Why was Lord of the Flies banned in many school districts?

Lord of the Flies is widely considered such a staple in high school classrooms today that most people would be surprised to find that this book was considered too controversial for classroom consumption just decades ago. School districts in Canada, Texas, South Dakota, Iowa, Arizona, and New York had raised challenges about the book being used in classrooms from the 1980s to the turn of the 21st century.

The most common reasons, of course, were...

Lord of the Flies is widely considered such a staple in high school classrooms today that most people would be surprised to find that this book was considered too controversial for classroom consumption just decades ago. School districts in Canada, Texas, South Dakota, Iowa, Arizona, and New York had raised challenges about the book being used in classrooms from the 1980s to the turn of the 21st century.

The most common reasons, of course, were that the book promoted violence, utilized racial epithets, denigrated certain disadvantaged populations, sanctioned gratuitous nudity, and condoned the use of profanity.

Although some of these school districts challenged the use of the book in their classrooms, the book was never completely taken off reading lists. Some schools allowed students to read alternative literature if they were so inclined.

In 2006, some parents from Apalachee High School in Barrow County, Georgia, objected to the teaching of an essay connected to the Lord of the Flies syllabus. Accordingly, the essay, written by E.L. Epstein, appropriated the use of rape language to describe the torture and killing of a sow in the book. The essay was included in the back of all Lord of the Flies copies assigned to students. Although the parents did not have a problem with the essay itself, they felt uncomfortable with the assignment set by a teacher. To complete the assignment, students had to imagine themselves in place of the sow while it was being tortured and killed in a sexually suggestive manner.

The matter was first brought to the attention of the teacher, who refused to stop assigning the controversial homework to students. Likewise, the curriculum committee at the high school also refused to ban the essay. The parents brought their concerns to the district media committee. The committee had three options it could pursue: either use the book with the essay, purchase new copies without the offending essay, or keep the book as is and allow students to read an alternative work. In the end, fourteen of the fifteen member committee voted for the second option. Students who chose to read an alternative work were not penalized for not participating in classroom discussions of Lord of the Flies and for not completing the assignment based on the Epstein essay.

Although the parents were not completely satisfied with the chosen option, they admitted that such an option at least allowed students and parents to opt out of participating if they had reservations.

So, you can see that there are various reasons why the book would be banned or challenged by school districts. Some people object to the material in the novel, and others object to the way the novel is taught. To avoid controversy, some teachers have chosen to skip the novel altogether and to assign other books for classroom teaching.

What significant part did Africa play in the discovery of America by Europeans?

Europe traded with the rest of the world through ancient trade routes across the Mediterranean, a pattern established as far back as the Roman Empire. Even after the Roman Empire collapsed and new European kingdoms rose in its place, trade with the Middle East, Africa, and Asia still flowed through the Byzantine Empire, sometimes know as the Eastern Roman Empire. But in 1453, the Byzantine empire fell and its capital, Constantinople, was lost to the...

Europe traded with the rest of the world through ancient trade routes across the Mediterranean, a pattern established as far back as the Roman Empire. Even after the Roman Empire collapsed and new European kingdoms rose in its place, trade with the Middle East, Africa, and Asia still flowed through the Byzantine Empire, sometimes know as the Eastern Roman Empire. But in 1453, the Byzantine empire fell and its capital, Constantinople, was lost to the Ottoman Turks, who established their own empire and sought further expansion into Europe.

With an Islamic power controlling this historical trade, European countries started to fund expeditions looking for new trades routes. The Portuguese started looking for new routes as early as the 1430s, but soon found rich lands along the cost of Africa. Gold, not slaves, first inspired Europeans to develop more sophisticated seafaring technologies, such as the caravel ship, which Columbus would use to sail across the Atlantic. Other technologies for navigation and food storage were made as Spanish and Portuguese explorers opened trade with Africa. These expeditions laid the groundwork for the naval advancements that would eventually enable transoceanic expeditions to the New World.

What is the organizational pattern of the story "There Will Come Soft Rains"?

The organization of this story is chronological. It takes place in a 24 hour period from August 4, 2026 to August 5, 2026.   It starts at 7 A.M. with the computer getting everyone up for the day.  

"Tick-tock, seven o'clock, time to get up, time to get up, seven o'clock!" (pg 1)

The computer continues to cook breakfast, notify the family of any events that day, tell them what to wear to deal...

The organization of this story is chronological. It takes place in a 24 hour period from August 4, 2026 to August 5, 2026.   It starts at 7 A.M. with the computer getting everyone up for the day.  

"Tick-tock, seven o'clock, time to get up, time to get up, seven o'clock!" (pg 1)

The computer continues to cook breakfast, notify the family of any events that day, tell them what to wear to deal with the weather, and get the children off the school.  

At nine-fifteen, the computer mice clean the house. 

At ten o'clock the sun came out from behind a cloud, and you could see that this house was the only house that had been left standing after a nuclear event. 

At twelve noon, the dog returns with sores on his body and slowly dies.  By two-fifteen, the cleaning mice have disposed of his body. 

At two thirty-five the bridge tables were set up and at four o'clock they were put away.

And so the day progresses until a bough of a tree crashes into the house and starts a fire.   The time of day rules the story. The final lines end August 4th and start a new day.  

"Today is August 5, 2026, today is August 5, 2026, today is......" (pg 3)

The computer is repeating itself because the home has been destroyed and the computer is damaged.  

Why is M more reactive than N even though N is further down the periodic table? I don't understand, although M only has to loose one electron N...

By comparing the image with periodic table of elements, we can see that M is sodium (Na) and N is (strontium). And using the reactivity series (refer to the attached link), we can see that sodium is placed higher on the series as compared to strontium, that is, sodium is more reactive than strontium. In other words, M is more reactive than N.

When going down a group, the reactivity generally increases (for metals), since...

By comparing the image with periodic table of elements, we can see that M is sodium (Na) and N is (strontium). And using the reactivity series (refer to the attached link), we can see that sodium is placed higher on the series as compared to strontium, that is, sodium is more reactive than strontium. In other words, M is more reactive than N.

When going down a group, the reactivity generally increases (for metals), since we are adding an extra layer of electrons and it becomes easier to lose them. When going across a period, since we are adding extra electrons, it becomes difficult to donate them and hence reactivity decreases. In the given question, N is placed to the right and one group down of M. That is, N has 1 more electron to lose (which decreases reactivity) as compared to M (which has only 1 electron) and N has 1 extra layer of electrons (which increases reactivity). A combined effect of these two factors causes M to be more reactive. It could be because the extra electron would be more difficult to lose, even though it is from an extra layer. 

Note that V and W are noble gases here and are inert. T and U are halides and they need to gain electrons to complete the octet. As we go down a group, non-metals find it hard to attract and gain an electron and hence T is more reactive. 

Hope this helps. 

Discuss how young Nicholas outwits his aunt and thus evades her attempts to confine him in a dry, boring, and unimaginative existence in the short...

In "The Lumber Room," Nicholas outwits his aunt in a number of ways. When the story begins, he antagonizes her by causing her to doubt the superiority of her adult judgment.

Accordingly, he proclaims that there is a frog in his basin of bread-and-milk during breakfast. Nicholas vehemently defends his knowledge of the frog's existence because he specifically put the frog into the basin himself. Thus, he is almost smug when he is given a useless lecture about telling lies and talking nonsense. After all, he is a 'skilled tactician' with an uncanny knowledge of adult sensibilities: he always denies his nemesis the satisfaction of being right, thus keeping her off balance emotionally:

...the older, wiser, and better people had been proved to be profoundly in error in matters about which they had expressed the utmost assurance.

When Nicholas' aunt announces that he will be not be part of the youthful contingent to Jagborough Beach because of his 'disgraceful conduct at the breakfast table,' he is nonchalant. Nicholas irritates his aunt and denies her the pleasure of feeling self-righteous by refusing to display the prerequisite tears of a disappointed child. Instead, he resorts to cheerful banter about the copious tears his girl-cousin shed before the expedition left. Apparently, she had scraped her knee painfully against the step of the carriage.

Nicholas also happily announces that Bobby won't enjoy himself either; his boots are too tight. When his aunt expresses indignation that she was never informed of Bobby's predicament, Nicholas lets loose another incriminating statement:

"He told you twice, but you weren't listening. You often don't listen when we tell you important things."

Because his words are true, Nicholas' aunt cannot argue with her young charge. Thus, Nicholas is often able to blindside her because he knows how to employ the use of facts to destabilize her at crucial moments.

Nicholas also knows how to distract his aunt from his true intentions by tailoring his expressions to suit her expectations. When his aunt thinks that he will try to find a way into the gooseberry garden, she guards the doors to the garden assiduously. After all, didn't Nicholas display 'an expression of considerable obstinacy' when she forbade him to enter the garden? Unknown to her, Nicholas has already concluded that his nemesis is 'a woman of few ideas, with immense powers of concentration.'

With his aunt thus distracted, Nicholas manages to retrieve the key to the coveted lumber room. He already knows how to turn the lock that leads into the lumber room, having practiced this skill a few days before. It is evident that he has left nothing to chance. In the lumber room, he is able to fuel his desire for the forbidden by indulging in the appreciation of 'unimagined treasures.' Spying a rich tapestry with a hunting scene, he allows his rich imagination to craft delicious possibilities in a story of adventure and danger.

Nicholas is only jolted from his magical interlude when he hears his aunt scream his name. Alas, the poor woman still thinks that her young nemesis has found his way into the gooseberry garden! Nicholas smiles with the knowledge of someone who knows that he has managed to outwit an apparently superior enemy.

The last scene of the short story is perhaps the most humorous. Nicholas' aunt has managed to fall into the water-tank and cannot get out. She orders Nicholas to fetch a ladder, but he slyly tells her that he has been ordered to stay out of the gooseberry garden. Then, he submits that he is really talking to the Devil, as his aunt would never order him to disobey.

At this time, Nicholas' aunt has been reduced to begging for Nicholas' help. However, the wily, young boy is unrepentant and unashamedly asks for strawberry jam as payment for his help. When his angry aunt pretends to play along, Nicholas executes his coup de grace. He loudly proclaims that he is indeed talking to the Devil, for only he and the Devil would know that there were really four jars of jam in the store cupboard. Nicholas slyly implies that his aunt would never lie to him, so he can't be talking to her. By a master-stroke, Nicholas manages to embarrass his aunt and to indulge in a bit of cynical entertainment at her expense.

In the end, Nicholas' aunt is rescued by a kitchen maid. Not only has Nicholas managed to enjoy his afternoon despite his aunt's efforts, he has also managed to outwit her and evade her attempts to confine him in a dry, boring, and unimaginative existence.

Tea that evening was partaken of in a fearsome silence.

The aunt maintained the frozen muteness of one who has suffered undignified and unmerited detention in a rain-water tank for thirty-five minutes.

The point of view changes throughout the story. From what point of view is the story told the most?

Although the omniscient narrator relates the story with the focus upon Sylvia for most of the story, there are a few moments when the perspective shifts to Mrs. Tilley and the hunter.

Sarah Orne Jewett's "A White Heron" is told for mostly from the point of view of the omniscient narrator. This narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of old Mrs. Tilley, Sylvia, and the ornithologist. When there is a shift to Mrs. Tilley, the...

Although the omniscient narrator relates the story with the focus upon Sylvia for most of the story, there are a few moments when the perspective shifts to Mrs. Tilley and the hunter.

Sarah Orne Jewett's "A White Heron" is told for mostly from the point of view of the omniscient narrator. This narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of old Mrs. Tilley, Sylvia, and the ornithologist. When there is a shift to Mrs. Tilley, the reader gains more insight into her granddaughter:

"'Afraid of folks,' they said! I guess she won't be troubled no great 'em up to the old place!" 

Here Mrs. Tilley provides an insight into the character of Sylvia. In another passage, she enhances this understanding of Sylvia's character as she provides more history on Sylvia with the mention of Sylvie's great talent for understanding nature's creatures and of the "hint of family sorrows."

When the point of view switches to the young man, the reader perceives Sylvia and her grandmother through his perspective, a point of view that enlightens the reader about this hunter and his self-serving attitudes:

...the shy little girl looked once or twice yesterday [as though] she had at least seen the white heron, and now she must really be made to tell. Here she comes now, paler than ever, and her worn old frock is torn and tattered....

His noting of her poverty convinces him that Sylvia will inform him where the heron is so that she can receive the money he has offered.

Despite some shifts in perspective, the narration of Jewett's story is told in a manner that is most sympathetic toward Sylvia, a sympathy that endears her to the reader, even when she considers helping the hunter.

Discuss the witches' apparitions in Macbeth Act IV and Macbeth's reactions to and interpretations of them.

In Act 4 of Macbeth, Macbeth seeks the witches so that he can get another prophecy to find out whether or not his position as king is secure. While he is in their lair, the witches offer him four apparitions. In the first, Macbeth sees an armed head that tells him to beware Macduff. Macbeth has already suspected Macduff of being against him, so he resolves to murder Macduff to get him out of the...

In Act 4 of Macbeth, Macbeth seeks the witches so that he can get another prophecy to find out whether or not his position as king is secure. While he is in their lair, the witches offer him four apparitions. In the first, Macbeth sees an armed head that tells him to beware Macduff. Macbeth has already suspected Macduff of being against him, so he resolves to murder Macduff to get him out of the way. The second apparition is a bloody child that tells him he shall fear none born of woman. Macbeth thinks that he is safe because he reasons that everyone is born of woman, so he basically dismisses this apparition. Third, a child wearing a crown and holding a tree tells Macbeth that he shall not fear until Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane. Macbeth also thinks that this is not serious because the trees are rooted in the ground and cannot move. Finally, Macbeth is shown a line of mirrors that reflect kings to come, and this apparition makes Macbeth angry. He leaves the lair convinced that Macduff's entire line must die so that he feels protected in his position as king.

With reference to Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild, was Chris McCandless intelligent?

In the preface to his book about the late Christopher McCandless, Into the Wild, author Jon Krakauer provides some pertinent background into his human subject’s life—information that illuminated the paradoxical nature of McCandless’s final months on this earth. Newspapers are daily filled with reports about the deaths of lower-income men, many quite young and African American. These reports have pretty much lost their ability to astonish or even to disappoint. We have come to expect that inner-city life for ethnic minorities who have endured generations of prejudice will invariably fall afoul of the law or die violently by the hands of others who fit the same demographic description. The story of the life and death of Chris McCandless, however, fascinates precisely because its protagonist’s background would logically lead to expectations of professional success and financial affluence. Was McCandless intelligent? Read the following passages from Krakauer’s “Author’s Note”:

“He’d grown up . . . in an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C., where he’d excelled academically and had been an elite athlete. Immediately after graduating, with honors, from Emory University in the summer of 1990, McCandless dropped out of sight. He changed his name, gave the entire balance of a twenty-four-thousand-dollar savings account to charity, abandoned his car and most of his possessions, burned all the cash in his wallet. And then he invented a new life for himself, taking up residence at the ragged margin of our society, wandering across North America in search of raw, transcendent experience. His family had no idea where he was or what had become of him until his remains turned up in Alaska.”

..

“He was an extremely intense young man and possessed a streak of stubborn idealism that did not mesh readily with modern existence. Long captivated by the writing of Leo Tolstoy, McCandless particularly admired how the great novelist had forsaken a life of wealth and privilege to wander among the destitute.”

Clearly, Chris McCandless was an intelligent individual.  In terms of academic achievements, he was highly intelligent. As anybody who has crossed back-and-forth between worlds knows, however, what one masters in school does not necessarily qualify one to succeed outside the classroom, and the arrogance that many intelligent, educated people possess can, as in the case of this young man, prove fatal. When I write ‘back-and-forth between worlds,’ I am not suggesting interstellar travel, or even time-travel within the same planetary history. Rather, I am referring to the skills and intelligence common to those who succeed in fields for which a Ph.D. is hardly needed and certainly not relevant. I, for example, am regularly humbled by relatives and friends who are possessed of far greater knowledge and skills applicable to everyday existence than I possess. I can quote Shakespeare and Tolstoy; I cannot repair a can opener, or exist in the wilds the way many here in northeastern Minnesota are capable of surviving. There are different kinds of intelligence and vastly disparate types of skills. McCandless, possessed of enormous knowledge was nevertheless very much in-over-his-head in his decision to survive alone in the wilds of Alaska.

There is an anecdote in Chapter Sixteen of Into the Wild that illustrates my point about intelligence and skill levels applicable to different scenarios. Discussing his subject’s decision to, against his beliefs regarding the sanctity of life, including animal life, shoot a moose for its meat, Krakauer describes McCandless’s fundamental error in thinking that he knew the proper way to preserve the meat so that it wouldn’t spoil:

“Alaskan hunters know that the easiest way to preserve meat in the bush is to slice it into thin strips and then air-dry it on a makeshift rack. But McCandless, in his naivete, relied on the advice of hunters he’d consulted in South Dakota, who advised him to smoke his meat, not an easy task under the circumstances.”

McCandless was sufficiently intelligent to seek out methods for preserving game, but he was not sufficiently knowledgeable to understand that distinctions based upon region or even upon typesof game might exist. As his moose meat proceeded to spoil and become infested with maggots, he gave up trying to preserve it any longer. In yet another example of academic enlightenment and its irrelevance to the situation at hand, Krakauer notes from McCandless’s diary that the young man had proceeded next to read his copy of Henry David Thoreau’s Walden or, Life in the Woods, specifically the chapter in which Thoreau discusses his moral quandaries regarding hunting and fishing, with the inevitable consequences for other other living things such activities entail. Was McCandless foolish for turning to a mid-19th century rumination on man’s relationship to nature for his own survival? One could conclude that the forbidding environment in which McCandless had submersed himself would necessitate the consumption of animal meat at some point. The Alaskan wilderness, after all, is considerably more hostile than was the atmosphere around Walden Pond.

Krakauer himself spends considerable time in his book questioning his subject’s wisdom, if not his underlying intelligence. Contrasting McCandless’s experiences with those of 19th century explorer Sir John Franklin, who led his expedition to its doom due in no small part to his arrogance, Krakauer notes that McCandless’s arrogance was of a different kind—a kind that was fatally naïve and born of a more innocent form of arrogance, but that he was sufficiently intelligent to survive in the wild longer than most of the rest of us probably could:

 “He tried to live entirely off the country—and he tried to do it without bothering to master beforehand the full repertoire of crucial skills. It probably misses the point, though, to castigate McCandless for being ill prepared. He was green, and he overestimated his resilience, but he was sufficiently skilled to last for sixteen weeks on little more than his wits and ten pounds of rice. And he was fully aware when he entered the bush that he had given himself a perilously slim margin for error. He knew precisely what was at stake.”

Chris McCandless was indeed highly intelligent, and his decision to cast-off the trappings of upper-class civilization in favor of the quintessential simple non-materialistic life could be viewed as highly-admirable. Intelligence, however, does not equal wisdom, and the road to Hell, as the saying goes, is paved with good intentions.

In Act 3, Scene 1 of Julius Caesar why did Popilius say, 'I wish your enterprise today will thrive'? What do these words mean?

The effect of Popilius' words is to add further to the dramatic tension leading up to the assassination. Popilius means exactly what he says. He knows that Cassius and a number of other conspirators are going to try to kill Julius Caesar and he is wishing him good luck. Why would Popilius want to wish Cassius good luck or to say anything at all? Popilius is playing it safe. He wants to be recognized as a supporter of the conspirators because he assumes there will be a lot of "collateral" bloodshed after the event, and he doesn't want to be one of the people he expects to be eliminated as a sympathizer of Caesar. On the other hand, if the enterprise doesn't "thrive," then Popilius would prefer not to be known as one of its supporters. That is why he only speaks in guarded terms to one person, to Cassius. But he obviously knows a lot, including the fact that Cassius is the instigator of the assassination plot.

Cassius has been recruiting people to take part in assassinating Caesar since before the play even began. It was inevitable that word should get around that there was such a conspiracy brewing and that Cassius was behind it. Some of the people Cassius approached who declined to get involved would still know about it and might very well mention it to others. So there could be a number of people in the crowd who expect an assassination attempt to occur, but Popilius is smart enough to work both sides of the street, so to speak. He is looking ahead. He wants to be on the side of whoever ends up holding the power in Rome. Right after Popilius talks to Cassius and alarms him, Brutus observes:

Cassius, be constant.
Popilius Lena speaks not of our purposes;
For, look, he smiles, and Caesar doth not change.

So Popilius goes to Cassius to hint broadly that he is a sympathizer, and then he goes directly to Julius Caesar, probably to assure him of his good will and to say that he hopes Caesar's "enterprise will thrive," i.e., he hopes Caesar will be crowned king that morning. 

It is probably worth noting that when Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus have seized power and are choosing the men they will exterminate because of their sympathies with the assassins, the name of Popilius Lena does not come up. He may have been able to save himself by his foresight. 

In "Digging," why does Seamus Heaney use the simile "as snug as a gun?"

The simile "snug as a gun" is startling when it appears in the poem "Digging." After just a line and a half, Heaney has already created an image of a writer sitting down to quietly reflect and contemplate, with the pen "resting" and "snug." When "gun" follows these two peaceful words, it suggests that the poem won't be as cozy and peaceful as we might expect.

One idea that Heaney might be introducing with this...

The simile "snug as a gun" is startling when it appears in the poem "Digging." After just a line and a half, Heaney has already created an image of a writer sitting down to quietly reflect and contemplate, with the pen "resting" and "snug." When "gun" follows these two peaceful words, it suggests that the poem won't be as cozy and peaceful as we might expect.

One idea that Heaney might be introducing with this simile is the power of his tool. The poem puts a lot of focus on tools of a trade, particular the spades that the speaker's father and grandfather used to dig up peat and grow potatoes. The speaker knows that he doesn't have the kind of tool that can do manual labor like they did; he only has his pen. Still, this simile might be suggesting that his pen can be as powerful, or even more powerful, than the spades. The simile brings to mind the saying the pen is mightier than the sword. Perhaps the speaker is suggesting that with his pen, he will be able to access a power (and maybe even a violence?) that his father and grandfather couldn't.  

Is Wood A Compound

A material can be classified as either an element, compound or mixture. An element is composed of identical atoms bound together. A compound is composed of two or more elements in a certain ratio and can be broken into individual elements by breaking the bonds between them. Mixtures contain two or more elements in non-specific ratios and can be easily separated into individual elements.

Wood is composed of a number of compounds such as lignin,...

A material can be classified as either an element, compound or mixture. An element is composed of identical atoms bound together. A compound is composed of two or more elements in a certain ratio and can be broken into individual elements by breaking the bonds between them. Mixtures contain two or more elements in non-specific ratios and can be easily separated into individual elements.

Wood is composed of a number of compounds such as lignin, cellulose, water, hemicellulose, etc. The relative composition of wood varies from plant to plant. Unlike a compound, wood does not have a fixed chemical formula. Hence, wood is a mixture. In fact, wood is a heterogeneous mixture, since these constituent compounds are mixed unevenly in a given wood sample.

Hope this helps. 

Where can I find three examples of how Lennie is discriminated against in the book Of Mice and Men?

My text may be different in reference to page numbers so I will provide chapter numbers and approximate placement in that chapter of quoted sections.

Lennie is the simple minded friend of George. They are the two main characters of Steinbeck's novella Of Mice and Men. They are traveling together through California as migrant farm workers. In today's terms, Lennie would probably be referred to as mentally challenged and would have been in special...

My text may be different in reference to page numbers so I will provide chapter numbers and approximate placement in that chapter of quoted sections.

Lennie is the simple minded friend of George. They are the two main characters of Steinbeck's novella Of Mice and Men. They are traveling together through California as migrant farm workers. In today's terms, Lennie would probably be referred to as mentally challenged and would have been in special education classes. Unfortunately those labels and resources were not available in 1930's California. Instead, Lennie is referred to as "not bright," "dumb as hell," "a cuckoo," "crazy as a wedge," and "nuts." Because of his disability Lennie is indeed the victim of discrimination. 

Even though he is Lennie's best friend George is guilty of discriminating against the big man. In chapter one George urges Lennie to be quiet when they meet the boss at the ranch where they are going to work. Midway through the chapter George says,

“That ranch we’re goin’ to is right down there about a quarter mile. We’re gonna go in an’ see the boss. Now, look—I’ll give him the work tickets, but you ain’t gonna say a word. You jus’ stand there and don’t say nothing. If he finds out what a crazy bastard you are, we won’t get no job, but if he sees ya work before he hears ya talk, we’re set. Ya got that?” 

George is afraid Lennie will say something that will lose them the job since Lennie has a history of getting into trouble and costing them employment. In chapter two, after Lennie forgets George's orders and speaks out in the presence of the boss, George chastises him:

“So you wasn’t gonna say a word. You was gonna leave your big flapper shut and leave me do the talkin’. Damn near lost us the job...Yeah, you forgot. You always forget, an’ I got to talk you out of it.” He sat down heavily on the bunk. “Now he’s got his eye on us. Now we got to be careful and not make no slips. You keep your big flapper shut after this.” 

Another example of George discriminating against Lennie is revealed in the beginning of chapter three when George is talking to Slim. George admits that  he liked to make fun of Lennie in order to make himself look smarter, even in an incident that could have cost Lennie his life. Toward the beginning of the chapter George relates this incident:

“Funny,” said George. “I used to have a hell of a lot of fun with ‘im. Used to play jokes on ‘im ‘cause he was too dumb to take care of ‘imself. But he was too dumb even to know he had a joke played on him. I had fun. Made me seem God damn smart alongside of him. Why he’d do any damn thing I tol’ him. If I tol’ him to walk over a cliff, over he’d go. That wasn’t so damn much fun after a while. He never got mad about it, neither. I’ve beat the hell outa him, and he coulda bust every bone in my body jus’ with his han’s, but he never lifted a finger against me.” George’s voice was taking on the tone of confession. “Tell you what made me stop that. One day a bunch of guys was standin’ around up on the Sacramento River. I was feelin’ pretty smart. I turns to Lennie and says, ‘Jump in.’ An’ he jumps. Couldn’t swim a stroke. He damn near drowned before we could get him. An’ he was so damn nice to me for pullin’ him out. Clean forgot I told him to jump in. Well, I ain’t done nothing like that no more.” 

Although these examples show how Lennie is discriminated against because of his mental disability he is also a victim in other ways. At the end of chapter three Curley, upset about not finding his wife, and the subject of ridicule from the other men, picks on Lennie because of Lennie's size. In the middle of chapter two, Candy explains Curley's strategy:

“Never did seem right to me. S’pose Curley jumps a big guy an’ licks him. Ever’body says what a game guy Curley is. And s’pose he does the same thing and gets licked. Then ever’body says the big guy oughtta pick somebody his own size, and maybe they gang up on the big guy. Never did seem right to me. Seems like Curley ain’t givin’ nobody a chance.” 

Of course when they do fight, Lennie breaks Curley's hand, which ultimately leads to Lennie's demise because at the end of the book Curley is out for revenge not only for his wife's death but also because of the beating he took at the hands of the big man.

In chapter four Lennie is the victim of what some today might call "reverse discrimination." Left alone while George goes into town on a Saturday night Lennie happens upon the room of the black stable hand Crooks. Because he is a black man on a ranch dominated by white men Crooks is segregated from the other men and has his own private quarters in the barn. When Lennie, who is quite unaware of any difference between Crooks and the other men, sees the light and tries to enter the stable buck's room, Crooks says,

“Well, I got a right to have a light. You go on get outa my room. I ain’t wanted in the bunk house, and you ain’t wanted in my room."

When Lennie asks why Crooks is not wanted the black man explains the discrimination and segregation on the ranch:

“’Cause I’m black. They play cards in there, but I can’t play because I’m black. They say I stink. Well, I tell you, you all of you stink to me.” 

Later in the same chapter Crooks too plays on Lennie's challenged mentality by suggesting that George has ditched the big man and won't return from town. He torments Lennie by saying:

“I said s’pose George went into town tonight and you never heard of him no more...Well, s’pose, jus’ s’pose he don’t come back. What’ll you do then?”

Later Crooks reinforces the idea of Lennie's disability by telling Lennie what might happen if George abandons him:

“Want me ta tell ya what’ll happen? They’ll take ya to the booby hatch. They’ll tie ya up with a collar, like a dog.” 

Because Crooks is able to inflict some of the pain he has experienced onto Lennie he feels pretty good about himself and even offers to join the men in their dream of the farm. Eventually, however, he is put back in his place by Curley's wife suggestion that she could get him lynched.

At the end of the book Lennie's disability finally costs him his life as George sees no other alternative than to shoot Lennie in an act of extreme mercy. Had George not killed Lennie the big man would have been the victim of a system he would not have understood without the possibility of a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea.

Described in Chapter Two, what are some of the ways that the Hazara community is oppressed?

In Chapter Two, Khaled Hosseini clearly delineates the oppression of the Hazara community with sensitivity; the social stigma that attaches to Hassan and Amir's accidental discovery of the Hazara people's history tells us volumes about Hazara suffering.

In the chapter, Amir relates how Hassan has always been made fun of by people in their little community. Hassan's shame is compounded for two reasons: his mother was known for her infidelity to his father, and his...

In Chapter Two, Khaled Hosseini clearly delineates the oppression of the Hazara community with sensitivity; the social stigma that attaches to Hassan and Amir's accidental discovery of the Hazara people's history tells us volumes about Hazara suffering.

In the chapter, Amir relates how Hassan has always been made fun of by people in their little community. Hassan's shame is compounded for two reasons: his mother was known for her infidelity to his father, and his own Hazara features plainly announce his lowly heritage. Other children in the neighborhood frequently address Hassan as a flat-nosed 'Babalu' or Boogeyman. In one of his mother's old history books, Amir learns that the Hazaras are also known as 'mice-eating, flat-nosed, load-carrying donkeys.'

The truth is that, Amir's people, the Pashtuns, have always oppressed the Hazaras. Because Hazaras are Shia Muslims and Pashtuns are Sunni Muslims, the enmity between the two communities continues to this day. When the Hazaras tried to defeat the Pashtuns in the 19th century, the Pashtuns had reacted mercilessly. The will of the Hazara people was crushed through pogroms (organized slaughter/massacre), the destruction of Hazara land and property and the sale of Hazara women into servitude. To make matters worse for Hassan, his mother, Sanaubar, had joined with the larger Pashtun community in ridiculing both Hassan and his father, Ali.

Describe Carlson from "Of Mice and Men."

Carlson is an insensitive ranch hand who Steinbeck uses in opposition to George. While George shoots Lennie out of sympathy and fear of what others might do to Lennie, Carlson disposes of life without regard to the consequences or sorrow that result. For example, Carlson encourages Candy, an old ranch hand who has lost one of his arms, to kill his dog. Carlson says,"Whyn't you get Candy to shoot his old dog and give him...

Carlson is an insensitive ranch hand who Steinbeck uses in opposition to George. While George shoots Lennie out of sympathy and fear of what others might do to Lennie, Carlson disposes of life without regard to the consequences or sorrow that result. For example, Carlson encourages Candy, an old ranch hand who has lost one of his arms, to kill his dog. Carlson says,"Whyn't you get Candy to shoot his old dog and give him one of the pups to raise up? I can smell that dog a mile away. Got no teeth, damn near blind, can't eat. Candy feeds him milk. He can't chew nothing else" (Chapter 3). Carlson argues that the dog should be shot because the old animal is suffering, but his motives are selfish, as the dog's smell offends him.

When George shoots Lennie at the end of the novel, he does so to protect his friend, and George clearly suffers with his conscience as a result. This act is very different than Carlson's selfish suggestion that Candy have his beloved pet killed. After the dog is shot, Carlson meticulously cleans his gun, and therefore George and Lennie both know about the gun and where it is kept.

George later kills Lennie with Carlson's gun. Steinbeck writes at the end of the book about George, "He reached in his side pocket and brought out Carlson’s Luger; he snapped off the safety, and the hand and gun lay on the ground behind Lennie’s back." George's murder of Lennie is symbolically connected to the murder of the dog, as George uses the same gun to carry out his act, but George is motivated by love, not by selfishness, as Carlson was in suggesting that Candy's dog be shot. 

Explain a simile from the poem "The Bight" by Elizabeth Bishop.

The following is an explanation of a simile from the poem "The Bight" by Elizabeth Bishop:

The lines I’m highlighting from this 36-line poem are lines 11 to 13:

The birds are outsize. Pelicans crash

into this peculiar gas unnecessarily hard,

it seems to me, like pickaxes,

 

First we have to define a simile, which is a literary/poetic device. In essence, a simile compares two things that are unalike. The comparison of...

The following is an explanation of a simile from the poem "The Bight" by Elizabeth Bishop:

The lines I’m highlighting from this 36-line poem are lines 11 to 13:

The birds are outsize. Pelicans crash

into this peculiar gas unnecessarily hard,

it seems to me, like pickaxes,

 

First we have to define a simile, which is a literary/poetic device. In essence, a simile compares two things that are unalike. The comparison of these two disparate things lends clarity to both things.

Therefore, in the poem “The Bight”, Elizabeth Bishop compares the pelicans to pickaxes. She is comparing living creatures to inanimate (non-living) objects. The word ‘like’ in line 13 is the comparison word that’s a bridge between the two separate things.

The poet is saying that the pelicans crashing (with their large beaks) are like pickaxes when they are pounded into something, such as wood. So the reader of this poem can visualize the pelicans crashing and their beaks hitting something, while at the same time visualizing a pickaxe striking something very forcefully.

As a result, the reader has a better understanding and picture in their mind of pelicans and what they are doing because of the comparison to pickaxes. This gives the poem more clarity for the reader. Vice-versa, the reader can now look upon pickaxes in a different light – comparing them to fleshly pelicans with big beaks whenever they see a pickaxe.

Another example of a simile in “The Bight” is this line (line 3 from the poem):

and the boats are dry, the pilings dry as matches.

 

The pilings in the harbor area, which are wooden posts wrapped with rope at dockside, are so dry that they resemble matchsticks. So, again, two different things are compared by way of the poetic device of simile. The comparison word here is ‘as’.

Why did Poe create an unreliable, first-person, participant narrator to tell the story in "The Tell-Tale Heart?" What is the benefit to the reader?

What seems to be most important about Poe's choice of a first-person narrator that is unreliable and a participant in "The Tell-Tale Heart" is his ability to convey the very thing the speaker denies is true: his insanity. Ironically, only the speaker is able to so clearly convey his failure to grasp reality, as the reader tries to follow his flawed and erratic reasoning. 

The dramatic monologue begins with the unnamed (and highly unreliable) first-person narrator issuing a challenge of sorts...

The narrator wants to set the record straight, and the challenge must be in response to someone listening (in a jail or a mental institution) who has intimated that the speaker is crazy. Rather than insanity, the narrator tries to say he is simply nervous:

TRUE!—NERVOUS—VERY, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses—not destroyed—not dulled them. 

In the introduction, the speaker acknowledges that he has a disease, but tries to explain that it is not a malady, but something with desirable results—that his senses are excellent rather than diminished. He speaks about his heightened sense of hearing:

I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell.

This seems a clear indication that he has lost his mind, for who hears things in heaven and/or hell? It is his sense of acute hearing (its foundation found in his madness) that foreshadows the story's conclusion. With these kinds of details, the reader cannot help but arrive at a conclusion that the speaker is truly insane.

When searching his mind for motive, the speaker mentions all the positive things about the man that he is clearly aware of—things that seemingly might convince another to kill or not kill the man—but things that do not move him:

Object there was none. Passion there was none. I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire.

He explains that all the rational motivations for murder (insult, greed, etc.) do not generate a desire within him to cause harm—in fact, he has no reason to do so. Neither does he have a passionate disposition that might drive him to an emotional and/or mental brink to bring on a break with reality or sanity. Instead, he notes that the old man's eye is the reason the narrator decides to plan the murder of the man who has been so kind and good. What a completely irrational statement.

I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! 

Try as he or she might, the reader cannot follow this thread of reasoning because it is not based in rational thought, although he or she may try very hard to do so:

...the reader feels compelled to try to understand the method and meaning of the madness.

The dialogue that the speaker provides throughout the story allows the reader (while attempting to follow his skewed mental reasoning) to be convinced of the speaker's mental break. The details become horrific and the suspense rises as the speaker's panic becomes almost tangible. Rather than convincing the reader of his hold on reality, the reader is instead convinced of the speaker's seething madness. The imagined sound of the dead's man heart still beating is the narrator's undoing:

I felt that I must scream or die! and now—again!—hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!

“Villains!” I shrieked, “dissemble no more! I admit the deed!—tear up the planks! here, here!—It is the beating of his hideous heart!”

Had this story been told in the third-person, it would not have the same impact upon its audience. It is only in the mind of a crazy man such as this that while one attempts to follow the narrator's erratic thoughts, the reader can discover and be convinced that the criminal in the story has no reason or sound judgment. As he mentions early on, his obsession is only because of his hatred of the "Evil eye." Insanity is the only rationale for this statement, and hearing the narrator's thoughts is an effective way of allowing the reader to perceive the depth of his madness, and experience the horror of the speaker's actions—as Poe intends.

What muscles are used in breathing?

Breathing involves the use of a muscle known as the diaphragm. It separates the chest cavity from the abdomen in organisms like humans and other mammals. During inhalation, the diaphragm contracts which expands the chest cavity. This increase in the volume of the chest cavity causes a suction of air in, as the air moves from an area of higher pressure (outside the body) to an area of lower pressure (inside the expanded chest...

Breathing involves the use of a muscle known as the diaphragm. It separates the chest cavity from the abdomen in organisms like humans and other mammals. 

During inhalation, the diaphragm contracts which expands the chest cavity. This increase in the volume of the chest cavity causes a suction of air in, as the air moves from an area of higher pressure (outside the body) to an area of lower pressure (inside the expanded chest cavity).

During exhalation, the diaphragm relaxes, causing the chest cavity to decrease in size. Now, there is higher pressure inside the chest cavity. The now CO2 enriched air is exhaled. 

The lungs contain tiny air sacs known as alveoli in direct contact with blood capillaries. Oxygen from the air we inhale diffuses from the alveoli into the bloodstream and carbon dioxide diffuses from the bloodstream to the alveoli to be exhaled.

There are also intercostal muscles which are muscles between the ribs that assist in breathing by changing the size of the chest cavity. Like the diaphragm, the intercostals contract during inhalation and relax for exhalation. 

What is the theme of The Rape of the Lock by Alexander Pope?

One of the main themes of The Rape of the Lock by Alexander Pope is the exposition of human vanity, especially the vanity exhibited by the upper classes of society. He develops this theme by using the form of the mock epic, a specific form of satire that uses the structure and conventions of epic poetry to narrate trivial events and, in the process, make fun of them. In the poem, Pope narrates the story...

One of the main themes of The Rape of the Lock by Alexander Pope is the exposition of human vanity, especially the vanity exhibited by the upper classes of society. He develops this theme by using the form of the mock epic, a specific form of satire that uses the structure and conventions of epic poetry to narrate trivial events and, in the process, make fun of them. In the poem, Pope narrates the story of a beautiful upper class woman (Belinda) who has a lock of hair tragically stolen by Lord Petre. Throughout the poem, Pope illustrates the vanity of upper class society by staging its primary rituals, including a game of cards and a coffee break, as if they were worthy of epic literature. The poem's climax occurs when Lord Petre scandalously steals a lock of Belinda's hair and chaos breaks loose. All in all, while he's never overly nasty in his satirical treatment of events, Pope is also clearly trying to point out the absurd pettiness and vanity of upper class society by satirically relating it to epic literature.

How does "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings," a story woven around an angel fallen to earth, reveal the truth about human nature?

“A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” is a social commentary on some of the baser characteristics of humanity. It is human nature to be fearful toward things that we do not understand, things that are different from us. The angel, though he is a divine being, cannot communicate with the people of the town and challenges their perceptions of religion and tradition, evidenced perhaps most explicitly by the Church’s query as to the resemblance...

“A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” is a social commentary on some of the baser characteristics of humanity. It is human nature to be fearful toward things that we do not understand, things that are different from us. The angel, though he is a divine being, cannot communicate with the people of the town and challenges their perceptions of religion and tradition, evidenced perhaps most explicitly by the Church’s query as to the resemblance of the angel’s speech to Aramaic (the language of Christ). The people pluck feathers from the sick old man’s wings to try and force him to conform to Biblical tales of healing in divine beings, rather than try themselves to understand the nature of his kind and where he came from. But perhaps the most emphatic example of this idea is the comparison of the spectacle of the angel to that of the woman who had been turned into a giant tarantula. The people were able to communicate with the latter creature, and she expressed a “heartrending…sincere affliction with which she recounted the details of her misfortune.” The absurdity of the sympathy offered this horrid spider who was being punished for her sins, when compared to the impatience, suspicion, and shocking violence directed toward an angel, a holy creature, is testament to the fearful depravity of humanity, and our quickness to condemn anything that is not like ourselves.

The story also implies that humans are too wrapped up in their own personal problems and aspirations to notice those who are suffering around them. Indeed, they are more likely to exploit those people in order to achieve these aspirations and remedy these problems. Instead of attempting to help this poor fallen angel, Pelayo and Elisenda capitalize on his misery and charge admission for the townspeople to see him. They then renovate their home with the earnings, all the while leaving the angel to wallow in the chicken coop in abject misery. Instead of facing the old man with compassion, they see him as a bother, and Elisenda is relieved when he finally fledges and flies away, because then, “he was no longer an annoyance in her life.” The irony of this all-too-human perspective is perhaps best evinced by her exclamation, as the old man is wandering ceaselessly through the house, that it is “awful living in that hell full of angels.” Garcia Marquez is stating that humans refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and view the world from their own selfish perspective. The things and people most in need are therefore identified as annoyances, as direct causes of misery and unhappiness, when in fact it is often our own negligence toward them that has put them in this position.

In the short story, Moon Lake by Eudora Welty, what are the literary symbols that my teacher is requesting? I am having trouble picking them out.

Literary symbols are usually objects, events, actions, or even characters which represent deeper ideas within the context of a story.

Literary symbols and examples.

Some symbols in Eudora Welty's Moon Lake:

1)Morgana, Loch, and Moon Lake.

The lake, a symbol in itself, is extremely important in Eudora Welty's works. Water symbolizes both salvation and the presence of treacherous challenges, and this is highlighted in various ways in the short story, Moon Lake. In the...

Literary symbols are usually objects, events, actions, or even characters which represent deeper ideas within the context of a story.

Literary symbols and examples.

Some symbols in Eudora Welty's Moon Lake:

1)Morgana, Loch, and Moon Lake.

The lake, a symbol in itself, is extremely important in Eudora Welty's works. Water symbolizes both salvation and the presence of treacherous challenges, and this is highlighted in various ways in the short story, Moon Lake. In the Arthurian Legend, Morgana was the goddess of the lake. She was also a shape-shifter, enchantress, and a healer. It is, therefore, no accident that the paying campers in Eudora Welty's story are from a town named Morgana. As paying campers, the high society girls claim precedence in terms of their patronage and on account of their status in society. They are like little 'goddesses' who treat the orphan campers with contempt and disdain. However, like Morgana, they also

Loch is an Irish and Scottish Gaelic word for a fresh-water lake. It is also the name of the lone lifeguard at the camp, Loch Howard. Indeed, in the story, Loch is a presence unto himself and set apart from his girl charges. In fact, he doesn't even want to be there; he's just been roped into guard duty by his mother.

Loch Howard appears to be a symbol for the King of the Wood in Diana's sacred grove. In reference to the name Moon Lake, we know that Diana is the moon and huntress goddess of mythology. Her sacred grove at Lake Nemi is the site for periodic battles to the death; the grove is also a place for redemption. According to the legend, a sacred oak tree grows in Diana's grove. No one may break off any branch of the tree without permission, and only a runaway slave may do so if he is brave enough to attempt it. In breaking off a branch, the slave earns the right to fight the King of the Woods to the death and to earn the title of Rex Nemorensis (King of Lake Nemi Grove) if he emerges as the victor. The spilled blood of the combatants nourish and fertilize the earth in the sacred grove, and the new king holds his position until his sovereignty is challenged by another runaway slave.

Source: Lake Nemi:Diana's Sacred Grove.

In the story, Moon Lake, Loch Howard is the quintessential King of the Woods. He is set apart from the girls not only by his position, but also by his virility and his physical superiority. As with every King of the Wood in Diana's sacred grove, he is a man who eats, sleeps, and walks alone. Loch represents patriarchal power and detached leadership. He becomes a figure of fascination for the girls; they are simultaneously afraid of him and obsessed with his soulful rendition of taps every evening. As with Diana's Lake Nemi grove, the lake at the camp is treacherous; it's full of weeds and cypress roots, and it is a place of conflict. The lake is where the girls who can swim claim superiority over the girls who cannot. As in the Lake Nimi myth, the lake camp at Moon Lake is also the place where Loch Howard has to prove his fitness as lord of the woods and trusted protector.

2)The book, The Re-creation of Brian Kent.

In the story of Brian Kent, we have a protagonist who tries to commit suicide by drowning after he discovers his beloved wife's infidelity. The river, with its treacherous currents and sunken rocks, is both a challenge and a redemptive element in Brian's life. When his wife's life hangs in the balance after an accident in the river, Brian tries to revive her despite their estrangement. In doing so, he both redeems himself and rises above the destructive power of his wife's base hedonism. His wife dies, but Brian succeeds in overcoming the challenges of his past in order to carve a new beginning with Betty Jo by his side.

In Moon Lake, Jinny Love catches Nina reading The Re-creation of Brian Kent. It isn't a book fit for ten year olds, and Nina sheepishly puts it aside. However, the book itself symbolizes the need to transcend the status quo and to overcome the strictures which threaten to circumscribe one's freedom. Thus, both Jinny Love and Nina (paying campers) are fascinated with Easter (the presumed leader of the orphans). Easter represents independence and individuality. She is adventurous, unconventional, and thumbs her nose at traditional norms of conduct for a young lady. In the story, she owns a large jack-knife, which is confiscated when Jinny Love tells on her. Later, the girls are horrified and fascinated by her smoking habit. The book also foreshadows Loch's efforts to save Easter when she experiences a near-drowning, recapitulating Auntie Sue's rescue of Brian Kent in The Re-creation of Brian Kent.

Read about a review of The Re-creation of Brian Kent by Dr. Joyce Kinkead.

`2x - 2y - 6z = -4, -3x + 2y + 6z = 1, x - y - 5z = -3` Solve the system of linear equations and check any solutions algebraically.

EQ1:   `2x-2y-6z=-4`

EQ2:   `-3x + 2y + 6z=1`

EQ3:    `x-y-5z=-3`

To solve this system of equation, let's apply elimination method. In this method, a variable or variables should be removed in order to get the value of the other variable.

Let's eliminate y. To do so, add EQ1 and EQ2.

           `2x-2y-6z=-4`

`+`      `-3x+2y+6z=1`

`----------------`

` `

                            `-x = -3`

Then, solve for x.

`(-x)/(-1)=(-3)/(-1)`

`x=3`

Isolate y again.Consider EQ1 and EQ3.

`2x-2y-6z=-4`

`x-y-5z=-3`

To be able to eliminate y, multiply EQ3 by -2. Then, add the two equations.

        `2x-2y-6z=-4`

`+` `-2x+2y+10z=6`

`---------------`

                         `4z=2`

And, solve for z.

`(4z)/4=2/4`

`z=1/2`

Now that the values of the two variables are known, let's solve for the remaining variable. Let's plug-in x=3 and z=1/2 to EQ1.

`2x - 2y -6z = -4`

`2(3)-2y-6(1/2)=-4`

`6-2y-3=-4`

`3-2y=-4`

`3-3-2y=-4-3`

`-2y=-7`

(-2y)/(-2)=(-7)/(-2)

`y=7/2`

Therefore, the solution is  `(3, 7/2, 1/2)` .

What is the significance of the title "The Gift of the Magi"?

The significance of the title is twofold. First, we need to realize that the title comes from the New Testament. The magi, or wise men, gave the baby Jesus gifts. According to the the gospel of Matthew, they gave gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Matthew 2:11 states (KJV):

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their...

The significance of the title is twofold. First, we need to realize that the title comes from the New Testament. The magi, or wise men, gave the baby Jesus gifts. According to the the gospel of Matthew, they gave gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Matthew 2:11 states (KJV):

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

These magi travelled a far distance, and they gave precious gifts to a child they had never seen before.  Their gifts expressed their devotion.  That they bowed down to worship also shows this point. From this perspective, the title suggests that those who give generously are magi or wise men. 

Second, O. Henry states that Jim and Della are like the magi, because they also gave wise and precious gifts.  Their gifts were particularly wise, because they gave what mattered the most to them. And in this way, they showed their hearts. Finally, the theme of Christmas also ties in nicely.  Here is how O. Henry ends his story:

But let me speak a last word to the wise of these days: Of all who give gifts, these two were the most wise. Of all who give and receive gifts, such as they are the most wise. Everywhere they are the wise ones. They are the magi.

What is the atomic explanation for the combustion of methane?

Combustion is a chemical reaction. When a chemical reaction takes place, what happens on the atomic level is that chemical bonds between atoms are broken and new bonds are formed between different atoms.

In order for molecules to react they must be moving fast enough to have enough collisions. Collisions only result in a reaction if the molecules collide with enough energy and in the proper orientation. In the case of methane combusting, some energy...

Combustion is a chemical reaction. When a chemical reaction takes place, what happens on the atomic level is that chemical bonds between atoms are broken and new bonds are formed between different atoms.

In order for molecules to react they must be moving fast enough to have enough collisions. Collisions only result in a reaction if the molecules collide with enough energy and in the proper orientation. In the case of methane combusting, some energy must be provided to initiate the reaction at normal temperatures. This is called the activation energy. Matches, lighters and electronic igniters are common sources of activation energy.

Here's the balanced equation for the combustion of methane:

` CH_4 + 2 O_2 -> CO_2 + 2H_2O` 

Each molecule of methane that reacts requires 2 molecules of oxygen. The chemical bonds are broken and reformed in steps and there are intermediate structures formed that go away, but for the sake of simplicity we'll look at it as though all of the reactant bonds break then all of the product bonds form.

Four carbon-hydrogen bonds are broken in methane, producing a carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms. An oxygen-oxygen double bond breaks in each of the oxygen molecules, giving us 4 oxygen atoms.

Two molecules of water are formed when each oxygen forms new bonds to two hydrogen atoms. A carbon dioxide molecule forms when the carbon atom forms double bonds with two different oxygen atoms.

There are the same number of each type of atom in the products as in the reactants: 1 carbon, 4 hydrogens and 4 oxygens. Atoms are neither created nor destroyed, they're just rearranged into different molecules.

Energy is released when new bonds are formed. In this chemical reaction the amount of energy released is greater than the amount of energy absorbed to break the original bonds, so the reaction is exothermic (releases energy).

In The Bronze Bow how does Daniel come to be staying at Joel's house?

In Chapter 5, Daniel has gone on a mission to see Joel, hoping that he can recruit Joel to join in Rosh's cause. He meets Joel's father, Hezron, and says things that upset him. He leaves in shame and disappointment, and when he stops along the road for water, he is met by a Roman soldier. The soldier demands Daniel give him a drink, and Daniel, overcome by furious hatred, throws water in the soldier's...

In Chapter 5, Daniel has gone on a mission to see Joel, hoping that he can recruit Joel to join in Rosh's cause. He meets Joel's father, Hezron, and says things that upset him. He leaves in shame and disappointment, and when he stops along the road for water, he is met by a Roman soldier. The soldier demands Daniel give him a drink, and Daniel, overcome by furious hatred, throws water in the soldier's face. Daniel runs but is struck by a spear. He manages to get away, but he is wounded. He makes his was back to Joel's house and staggers in. Thacia is shocked to see he has returned and scolds him, but he faints in her presence from the trauma of his wound. Joel drags Daniel into a storage area, and they later move him to a passageway between two walls that is hidden from the rest of the house. There Joel and Thacia nurse him back to health without their parents' knowledge, and the three become friends and take a vow together to fight "for God's victory." Daniel leaves without their knowing, but not before they have arranged a way for Daniel to get a message to them in the future.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, was Boo Radley mad when his brother put cement into the tree? And why did his brother do it in the first place anyway?

As the previous post explained, Boo Radley's brother did not put cement into the tree. Boo Radley's father, Nathan Radley, filled the hole in the tree with cement. In chapter seven, Jem asks Nathan the reason for filling the tree knot with cement.

“Mr. Radley, ah—did you put cement in that hole in that tree down yonder?”

“Yes,” he said. “I filled it up.”

“Why’d you do it, sir?”

“Tree’s dying. You plug ‘em with...

As the previous post explained, Boo Radley's brother did not put cement into the tree. Boo Radley's father, Nathan Radley, filled the hole in the tree with cement. In chapter seven, Jem asks Nathan the reason for filling the tree knot with cement.

“Mr. Radley, ah—did you put cement in that hole in that tree down yonder?”

“Yes,” he said. “I filled it up.”

“Why’d you do it, sir?”

“Tree’s dying. You plug ‘em with cement when they’re sick. You ought to know that, Jem.”

Jem asks Atticus about the tree's health, and Atticus believes that the tree is quite healthy. Jem, Scout, and readers are left to believe that Nathan Radley is lying, and that he put cement in the tree to stop his son from leaving gifts for Scout and Jem.

Readers are never told how Boo feels about the knothole being plugged up with cement by his father. Part of the reason is that the story is being narrated by Scout. We know her thoughts throughout the story, but we only know the thoughts of other characters if they speak about them. Boo has very minimal spoken interaction with Scout, and the tree is not a topic that Boo and Scout talk about near the end of the story.

Readers can probably be quite sure that Boo Radley isn't happy about having cement put into the knot of the tree. That knot allowed him to "communicate" with Scout and Jem. Nathan Radley took that away from Boo. It's possible that Boo was angry about his father's actions; however, it's equally likely that Boo was sad or frustrated instead.

How does Simon of Lord of the Flies perceive himself?

Simon is the protector of the weaker children and the visionary for the older boys on the island.  From the beginning, he is set apart from both groups when, at the first meeting, he collapses, seemingly from epilepsy.  He also sets himself apart by disappearing to his meditation garden, his secret hiding spot, where he enjoys spending time alone. 

Simon takes time to retrieve fruit for the younger children, the littluns, that they can not...

Simon is the protector of the weaker children and the visionary for the older boys on the island.  From the beginning, he is set apart from both groups when, at the first meeting, he collapses, seemingly from epilepsy.  He also sets himself apart by disappearing to his meditation garden, his secret hiding spot, where he enjoys spending time alone. 

Simon takes time to retrieve fruit for the younger children, the littluns, that they can not reach.  He feels obligated to care for their physical hunger and can not walk past them and ignore their need.  He also helps Piggy--by far the weakest of the older children--retrieve his glasses when Jack knocks them away.  Simon does this in a non-confrontational way, which characterizes his personality.  

Simon's other self-assigned role is that of missionary, of truth-bearer.  He encourages Ralph by telling Ralph that he will make it home all right.  He confronts both the sacrificial pig head, which defiled his sacred garden, and the parachute man, which is misunderstood to be the beast.  Simon feels duty-bound to deliver the truth to the other boys, and he pays a scapegoat's price: When the others deceive themselves into thinking Simon is the beast, they murder him without conscience.

Simon cares deeply for all the boys on the island.  He demonstrates this care differently, depending on the personality of the recipient.  He is the most sensitive and spiritual of all the characters.

What awards was Trenton Lee Stewart given?

Novelist Trenton Lee Stewart is known as the author of the famous young adult The Mysterious Benedict Society series. Besides his novels, he has also been published in including the Shenandoah, the Virginia Quarterly Review, the Georgia Review and the New England Review. He has also won the following awards, most of which are based in Arkansas:

2007: Booklist Editors' Choice: Books for Youth award.

2007: Notable Children's Books award.

2008: Porter...

Novelist Trenton Lee Stewart is known as the author of the famous young adult The Mysterious Benedict Society series. Besides his novels, he has also been published in including the Shenandoah, the Virginia Quarterly Review, the Georgia Review and the New England Review. He has also won the following awards, most of which are based in Arkansas:

2007: Booklist Editors' Choice: Books for Youth award.

2007: Notable Children's Books award.

2008: Porter Prize, an annual award to a writer from Arkansas.

2008: Booker Worthen Literary Prize, again an award for a writer from Arkansas.

2013: Texas Lone Star Books award.

Three of his books were on The New York Times bestseller list, The Mysterious Benedict Society, which stayed on the list for over a year, The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey, and the third book of the trilogy, The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Why is Mrs. Jones forgiving?

Mrs. Jones forgives Roger for trying to steal her purse because she sees herself in Roger.  She admits to Roger that when she was younger she did some things she wasn’t proud of as well.  She tells him that she understands how it feels to want something you don’t have like Roger wants a pair of blue suede shoes.  Mrs. Jones also tells Roger about her life so he can see how his life can...

Mrs. Jones forgives Roger for trying to steal her purse because she sees herself in Roger.  She admits to Roger that when she was younger she did some things she wasn’t proud of as well.  She tells him that she understands how it feels to want something you don’t have like Roger wants a pair of blue suede shoes.  Mrs. Jones also tells Roger about her life so he can see how his life can be different if he chooses it to be.  Her ability to empathize with Roger leads to her forgiving him and giving him a second chance.  Giving him the ten dollars for the shoes shows that she trusts him to do the right thing and to never steal again.  Roger is somewhat dumbfounded by her kindness, and as readers, we can only hope that her gestures throughout the story affect him in profound ways.    

What was the connection Dillard made between playing football and being chased for throwing a snowball?

In the story, Dillard described playing football as "It was all or nothing" (Dillard). When she learned to play, she was taught that she had to put everything into the game so that her team would win. She goes on to talk about tackling on the field. "But if you flung yourself wholeheartedly at the back of his knees - if you gathered and joined body and soul and pointed them diving fearlessly - then...

In the story, Dillard described playing football as "It was all or nothing" (Dillard). When she learned to play, she was taught that she had to put everything into the game so that her team would win. She goes on to talk about tackling on the field. "But if you flung yourself wholeheartedly at the back of his knees - if you gathered and joined body and soul and pointed them diving fearlessly - then you likely wouldn't get hurt, and you'd stop the ball" (Dillard).

After throwing the snowball at the car, the man gets out and chases Dillard and her friends. She knows she has to escape, or at least try her best, just as she does in the game. As the kids split up, he chooses her (probably because she was the only girl) and gives chase. She knows that to escape, she will have to push herself just as she does on the field. She pushes herself until she can no longer run, and gains respect for the man as he refuses to give up. The chase goes on for paragraphs, through so many backyards and homes, until he catches her. But she knows that she "...flung herself wholeheartedly..." (Dillard) into her escape, and that she did her best.

There are more comparisons, but this should get you started. Look to the link below for more help with the story.

How did the clash between traditionalist and modernist reveal itself in the Scopes Trial?

The Scopes trial represented a clash between the traditionalists and the modernists. The 1920s were a time of much change. Women were wearing shorter dresses. They were drinking and smoking in public. They were more outspoken than in the past. Some women began working outside of the home. It became easier for people to travel from place to place with the invention of the automobile. Kids no longer needed their parents to chaperone them on...

The Scopes trial represented a clash between the traditionalists and the modernists. The 1920s were a time of much change. Women were wearing shorter dresses. They were drinking and smoking in public. They were more outspoken than in the past. Some women began working outside of the home. It became easier for people to travel from place to place with the invention of the automobile. Kids no longer needed their parents to chaperone them on dates. There were new forms of music also.

The traditionalists believed all of these changes were taking our country down the wrong moral path. They felt these changes were evidence of a moral decline in our country. They were upset that schools were teaching evolution instead of creationism. In some states that were very conservative and had many people with traditional religious beliefs, laws were passed that made it illegal to teach evolution. When John T. Scopes taught evolution, he was arrested and put on trial. This trial was the flashpoint between traditional values and more modern ways of thinking and living.

The traditionalists had a difficult time with all of the changes occurring in society in the 1920s. They used the debate between evolution and creation to highlight their displeasure with all of these changes.

How do the processes of binary fission and mitosis, despite their differences, support the theory that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes?

As you said, the processes of binary fission and mitosis (or meiosis-you'll see why) are different in many aspects. But it's those differences that give us evidence to support our theory!Let's first see how the theory tries to explain how eukaryotic cells developed from a larger prokaryotic cell.The theory we're talking about is the Endosymbiosis Theory, which states that the eukaryotic cell developed from a larger prokaryotic cell engulfing (or eating, if you...

As you said, the processes of binary fission and mitosis (or meiosis-you'll see why) are different in many aspects. But it's those differences that give us evidence to support our theory!

Let's first see how the theory tries to explain how eukaryotic cells developed from a larger prokaryotic cell.

The theory we're talking about is the Endosymbiosis Theory, which states that the eukaryotic cell developed from a larger prokaryotic cell engulfing (or eating, if you prefer) a smaller prokaryotic cell (or a bacteria) WITHOUT digesting it. The larger cell gave protection to the smaller one, which in turn gave energy to the larger one. Aerobic bacteria which have been "engulfed" eventually became what today is known as the mitochondria, while the photosynthetic ones became the chloroplasts.

Now, the most straightforward way to obtain evidence to support (or not) this theory is to look at present-day eukaryotic cells. One of the methods is to look for bacterial genes in the cell's DNA - and we did find a lot of bacterial genes in eukaryotic cell's DNA!

Another way is to compare the characteristics of bacteria with the characteristics of the mitochondria and the chloroplast. This is where mitosis and binary fission come into play! It is known that eukaryotic cells multiply through mitosis or meiosis while bacteria divide by binary fission. And we know that both the mitochondria and the chloroplast replicate INDEPENDENTLY of the eukaryotic cell by BINARY FISSION, just as bacteria do! Not only that, but they also are a similar size to bacteria and share many DNA and structural similarities! Thus, we have found good evidence to support our theory by looking at how these organelles divide and how this process is the same as that of bacteria.

I hope you now understand why this fact is seen as evidence to support the theory!

In Call of the Wild, what was the amount of food that was given to the sled dogs?

The incompetent humans do not know that they have too many dogs, so they overfeed and then underfeed them.

Charles and Hal have no idea what they are doing.  To them, it makes sense to have as many dogs as possible tied to the sled so that it can go faster.  Unfortunately, they do not realize that the more dogs you have, the more food you have to have.

In the nature of Arctic travel...

The incompetent humans do not know that they have too many dogs, so they overfeed and then underfeed them.

Charles and Hal have no idea what they are doing.  To them, it makes sense to have as many dogs as possible tied to the sled so that it can go faster.  Unfortunately, they do not realize that the more dogs you have, the more food you have to have.

In the nature of Arctic travel there was a reason why fourteen dogs should not drag one sled, and that was that one sled could not carry the food for fourteen dogs. But Charles and Hal did not know this. (Ch. 5)

Mercedes feels for the dogs, and wants to give them extra food.  Unfortunately, the combination of feeding the dogs too much and not having enough food to begin with leads the hapless humans to go from overfeeding the dogs to underfeeding them.

Then came the underfeeding. Hal awoke one day to the fact that his dog-food was half gone and the distance only quarter covered; further, that for love or money no additional dog-food was to be obtained. So he cut down even the orthodox ration and tried to increase the day's travel. (Ch. 5)

Thus, while the underfeeding was inevitable, it came much more quickly because they fed the dogs too much at first.  Underfeeding is very dangerous when dogs are running all day and it is freezing cold.

As a sled dog, Buck finds himself facing a long line of cruelty by humans.  It is ironic that Mercedes tries to help the dogs and ends up making things very uncomfortable for them.  Since the humans do not know how much food to pack (or that it is impossible to pack enough food for fourteen dogs), they run out.  Some people always think they know better than the experts.  Charles, Hal and Mercedes just did not take anyone’s advice.

What does this quote said by Hale mean? "The devil is precise; the marks of his presence are definite as stone."

Hale says this to Parris when Parris asks him to inspect his daughter, Betty, for signs of witchcraft. Parris says that Betty's hatred of hearing the Lord's name is surely a sign of witchcraft, but Hale is more careful and deliberate in his examination of whether witchcraft is really afflicting the people of Salem. Hale is an expert in witchcraft, and he believes in the Devil's marks; he believes that if Betty is really being...

Hale says this to Parris when Parris asks him to inspect his daughter, Betty, for signs of witchcraft. Parris says that Betty's hatred of hearing the Lord's name is surely a sign of witchcraft, but Hale is more careful and deliberate in his examination of whether witchcraft is really afflicting the people of Salem. Hale is an expert in witchcraft, and he believes in the Devil's marks; he believes that if Betty is really being afflicted by witchcraft, he will find marks of it on her, as the Devil is a careful worker who always leaves a distinct mark. He tells Parris that Parris must believe his word, even if he (Hale) finds no mark of the Devil on Betty. Hale is not just manipulating the rumors about witchcraft for his own ends; instead, he truly believes in the existence of the Devil and thinks the Devil shows his work on humans. 

"Gentrification is a double-edged sword." It is often productive revitalizing city neighborhoods, but it can impose great costs on certain...

Yes, gentrification is a double-edged sword. When middle- or upper-class families purchase real estate in lower-class neighborhoods and replace existing dilapidated structures with renovated or brand new ones, it does raise the cost of living in those neighborhoods beyond what lower-income families can afford. Those lower-income families, consequently, are forced to move to the very kinds of neighborhoods out of which they were just forced by the circumstances of gentrification, which are beyond their control. That is an unfortunate byproduct of gentrification.

The positive aspects of gentrification can be argued to outweigh the negative consequences. Having lived in Washington, D.C., for many years, I witnessed such processes turn dilapidated neighborhoods into revitalized communities, which benefits the city as a whole because it raises, considerably, the tax base that, in turn, can be used to improve living conditions for those who feel compelled to flee to less-expensive and often more crime-ridden neighborhoods. When communities are "gentrified," new businesses open up, such as restaurants, bars, boutique shops, and so on, to cater to this more affluent clientele, which provides jobs for lower-income individuals. Neighborhoods once avoided by middle- and upper-class families because of the fears of crime and the depressing nature of slums become desired destinations for young upwardly-mobile families.

Gentrification's victims, such as the ethnic-oriented cultures that existed in these neighborhoods, are, indeed, replaced by other, sometimes more culturally-diverse inhabitants. It is often socioeconomic class rather than ethnicity that determines the demographic transformations that occur in communities where gentrification occurs. Interestingly, in Washington, D.C., gentrification was often initiated by the gay and lesbian communities, who took it upon themselves to buy dilapidated, often abandoned housing developments and turn them into refurbished, vibrant neighborhoods.

It is not only gentrification that affects neighborhoods, either. Often, the development of a new venue for local professional sports franchises--in effect, construction of new stadiums and arenas--has as much effect on lower-income families as does gentrification. The most affordable and desirable real estate, from a geographical perspective, is often in the worst neighborhoods. Real estate values in such neighborhoods are, unsurprisingly, relatively low, and such neighborhoods are located in inner-city areas where city officials desperately hope to entice new businesses. Once older, lower-income housing developments are torn down to make way for the new sports arena, multitudes of small businesses sprout up to profit off of the waves of humanity expected to frequent the stadiums and arenas. New, expensive housing developments are similarly constructed nearby that are, by design, beyond the financial reach of all but the wealthy and upper-midde-class.

In short, displacement of lower-income families by the process of gentrification can be--but not always is--deleterious to the interests of those families. The benefits to the city as a whole, however, almost always outweigh the negatives.

Please provide four quotes from chapters 1-10 of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. The quotes should be connected to show their importance to...

The first ten chapters of Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird introduce the readers to the Finch family, their neighbors and friends, and the daily workings of life in a southern Alabama town in the 1930s. One lesson, or theme, that dominates these chapters is how Scout learns to treat people who are different than she is. From the local boogeyman to the classmate at school, she learns many lessons on how to behave and treat people kindly.

First of all, Boo Radley is the local shut-in whom the children and Stephanie Crawford have demonized. Gossip flows through a town like vicious flood waters, sometimes, and Miss Maudie teaches Scout not to swim in it. When Scout is probing Maudie for answers about Boo Radley, Maudie finally squashes the rumors by saying the following:

"That is three-fourths colored folks and one-fourth Stephanie Crawford. . . [she] told me once she woke up in the middle of the night and found him looking in the window at her. I said what did you do, Stephanie, move over in the bed and make room for him? That shut her up awhile" (45).

Maudie goes on to tell Scout that she knew Arthur (Boo) as a boy and remembered he was a nice boy. Basically, Maudie breaks down the rumors with humor and then tells Scout the truth. She leads by example and teaches a good lesson not to listen to the gossips.

Another lesson that Scout learns from her father is about how to tolerate other people rather than beating them up over a disagreement. After Scout is frustrated with school and classmates, Atticus says the following:

". . . if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view. . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it" (30).

The above passage teaches Scout to be patient, consider a tough situation from the other person's point of view and then plan a response to the issue at hand rather than throwing them down in the dirt--literally in Scout's case.

Another trick Atticus teaches Scout is to negotiate and compromise like a good little lawyer. Scout doesn't want to go to school because her teacher said that her father incorrectly taught her how to read and Atticus says,

"Do you know what a compromise is? . . . [it's] an agreement reached by mutual concessions. It works this way. . . If you'll concede the necessity of going to school, we'll go on reading every night just as we always have. Is it a bargain?" (31).

Thus, Atticus teaches another lesson about how to get along better with people--even teachers.

Finally, at Christmas time the children receive air-rifles, which could become an issue if Scout hasn't learned to treat others kindly. Atticus teaches them the proper use of the guns he gave them by saying the following:

"I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird" (90).

This is the quote from which the novel bears its title and with good reason because it is an analogy for life, too. Maudie interprets Atticus by saying that mockingbirds don't hurt or bother anyone or anything. Innocent animals like these should be allowed to live without any harassment. Later, the Scout makes the parallel between the mockingbirds and innocent people like Tom Robinson and Boo Radley.

On what page of Freak the Mighty does Max tell readers what he looks like?

In bits and pieces, Max describes his physical appearance in the first several chapters of Freak the Mighty. On pages 3 and 4, Max overhears Grim and Gram talking about how Max resembles his father. On that same page, Grim also jokes that Max is growing so fast that they should “let [Max] go barefoot, he’s exploding out of his shoes” (4). So at this point in the novel, Max hasn’t described himself, but...

In bits and pieces, Max describes his physical appearance in the first several chapters of Freak the Mighty. On pages 3 and 4, Max overhears Grim and Gram talking about how Max resembles his father. On that same page, Grim also jokes that Max is growing so fast that they should “let [Max] go barefoot, he’s exploding out of his shoes” (4). So at this point in the novel, Max hasn’t described himself, but we know from the commentary of others that he is big and looks like his father.

In fact, as the narrator, Max spends most of his time describing the physical appearance of others, especially Freak and his mother Gwen, in the first chapters. It isn’t until after Gwen is startled by Max that he describes his physical appearance. Philbrick writes (23-24):

Gram reaches out and she puts her hand on my shoulder, real light and feathery, you can feel how nervous she is just to touch me, and how it makes her uncomfortable to have to look up at me, because did I mention I'm a lot bigger than Gram? Bigger than Grim, too? Bigger than most people? It's true.

Max then tells Gram that his physical size must have intimidated Gwen. Max seems to be used to this reaction from others. When Max goes over to Freak’s house for dinner, though, we realize what really scared Gwen was the fact that he resembles his father.

Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution directly addressed social equality. This was a deficiency that did not promote the...

The Articles of Confederation and Constitution did not attempt to provide voting or other rights to women, the poor, or slaves. The Constitution, for example, counts slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of levying taxes and proportioning representation in the House of Representatives, but slaves could not vote. Slavery was not abolished until after the Civil War, and consideration of the slave trade was put off until 1808 (the Constitution was ratified...

The Articles of Confederation and Constitution did not attempt to provide voting or other rights to women, the poor, or slaves. The Constitution, for example, counts slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of levying taxes and proportioning representation in the House of Representatives, but slaves could not vote. Slavery was not abolished until after the Civil War, and consideration of the slave trade was put off until 1808 (the Constitution was ratified in 1788). In addition, women were not allowed to vote, and voting rights were extended to white men with property.

The failure of the Constitution and Articles of Confederation to address inequality affected the structure of our government. For example, as stated above, slaves only counted for three-fifths of a person in figuring out how many representatives were elected from each state. In addition, in the original Constitution, senators were chosen by state legislatures (composed generally of wealthier white men in those days) rather than directly by the people. People only began to directly elect senators with the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

It would take a long time for disenfranchised groups to be represented in the national government. The Constitution allowed slavery to continue, and it did continue until the end of the Civil War and the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.  African-American men gained the right to vote in 1870 with the 15th Amendment, but in many places in the South, most African-Americans were denied the right to vote until the 1960s. In addition, women did not gain the right to vote in national elections until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. 

From Cofer's "American History," how is El Building described and what is its significance?

El Building is located in Paterson, New Jersey during 1963. The main character, Elena, describes it as being right on the corner of Straight and Market streets. She also says that it housed mostly Puerto Ricans who blasted salsa music from their windows at all hours of the day. One person would turn on his music and another would turn on hers to drown out the first. Around the building outside one would usually see children playing and the unemployed complaining.

Near the end of the story, Elena goes next door to study with her neighbor Eugene, but his unfriendly mother opens the door. The mother asks Elena, "You live there?" and points to the building. Elena explains that at that moment, the building "looked particularly ugly, like a gray prison, with its many dirty windows and rusty fire escapes". The color gray is not hopeful or bright and happy image. It seems like a color that says, "blah." All of the images certainly paint a picture of poverty and struggle, but the people inside are not without hope and love in their lives. Unfortunately, Eugene's mother only sees the different culture, and possibly the poverty, and dismisses Elena.

The significance of El Building is that it is like many other apartment buildings across the nation that house immigrants who moved to the United States to seek out a better life. Some may use the building as a temporary stopping place on their way to bigger and better things. Others may live there for years without hope of leaving, but they still hope to provide better futures for their children.

Whatever feelings Elena or Eugene's mother have for El Building did not matter on the day that John F. Kennedy died. El Building turned off its music and remained silent out of respect for the fallen president. The building represents the people who live inside of it and those people were American citizens who cared for the country they lived in. They showed their respect for the office of the President just like the rest of the country. And even though the people in El Building were from Puerto Rico, spoke Spanish, and struggled financially, that doesn't mean they didn't love their country.