The Great Depression :: essays research papers

Cut wages, growing unemployment, poverty, and suffering were unforgettable experiences during the Great Depression of the thirties. Many people learned to face these hard times with the help of famous sports figures. They gave hope and to many people pride in what they stood for to them. One of these great sports figures who helped Americans was boxer Joe Louis. In 1936 he fought the world champion Max Schmeling and had his first lose. Max Schmeling was a German boxer and the Nazis equated his victory over Joe Louis as a Nazi superiority over American democracy. Once again the two boxers, Joe Louis and Max Schmeling, fought in 1938 and this time Joe Louis won in the first round. This was an enormous lift for Americans. It was a victory for democracy. Joe Louis was also an inspiration to the African American people. He was a famous African American boxer and had beaten a German boxer who was as Hitler believed the perfect race. This gave the African Americans self-respect and pride in who they were. â€Å" African Americans pointed with pride to athletes like Joe Louis, who was the world heavyweight boxing champion.† (Cayton, Perry, Winkler, 764 ) Louis also went on to become a hero for the war effort and gave inspirational speeches. Jesse Owens great accomplishments on the track field made him one of the most famous in history. While on the Ohio State University track team in 1935 he set a world record in the broad jump (26 feet 8 1/4 ). In 1936 he set a new world record in the 100m. dash,(10.2 sec.). In 1936 as a member of the U.S. track team at the Olympic games in Berlin, Jesse Owens won four gold medals and set more new world records. This is an important moral buster to the American people, white and black, because once again it showed Nazis were not a superior race. An African American man had won four gold medals. This was humiliating and angered Adolf Hitler . â€Å" His paramont victory at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin was made even more memorable when Adolf Hitler refused to award Owens his four gold medals because he was black.† ( Encyclopedia 97 ) This was as much a victory for the American people as for Owens. It was especially important to the African Americans because it was an acknowledgement of his Olympic victories because he was black.

Descartes’ Meditations Essay

Rene Descartes is not only a known philosopher, but he also contributed significantly in the field of mathematics. It is with the same vigor and methodological reason he applied in the realm of Mathematics by which he comes to his conclusions in the Meditations. Hence, we see him going about his arguments, thoughts, opinions, and conclusions in a reasonable, methodological fashion, forming skeptical hypotheses in every step. In a way, Meditations can be regarded as a guide for the readers: it seeks to take along the reader with the meditator in his journey of the unknown and knowing. It tries to convince them to follow his step-by-step argumentation and skepticism, and to accept the obvious logical conclusion of each. Yet, although his conclusions are impressive and convincing, a crack in his reasoning might break down his arguments. The purpose of this paper then, is to examine the ideas, assumptions, and arguments presented by Descartes. However, this paper will only concern itself with the first two parts of Descartes’ Meditations (Meditation I: Of the Things Which May Be Brought Within the Sphere of Doubt and Meditation II: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That It Is Better Known Than the Body). The First Meditation: Methodic Doubt In the First Meditation, Descartes cast all things into doubt. He does this by first questioning all that he knows as he remembers his senses has deceived him before. He says: All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned from either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to any thing by which we have once been deceived (Descartes, pg. 0). He then continues to give proof of his reasons for doubting what he knows to be true. He considers if he might be crazy, dreaming, or deceived by God or an evil genius. He reasons out that he is not mad as the mad people who imagine things when these are clearly not the case, and dismisses that possibility. He considers that when is dreaming he is convinced that what his senses perceive are real, only to find out that it was not. Finally, he thinks that perhaps an omnipotent being, God, deceives him into believing all the things around him exists even if these are not true, yet he cannot accept that because it would go against the nature of God’s goodness, hence he supposes that it is â€Å"not God who s supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, earth, colors, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity† (Descartes, pg. 33). Ending the first part, he closes with likening himself to a prisoner who while sleeping enjoys freedom but knows that it is only a dream, and is afraid to wake up. The meditator knows that he has opened a Pandora’s box of questioning and yet chooses to go back to his former beliefs for the meantime. Descartes’ method of questioning and casting all that can be questioned as being false is the underlying concept of skepticism, and his has been called methodic doubt. One by one he stripped his notions of truth so he could get to the most fundamental part, for he says he only needs one immovable point on which to build truth. Descartes’ questioning of the senses and perception is useful in order to arrive at the fundamental point of his argument which is to find what is absolute, what cannot be doubted given that he is casting everything in the sphere of doubt. We find out in the second part of the Meditations that though everything can be cast into doubt, there is one thing that cannot: his thoughts doubting themselves. No matter what happens, there is an absolute truth: that he is thinking. And he thinks, he exists. But then what is the point of all these? When does an individual begin to think? Is it not that the thinking process is facilitated by the accumulation of ideas, ideas gleaned from the dubious world through imperfect senses? Does this mean that the mad person who can comprehend his existence is as sane as the rest? It seems convenient to cast everything into doubt and the senses in question to arrive at the fundamental point of the consciousness. But what is the consciousness, where does it stem from? Does it not have a vessel? Are we to accept that we are merely floating consciousness in the abyss? Or that we are simply consciousness being deceived by an evil genius? Descartes’ Belief in the Idea of God and the Evil Genius Which brings us to Descartes’ discussion of God and the evil genius. Descartes casts everything into doubt except God, that is why he could not accept that God will deceive him. Of course this can be argued as Descartes way of trying to coax the conservative Jesuits to read and accept his arguments, for if he downright casts God into the realm of doubt as he did his body then he might be excommunicated or ordered to be killed as Galileo. Then if it is not God it must be something as powerful yet evil, the evil genius. If we follow this train of thought, does it make sense? This borders on theological argument, but why would an all powerful, all good God as believed in by the meditator allow an evil genius to deceive him? If the All powerful, all good God is indeed all powerful and all good, then he will not allow this evil genius to exist, or would he? Because then if God and the evil genius are pitted against each other, who will win if they are both powerful and so on? Also, where did this idea of an evil genius come from? It is, according to the flow of arguments in the Meditations, necessitated by the theory of being deceived. Something must be doing the deceiving, and that something must be powerful enough to paint the world and deceive the beholder. A being as powerful as that can only be God, but since it goes against God’s nature, then t must be the evil genius. But what is the cause of this evil genius? Was it not the need of the meditator for an evil genius to support his arguments? Hence, can we not argue that there is no evil genius? In the same vein, that there is no God? Descartes said: I have long had fixed in my mind the belief that an all-powerful God existed by whom I have been created as such as I am (pg. 32). He provides no reason, no proof of God’s existence but proceeds with his meditations as though this was a given. Why would it be? Is God’s existence and goodness really necessary? Can these not be cast into doubt as well? Or the thought of casting God into doubt is unspeakable? For if we will really cast everything into the realm of doubt, would not there be only the self talking to itself? Descartes’ unwillingness to put God to the test makes Descartes’ methodological reasoning biased. If Descartes is biased in his reasoning, can we accept the conclusions he has arrived at? He stubbornly holds that an idea of a perfect being is necessarily true and necessarily means that the perfect being exists for who will put that idea to him, him an imperfect being who must be incapable of conceiving anything perfect? Already there is a fallacy in his thinking, for this becomes evidently a tautological argument. But more than that, his defining this ultimate being, this perfect being as based on an idea of it throws off his arguments. What of the heavens and the sea? Of earthly things which he has ideas of also, then does it not mean that they are true because he has ideas of them? Will he point out that these are a different case because our idea of these material things are based on our perception of them through our senses? And that mythical figures such as mermaids are complex images formed out of simple things combined yet still has basis on sensory perception? Then, can we argue that his notion of an ultimate being must have come from the simple idea of an imperfect being and make that complex, let us say a carpenter who we know can build a house, and if he can build a house maybe there is a perfect carpenter who can build a world? For why would a perfect being, perfectly good, can be doubted if we so choose? The Second Meditation: Arriving at Consciousness Descartes’ argument supposes there are simple things that do not need explaining but which can be taken for truth. If there is no ultimate Being, and no evil genius, who then makes up all the illusion? The mind as the powerful deceiver, as it is the only thing that can attend to the train of his thoughts simultaneously. If we do doubt God, we will more or less arrive at the same conclusion, that the only thing that we cannot doubt is one’s own skeptical thinking. As Descartes makes clear when in the passage: is there not some God, or some other being by whatever name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself? I, myself, am I not at least something? But I have already denied that I had senses and body†¦ am I so dependent on body and senses that I cannot exist without these? Bu I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there no minds nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? †¦ but there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something (Descartes, pg. 34). Here is saying that he thinks he is something, which lays the groundwork for: But then what am I? A thing which thinks. What is a thing which thinks? It is a thing which doubts, understands, conceives, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also imagines and feels (Descartes, pg. 37). Of course in this statement can be summed up the famous â€Å"I think, therefore I am†. But it is not merely thinking per se that Descartes is saying here, but rather self-awareness, or consciousness. One’s consciousness is absolute: it tells him that he does exist for certain, even if everything else is illusion. Hence, one’s consciousness implies one’s existence. The Consciousness and the Wax Argument The truth is fundamental, common sense. The consciousness needs no explaining because everybody understands what it is. But let us ask, where does consciousness come from? Perhaps this is no longer part of Descartes’ philosophy, as his thesis has been chiefly to prove that if one has consciousness then he exists. That is why the important construction of the statement, I think, I am. It is necessarily has to be the I who has understanding of being. How does one think though? Through the ideas garnered from sensory perception? To explain further, and in a way define himself better through example, Descartes turns to the analogy of the wax. Descartes asks how he knows of the wax, when its physical properties change? When its color, texture, size, shape, smell change, is it still not wax? Thus: what then did I know so distinctly in this piece of wax? It could certainly be nothing of all that the senses brought to my notice†¦ for all these are found to be changed, and yet the same wax remains†¦ (p. 39). Descartes argues that the wax does not change, but he knows it not through the senses but because he grasps the idea of the wax with his mind: But what is this piece of wax which cannot be understood excepting by the mind? †¦what must particularly be observed is that its perception [of the wax] is neither an act of vision, nor of touch, nor of imagination, and has never been such although it may have appeared formerly to be so (Descartes, p. 39). Further, he uses the wax to affirm his existence when he says that his perception of the wax no matter how distinct or indistinct only proves the existence of his mind as being the thing that processes all these, proving not the wax but the nature of his mind. In this way Descartes is actually saying that all we know, we know from the mind. That is why he believes that we know the mind better than we know the body. This not only affirms his consciousness, but also affirms Meditation I’s methodic doubt. After all, we only know the world through ideas – these ideas including dreams, concepts, images, perceptions, and memories – hence, we know the world indirectly. Also, these ideas represent something else – something that is external or separate from the self, that which we do not identify with I, making them separate from the mind as well. Since these are external to the mind, these can be illusions, false images or faulty representations. And if these ideas can be trusted, what can be but the absolute existence of the thing that conceives these ideas in the first place, the mind, the consciousness. Conclusion Descartes’ Meditations is undoubtedly an important text in history, and its methodic presentation convincing. His thesis that we could doubt everything but the existence of the self via the consciousness makes perfect sense – with or without the reference to an ultimate Being or an evil genius, as his insistence, or his inclusion of these, stains his logical arguments, for there is no logical basis for God or the Devil. But then, since these does not cripple nor in any way change the outcome of the meditations, then it could be safely dismissed as perhaps a necessary inclusion to encourage conservative readers of the time to consider a novel idea before they turn a skeptic eye on him.

The History of Female Infanticide in Asia

In China and India alone, an estimated 2 million baby girls go missing each year. They are selectively aborted, killed as newborns, or abandoned and left to die. Neighboring countries with similar cultural traditions, such as South Korea and Nepal, have also faced this problem.   What are the traditions that led to this massacre of baby girls? What modern laws and policies have addressed or exacerbated the problem? The root causes of female infanticide in Confucian countries like China and South Korea are similar to, but not exactly the same as, predominantly Hindu countries such as India and Nepal. India and Nepal According to Hindu tradition, women are lower incarnations than men of the same caste. A woman cannot obtain release (moksha) from the cycle of death and rebirth. On a more practical day-to-day level, women traditionally could not inherit property or carry on the family name. Sons were expected to take care of their elderly parents in return for inheriting the family farm or shop. Daughters had to have an expensive dowry to get married; a son, on the other hand, would bring dowry wealth into the family. A womans social status was so dependent on that of her husband that if he died and left her a widow, she was often expected to commit sati rather than going back to her birth family. As a result of these beliefs and practices, parents had a strong preference for sons. A baby girl was seen as a robber who would cost the family money to raise and who then would take her dowry and go to a new family when she got married. For centuries, sons were given more food in times of scarcity, better medical care, and more parental attention and affection. If a family felt like they had too many daughters and another girl was born, they might smother her with a damp cloth, strangle her, or leave her outside to die. Effects of Modern Technology In recent years, advances in medical technology have made the problem much worse. Instead of waiting nine months to see the babys sex at birth, families today have access to ultrasounds that can tell them the childs sex just four months into the pregnancy. Many families who want a son will abort a female fetus. Sex determination tests are illegal in India, but doctors routinely accept bribes to carry out the procedure. Such cases are almost never prosecuted. The results of sex-selective abortion have been stark. The normal sex ratio at birth is about 105 males for every 100 females  because girls naturally survive to adulthood more often than boys. Today, for every 105 boys born in India, only 97 girls are born. In the most skewed district of Punjab, the ratio is 105 boys to 79 girls. Although these numbers dont look too alarming, in a country as populous as India, that translates to 49 million more men than women as of 2019. This imbalance has contributed to a rapid rise in horrific crimes against women. It seems logical that where women are a rare commodity, they would be treasured and treated with great respect. However, what happens in practice is that men commit more acts of violence against women where the gender balance is skewed. In recent years, women in India have faced increasing threats of rape, gang rape, and murder, in addition to domestic abuse from their husbands or their parents-in-law. Some women are killed for failing to produce sons, perpetuating the cycle. Sadly, this problem seems to be growing more common in Nepal as well. Many women there cannot afford an ultrasound to determine the sex of their fetuses, so they kill or abandon baby girls after they are born. The reasons for the recent increase in female infanticide in Nepal are not clear. China and South Korea In China and South Korea, peoples behavior and attitudes today are still shaped to a large degree by the teachings of Confucius, an ancient Chinese sage. Among his teachings were the ideas that men are superior to women and that sons have a duty to take care of their parents when the parents grow too old to work. Girls, in contrast, were seen as a burden to raise, just as they were in India. They could not carry on the family name or bloodline, inherit the family property, or perform as much manual labor on the family farm. When a girl married, she was lost to a new family, and in centuries past, her birth parents might never see her again if she moved to a different village to marry. Unlike India, however, Chinese women do not have to provide a dowry when they marry. This makes the financial cost of raising a girl less onerous. Effects of Modern Policy in China The Chinese governments One-Child Policy, enacted in 1979, has led to gender imbalance similar to Indias. Faced with the prospect of only having a single child, most parents in China preferred to have a son. As a result, they would abort, kill, or abandon baby girls. To help alleviate the problem, the Chinese government altered the policy to allow parents to have a second child if the first one was a girl, but many parents still do not want to bear the expense of raising and educating two children, so they will get rid of girl babies until they get a boy. In some regions of China in the last decades, there could be roughly 140 men for every 100 women. The lack of brides for all of those extra men means that they cannot have children and carry on their families names, leaving them as barren branches. Some families resort to kidnapping girls in order to marry them to their sons. Others import brides from Vietnam, Cambodia, and other Asian nations. South Korea In South Korea, too, the current number of marriage-age men is much larger than the available women. This is because South Korea had the worst gender-at-birth imbalance in the world in the 1990s. Parents still clung to their traditional beliefs about the ideal family, even as the economy grew explosively and people became wealthy. As a result of increasing wealth, most families had access to ultrasounds and abortions, and the nation as a whole saw 120 boys being born for every 100 girls throughout the 1990s. As in China, some South Korean men began bringing in brides from other Asian countries. However, it is a difficult adjustment for these women, who usually dont speak Korean and dont understand the expectations that will be placed on them in a Korean family—particularly the enormous expectations around their childrens education. Prosperity and Equality as Solutions South Korea, however, became a success story. In just a couple of decades, the gender-at-birth ratio has normalized at about 105 boys per 100 girls. This is mostly a result of changing social norms. Couples in South Korea have realized that women today have more opportunities to earn money and gain prominence. From 2006 to 2007, the prime minister was a woman, for example. As capitalism booms, some sons have abandoned the custom of living with and caring for their elderly parents. Parents are now more likely to turn to their daughters for old-age care. Daughters are growing ever more valuable. There are still families in South Korea with, for example, a 19-year-old daughter and a 7-year-old son. The implication of these bookend families is that several other daughters were aborted in between. But the South Korean experience shows that improvements in the social status and earning potential of women can have a profoundly positive effect on the birth ratio. It can actually prevent female infanticide.