What reasons does Hooper give Elizabeth to not desert him? For what reason does he smile after Elizabeth breaks their engagement and leaves?

Mr. Hooper gives Elizabeth two reasons to stay by his side.  First, he says, "'[...] hereafter there shall be no veil over my face, no darkness between our souls!  It is but a mortal veil -- it is not for eternity!'"  He promises her that the veil will not always be between them.  In life, it will always be there, but once they are dead, he will no longer have to wear it.  In other words,...

Mr. Hooper gives Elizabeth two reasons to stay by his side.  First, he says, "'[...] hereafter there shall be no veil over my face, no darkness between our souls!  It is but a mortal veil -- it is not for eternity!'"  He promises her that the veil will not always be between them.  In life, it will always be there, but once they are dead, he will no longer have to wear it.  In other words, life is short (and so will his time with the veil be), but eternity is long, and there will be no veil then.  Second, he exclaims, "'O! you know not how lonely I am, and how frightened, to be alone behind my black veil.'" He feels very isolated as a result of his veil, and to know that he retains the sympathy and love of one person would render his isolation much more bearable.  

When he will not show her his face even one more time, she leaves him forever.  

But, even amid his grief, Mr. Hooper smiled to think that only a material emblem had separated him from happiness, though the horrors, which it shadowed forth, must be drawn darkly between the fondest of lovers.

In order to understand why he smiles, we must understand what the veil symbolizes.  Mr. Hooper has come to the realization that all human beings are fundamentally separated from one another by their failure to admit their own sinfulness to their fellows.  It isn't our shared sin that separates us -- we all sin -- it is our unwillingness to be open about our sins with one another; it is our unwillingness to be made vulnerable and so to really know one another that divides each person from everyone else.  We all participate in the same deception, that we are each sinless, thus we all wear the same figurative veil.  Once we die, and our sins are made known to God, we will no longer feel the need to hide our true natures from one another; this is why Mr. Hooper says he will not wear it for eternity.  In life, however, Mr. Hooper no longer wishes to keep up this charade and has chosen to wear the veil as a literal representation of the symbolic veil that we hold up between ourselves and others when we portray ourselves as sinless.  

So, he smiles because of his realization that Elizabeth is leaving him as a result of this "material emblem" which is of little importance compared to what it represents: our fundamental human inability to really know anyone because we all hide behind this "veil," deceiving others as to our true natures.  Ironically, she leaves -- not because she understands this reality, that they would always be separated by the figurative veil -- but because of the actual, literal veil that is only a symbol.

The meaning of Jaques' soliloquy from As You Like It?

In Act II, Scene 7, when Jaques says:

All the world's a stage,And all the men and women merely players,

he seems to be referring to what psychiatrist Carl Jung calls the "persona."

Through the persona a man tries to appear as this or that, or he hides behind a mask, or he may even build up a definite persona as a barricade.

This suggests that all of us are acting a part which...

In Act II, Scene 7, when Jaques says:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players,

he seems to be referring to what psychiatrist Carl Jung calls the "persona."

Through the persona a man tries to appear as this or that, or he hides behind a mask, or he may even build up a definite persona as a barricade.

This suggests that all of us are acting a part which we want the world to accept as our real selves. That is the sense in which all the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players.

In every walk of life each man puts on a personality and outward appearance so as to look what he wants to be thought: in fact you might say that society is entirely made up of assumed personalities.
                                     Francois Duc de La Rochefoucauld

We can see other people's personae more easily than we can see our own. We see how the doctor is playing the role of doctor and how the lawyer is playing the role of lawyer. It may have been in this sense that Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye thought of so many people as being phonies. Holden Caulfield himself was obviously trying to build up a persona. It is a hard task for people his age because they have just emerged from childhood, an age when most children, but not all of them, do not yet feel the need for developing a persona. That comes with adolescence.

Well, youth is the period of assumed personalities and disguises. It is the time of the sincerely insincere.
                                                                    V. S. Pritchett

The pessimistic German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer also felt that most people are wearing masks.

Our civilized world, then, is only a great masquerade; here we meet knights, parsons, soldiers, doctors, barristers, priests, philosophers, and the rest.  But they are not what they represent themselves to be; they are mere masks beneath which as a rule moneymakers are hidden.  

It is interesting, and somewhat amusing, to think that we do not have to go to the theater to see people acting. In fact, the best actors might never appear on a stage or in front of a movie camera at all. If an actor in a movie is playing, let us say, a judge, he is trying to act the same way a real judge is acting the part of a judge while seated on the bench. The show that Jaques is talking about is going on everywhere and all the time. People make their entrances wearing masks, and we ourselves put on our masks before we enter a setting. The mask we put on depends on the type of setting--a classroom, a party, or whatever. 

 

In "Shooting an Elephant," what were the narrator's experiences of the Burmese people?

Generally, the writer's experiences of the Burmese people were negative. From the beginning of the story, for example, Orwell declares that he was "hated by large numbers of people" and was an obvious target as a British police officer.

To support this claim, Orwell provides the reader with a number of examples. He recalls, for example, being tripped up by a Burmese man while playing football and having insults "hooted" at him while out and...

Generally, the writer's experiences of the Burmese people were negative. From the beginning of the story, for example, Orwell declares that he was "hated by large numbers of people" and was an obvious target as a British police officer.

To support this claim, Orwell provides the reader with a number of examples. He recalls, for example, being tripped up by a Burmese man while playing football and having insults "hooted" at him while out and about. Of all the Burmese who disliked him, Orwell found that the priests were the "worst of all," though he does not specify how these men treated him. 

With the Burmese prisoners, however, Orwell had a very different experience. Seeing these men imprisoned and viciously beaten by the British made Orwell feel great shame and sympathy, as he comments in the text:

All these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt.

More importantly, the treatment of these men made Orwell detest British imperialism and consider a new way to make a living.  

How does Jem respond to the news that one of the jurors was a Cunningham and that he had initially moved to acquit Tom?

In Chapter 23 of the novel, Jem's initial response is surprise since it was a Cunningham who led the lynch mob and who had tried to kill Atticus the night before in front of the jail. However, it becomes clear that his initial surprise gives way to confusion when he says, "One minute they're tryin' to kill him and the next they're tryin' to turn him loose . . . I'll never understand those folks...

In Chapter 23 of the novel, Jem's initial response is surprise since it was a Cunningham who led the lynch mob and who had tried to kill Atticus the night before in front of the jail. However, it becomes clear that his initial surprise gives way to confusion when he says, "One minute they're tryin' to kill him and the next they're tryin' to turn him loose . . . I'll never understand those folks as long as I live."

Jem's words reflect his youthful and simplistic judgement of people as all good or all bad. The conversation he has with Atticus about the Cunningham on the jury initially voting to acquit Tom forces Jem to realize that people are not always easy to label. Atticus explains that the Cunninghams have a strong sense of right and wrong. When they thought Tom was wrong, they sought to lynch him as an act of justice. However, after hearing the facts of the case, the Cunningham on the jury votes his conscious (at least for a while) showing he didn't believe the girl or her father to be of good moral character.

How does the narrator of "The Ultimate Safari" describe her encounters with animals?

In The Ultimate Safari, the narrator and the group that she travels through Kruger Park with encounter a number of animals. 

One night (she didn't know which night it was because they were walking any time, all the time) they heard lions near. 

"Panting, like we do when we run, but it’s a different kind of panting: you can hear they’re not running, they’re waiting, somewhere near."

So everyone rolled close together and on top of each other, those on the edge fighting to get into the middle. The narrator shuts her eyes, not wanting to see the tree from which a lion might jump into the middle of the group. 

The narrator is squashed next to a woman that smells bad because she is afraid, but the narrator is glad to hold tight on to her. 

The leader jumps up and beats on a tree with a dead branch. 

"He shouted at the lions like a drunk man shouting at nobody, in our village."

The lions went away but she could hear them groaning and shouting back from far off. 

What do scarcity and choice mean in economics?

Scarcity is the basic fact that makes the study of economics necessary.  Because there is scarcity, human beings have to make choices.  Economics studies those choices.

Scarcity is the condition in which human beings have unlimited wants even as they have only limited resources with which to fulfill those wants. This is true of even the richest person in the world.  Even the richest person in the world cannot own everything in the world.  Moreover,...

Scarcity is the basic fact that makes the study of economics necessary.  Because there is scarcity, human beings have to make choices.  Economics studies those choices.

Scarcity is the condition in which human beings have unlimited wants even as they have only limited resources with which to fulfill those wants. This is true of even the richest person in the world.  Even the richest person in the world cannot own everything in the world.  Moreover, even the richest person in the world can only use a particular resource in a particular way.  For example, imagine that Bill Gates has $10 million that he wants to invest. Once he invests that $10 million, he cannot use it in any other way.  He has given up the chance to use that particular $10 million to buy a yacht or to use in some different investment.

Because of this, everyone in the world has to make choices. I might have to choose whether to go on vacation or to put money towards my kids’ college education.  A very rich person might have to choose between buying a new luxury car and investing more money in the stock market.  Either way, choices are being made.  People have unlimited things that they want to do but they do not have unlimited resources. This means that scarcity exists. Scarcity forces people to make choices. Economics studies the choices that people make in response to scarcity.

What information is the astronomer presenting at the beginning of the poem?

It is unclear what specific information is being presented by the astronomer at the beginning of the poem, but the reader can gain a better idea via the context that Walt Whitman provides.  Firstly, the astronomer is "learn'd," meaning educated.  This is a person who is either a teacher or a speaker, giving some sort of presentation regarding the cosmos.  We are told that he "lectured with/ much applause in the lecture room" (5-6), which...

It is unclear what specific information is being presented by the astronomer at the beginning of the poem, but the reader can gain a better idea via the context that Walt Whitman provides.  Firstly, the astronomer is "learn'd," meaning educated.  This is a person who is either a teacher or a speaker, giving some sort of presentation regarding the cosmos.  We are told that he "lectured with/ much applause in the lecture room" (5-6), which suggests that he is a popular speaker, able to draw a large crowd.  Further, during the lecture, the narrator observes nearly all manner of data,

When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;/When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide,/and measure them; (2-4)

The lecture is filled with many visual aids; one can assume that the charts and diagrams display the astronomer's findings.  The fact that mathematical functions such as addition and division are used in conjunction with the charts and diagrams suggests a great amount of research, and also suggests that the astronomer is explaining the steps in his method as he lectures. 

Listening to the astronomer lecture on about the charts, numbers, and statistics makes the narrator feel "tired and sick" (7) until s/he finds comfort by going outside into the night and looking up "in perfect silence at the stars" (10).  The view of the night sky, in all its natural splendor, renews the narrator.  This allows the reader to make the educated guess that the astronomer was lecturing on some new findings regarding the distant cosmos itself, in an effort to further explain the workings of the galaxy. For the narrator, this explanation is unwelcome because it takes away the wonder and amazement of the universe.

In Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, when are Jim and Huck on the raft?

In Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jim and Huck first begin their raft journey at the end of chapter 11 ("They're After Us!") and the beginning of chapter 12 ("Better Let Blame Well Alone"). They originally set out on the raft in order to avoid a search party trying to capture Jim and return him to slavery. 

Huck and Jim travel on the raft for most of the rest of the book,...

In Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jim and Huck first begin their raft journey at the end of chapter 11 ("They're After Us!") and the beginning of chapter 12 ("Better Let Blame Well Alone"). They originally set out on the raft in order to avoid a search party trying to capture Jim and return him to slavery. 

Huck and Jim travel on the raft for most of the rest of the book, although their travel is not constant. Rather, the novel is divided between episodic adventures that often take place on shore away from the raft. At the end of each of these adventures, Huck and Jim return to their raft to continue their travels and explore new regions. The raft and the Mississippi River maintain a constant presence that functions as the backbone of Twain's novel. As such, the role of the river in the novel mirrors the role of the real Mississippi River, which runs down the length of the United States and has historically served as an important driver of culture and economy. 

How do Romeo and Juliet get married?

Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Lawrence just one short afternoon after meeting.  They wed in secret, with the bulk of the major players in the story -- Benvolio, Mercutio, and Tybalt among them -- completely unaware that the wedding has taken place.  The wedding is primarily arranged by Juliet's Nurse, who serves as a go-between between the couple.

While Romeo and Juliet are among the most famous couples in all of literary history,...

Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Lawrence just one short afternoon after meeting.  They wed in secret, with the bulk of the major players in the story -- Benvolio, Mercutio, and Tybalt among them -- completely unaware that the wedding has taken place.  The wedding is primarily arranged by Juliet's Nurse, who serves as a go-between between the couple.

While Romeo and Juliet are among the most famous couples in all of literary history, we don't actually see or hear any wedding vows in the course of the play.  The scene itself (Act 2, Scene 6) is only 37 lines long, as compared with other scenes that run into the hundreds of lines.  What we do hear are warnings from the Friar that moderation is key, and that Romeo and Juliet should not plunge headlong and passionately into their romance, as the results could be explosive.  Unfortunately, Romeo and Juliet do not heed the Friar's warning.

How does the ectoderm tissue develop to form a human body?

After fertilization occurs, the fertilized egg (zygote) undergoes many mitotic divisions resulting in the formation of a blastocyst. This stage of an embryo resembles a hollow ball of cells. Eventually, some cells move and form three distinct cell layers within the embryo. This stage is known as gastrulation. The gastrula almost resembles a hollow ball that is pushed in on one side. 

Different organs that will be present in the embryo arise from the...

After fertilization occurs, the fertilized egg (zygote) undergoes many mitotic divisions resulting in the formation of a blastocyst. This stage of an embryo resembles a hollow ball of cells. Eventually, some cells move and form three distinct cell layers within the embryo. This stage is known as gastrulation. The gastrula almost resembles a hollow ball that is pushed in on one side. 

Different organs that will be present in the embryo arise from the three primary germ layers of the gastrula. The three layers are ectoderm (outer layer), mesoderm (middle layer) and endoderm (inner layer). These cell layers differentiate into specialized cells and tissues of the body.

The outermost layer or ectoderm cells will form parts of the body including the epidermis (skin), brain and nervous system. The role the ectoderm plays in forming the human body is helping to form essential outer portions like the integumentary system and the nervous system.

Mesoderm cells differentiate into cartilage, bone, blood vessels, muscles and the circulatory system.

Endoderm cells differentiate into the gut or digestive system, respiratory system and excretory system.

The process of gastrulation leads to the development of more specialized cells in the growing embryo.

Compare Mar's system to Earth's system?

Mars and Earth are both planets of our solar system. As explained by Matt Williams of Universe Today, the planets share similarities in “size, inclination, structure, composition, and even the presence of water on their surfaces.” However, there are also several differences amongst the planets’ systems, which are identified and briefly described below.

Surface Features

• Both planets have mountains, valleys, plains, volcanoes, and sand dunes.


• Asteroids and meteors from space have collided with both planets....

Mars and Earth are both planets of our solar system. As explained by Matt Williams of Universe Today, the planets share similarities in “size, inclination, structure, composition, and even the presence of water on their surfaces.” However, there are also several differences amongst the planets’ systems, which are identified and briefly described below.

Surface Features

• Both planets have mountains, valleys, plains, volcanoes, and sand dunes.


• Asteroids and meteors from space have collided with both planets. However, the craters from these collisions are much better preserved on Mars.


• Scientists speculate that gullies and channels on Mars were formed at one time by flowing water, just as they are created on Earth.

Location of Water

• The majority of Earth, 70%, is covered by water, which is what contributes the planet’s blue appearance.


• The surface of Maras is dry and dusty. The soil on Mars is rich in iron, which is what produces the planet’s red appearance. The majority of water on Mars is found beneath its surface.

Icecaps

• Frozen water has been found at the poles of both planets.

Atmospheres

• Mars’ atmosphere is much thinner when compared to the atmosphere of Earth.


• Earth’s atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen and oxygen.


• The atmosphere of Mars is primarily composed of carbon dioxide, argon, and nitrogen.

Temperatures

• The thick atmosphere that surrounds Earth serves as a blanket that traps energy from the Sun. This prevents a larger temperature drop at night.


• The thin atmosphere on Mars causes allows energy from the Sun to be reflected back into space. Thus, there is large temperature variations between day and night on Mars.

The shortage of food led to tension in the annex. Discuss.

In the Annex, many reasons existed for the constant tension.  One of the most difficult reasons was the shortage of food.  Food was controlled with ration cards which were very difficult to obtain, and the number of people hiding in the Annex added to the problem.  People such as the butcher who would save bits of meat to give to those in hiding were often arrested, and the supply of food became even more scarce. 

...

In the Annex, many reasons existed for the constant tension.  One of the most difficult reasons was the shortage of food.  Food was controlled with ration cards which were very difficult to obtain, and the number of people hiding in the Annex added to the problem.  People such as the butcher who would save bits of meat to give to those in hiding were often arrested, and the supply of food became even more scarce. 

What really added to the tension in the Annex was that some of their precious food was disappearing in the night. Everyone was so hungry that disappearing food was a desperate thing.  At first, rats and mice were blamed for the missing food.  Then one night, Peter's father was caught stealing food, and the group almost came apart.  Anne's father calmed down the situation, but because others were so hungry also, the tension of so little food remained. 

In The Cay, what is an example of Phillip not wanting to leave the island?

Phillip lived with his parents on the island of Curacao.  The island's main source of income was petroleum products. The Germans were attacking the ships on the island because it impacted the amount of petroleum products that could get to the English fighting in World War II.  Phillip’s mother wanted to go somewhere safe.  She was very uncomfortable with the knowledge of German submarines attacking the island. So, she convinced her husband to send them...

Phillip lived with his parents on the island of Curacao.  The island's main source of income was petroleum products. The Germans were attacking the ships on the island because it impacted the amount of petroleum products that could get to the English fighting in World War II.  Phillip’s mother wanted to go somewhere safe.  She was very uncomfortable with the knowledge of German submarines attacking the island. So, she convinced her husband to send them back to Norfolk, Virginia.  Since Phillip’s mother had a fear of flying, they were to take a ship home.

Phillip does not want to go.  His first line of defense was to argue with his mother.  He accused her of being a coward and then told her he hated her.  Then he thought of a plan in which he would hide until the ship had sailed.  But he realized that hiding on an island was not realistic.  He, then, told his father he wanted to stay with him. But his father told him that,

“….I think it is best that you go with your mother.  At a time like this, I can’t be at home very much” (Taylor 25).

Then he talked to his mother about staying on the island, and she became very upset.  She felt unloved and began to cry.  Finally, his father settled it all and said,

“Phillip, the decision is made.  You’ll leave Friday with your mother” (Taylor 25).

What sound does the narrator hear at the end of the story that causes him to confess to the murder?

The narrator invites the officers who have come to investigate the cry his neighbors heard to sit directly over the spot where he has buried the corpse of the old man, his victim.  Before long, however, he says, his ears began to ring.  Then,

The ringing became more distinct -- it continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definitiveness -- until, at...

The narrator invites the officers who have come to investigate the cry his neighbors heard to sit directly over the spot where he has buried the corpse of the old man, his victim.  Before long, however, he says, his ears began to ring.  Then,

The ringing became more distinct -- it continued and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get rid of the feeling: but it continued and gained definitiveness -- until, at length, I found that that the noise was not within my ears.

The narrator believes that he must have begun to grow pale as he heard this sound that he now believes is coming from outside his own body, and he continues to speak effortlessly so as to distract the officers.  As he talks, he becomes more and more aware of the sound, increasing in volume, saying, "It was a low, dull, quick sound -- much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton."  This line reiterates the narrator's earlier description of the sound he believed the old man's heartbeat made when he was scared; right before the narrator killed the old man, he said, "there came to my ears a low, dull, quick sound, such as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton [....].  It was the beating of the old man's heart."  Thus, he believes that the sound he hears beneath the floorboards is the sound of the old man's heart, somehow beating again even though he'd confirmed the man to be dead. 

However, it isn't the old man's heart.  It can't be.  It turns out that the hellish tattoo the narrator hears is actually his own heartbeat, growing louder and stronger and faster the more excited the narrator gets.  This explains why, as his adrenaline began to flow just prior to committing murder, he could hear his own heart, but he interpreted it as the old man's.  Now, nervous in the presence of the police officers, his heart begins to race again, and he hears it.  He has said several times, throughout the story that he is "nervous," and anxiety tends to increase one's heart rate.  Therefore, in the end, it is actually the narrator's own heart that he hears, but the fear that it is really the old man's is what causes him to confess.

Why is militarism a good thing? Specifically more for the USA.

It is by no means clear that militarism is actually a good thing for the United States.  There are many people, in fact, who would say that it is a bad thing.  If, however, we have to assume that militarism is a good thing, we can say that it makes the United States more important in the world and it helps make us wealthier and more patriotic.

Militarism can be defined as the idea that...

It is by no means clear that militarism is actually a good thing for the United States.  There are many people, in fact, who would say that it is a bad thing.  If, however, we have to assume that militarism is a good thing, we can say that it makes the United States more important in the world and it helps make us wealthier and more patriotic.

Militarism can be defined as the idea that we should have a strong military and that we should be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote our interests in the world.  We can argue that militarism helps us in the world by making us more of a power. When we have a strong military and other countries can see that we are willing to use it, those other countries will be afraid of us.  They will be more likely to go along with what we want.  This is good for our country.

On the home front, militarism is also good for us.  Militarism improves our economy because our government spends a lot of money on military equipment.  Moreover, as the government tries to get better military equipment, new technologies are developed.  These new technologies eventually help our civilian economy as we find peaceful applications for them.  Just as importantly, militarism makes us more cohesive and more patriotic.  When we have militarism, we are more likely to respect our troops and to support our country.  We are less likely to be critical of our country and its aims.  When our citizens support our country vigorously, we are better-off as a society.

In these ways, (we can argue) militarism improves our standing in the world, our economy, and the cohesiveness of our society.

What are the witches planning at the beginning of Act I Scene 1 of Macbeth?

It is difficult to know exactly what the witches are planning, but the audience can tell they are up to no good. They appear amid thunder and lightning, discussing a future meeting (which is all we know they are actually planning) after a great battle is over, sometime before the end of the day. They announce that they are to meet with Macbeth at this point, but the audience does not know, at least from...

It is difficult to know exactly what the witches are planning, but the audience can tell they are up to no good. They appear amid thunder and lightning, discussing a future meeting (which is all we know they are actually planning) after a great battle is over, sometime before the end of the day. They announce that they are to meet with Macbeth at this point, but the audience does not know, at least from this scene, who Macbeth is, why they want to meet with him, or what they plan to do with him. But it is clear from their appearance, the forbidding environment they appear in, and from their assertion that "fair is foul/foul is fair" that they do not mean well. This scene accomplishes several things. It alerts the audience that there are evil forces at work in Scotland, and later, along with the other scenes involving the witches, it raises the question of just who is responsible for Macbeth's foul deeds. Is he in command of his own actions, or is he led to them by the evil, conniving witches with their control of supernatural forces?

In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, what are some examples of satire in chapters 35 and 36?

Satire is the use of irony and humor to criticize some aspect of society. Twain uses satire often throughout The Adventures of Huckleberry Finnto criticize, for example, the South’s treatment of slaves, blind acceptance of religion, and hypocrisy. In chapters 35 and 36, Tom and Huck are trying to devise a plan to to free Jim, the slave who is chained up in a hut at the Phelpses. Huck points out that saving Jim...

Satire is the use of irony and humor to criticize some aspect of society. Twain uses satire often throughout The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to criticize, for example, the South’s treatment of slaves, blind acceptance of religion, and hypocrisy. In chapters 35 and 36, Tom and Huck are trying to devise a plan to to free Jim, the slave who is chained up in a hut at the Phelpses. Huck points out that saving Jim should be easy (Jim is chained to a bed that isn’t bolted to the ground), but Tom, always wanting to do things like they do in the adventure books, insists that they make it more difficult. He eventually suggests that they “saw Jim’s leg off” (239). When Huck protests, Tom gives in and says it would be useless anyway, because

Jim’s a n*****, and wouldn’t understand the reasons for it, and how it’s custom in Europe (239).

Clearly, Tom’s idea is ridiculous, and Huck, though uneducated, is able to see the impracticality of Tom’s plan. Huck doesn’t understand why Tom wants to make things so difficult when they could easily lift the bed up, free Jim, and take him away on the raft. Here, Twain seems to be criticizing both the kind of literature Tom gets his ideas from, but also the idea that many people in the South (represented by Tom) saw their slaves as property, things to use for their own benefit. Tom doesn’t really care for Jim’s well-being; he just wants to use the circumstances as material for another one of his wild adventures. Huck, on the other hand, has formed a relationship with Jim and truly wants to do what he can to get Jim free. He goes along with Tom’s plans, which get more ridiculous as the chapter goes on, because Tom acts like an authority on the matter, but he questions everything along the way. When the two boys eventually realize their outlandish plans are impractical, they decide it’s acceptable to just pretend they’ve done everything according to how it’s done in the adventure books. Huck ironically reflects that Tom is “full of principal” (246) because he tries so hard to do things the “right” way, when really Huck is the one who is “full of principal,” focused only on getting JIm free, not on the adventure that doing so involves.

How is the Berlin Conference from 1884 still causing problems in Africa today? And there anything that can be done in present day to remedy the...

You can argue that the Berlin Conference is still causing problems in Africa because that conference split the continent up into countries without any rhyme or reason and because it gave those countries to various European powers to rule for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of the natives.

Countries seem to work best when their people have something to hold them together.  This is often a shared language, ethnicity, and/or history.  The...

You can argue that the Berlin Conference is still causing problems in Africa because that conference split the continent up into countries without any rhyme or reason and because it gave those countries to various European powers to rule for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of the natives.

Countries seem to work best when their people have something to hold them together.  This is often a shared language, ethnicity, and/or history.  The African countries that were created by the Berlin Conference lacked these things at the time and they generally lack them today.  Instead of being made up of people with something in common, they were made up on the whims of Europeans.  This means that today’s African countries are full of various ethnic groups who do not necessarily get along with one another.  The more horrific evidence of the problems this causes was the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, which was caused by ethnic tensions.  While this was the worst problem caused by the drawing of boundaries at the Berlin Conference, there have been many others.  The tensions between the various ethnic groups within countries makes it so that those countries are not united and it often makes their governments as each ethnic group seeks power simply to improve its own lot, not to help the country as a whole.

In addition to creating these ill-conceived countries, the Berlin Conference gave those countries to Europeans to run.  The Europeans ran the countries entirely for their own good, not that of the natives.  This means that they created economies that extracted resources from Africa to help Europe.  It means that they trained Africans only to do relatively menial work.  It means that they did not give Africans any role in governing themselves.  When the Europeans were forced to leave Africa in the wave of decolonization in the 1960s, they left behind countries with poorly developed economies and with populaces that were not trained or prepared to run modern economies or governments.  These problems persist today.  Thus, the Berlin Conference created tremendous problems that continue to make it difficult for African countries to prosper today. 

In Tuck Everlasting, what is unusual about the Tuck family? What clues does the author give?

The Tuck family is different from every other family that Winnie Foster will ever meet, because the Tuck family is a family of immortals.  That's right, they will live forever.  Makes me wonder if Twilight took any inspiration from this book.  After all, that book was about a "regular," loving family of immortals too.  

Eventually the author explicitly tells readers that the Tuck family is a family of immortals, so I assume that your...

The Tuck family is different from every other family that Winnie Foster will ever meet, because the Tuck family is a family of immortals.  That's right, they will live forever.  Makes me wonder if Twilight took any inspiration from this book.  After all, that book was about a "regular," loving family of immortals too.  

Eventually the author explicitly tells readers that the Tuck family is a family of immortals, so I assume that your question is asking about early clues that the Tuck family is more than a family living in the woods.  

Chapter 2 introduces the reader to Mr. and Mrs. Tuck.  Mae wakes Tuck up from a peaceful sleep, and he says the following line:

"Why'd you have to wake me up?" he sighed. "I was having that dream again, the good one where we're all in heaven and never heard of Treegap."

That seems like a very odd thing to say.  Earlier Treegap was described as a peaceful little hamlet.  It hardly sounded like a place people would flee from.  The heaven comment is weird too.  Essentially, Tuck is wishing he were dead and in heaven.  

Mae Tuck tells Tuck that he should get over having that dream because nothing is going to change.  

"But, all the same, you should've got used to things by now."

Got used to what?  Why won't things change?  In fact, what things won't change?  It's a very odd conversation that they are having and more than hints to readers that there is something different about the Tucks.  

Chapter two's closing line drops the big hint that the Tuck family is not normal.  

For Mae Tuck, and her husband, and Miles and Jesse, too, had all looked exactly the same for eighty-seven years.

Wait, what?  87 years!  How does anybody look the same for that long of time?  I mean, some Hollywood stars definitely try, but Treegap doesn't seem like a place for high priced plastic surgeons.  From this point forward, the reader quickly learns about the spring water and its ability to give immortality, and Winnie must decide whether or not she would like to join the Tuck family in their uniqueness.  

In The Bronze Bow, what does Daniel expect to lose by freeing Joel? What does he actually lose?

Daniel expects that he may lose his life in the effort to free Joel. He is going to be the one to get close enough to break Joel's chain because "that's a blacksmith's job." After instructing Nathan how to help Joel up the face of the rock, Daniel answers Nathan's question, "How do you get back?" He tells Nathan that he will pull him up, but he "had no real expectation that he would get...

Daniel expects that he may lose his life in the effort to free Joel. He is going to be the one to get close enough to break Joel's chain because "that's a blacksmith's job." After instructing Nathan how to help Joel up the face of the rock, Daniel answers Nathan's question, "How do you get back?" He tells Nathan that he will pull him up, but he "had no real expectation that he would get back up the bank." This means Daniel is ready to risk his life to save Joel, and he believes it could really happen. However, what really happens is that Nathan and Samson die in the ensuing battle. Samson has been following Daniel and the group of 19 others in secret. Samson pushes a great rock down on the line of soldiers, creating an opportunity for Daniel to nearly free Joel. However, a battle ensues, and Daniel blacks out. When he awakes, he and Joel are alive, but he learns Nathan was killed and Samson was severely injured and captured by the Romans. In addition to losing his two friends, Daniel also loses his naive confidence. He realizes that overcoming the might of Rome will take more than his own zeal. If it had not been for Samson's intervention, both Daniel and Joel would probably have died.

Why must one understand the medieval period in order to understand the evolution of human society?

When scholars discuss medieval history, they are referring not only to a time period (the fifth century to the mid-1400s) but also to a place: Europe. What is crucial to understand about these so called "Middle Ages" is that they were a time of societal regression, during which the considerable progress that had been made in governance, legal theory, philosophy, science, mathematics and the arts, was turned back. In the absence of law and order,...

When scholars discuss medieval history, they are referring not only to a time period (the fifth century to the mid-1400s) but also to a place: Europe. What is crucial to understand about these so called "Middle Ages" is that they were a time of societal regression, during which the considerable progress that had been made in governance, legal theory, philosophy, science, mathematics and the arts, was turned back. In the absence of law and order, Europe slipped back into a state of chaos and brutality that had not existed on the continent for almost a thousand years.

The Roman Empire had not only ruled Europe, but also set up systems of governance and infrastructure that united hundreds if not thousands of warring tribes under one prosperous, well organized government. There existed a common currency, clear trade policies, trade routes, an army/police force and systems of governors and sub-governors that (for the most part) protected individual property, adjudicated disputes, and prevented any single part of the vast Empire from turning on another or on itself.

Once the Roman Empire crumbled, the trained soldiers who had been paid to protect the subjects of that Empire turned into ruthless mercenaries who raped, pillaged and murdered at will. The knowledge that had been accumulated at various universities was largely destroyed when those universities were raided by looters and the various factions that rose up in the enormous vacuum of power that existed after the collapse of the Roman Empire. The murder rate during the middle ages was astronomical, and has been estimated at 20 - 25 per 100 people. Think about that. 20 to 25 percent of the population in Europe died from homicides. Even the most violent cities in the world like Caracas, Bogota or Juarez come nowhere close to that murder rate.

The reason it is so crucial to study this period of history is that it provides an example of just how self-destructive humans can be, and how little stands in the way between a highly civilized, technologically advanced society, and complete chaos. At its peak, the Roman Empire represented the pinnacle civilization. It was far from perfect, but it mostly worked. People lived longer, were healthier, and had a reasonable amount of knowledge and culture at their disposal. Yet once the people who were paid to keep law and order stopped getting paid, they turned on the people they were charged to protect, and those people soon turned on each other.

Together, they plunged a great civilization into ignorance and perpetual warfare and it took almost one thousand years for human civilization in Europe to begin to recover. The experiences of Medieval Europe prove just how precious and tenuous civilization is, and hopefully serve as a lesson to us today that despite the progress we have made as a species, we still have the capability of destroying it all with frightening speed if we are not careful.

What happens in chapters 9 and 10 in the book The Swiss Family Robinson by Johann Wyss?

In Chapter 9, the father and Fritz make a journey to the wreck of the ship, which is still stuck out on the reef.  They want to bring back the animals that they had left there.  

First, the family eats breakfast.  The father makes a flagpole "with a piece of sail-cloth for a flag."  The mother and younger sons are to let the flag fly as long as things are going well.  They are...

In Chapter 9, the father and Fritz make a journey to the wreck of the ship, which is still stuck out on the reef.  They want to bring back the animals that they had left there.  

First, the family eats breakfast.  The father makes a flagpole "with a piece of sail-cloth for a flag."  The mother and younger sons are to let the flag fly as long as things are going well.  They are to take it down if they need to signal the father and Fritz to return from the ship.  

The two arrive at the ship safely, feed the animals, and add a sail to their boat.  They signal to the family that they will be spending the night on the wreck of the ship, and then begin loading their little boat with supplies from the ship which they were unable to carry when they first fled from it.  When night comes, they signal to their family on land that all is well, then go to sleep in their "tubs" (components of the smaller boat), which they feel is a safer place to sleep than on the ship itself.

Chapter 10 narrates the second day of Fritz and his father's errand to the ship.  They wake, check that the family flag is still up, and eat breakfast.  Then they spend two hours making a "swimming apparatus" for the livestock by tying empty barrels on either side of each animal.  They put a leash on each animal, the ends of which they fasten to the back of their little boat.  Then they set out for shore, "drawing our train after us."

On the way back to the island, they are nearly attacked by a shark, which Fritz shoots with his gun.  After this they arrive safely at the island.

They are greeted joyfully by the other family members.  Jack shows off the belt he made for himself using the skin of the jackal that Fritz had killed.  Jack has also made spiked collars for the dogs by driving nails through strips of the jackal's skin.  

The family then have supper, which consists of a ham that was just brought from the ship, and an omelet made of turtle's eggs. 

Why did the treaty of Nanjing hurt China?

The Treaty of Nanjing, signed in 1842, ended the first Opium War. The war, fought between Britain and China, resulted in the Qing dynasty losing power and the British gaining more power in their trade relationship with China. The war was fought over Britain's illegal importation of opium from India into China, which had disastrous effects for China's economy and society. Britain won this won and was able to gain more privileges in their trade...

The Treaty of Nanjing, signed in 1842, ended the first Opium War. The war, fought between Britain and China, resulted in the Qing dynasty losing power and the British gaining more power in their trade relationship with China. The war was fought over Britain's illegal importation of opium from India into China, which had disastrous effects for China's economy and society. Britain won this won and was able to gain more privileges in their trade with China. 

As a result of the treaty, Britain gained the territory of Hong Kong, and their trade expanded from one port city (Canton) to five treaty ports. Shanghai was one of the new ports that was opened to British trade, and it quickly became an international center of trade. In addition, Britain was able to try its citizens who were accused of crimes in their own courts, and Britain gained most favored nation status (meaning that they had any rights that were granted to other foreign countries). The treaty began the process of China's loss of power to foreign nations, including France and the United States, both of whom soon demanded and received the same trading privileges as Britain had. 

What is the significance of Scout's first day at school in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Scout’s first day of school is important because her expectations do not meet reality.

The first day of school is a maturing experience for Scout.  She was very excited about going to school for the first time.  She has been jealous of Jem, and thinks that first grade will be wonderful.  After all, Scout is very smart. She can already read and write when she starts school, but that’s part of the problem.

I never...

Scout’s first day of school is important because her expectations do not meet reality.

The first day of school is a maturing experience for Scout.  She was very excited about going to school for the first time.  She has been jealous of Jem, and thinks that first grade will be wonderful.  After all, Scout is very smart. She can already read and write when she starts school, but that’s part of the problem.

I never looked forward more to anything in my life. Hours of wintertime had found me in the treehouse, looking over at the schoolyard, spying on multitudes of children through a two-power telescope Jem had given me, learning their games … (Ch. 2)

School is not at all what Scout expects.  Miss Caroline is a new teacher who is in way over her head.  Scout gets in trouble for already knowing how to read, and Miss Caroline suggests that Atticus has been wrong to teach her.  Scout is confused because Atticus never taught her to read.  She just learned.  The thought of not reading was too much for her.

Until I feared I would lose it, I never loved to read. One does not love breathing. (Ch. 2)

At school, Scout and her classmates try to show their clueless teacher the ways of Maycomb, from the Ewells to the Cunninghams.  Burris Ewell gets into an altercation with her when she suggests he bathe, and she tries to give Walter Cunningham a quarter for lunch.  She does not know the special place the Ewells have in Maycomb society, and isn’t aware that a Cunningham never borrows money because he can’t pay it back.

Scout does not want to return to school.  She feels like her teacher is mean to her and school is not what she expected.  Atticus uses this experience to teach Scout her most important lesson so far—the importance of empathy.  He tells her that she will get along better with people if she learns to look at things from their point of view, because you can never understand a person “until you climb into his skin and walk around in it” (Ch. 3).

Atticus tells Scout that they will continue to read together, but she must continue to go to school.  School never really gets better for Scout, but she develops more reasonable expectations as time goes on.  She is well ahead of her class and teachers intellectually, but Scout matures emotionally. 

Compare the condition that led to the formation of the inner planets with those that led to the formation of the outer planets.

The prevailing condition causing the difference between the two formation zones is that of temperature. 

The inner planets, or terrestrial planets, were formed by accretion.  Accretion is an accumulation of smaller rocky materials colliding with each other, sticking to each other, and forming an evolving larger mass.  The inner planets were too close to the sun to be formed from ice and methane, which is the primary constituency of the outer planets.  So they formed...

The prevailing condition causing the difference between the two formation zones is that of temperature. 

The inner planets, or terrestrial planets, were formed by accretion.  Accretion is an accumulation of smaller rocky materials colliding with each other, sticking to each other, and forming an evolving larger mass.  The inner planets were too close to the sun to be formed from ice and methane, which is the primary constituency of the outer planets.  So they formed by small particles bombarding each other, sticking to each other, and building a protoplanet with a rocky exterior.

The outer planets, or Jovian planets, contrastingly, were past the hot zone that bound the inner planets to rocky, solid materials.  The outer planets are composed primarily of a collection of gasses, namely methane, water (ice), hydrogen, and helium.  These planets were cold enough to accumulate large quantities of gaseous materials, with a low percentage of heavy materials. 

The inner planets, in order, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.  Jupiter is the largest and first Jovian planet, followed by Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus.

How were Bilbo and the dwarfs able to cross the river in The Hobbit?

The travelers use a rope to catch a boat from the other side of the river.

The forest of Mirkwood is a dangerous place.  You can lose your head easily.  Beorn warned the company to stay out of the water because it would bewitch them.  When they came to a river, they could not ford it as they had the others.

This was their state when one day they found their path blocked by a running water. It flowed fast and strong but not very wide right across the way, and it was black, or looked it in the gloom. (Ch. 8)

Bilbo suggests that the river is about twelve yards wide, although Thorin doesn’t believe him.  He thinks it is thirty yards.  Bilbo comes up with a plan to get the boat they see across the river.

"Can any of you throw a rope?"

"What's the good of that? The boat is sure to be tied up, even if we could hook it, which I doubt."

"I don't believe it is tied," said Bilbo, "though of course I can't be sure in this light … (Ch. 8)

The plan works, although it takes a few tries.  Fili is finally able to hook the boat, and the others help to reel it in.  Bilbo had not thought the boat was tied up, but it turns out it was.  Still, with their combined strength they are able to get it.

They break up into groups since they will not all fit in the boat at once.  Bombur complains about being last, saying "I'm always last and I don't like it," but Thorin tells him it is because he’s fat.  Unfortunately, Bombur falls into the river and the boat disappears.  There is no way to get back.  The dwarves try to shoot at some deer, but they are not successful and they waste all of their arrows.

The incident is just one of several difficulties the travelers face on their way to the Lonely Mountain.  They cross many rivers, and most of them are easy to ford.  This river, however, is dangerous.  The travelers have to be careful not just of the speed and width of the river, but of the water inside it and its effects.

What is the metaphor in the poem "Lines Written in Early Spring" by William Wordsworth?

In this poem, the speaker is resting in nature in early spring, “In that sweet mood when pleasant thoughts/Bring sad thoughts to the mind.”  And so he contemplates the beauty of the flowers and birds around him, personifying nature and imbuing it with peace and serenity and balance, and contrasts this with the imbalance of humankind – all the ills imposed upon man, by man. 

The metaphorical quality of the poem can be difficult to...

In this poem, the speaker is resting in nature in early spring, “In that sweet mood when pleasant thoughts/Bring sad thoughts to the mind.”  And so he contemplates the beauty of the flowers and birds around him, personifying nature and imbuing it with peace and serenity and balance, and contrasts this with the imbalance of humankind – all the ills imposed upon man, by man. 

The metaphorical quality of the poem can be difficult to spot, for it is not a one-off comparison but rather one that embodies the entirety of the piece itself.  We can find it referenced in the line "To her fair works did nature link / The human soul that through me ran."  The poet is comparing the “fair works” of nature to the human soul  -- the natural world without to the natural world within.  This further underscores the dismay felt by the speaker at the actions of man toward mankind, for if the two are comparable, how can it be that there is so much peace in nature, and yet so little peace among men?

This is further expressed by the human characteristics given to elements of nature – “every flower” that “enjoys the air it breathes,” the pleasure felt by the playing birds and the “budding twigs” in their effort “to catch the breezy air.”  By using these human actions and feelings Wordsworth emphasizes the metaphor of man’s internal feelings being like nature’s instinctual actions, and by extension the speaker can only assume that each human being feels pleasure just from being alive.  And therefore the speaker laments, again, man’s inability to let this pleasure lie.

Macbeth is a play about various kinds of killing (among other things). How does the play distinguish between honorable and dishonorable violence?...

Macbethis a short, violent, and dark play. From the play's beginning, Shakespeare plunges his audience into a world of murder and conflict, and he underlines this by beginning the action on a battlefield. This violence, however, is not mere senseless action, and much of the play centers around the question of what is justifiable violence and what is not. By studying the characters of Macbeth and Macduff, we can surmise that Shakespeare condones violence...

Macbeth is a short, violent, and dark play. From the play's beginning, Shakespeare plunges his audience into a world of murder and conflict, and he underlines this by beginning the action on a battlefield. This violence, however, is not mere senseless action, and much of the play centers around the question of what is justifiable violence and what is not. By studying the characters of Macbeth and Macduff, we can surmise that Shakespeare condones violence conducted in the protection of the state, while he condemns violence done in the pursuit of arrogant self-interest.

At the beginning of the play, Macbeth is already a decorated general in the service of King Duncan. His peers shower him with praise in the opening scenes, honoring his recent deeds on the battlefield. Thus, Shakespeare implies that this kind of selfless violence, done to protect the state, is forgivable and even admirable. It acts as a foil for the rest of Macbeth's violent actions, including the murder of King Duncan, which are carried out to secure personal power. While Macbeth's deeds as a general were carried out for the good of the state, his later murders are done for personal gain, and Shakespeare condemns this brand of violence by rewarding Macbeth with a grisly death in the final scene.

Macduff's murder of Macbeth offers a rather more complicated side to this issue. On the one hand, Macduff is motivated purely out of revenge, as he aims to avenge his dead family members. However, in killing Macbeth, Macduff also rids Scotland of an evil tyrant. As such, though a considerable level of self-interest motivates Macduff's actions, he ultimately carries them out in defense of the greater good. As such, Shakespeare still maintains that violence, if done to protect the inhabitants of the state, is permissible.  

At what point would you say was the climax and denouement in the story “The Man Who Was Almost a Man?”

The climax occurs at the point in the story when Dave inadvertently shoots Jenny, the mule; the denouement of the story occurs as Dave jumps onto the train car.

Richard Wright's story "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" has an ironic title because Dave Saunders is never a man. He is a boy who wants to be a man by possessing a gun. For, when he holds the gun that he purchases for two dollars from Joe at the store, Dave feels empowered. But, when he fires this obsolete gun, he closes his eyes and waves it wildly for a moment before firing it, but the recoil of the old gun causes Dave to fall backwards. When he recovers himself, Dave hears Jenny, the mule, and sees her kicking wildly and tossing her head.

When he catches Jenny, Dave discovers that he has shot her.

Jenny was bleeding. Her left side was red and wet with blood....Then he saw the hole in Jenny's side, right between the ribs.

When the mule dies, Dave buries the gun, and he decides that he cannot tell Jim Hawkins that he has shot his mule, but is very worried.

• Denouement

Dave is humiliated when people discover that he has shot the mule because the recoil of the gun was too much for him to handle, and men among the onlookers begin to laugh. "Hot anger bubbled in him." This humiliation of his mishap embarrasses Dave so much that he decides to jump on top of a train and leave his parents and abscond without paying his debt.

He felt his pocket; the gun was still there. Ahead, the long rails were glinting in the moonlight, stretching away...somewhere he could be a man.

In this Modernist-styled short story, there is no full resolution. He has nothing, and he has left his parents to pay his debt and with no knowledge of where he is going.

In Gathering Blue, what are three character traits of Matt and how does he show them?

Matt, the young boy from the Fen who befriends Kira, is thoughtful, alert, and strong-willed.He shows his thoughtfulness throughout the book. Near the beginning of the story, Kira learns that Matt went into her cott before it was burned and rescued a few things that he thought she may have valued. He does a surprisingly good job of choosing what to save, especially in retrieving the pendant that Kira's father gave her mother. When...

Matt, the young boy from the Fen who befriends Kira, is thoughtful, alert, and strong-willed. He shows his thoughtfulness throughout the book. Near the beginning of the story, Kira learns that Matt went into her cott before it was burned and rescued a few things that he thought she may have valued. He does a surprisingly good job of choosing what to save, especially in retrieving the pendant that Kira's father gave her mother. When Matt accompanies Kira to her new room in the Council Edifice, he won't enter with Branch because Branch has fleas. Toward the end of the book, Matt leaves on a journey to get a "giftie" for Kira, again showing great wisdom in bringing her just what she needs: the plant for making blue dye.

Matt is also alert and observant. He has heard what the women plan to do to Kira when she returns from the Field of Leaving, so he is able to warn her. During the hunt preparation, he is able to sneak up and snatch a spear that no one else has taken. He has listened to Annabella's discussions with Kira about dyes and gleaned not only that blue dye is unavailable to their village but also that it can be obtained "yonder." 

Matt is strong-willed. He shows that by wanting to join the hunt even though he is too young, preparing himself by grabbing a spear and by plastering himself with swamp grass so he'll look older. He determines to make the journey outside the known region of the village, even after being beaten bloody by his mother for stealing food in preparation. Another little boy says of him, "Matt's the strongest of the strong." He refers to Matt's health, but the quote also describes his will and indomitable spirit. Thomas also recognizes that quality when he says that if the guardians ever took Matt and locked him up, he "would find a way to get free."

Matt is one of the most interesting and endearing characters in the book because of his thoughtful, alert, and strong-willed nature.

What is the difference between conservatism and liberalism?

There is a big difference between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives tend to have a distrust of the federal government. They want policies that involved the federal government as little as possible in the economy, in business, and in their lives. They tend to support laissez-faire policies with the economy. They want the power of the federal government to be limited and split between the state governments and the federal government. Conservatives tend to have strong...

There is a big difference between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives tend to have a distrust of the federal government. They want policies that involved the federal government as little as possible in the economy, in business, and in their lives. They tend to support laissez-faire policies with the economy. They want the power of the federal government to be limited and split between the state governments and the federal government. Conservatives tend to have strong religious values and often don’t support changes that may be viewed as extreme. Conservatives are against policies that tax the rich at higher rates. They tend to be supportive of the police having broad power to dealing with criminal activity. They also tend to support vouchers for private religious schools.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe government must have a bigger role in our economy. They believe that if the government doesn’t regulate businesses and our economy, that businesses will act in their best interests instead of what is best for the consumers. They believe the government should support people who need help by having a lot of social programs. These programs would provide aid to the poor and funding to public schools. Liberals believe the government shouldn’t be involved in religious issues. Liberals wouldn’t support government vouchers for religious schools. 

There are significant differences between liberals and conservatives.

Why did 19 out of 24 states not want newly freed African Americans after the Civil War?

First of all, I am curious as to the source behind your statement that 19 of 24 states “did not want” African Americans after the Civil War.  I assume that you are referring only to Northern states, as there were actually 36 states in the US after the Civil War.  Eleven states seceded during the war, which means there were 25 states that were not part of the Confederacy.  In addition, I know of no...

First of all, I am curious as to the source behind your statement that 19 of 24 states “did not want” African Americans after the Civil War.  I assume that you are referring only to Northern states, as there were actually 36 states in the US after the Civil War.  Eleven states seceded during the war, which means there were 25 states that were not part of the Confederacy.  In addition, I know of no objective way of saying that some of the Northern states “did not want” African Americans while others did.

If, however, we assume that your premise is correct, I would argue that Northern states did not want African Americans because America was a very racist place in those days.  We typically say that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, and this is true to some degree.  However, it was not fought because Northerners believed that African Americans were equal to them or because they wanted to give African Americans equal rights.  Instead, most Northerners were deeply racist, taking for granted the idea that white people were inherently superior to black people.

Because of this, there were many people in northern states who did not want African Americans in their states.  The Territory of Oregon (before it was a state) went as far as to pass legislation banning free blacks from settling in the state.  Indiana also barred African Americans.  Clearly, there were states where many white people did not want black fellow-citizens.

There are two related reasons for this. First, there was simple racism.  Whites did not like blacks and therefore did not want them around.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, there was racism mixed with economic factors.  Many whites felt that African Americans who came into their states would compete with them for jobs, farmland, and other resources.  They did not really mind competing against other whites, but they did not want to have to compete against blacks as those were not people “like them.”  For these two reasons, many people in northern states did not want African Americans in their states after the Civil War.

If price rises, what happens to demand for a product?

Short answer: It goes down.

Long answer:

The Law of Demand says that, all other things equal, if price goes up then demand will go down. The percentage that quantity demanded goes down for a 1% increase in price is the price elasticity of demand.

But in the real world, it's not quite so simple. The Law of Demand is like the Pirate Code: It's really more like what you'd call a "guideline". It's probably true for 90% of goods, maybe even 95%.

But what about the rest?

There are some goods for which price is basically irrelevant, at least within a wide range; these are perfectly inelastic. If the price of salt quadrupled, would you buy less salt? Probably not---you need salt to live, and salt isn't that expensive anyway.

There are also some goods for which an increase in price will result in an increase in demand.

This is weird and counter-intuitive, so it bears some further explanation.

The first way this can happen is called a Giffen good. The idea is basically that if a good is an inferior form of a vital necessity, there are some circumstances for which raising its price will have an income effect of reducing the total amount of stuff you can buy that is larger than the substitution effect of making that particular good more expensive, and as a result you buy more of the inferior good.

As a hypothetical example, suppose you have $20 and you need four bags of grapes for a party.

Green grapes are $2 per bag and red grapes are $8 per bag. You like red grapes better, but you can't buy all red grapes because you only have $20. So you buy 2 bags of red grapes ($16) and 2 bags of green grapes ($4).

But now suppose that the price of green grapes rises to $4 per bag. You still can't afford to buy all red grapes. But now you can't even afford to go half-and-half like before. Your best choice is now to buy 3 bags of green grapes ($12) and 1 bag of red grapes ($8). The price of green grapes went up, but you bought more green grapes---because you couldn't afford to buy anything else.

Giffen goods are pretty rare in real life. The more common reason why rising price can result in rising demand is a Veblen good, which is a good that people buy simply to show off how rich they are. These are all over the place, from clothes to houses to cars---and arguably even lattes.

Why do people buy Lamborghinis? Is it really because Lamborghinis are such great cars that they're worth paying the price of a house? Probably not. The reason people buy Lamborghinis is to show that they can. If Lamborghini decided to lower the price of their cars to something more sensible, they might actually lose business, because it would no longer be as impressive a status symbol to own a Lamborghini. Thus making the price go down might actually result in less demand.

Finally, there is a third reason why rising price might not result in reduced demand, and that is speculation. The most obvious examples are stocks and gold. If the price of Apple stock goes up, do you buy less Apple stock? Not necessarily. If you think this is part of a coming trend, you might buy more Apple stock, hoping that the price will continue to rise and you can make money that way. You could be wrong---speculation is risky---but there are people who make huge amounts of money betting on price swings like this.

How does Charles Dicken's Great Expectations challenge the views on gentlemen in society and how does this relate to William Shakespeare's Macbeth?...

In Dickens' day, gentlemen inherited their wealth or expectations from another wealthy person in the upper classes of society. This wealth then freed these men for further education or leisure pursuits. Gentlemen were considered superior to others in the culture, particularly laboring men. Laboring men were crude; gentlemen were refined, at least in the popular mythology. 

Dickens upsets this idea in Great Expectations by having a convict, Magwitch, provide the money that enables Pip to...

In Dickens' day, gentlemen inherited their wealth or expectations from another wealthy person in the upper classes of society. This wealth then freed these men for further education or leisure pursuits. Gentlemen were considered superior to others in the culture, particularly laboring men. Laboring men were crude; gentlemen were refined, at least in the popular mythology. 

Dickens upsets this idea in Great Expectations by having a convict, Magwitch, provide the money that enables Pip to live as a gentleman.Pip is horrified and ashamed when he discovers his money has come from Magwitch. Magwitch tells him, "I lived rough that you might live smooth; I worked hard that you should be above work." This exposes what is usually hidden: that upper class wealth comes from the hard labor of people who live in rough conditions.

Pip can no longer feel proud of being a gentlemen, knowing where his money comes from, but Dickens' story suggests the following question: where does any gentleman's money come from? Do gentlemen have any right to believe they are superior when they are living on the backs of the labor of other people? Are they really the "gentle men" in society? Dickens, a self made man who became rich through the work of writing best-selling books, had little patience with the superior airs of those with inherited wealth and does his best in this novel to expose the hollowness of their snobbery. In Great Expectations, the best men, Joe and Magwitch, are unpretentious laborers who work for a living. Dickens shows the true gentlemen to be persons of character like them, not the people with inherited wealth.

Great Expectations illustrates that it is better to be a simple unpretentious person who cares about others than an ambitious wannabe gentleman like Pip. Likewise, Macbeth shows the dangers of violating moral codes that bind people together in loyal and trusting relationships. Macbeth's ambitions cause him to do terrible things that violate what real kingship is. Both Pip and Macbeth mistake the outward shell of a desired status for the inward traits that make, in one case, the real gentleman, in the other case, the real king. 

In To Kill a Mockingbird, how does Harper Lee use Calpurnia's actions in dealing with Tim Johnson to show the subtle discrimination prevalent in...

In Chapter 10, Jem and Scout are walking down the street with their air rifles when they spot an old dog named Tim Johnson walking awkwardly down the road. Jem runs home and tells Calpurnia, the Finch's cook, that Tim Johnson is limping when he walks. Calpurnia goes outside and sees Tim Johnson staggering down the street. She immediately recognizes that the dog has rabies. She runs to the phone and informs Atticus. Then she...

In Chapter 10, Jem and Scout are walking down the street with their air rifles when they spot an old dog named Tim Johnson walking awkwardly down the road. Jem runs home and tells Calpurnia, the Finch's cook, that Tim Johnson is limping when he walks. Calpurnia goes outside and sees Tim Johnson staggering down the street. She immediately recognizes that the dog has rabies. She runs to the phone and informs Atticus. Then she calls the operator, Eula May, and tells her to call everyone on the street and tell them a "mad dog's comin'." (Lee 124) Calpurnia asks Jem if the Radleys have a phone, and he tells her they don't. Calpurnia runs over to the Radley's front porch and begins to knock on their door. At this moment, Harper Lee portrays the subtle discrimination in the small Southern towns. Scout says to Jem, "She's supposed to go around in back" and Jem says, "Don't make any difference now." (Lee 124) In 1930's Alabama, it was forbidden for African Americans to enter through the front door of a white person's home. Jim Crow laws reached every aspect of society, and Scout's comment subtly displays this racial discrimination. The smallest routines affected the way African Americans interacted with white people. Sitting in the back of the bus, standing to let a white person sit, and entering through back doors were commonplace rules African Americans had to follow in Southern towns.

In "The Cask of Amontillado," how would you describe the persona that Poe has created for Montresor? Why might Poe have chosen someone like...

Montresor's character is defined by his extreme intelligence, cunning, and pride.  His personal pride and family pride combine to render him incapable of bearing Fortunato's "insult," whatever that may be.  He has already borne a "thousand injuries" at the hands of his nemesis, but however he has been insulted appears to have wounded his pride, and this means he must exact his revenge.  Further, his family pride compels him to live up to the Montresor...

Montresor's character is defined by his extreme intelligence, cunning, and pride.  His personal pride and family pride combine to render him incapable of bearing Fortunato's "insult," whatever that may be.  He has already borne a "thousand injuries" at the hands of his nemesis, but however he has been insulted appears to have wounded his pride, and this means he must exact his revenge.  Further, his family pride compels him to live up to the Montresor family motto: "You will not harm me with impunity" (translated from the Latin).  His family pride means that he must retaliate for all the injuries he has received; his personal pride means that he must retaliate in such a way that he can never be punished for it.  "I must not only punish," he says, "but punish with impunity."  His intelligence and cunning render him supremely capable of achieving this goal.  His vocabulary alone indicates how smart he is, and his ability to "smile in [Fortunato's] face" without Fortunato perceiving that Montresor "smile[d] now [...] at the thought of his immolation" conveys his capacity for dissembling.

Poe needs a character like Montresor because a character who was less intelligent or cunning would not be able to pull off this crime, and, likewise, he must be this proud or else he would never be incited or motivated to commit the crime.  He plans out the entire trap so perfectly, exploiting Fortunato's one "weak point," hiding his own face and person while in the street so that he could not be identified later, arranging it so that his servants will all be gone without actually telling them to leave, and surreptitiously urging Fortunato onward by insisting that he turn back so that he understands, in the end, that it was his own pride that Montresor effectively used as a weapon against him.

In "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allan Poe, how does the story gain the reader's interest from the first sentence and continue to keep his...

"Hooks" are imperative for any type of writing. Short stories, such as Edgar Allan Poe's "A Tell-Tale Heart," are no exception to this rule. Like many of his stories, Poe uses the second person "you" as well as suspense to engage the reader.

From the first line of the story, the reader is "hooked" by the attention-grabbing first sentence: "TRUE!—NERVOUS—VERY, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad?" Not...

"Hooks" are imperative for any type of writing. Short stories, such as Edgar Allan Poe's "A Tell-Tale Heart," are no exception to this rule. Like many of his stories, Poe uses the second person "you" as well as suspense to engage the reader.

From the first line of the story, the reader is "hooked" by the attention-grabbing first sentence: "TRUE!—NERVOUS—VERY, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad?" Not only does Poe engage us with his use of an interjection in all capital letters followed by an exclamation point ("True!), but he also speaks right to us, addressing us with the universal "you." Additionally, he asks us a rhetorical question which is suspenseful in nature and peaks our interest. What on Earth did he do to give us the impression that he's crazy???

Throughout the rest of the story, his diction demands our attention by again speaking to the reader directly: "Hearken! and observe how healthily—how calmly I can tell you the whole story." We are told to listen to his story, but he continues to lead us on without giving us the clear details for his rationale:

You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me. You should have seen how wisely I proceeded—with what caution—with what foresight—with what dissimulation I went to work!

When he finally does begin to give us details, he does so in a very drawn out process, detailing each night he enters the old man's chambers, which certainly adds to the suspenseful mood. It isn't until the eighth night of stalking his victim that he acts, and even on this night, he is very meticulous in detailing his progress. In fact, he is so patient in his act that a "watch's minute hand move(d) more quickly than did (his)." Standing in the chamber, he keeps "quite still and said nothing. For a whole hour (he) did not move a muscle." The reader is kept on his toes and feels the narrator's contained anxiety, yearning to learn his next move. 

Finally, even when he is visited by the police officers, the narrator keeps us in suspense through the use of dramatic irony. He states, "I smiled,—for what had I to fear? I bade the gentlemen welcome. " He knows what's under the floor boards. We know what's under the floor boards. BUT will the police ever find out???

How long did Phillip stay on the island for in The Cay?

Phillip and Timothy are marooned on the small island for about two months before Phillip is rescued and reunited with his parents. During that time, Phillip learns many things from Timothy.  He learns how to navigate the island using only a cane and how to survive the many challenges the island gives them.  Although Phillip’s blindness limits his physical abilities, the lack of sight helps him see Timothy in a new light, so to speak. ...

Phillip and Timothy are marooned on the small island for about two months before Phillip is rescued and reunited with his parents. During that time, Phillip learns many things from Timothy.  He learns how to navigate the island using only a cane and how to survive the many challenges the island gives them.  Although Phillip’s blindness limits his physical abilities, the lack of sight helps him see Timothy in a new light, so to speak.  Phillip has some preconceived prejudices about black people that he brings with him to the island.  Through Timothy’s guidance, and despite some misunderstandings and arguments, Phillip is able to overcome his racial prejudices and learn to love Timothy.  Timothy ends up saving Phillip’s life by protecting him during a hurricane, and Phillip shows his love for Timothy by saying he will be a sailor when he grows up.

In a few short months filled with obstacles, hardships, and a little bad luck, accepting the humanity of a black man forever changed Phillip’s life.

What does Juliet plan to do if Friar Lawrence refuses to help her? What does Juliet's language in the scene reveal about her state of mind?

In Romeo and Juliet, Act 4, Scene 1, Juliet and Friar Lawrence devise a plan to fake Juliet's death in order to save her from having to marry Paris and forever be separated from her one true love, Romeo. Her first words to Friar Lawrence after Paris is gone have to do with violence - specifically suicide. This prompts Friar Lawrence to devise the plan to fake her death by taking a sleeping drought,...

In Romeo and Juliet, Act 4, Scene 1, Juliet and Friar Lawrence devise a plan to fake Juliet's death in order to save her from having to marry Paris and forever be separated from her one true love, Romeo. Her first words to Friar Lawrence after Paris is gone have to do with violence - specifically suicide. This prompts Friar Lawrence to devise the plan to fake her death by taking a sleeping drought, "bury" her in the tomb, and then free her with Romeo. From there, Romeo and Juliet can flee to Mantua, far away from the bitter rivalry between their families. The plan would in theory leave no one the wiser, but there are clearly a lot of things that could go wrong. The biggest "what if" hinges on Romeo being informed of the plan, which of course is where it falls apart and leads to the lovers' double suicide. 
As far as Juliet's language goes in the scene, she uses very violent terms (which is pretty obvious since she is talking about killing herself) and she reveals that her state of mind has become quite desperate by this point. In her second long speech before the plan is hatched, beginning around line 77, she uses allusions to mythology to link her love story to those of old. The first method of death she refers to is "O bid me leap, rather than marry Paris,/From off the battlements of any tower," (4.1.77-78), which is a reference to Hero's reaction when hearing of her lover's, Leander's, death. The next section refers to being buried alive, which leads to Friar Lawrence's plan. The nature of Juliet's speech relates both her desperation and also her equating of her own love story to the great stories of the past. 

Are limits on freedom of speech justified by war?

There are two viewpoints about whether the government should be allowed to limit our freedom of speech during times of war. I’ll present the views of both sides, and then you can make an informed decision.

During times of war, it is common for the government to limit our freedom of speech. From the perspective of the government, this is necessary because the government doesn’t want our enemies to believe that our people don’t support...

There are two viewpoints about whether the government should be allowed to limit our freedom of speech during times of war. I’ll present the views of both sides, and then you can make an informed decision.

During times of war, it is common for the government to limit our freedom of speech. From the perspective of the government, this is necessary because the government doesn’t want our enemies to believe that our people don’t support the war or the war effort. If our enemies believe this, it may encourage them to continue fighting us with the belief that if our people don’t support the war or the war effort, we might have to stop fighting in the war. In World War I, the government passed the Sedition Act. This law made it illegal to publicly criticize the government or the President. The Espionage Act also made it illegal to conduct anti-war activities. The people generally put up with these restrictions because they didn't want the war to drag on because our enemies might have believed that the American public didn’t support the war or the war effort.

On the other side of the issue, there are people who believe the government shouldn’t be able to limit our freedom of speech during times of war. These people believe that being critical of the war or the war effort may send a message to the government how the American people feel about our involvement in the war or about how the American people feel about the war effort. The protests during the Vietnam War would be a good example that represents this point of view. Many Americans were against this war, and they let the government know this through various protests and defiant actions. These actions included protests, demonstrations, not registering for the war, and not serving in the war if drafted for it. The ability to criticize the government is one of our basic freedoms. This freedom is one of the factors that separate us from other governments that try to suppress the rights of the people they govern. These people would argue that it isn’t acceptable to limit our freedom of speech during times of war.

Now it is your turn. What do you think of the government suppressing our freedom of speech during times of war?

How do social factors such as socioeconomic status and gender contribute in language variation?

Language variation occurs for many reasons. The most commonly known include:

• association- adopting a language style, dialect, jargon, or vocabulary to fit or be associated with a group that uses it the same way.


• dissociation- to detach ourselves from a group that uses such language variation. 


• personal identity- to define our social personas through the use of specific language 


• registers- the levels of formality needed to modulate language according to the group with which we are trying to communicate. 

Essentially, and according to the "five C's" of language standards in the U.S. Department of Education, language usage is for:

• communication


• (making) connections


• (strengthening) culture


• (building a sense of) community


• contrasting and comparing cultural traits 

(World Language Standards from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL))

This being established, factors such as socioeconomic status and gender can impact the way in which an individual chooses to use the language registers and choices because language is the strongest and most common unifier, mainly used to convey communication, connect  and interact with other members of that same social status, or gender.

SES

In the case of socioeconomic status (SES), for example, the American Association of Pediatrics released an article, as far back as the year 2000, which exposed a continuous argument on what exactly SES entails and what people expect from it. 

For now, it is universally understood that SES is a combination of financial acumen, education, occupation, and social ranking when compared to others. As such, SES can be high, medium, or low, depending on the situation. It is common for members of a similar social group to network and connect. In Albert Bandura's theory this is part of the human need for social learning (Bandura, 1960). 

Considering that the acts of learning behaviors and strengthening them are tantamount to creating personality and building relationships, we can conclude that language is the common binder that will solidify the bonds within a group. Using language is a way to create identity and establish uniqueness. When a group chooses to establish a tone and vocabulary to be known an identified separately from other groups, language is what will set them apart.

GENDER

Language usage according to gender identity serves the same purpose as language variation used for SES. 

The meaning of gender is divided into two categories:

Biological gender is the determination of the sex of an individual based on genitalia, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive parts.

Gender identity is the external presentation that an individual chooses to use to portray his or her gender-according to their internal sense of “self”. Hence, someone can be born male or female and not feel identified with their original biological gender.

Since gender is both biological as well as psychological, language (which is also developed both biologically and psychologically) goes hand in hand with the dynamics that occur during gender-based social interaction.  

Male and females (whether biological or “self-identified”) have extremely different life experiences. Bonding with individuals who understand these differences makes life experiences less shocking and more tolerable. Language is a huge variable in gender because males and females view, perceive, analyze and judge things very differently. Therefore, the use of descriptors, identifiers, and even the way in which things are categorized will denote a vast language variation between the two genders.

Conclusively, language variation in SES and gender serves the same purpose: to strengthen the sense of uniqueness and individuality that the members of specific groups aim to attain to feel as a part of something bigger.

When people join groups, they often connect with people who share similar life experiences, values, likes, or needs. This is a natural part of human behavior. Whether it is socially, or to have the emotional support of another male or female, language will always be the biggest unifier of everything.

What is the relationship between you and your cousin's daughter or son?

I assume that you are asking what we would call the way that I would be related to such a person.  I also assume that you are asking about the daughters or sons of my own first cousins.  If these assumptions are correct, the answer to your question is that these people would be my first cousins once removed.

We are all familiar with the concept of first cousins.  These are people who have different...

I assume that you are asking what we would call the way that I would be related to such a person.  I also assume that you are asking about the daughters or sons of my own first cousins.  If these assumptions are correct, the answer to your question is that these people would be my first cousins once removed.

We are all familiar with the concept of first cousins.  These are people who have different parents than us, but who share a set of grandparents.  Put differently, these are the children of our parents’ siblings.  We are of the same generation as our first cousins since we are both two generations away from our grandparents.

However, when our first cousins have children, we and they (the children) are not of the same generation.  Instead, we are two generations away from our common ancestor while the children are three generations away.  Our grandparents are their great-grandparents.  Therefore, we call them our first cousins once removed because they are “removed” from us by one generation.

If we also have children of our own, they become the second cousins of our first cousins’ children.  So, if my first cousin and I each have offspring, my offspring and hers are second cousins while my offspring and my cousin (and her offspring and I) are first cousins once removed.

What are the first two dangers the narrator faces in "The Pit and the Pendulum"?

After his trial, the narrator firstfinds himself imprisoned in total darkness inside a small cell. "The blackness of eternal night encompassed me." Being confined is, itself, frightening for the narrator--"[T]he atmosphere was intolerably close,"-- but his terror is increased when, having moved along the damp walls in order to determine the size of his cell, the narrator secondly discovers that there is a hole in the floor. 

After the narrator trips over a...

After his trial, the narrator first finds himself imprisoned in total darkness inside a small cell. "The blackness of eternal night encompassed me." Being confined is, itself, frightening for the narrator--"[T]he atmosphere was intolerably close,"-- but his terror is increased when, having moved along the damp walls in order to determine the size of his cell, the narrator secondly discovers that there is a hole in the floor. 

After the narrator trips over a remnant of cloth that he has used to mark the beginning of his walk around his cell, he discovers a startling circumstance: While his chin lies on the floor of the cell, his

...lips, and the upper portion of my head, although seemingly at a less elevation than the chin, touched nothing.

At the same time, the prisoner feels a "clammy vapor" on his forehead and he smells "decayed fungus." When he puts out his arm, he discovers that he has fallen at the very edge of a circular pit. Breaking off a small fragment of masonry just below the margin of the hole, the prisoner drops it into the pit only to realize that it is a deep pit filled with water. When there is a rapid opening and closing of an overhead door, the narrator "saw clearly the doom which had been prepared for me." He congratulates himself on escaping this deadly accident by his timely fall.

What is different about the wasps found in the Hunger Games?

The wasps found in The Hunger Games both in and out of the arena are called tracker jackers. These are wasps that have been genetically engineered by scientists in the Capitol. Tracker jackers are essentially biological weapons made using wasps as a template for behavior and venom delivery. They share some similarities to traditional wasps, such as being subdued by smoke. Also, the topical effects of the sting can be soothed using specific plants belonging...

The wasps found in The Hunger Games both in and out of the arena are called tracker jackers. These are wasps that have been genetically engineered by scientists in the Capitol. Tracker jackers are essentially biological weapons made using wasps as a template for behavior and venom delivery. They share some similarities to traditional wasps, such as being subdued by smoke. Also, the topical effects of the sting can be soothed using specific plants belonging to their prospective worlds in nature for both wasps and tracker jackers.

The differences between tracker jackers and wasps are mostly found in their venom and aggression. The sting of a tracker jacker bring on very large and painful welts that can keep swelling for many minutes after the original sting and ooze liquid. The venom also brings on severe hallucinations to the point where they can even hijack a person's memories and alter the sufferer's recollection of reality. This memory hijacking is generally from usage of the venom in a concentrated laboratory setting, and not recorded as an effect of getting stung. Multiple stings can be lethal. Tracker jackers will attack anyone that damages their hive and often pursue their target for miles.