warfare in Europe Between 1300 and 1500 Essay

Since the introduction of gunpowder into Europe, it has gone on to dominate warfare into the twentieth century. With the development of the first European guns in the fourteenth century, armies were given use of a weapon which was to radically alter most of the ways of making war which had been established during the Middle Ages, and changes began to be seen within only a few years. It is, however, questionable whether the nature of these early changes constituted a revolution in the methods of war, and even more so whether guns had by 1500 made a great deal of impact on the character of war as it had existed in 1300. In assessing whether a revolution had taken place (or at least whether one was in the process of happening) by 1500, it is necessary to examine three areas: the effectiveness of guns during the period; the extent of their use in conflicts; and finally the changes which resulted from the employment of the new weapons in war. The first reliable sources which assert the existence of guns appeared in the 1320s, and from the late 1330s the number of references to them rose dramatically. The early guns were of large calibre and used almost exclusively for sieges, although as early as Crà ©cy in 1346, the English â€Å"fired off some cannons which they had brought to the battle to frighten the Genoese.† Guns were made in one of two ways. Firstly, there were cast metal guns, usually of bronze, which were made at the foundry. These were usually the better weapons because they were made of a single piece of metal and therefore were less likely to burst apart on firing. The second method was arranging wrought iron strips into tubes which were then bound together with iron hoops in much the same way as barrels were made. The advantage of these guns was that iron was a much cheaper metal than bronze (but could not be cast), but being made of many pieces faults were more likely to develop, causing either the release of explosive pressure through the sides of the barrel and therefore a reduction in the power of the shot, or even the complete bursting of the gun. This structural weakness was compounded by the inclusion of a detachable breech (such guns were far easier to build) which often detached itself on the discharging of the weapon. Despite their lack of quality, however, iron guns were the more numerous due to their comparative cheapness, although smaller guns tended to be made chiefly from bronze both because of the difficulties of constructing small guns from iron  strips, and because they required less metal than the great bombards. The sizes and types multiplied from their modest beginnings until there were guns ranging in size and type from great bombards used for reducing entire cities, to handguns used as anti-personnel weapons. The early role played by artillery was in sieges, where its effectiveness was soon widely appreciated. â€Å"Broadly speaking, the use of guns meant that sieges could be brought to a conclusion much more quickly.† Cannons, with the ability to throw stones with great force over a flatter trajectory and with more accuracy than the old siege engines, could bring an end to a siege in a few weeks where previously it might have taken several months. In 1437, the castle of Castelnau-de-Cernà ¨s was â€Å"broken down during the said siege by cannon and engines, and a great part of the walls of the same thrown to the ground, so that it was in no way defensible against the king’s enemies.† On occasion, the mere presence of bombards could be enough to induce swift surrender, cities preferring capitulation to large-scale destruction by cannon fire. As artillery was added to armies in increasing amounts during the 1400s, wars became far more fast-moving affairs. The French employed artillery on a large scale in reducing the English fortresses in Normandy and Gascony, while huge, cumbersome bombards were used to good effect by the Spanish in the Reconquista. Such was the effectiveness of artillery by 1500 that Machiavelli could declare that â€Å"No wall exists, however thick, that artillery cannot destroy in a few days.† The successes which the early guns had in siege warfare led to the bombard being a vital part of any country’s armoury. The use of the counterweight trà ©buchet, which had been in existence in Roman times, failed to decline until the 1380s and was still listed as an active weapon in some French arms inventories until the 1460s. This shows the gradual nature of the introduction of gunpowder artillery (perhaps caused by shortages of materials for the cannons or unwillingness to invest in them when a prince already owned trà ©buchets), but there was little doubt that guns were becoming by far the better siege weapons. Their importance gave rise to a kind of ‘arms race’ in France in particular, with cities in the contested areas of the Hundred Years War assigning the acquisition of guns a high  priority. Charles the Bold’s army included a substantial artillery element in his war with the Swiss (although he was perhaps not a good enough general to make effective use of it), while in 1494, Charles VIII invaded Italy with â€Å"†¦an army of 18,000 men and a horse-drawn siege-train of at least forty guns. Even contemporaries realised that this marked a new departure in warfare: in 1498 the Venetian Senate declared that ‘the wars of the present time are influenced more by the force of bombards and artillery than by men at arms’.† Despite their undoubted worth, however, artillery did have a number of disadvantages at this time. Perhaps the main one of these is the chronic difficulty of moving the heavy guns, especially over land. Philip the Good of Burgundy experienced such problems in his war with Ghent in 1452-3: â€Å"Such was the weight of a great bombard which he borrowed from the town of Mons that all the bridges between Mons and Lille had to be strengthened with iron supports for its passage. During the journey, the gun fell into a ditch, and took two days to be extricated by men using lifting equipment specially constructed for the purpose.† Transport was easier by river, but clearly this limited the movement of the artillery. It is partly because of these transport problems that artillery (with the exception of handguns) was used little during open field battles. Particularly when manoeuvring was of critical importance to an army, the last thing a commander would want would be to have to wait for the artillery, which would be slower than the rest of his force, and be unlikely to be able to move away from roads. Due to a lack of enthusiasm for such a cumbersome battlefield weapon, field artillery developed little in the early days of gunpowder, and the large cannons which were used on battlefields tended to be immobile siege guns which had been hastily adapted. Not only did the lack of mobility of cannons cause problems for armies on the march, but it also restricted their usefulness on the battlefield itself. The absence of effective gun carriages meant that artillery tended to be fixed rather than able to be aimed, the guns being mounted on wooden frames or simply positioned on mounds of earth. Their slow rate of fire (not only because of the time taken to load them, but because it took time for the  guns to cool down between shots) and their limited range at this time was another weakness, which led to them being easily overrun. Soldiers could wait at the limit of the guns’ range until the first salvo had been fired, then charge, reaching them well before the next shots could be fired, and disable the guns. The weaknesses of artillery on the battlefield were such that, â€Å"Even during the second half of the fifteenth century cannons were only used occasionally in pitched battles.† Handguns were of more use on the battlefield, having none of the transport problems of the heavy artillery and having a great deal in common with the crossbow, a weapon of proven worth. Like the crossbow, the handgun was a specialised anti-personnel weapon, and was ideal for firing at large exposed masses of soldiers where it could inflict considerable damage. The advantages which handguns had over crossbows was their superior hitting power, (of which Pope Pius II remarked, â€Å"No armour can withstand the blow of this torment, and even oaks are penetrated by it,†) and their relative cheapness due to the simplicity of their construction. As their accuracy improved and the numbers of trained marksmen increased, they came to supersede the crossbows in European armies, but by 1500 this process was by no means complete, the two weapons frequently working side-by-side in battles. While the slow rate of fire of handguns meant they could not stand independently in battle and needed the support of troops armed with close-combat weapons, they became an accepted auxiliary weapon in many armies. Despite the increased use of gunpowder weapons in battle, they were by no means always successful. Superiority in artillery was no guarantee of victory, as Charles the Bold discovered at Grandson and Morat in 1476. At Agincourt, the French gunners were pushed to one side by their own men at arms and played no significant role in the course of the battle. There are, however, examples of the successes of guns in battle, hinting at the success they were to achieve in the future. The Battle of Castillon in 1453 showed the devastating effects of crossfire: â€Å"Talbot imprudently attacked the [French] camp which led to the intervention of the French battery commanded by Giraud de Samian, a highly respected cannoneer. ‘He grievously injured  them because with each shot five or six fell dead to the ground’.† With the increased use of guns, deaths and injuries caused by them came to be recorded in greater number: â€Å"In 1442, John Payntour, an English esquire, was killed by a culverin shot at La Rà ©ole. Four years previously, Don Pedro, brother of the king of Castile, had been decapitated by a gunshot during the siege of the castle of Capuana at Naples†¦In April 1422, one Michael Bouyer, esquire, was languishing in prison at Meaux, ‘gravely ill and mutilated in one of his legs by a cannon shot, in such a way that he cannot aid himself’†¦It was becoming obvious that the gun could not only batter down fortifications, but could kill, and kill selectively from afar.† It is clear that by 1500, guns had come to be an everyday part of European armies. While the use of firearms on the battlefield tended to be limited to handguns, these were gradually replacing the older bows as the main auxiliary shot weapon. Cannons had made a huge impact on the conduct of siege warfare, bringing sieges to an end comparatively swiftly, and becoming indispensable in great armies. Although there were bound to be initial troubles with what was after all a relatively new weapon, notable successes were being recorded, especially in sieges, and the gun was definitely here to stay. To constitute a revolution, though, the growing use of such weapons would have to have changed not only the methods of making war, but also the outcome and the character of conflicts. What, then, were the consequences of the increased use of gunpowder? One of the largest series of changes happened in the area where the new guns were at their most effective, that of siege warfare. The advantages which a defending army could gain by hiding within fortifications had been understood for a long time. During the ‘High Middle Ages’, the war zones of Western Europe had become studded with castles and forts, and wars came to be characterised not by swift manoeuvre and open field battles, but more through long, drawn-out sieges. The failure of an attacking army to take a castle was likely to cause it a great deal of problems. If bypassed by an army, a defending garrison could retake control of the surrounding countryside from its secure central base and conduct raids on the enemy’s army and supplies (especially as fortifications tended to be located at  communications centres). Failure to take a large number of castles could result in their garrisons uniting to form an army capable of defeating the enemy force in the open field. In short, territory could not be conquered without gaining control of the fortifications within it. The effect of the introduction of effective siege guns with the capability of breaching the walls of castles was to bring the advantage in siege warfare away from defence and more towards the attacking force. With guns able to bring about the capitulation of fortresses within a few weeks or even a few days, there was a diminishing prospect of the defending country being able to organise an army in time to relieve the besieged. It would seem that the introduction of cannons had, for a time at least, called into question the efficacy of defence by small, dispersed garrisons defending fortifications. Had the use of siege guns not produced a defensive reaction, it seems possible that the castle could have been made redundant and defensive armies driven to do battle in the open field on equal terms with their adversaries. Attacking innovation, however, did produce defensive reaction, which in turn provoked counter-reaction from besiegers, and this greatly altered the nature of siege warfare during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Guns, of course, were not exclusively weapons of attack. Defensive firearms were an early experiment which had some effect in maintaining some sort of defensability of fortifications in two ways. Firstly, by firing at the besieging army from the castle walls, defensive marksmen and cannoneers could take advantage of the short range of early guns by making it very hard to position bombards close enough to the walls to cause damage. By refusing to give the besieging army the freedom to position guns wherever they liked, the defenders could in this way keep the enemy at ‘arms length’. The second way in which guns could be used to defend fortifications was not to defend the walls from destruction by cannon fire, but to provide crossfire against enemy troops when the time came for them to attempt to storm the castle, a function which crossbows were able to perform, but were of inferior effectiveness and more expensive than handguns. This use of defensive firearms caused changes in the way in which attackers  approached sieges. Guns being fired into the besiegers’ camp necessitated the greater use of cover, in particular for the bombards which were placed nearest to the castle walls for much of the siege. To this end, trenches were dug and wooden shields or hoardings were constructed to protect the soldiers and their guns. Trenches provided some degree of effective protection against most weapons, while the hoardings gave protection to the guns, which usually had to be positioned in more exposed locations in order that they could target the walls before them, against everything but powerful firearms. â€Å"Jean de Bueil could advocate the siting of a besieger’s camp before a beleaguered fortress on the model of the fortified entrenchments dug at Maulà ©on, Guissen, Cherbourg, Dax, and Castillon fifteen years before. Trenches, he wrote, were to be dug from one part of the siege to another, covered by hoardings. Ease of contact and movement between the units of the encircling forces could thus be ensured.† Further success could be gained by the besieging forces by employing not only large bombards to break down the walls, but also smaller guns to pick off individual defending troops. This would not only prevent defensive gunners from having the luxury of completely free shots at their enemies, but would limit the effectiveness of attempts to repair breaches in the walls. The use of guns in both attack and defence produced perhaps the biggest changes in siege warfare in the form of changes to the fortifications themselves. The castles which existed before the widespread use of cannons were ill-suited to withstand the accurate and powerful impact of cannonballs. Trebuchà ©ts had been of more use in lobbing stones over the walls to cause damage inside castles than in actually causing breaches, and so the walls were built tall and flat so as to be better able to resist being scaled by soldiers. Such walls provided a large target for cannon fire, and their flatness meant that the full force of the shot was directed straight into them. Rather than rebuild entire castles, lords were often forced through reasons of cost to opt for the next-best solution of adaptation. Scarping the walls with banks of earth or masonry was tried in an attempt both to thicken the walls, and to turn the blows of cannons into more glancing shots, with the added bonus that sloping walls meant that siege ladders became ineffective. While it was a sound theory to avoid  square-on impacts from cannonballs, scarping was of limited value, and where this was an adaptation to an older castle, in many cases it weakened the walls by placing extra weight on them. Gunports were a further adaptation to fortifications which occurred as a result of the introduction of guns. These were holes put in the walls of the castles, often where arrow slits had been, to allow small guns to be fired from a position of relative safety. They were frequently positioned in the towers or gatehouses of castles to provide flanking fire along the walls where it was anticipated any attacking soldiers would have to stop before being able to push on into the castle. This modification was quite cheap and easy to put in place, and was used across Europe. One method of improving the efficacy of defensive fire both against attacking troops and forces sitting back and besieging was the greater use of defensive outworks built of earth or masonry. Not only could this ‘forward defensive’ strategy force enemy guns further back from the castle proper, but it also provided a further opportunity to enfilade soldiers as they advanced. Boulevards or artillery towers could be built in ditches forward of the walls with a clear line of fire along the trench. As the enemy soldiers advanced, they would have to spend time negotiating the ditch during which the fire from the outworks could take its toll. â€Å"At Dax, Guissen and Cadillac, in 1449 and 1451, the French encountered heavy resistance from such outer works constructed by the defenders.† The ultimate defence against besiegers armed with guns, though, was the fortification based on the angled bastion. It was this defence which was coming increasingly into use by 1500 which decisively swung the balance of power back in favour of the defenders. The bastion was essentially a gun platform for siting heavy guns which needed the freedom to be turned and fired against the enemy camp wherever it was in relation to the castle, a freedom which could not be obtained firing through gunports. These towers were thrust forward of the walls to keep the enemy back and were built the same height as the rest of the castle (unlike traditional towers), perhaps to facilitate the movement of guns around the walls, or perhaps because of the high cost of taller towers. The entire structure was squat, making it a smaller target and allowing the guns at the top of the walls to maintain fire at targets close to the foot of the fortification, and scarped to produce more glancing blows from cannonballs. This last objective was also achieved by projecting the bastions at a different angle to the rest of the wall, so that in effect only the wall would receive square-on blows. It could be said that round castles and round towers would present no flat surfaces to be hit squarely, but to build such fortifications would make flanking fire along the walls at best difficult. Round bastions were built, but left dead ground where guns could not reach, while entire castles built on a circular model would need many projecting towers to provide fire along the walls. With the angled bastion, fire could be given along the entire base of the tower from guns positioned in the walls, while fire along the walls could be provided from gunports in alcoves in the bastion. It seemed for a while that the destructive power of cannons would lead to a decisive shift towards the attackers in siege warfare which would perhaps bring an end to the dominant role of fortifications in warfare. However, defensive tactics adapted to the situation in a number of ways, ensuring the survival of the castle and the siege. It can be said, though, that although the nature of warfare overall was not changed, the nature of sieges changed significantly as a result of the use by both attackers and defenders of gunpowder weapons, and because a new type of castle had been born. If guns provided a temporary revolution in the balance of sieges, then the bastion was equally as revolutionary in restoring the old balance. â€Å"By resisting the new artillery and providing platforms for heavy guns [the bastion] revolutionised the defensive-offensive pattern of warfare.† While cannons produced many changes in the conduct of sieges, changes of similar magnitude cannot be seen in open field warfare. Cannons, lacking effective carriages to allow them to keep pace with their armies and to manoeuvre on the battlefield, were little used until the late fifteenth century. Handguns, despite coming to be as accepted a weapon as the crossbow, failed to produce any noteworthy changes. Possessing greater hitting power than the crossbow, but similar weaknesses, including slow rate  of fire, they were unable to establish themselves as anything more than an auxiliary weapon. While the Swiss were to use handguns in their successful pike square formations, their role could be (and often was) performed equally well by crossbowmen, and European armies continued to be based on knightly cavalry and close-combat infantry. The handgun of the fifteenth century was simply another auxiliary shot weapon, and, â€Å"The arquebus, or match-lock musket, did not finally oust the crossbow from French armies until 1567.† Nonetheless, the importance of guns increased during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries until they became an essential part of major wars. One of the results of this was to make war a much more large-scale thing in terms of money, and to put serious warfare (involving conquest and therefore sieges) out of reach of the pockets of anybody but princes. Artillery was very expensive. â€Å"It was one thing, in accordance with ancient ways, to expect a man at arms to come to the host equipped with his own horses and armour, but no one, in the new conditions of war, expected a master of artillery to provide his own cannon.† On a national level, the introduction of guns further widened the gap in military potential between rich and poor countries, underlining the superiority of countries like France over countries like the Italian states. It can be asked to what extent gunpowder weapons revolutionised notions of chivalry and whether the attitudes of people altered as a result of their experiences of the new guns. There is a good deal of late mediaeval literature which shows that many people despised them. They were an indiscriminate weapon which had no respect for social status, meaning that princes could now be killed from afar by peasants and artisans. This went against the traditional chivalric notion of individual combat among equals. Guns were also seen as cowardly, because of the belief that the gunner, hiding behind the smoke from his gun, did not put himself in mortal danger by firing, yet could still take the lives of others. Many saw guns as being instruments of the devil, with the noise and fire created being seen as having come from Hell itself. A popular attitude during the early days of guns in Europe is shown by Cervantes when he wrote, blessed be those happy  ages that were strangers to the dreadful fury of these devilish instruments of artillery, whose inventor I am satisfied is now in Hell, receiving the reward of his cursed invention, which is cause that very often a cowardly base hand takes away the life of the bravest gentleman; and that in the midst of that vigour and resolution which animates and inflames the bold, a chance bullet (shot perhaps by one who fled, and was frightened by the very flash the mischievous piece gave, when it went off) coming nobody knows how, or from where, in a moment puts a period to the brave designs and the life of one that deserved to have survived many years†¦ It is unlikely, however, that this attitude was held by the majority of people at the time. Shot weapons were nothing new, and had been in existence and used on a large scale for many years. There was little difference between a knight being killed by an arquebus or by a longbow. The large-scale use of guns by most European armies demonstrates that while there might have been some degree of chauvinism against firearms, princes were still quite prepared to use them, and indeed the church positively encouraged their use at a time when the Turkish threat to Christendom was increasing. There is little evidence that captured gunners were treated any differently to any other captured commoners (and by 1500 it was by no means guaranteed that gunners would not in fact be noble), and overall, society had little difficulty in accepting the place of artillery in modern warfare. Guns were ‘domesticated’ and given names, taking on characters of their own, and, â€Å"By the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the early modern era, gunpowder weaponry had simply become a feature of everyday life. Guns had become so conventional that they began to be used in celebrations, in fashion, and in crime. Ultimately, guns even became virility symbols.† This growing acceptance represents in part a change in attitudes brought about by the realisation that guns were of considerable use, but mainly it is a result of the rather superficial nature of chivalry at that time. There was a tendency for people only to behave according to the rules of chivalry when either it suited them to or when they could afford to. Princes, when faced with an adversary armed with artillery could not afford to confine themselves to criticising such ‘bad sportsmanship’ but had to respond in kind, an option which they were more than willing to take. In assessing whether gunpowder’s introduction caused revolutionary changes in Europe before 1500, it is necessary not only to examine the specific changes which arose, but moreover to assess whether warfare in 1300 had significantly changed in character by 1500 as a result of the use of guns. The answer to this has to be a definite no. The armies of 1500 made extensive use of guns, but these had not revolutionised the makeup of armed forces. The dominance of cavalry had persisted throughout the two centuries, and its only serious challenge had come in the late fifteenth century with the pike square, which by no means relied on guns. While the use of cannons had transformed the methods used in conducting sieges, only temporarily had there been the prospect of altering the nature of war away from the innumerable fortress battles which characterised the period. Gunpowder weapons had failed to bring an end to the siege as an important aspect of war, and could only act as a supplem entary weapon on the battlefield. Overall, despite the numerous changes which the increasing use of guns had caused, it is possible to agree with J. R. Hale’s assertion: â€Å"Gunpowder, in short, revolutionised the conduct but not the outcome of wars.†

Photo Manipulation and Our Society Essay

Almost everything we see today from the billboard ads to magazine covers, we see several photographs that are purposefully manipulated to either sell a product or an idea. By seeing these photos we somehow ingrain in our memory the concept being conveyed through them. From perfect cookie cutter models and artists to the overly manipulated advertisements, these things are part of how the society defines their view of the world. The question now is; should photos be manipulated to effectively convey an idea to the society? Photo manipulation is defined as â€Å"the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction), through analog or digital means. † With this, we can say that photo manipulation is a form of art wherein you would drastically change and/or combine several images to create a new one to effectively show your concept as an artist. We could also say that photo manipulation is a technique where you can drastically alter an image to deceive people by creating illusions to promote a product or an idea. There are other definitions of photo manipulation and it mainly covers how much of the original photo was changed to create a new one. When we see smartly conceptualized advertisements we somehow get that image stuck in our memory banks for their beauty and good use of technique. These advertisements work both as a great work of art making it a medium to sell something to the public. It really shows the creativity of the artist/photographer by transforming his pictures into something more powerful and thought evoking. Photo manipulation as a work of art is one of the better sides of photo manipulation for it promotes both your creativity as an artist. These new images have a major effect on society for it may supplement your advocacy and a call for change. Several issues with photo manipulation have risen since it became popular in the 1920s. It has been extensively used for photojournalism. A picture is worth more than a thousand words. What you see affects your perception on what’s real or not, it can mislead from the truth and even make you misinterpret the facts. Because of this the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) in the USA has set a Code of Ethics which promotes accuracy of published images and over manipulation. We also see extensive photo manipulation in advertisements nowadays. In this current time people usually see advertisements having models with bodies which look like they’ve gone through a cookie cutter because of their perfection. Perfect skin, perfect smile, perfect teeth, perfect eyes. We rarely see the real view where average people can relate themselves to and in turn feel good about it. It is completely understandable that advertising firms are after aesthetics and product imaging but they should do it completely in the bounds of what is natural and normal. In conclusion, photo manipulation is really a helpful technique in expressing one’s thoughts, emotions and ideas. When you manipulate an image you usually add or remove some parts to help make the composition of the photo better and more interesting. Since we all have easy access to photo manipulating software we get to enjoy it by transforming pictures into colorful stories then it turns into a work of art. However, there are times that you get deceived by what you see and you wouldn’t know if what you’re seeing is real or not. This is sometimes the case with some photos being published in the news and advertisements. They do a great job with editing their photos that the public gets swayed with a wrong idea or perception of the truth. Photo manipulating is a skill to learn but use it ethically and responsibly.