Can you help me analyse this quote by Lord Capulet, "Out, you green sickness, carrion! Out, you baggage!"

This quote is from Lord Capulet as he berates Juliet because she refuses to marry Count Paris in Act III, Scene 5. Shakespeare was the master of insulting remarks and he unleashes several of them in this scene as the incensed Capulet verbally abuses his recalcitrant daughter because of her perceived ingratitude toward his wishes. In this case Capulet refers to her as "green-sickness carrion" could refer to an anemic condition which make one look...

This quote is from Lord Capulet as he berates Juliet because she refuses to marry Count Paris in Act III, Scene 5. Shakespeare was the master of insulting remarks and he unleashes several of them in this scene as the incensed Capulet verbally abuses his recalcitrant daughter because of her perceived ingratitude toward his wishes. In this case Capulet refers to her as "green-sickness carrion" could refer to an anemic condition which make one look pale and green or just be purely used to express his disgust. He further calls her "baggage" suggesting that she is a burden to him and a worthless girl. Throughout this tirade he also refers to her as a "disobedient wretch," "Mistress minion," "tallow face," "wretched puling fool," and "whining mammet." Capulet becomes so angry because he fully believes that Paris will be a good match for Juliet and he is anxious to bring happiness to his family after the unfortunate death of Tybalt. Of course, he knows nothing of Juliet's marriage to Romeo which causes the girl to recoil at the idea of marrying another man.

How do you calculate the heat liberated in joules (J)?

Heat is liberated when an exothermic reaction takes place or when latent heat is released (during a phase change). The heat released during a chemical reaction can be measured by an increase in temperature, while the heat released during a phase change (say water to ice) can be calculated by knowing the latent heat. For a given exothermic reaction, heat released is given as:

q = mC(deltaT)

or

Heat released = mass x specific heat...

Heat is liberated when an exothermic reaction takes place or when latent heat is released (during a phase change). The heat released during a chemical reaction can be measured by an increase in temperature, while the heat released during a phase change (say water to ice) can be calculated by knowing the latent heat. For a given exothermic reaction, heat released is given as:

q = mC(deltaT)

or

Heat released = mass x specific heat capacity x temperature change

If the mass is measured in grams, specific heat capacity is measured in joules per gram per degree Celsius and the temperature is measured in degrees Celsius, then the heat released will have the units of joules or J. 

Similarly, given the latent heat of transformation and mass of the substance, we can calculate the heat liberated in joules by multiplying the two values together.

Hope this helps. 

Compare and contrast encomienda and mita.

Both the encomienda and mita were forced labor systems with deep historical roots that underwent change during the Spanish Colonial era.

Prior to Spanish colonization, the mita system was established by the Incas so that all men between 15 and 50 years old worked for the government for two and half months a year. This ensured that each family had enough food for the year and enough time to complete their own endeavors. It was...

Both the encomienda and mita were forced labor systems with deep historical roots that underwent change during the Spanish Colonial era.

Prior to Spanish colonization, the mita system was established by the Incas so that all men between 15 and 50 years old worked for the government for two and half months a year. This ensured that each family had enough food for the year and enough time to complete their own endeavors. It was successful system in maintain the strength of the civilization and crucial to the growth of the infrastructure of the Incan Empire.

When Spanish Colonial rule was established the mita system was abused. The native peoples were forced to work in the gold and silver mines for months at a time. In addition, they were required to use their earnings to pay for living necessities which left them in perpetual debt while the Spanish Colonials forced Christianity upon them. The system, which was once beneficial, ended up enslaving the native Indians.

The encomienda system had its roots in the Reconquesta of Muslim Spain when the Jews and Muslims were forced to pay the Spanish conquerers. During the establishment of Spanish colonies in the Americas, the system was changed so the Spanish crown granted a specific number of indigenous people to important officials and conquistadors. The crown maintained ownership of the land while the native people were required to pay their owners in work or in gold. Again, this became a form of enslavement.

These systems were intended to spread Christianity throughout the Spanish colonies but both systems were abused and became forms of slavery. In the end, they did not meet their intended goals.  

In "Once Upon a Time," why does Gordimer mention her house's location above a mine here?

The fact that Gordimer's house is located above a mine reinforces the irony portrayed in the story. The tale deals with the irrational fears white people have had of other racial groups during, specifically, South Africa's apartheid era, when people were segregated on the basis of colour. Whites were the most privileged class and lived in wealth and security. Laws were promulgated to ensure that they occupied the best areas and that they were protected from crime.

Furthermore, the pass laws and other similar enactments ensured that the movement of black people was restricted and controlled. The Job Reservation Act also ensured that whites were guaranteed the best employment opportunities whilst the majority of other races were forced into semi-skilled and unskilled labor.

This system guaranteed wealth to the whites and perpetuated poverty among other groups. Workers were exploited and their labor ensured that the whites enjoyed lives of privilege. The wealth and privilege that whites therefore enjoyed was built on the back of especially black labor that was exploited and underpaid, ensuring greater profits and, as a result, greater wealth. The symbolism of the house, in this sense, should thus be obvious. It is a dwelling occupied by a privileged person whilst the mine is an apt symbol for black labor.

Gordimer was a white person who was granted the privileges extended to people of her race. As an activist, she fought against the injustices suffered by the disenfranchised in South Africa. 

As already suggested, the mine in Gordimer's story is a symbol for black labor and the wealth it brought. The migrant labor system ensured a constant stream of black mine workers who were forced by the disadvantageous conditions in the rural areas to leave and work in the mines. They believed that they would then create better lives for themselves and their families. Miners, especially, were underpaid, overworked and lived in atrocious conditions in the mine hostels.

Crime was rife in the hostels and other locations where the miners lived, and there were many faction and gang fights in which many died. Residents were exposed to extremely dangerous conditions in the gold and other mines. Many lost their lives. Therein lies even greater irony—the fear and paranoia should have been reversed. The migrants had much more reason to fear those they served than vice versa.

The irony Gordimer deliberately exposes in the symbolic location of the house is that, as a representative of the privileged class, she is paranoid about her safety and suspects an intruder when, in fact, she should be grateful for the sacrifices made so that she can live where she does.

In addition, the family who is the subject of the story should have felt the same gratitude. Both, however, felt threatened by those who created, and then ensured, their lives of privilege. So, instead of welcoming and being thankful to the ones who brought them such advantage, they turn against them and try to shut them out. The family soon suffer the terrible consequences of their paranoia, unlike the author, who discovers that the ominous sounds she hears are harmless movements in the house caused by shifting.

It is, therefore, both ironic and sad that the same mental shift was never made by the family and they became victims of their own irrational apprehension.

Please provide three quotes from To Kill a Mockingbird that describe the reasons why Atticus should not try to defend Tom Robinson.

The three reasons Atticus should not defend Tom Robinson are as follows: it brings antisocial and professional stress to his life; it brings antisocial and adversity to his children's lives; and he won't win the case anyway. First, the unneeded stress to Atticus himself is compounded because he is older (in his fifties), a widower, and is raising two children. When he first discusses the situation with his daughter Scout, he says the following:

". . . simply by the nature of the work, every lawyer gets at least one case in his lifetime that affects him personally. This one's mine, I guess" (76).

Atticus is trying to tell Scout about how this is affecting his work and his life so that she will behave like an upstanding young lady, thereby, not causing him more things to worry about. He also takes the time to prepare her for the adversity she will probably continue to face because of the trial.

"You might hear some ugly talk about it at school, but do one thing for me if you will: you just hold your head high and keep those fists down. No matter what anybody says to you, don't let 'em get your goat. Try fighting with your head for a change. . . it's a good one" (76).

Thus, some would argue that if Atticus simply refused to take the case, then he and his children would not have had to deal with such stress in their lives. In fact, Scout gets into fights with Cecil Jacobs and her cousin Francis to defend her father's honor; and, Jem loses his head and takes out Mrs. Dubose's flowers because she calls Atticus horrible names.

Finally, because the case is lost before it begins, Link Deas, a businessman in town, tells Atticus that he's got everything to lose from defending Tom Robinson. Atticus doesn't think so and responds as follows:

"Link, that boy might go to the chair, but he's not going till the truth's told. . . And you know what the truth is" (146).

The above quote demonstrates more social and professional stress applied to Atticus, but it also shows that he knows that the trial is a lost cause even before it begins. A black man's word against a white man's in Alabama in 1935 is sure to be lost because of the unequal balance of power in the judicial system at the time. Atticus knows this, but he does his best to give Tom Robinson the best defense possible anyway.

How does Krakauer alter his narrative stance in Chapter Six?

Chapter Six in Into the Wildis devoted to the story of Ron Franz and his friendship with Chris McCandless. There are a few changes in the narrative approach Krakauer takes in this chapter. For one thing, he acknowledges the role he himself has played in McCandless' story: he writes about how Ron contacts him, seeking information about Chris. Krakauer also is indirectly responsible for Ron learning about Chris's death, since he hears of it...

Chapter Six in Into the Wild is devoted to the story of Ron Franz and his friendship with Chris McCandless. There are a few changes in the narrative approach Krakauer takes in this chapter. For one thing, he acknowledges the role he himself has played in McCandless' story: he writes about how Ron contacts him, seeking information about Chris. Krakauer also is indirectly responsible for Ron learning about Chris's death, since he hears of it from some hitchhikers who have read Krakauer's piece in Outside magazine.

More than this, the chapter is less about McCandless's movements than his relationship with Ron. Despite their fondness for each other, McCandless leaves Ron several times. In an effort to keep Chris close by, Ron even offers to adopt him as his grandson (Chris evades the offer, telling Ron he'll think about it "when he gets back from Alaska"). We get some additional insight into Chris and his inner state through this interchange, and how his friendship for Ron exists in tension with his need to be on the road. He is not willing to give up his freedom to be with Ron, so, instead, he advises Ron to hit the road himself. Incredibly, Ron does just that, packing up his house and living in a van in the desert.

The chapter also represents a shift in tone and point of view. McCandless's actions are seen in the context of how they effect Ron. Krakauer, while clearly reporting what Ron has told him, adopts a more novelistic approach in the chapter, one which examines Ron's feelings and examines the emotional cost McCandless' actions had on him. Ron's devotion to Chris -- not Chris's romantic dedication to the open road -- emerges as focal point of the chapter, and changes the way we think about Chris.

Hello,I am in seventh grade at a peace school and I need help. My teacher wants me to prove and not prove that America has freedom, justice and...

It is certainly possible to argue both that America provides and does not provide freedom, justice, and equality.  Let us briefly see how this is the case.

We can argue that the US provides all of these things because we can see many examples of each.  America provides us with freedom.  We are free to criticize our government as much as we want and in the harshest of terms.  We can practice whatever we religion...

It is certainly possible to argue both that America provides and does not provide freedom, justice, and equality.  Let us briefly see how this is the case.

We can argue that the US provides all of these things because we can see many examples of each.  America provides us with freedom.  We are free to criticize our government as much as we want and in the harshest of terms.  We can practice whatever we religion we choose, or no religion at all.  We can say that the US provides justice.  We do not live in a country where a rich person can generally bribe a judge, for example, to rule against a poor person.  We live in a country where the law applies to everyone.  America provides us with equality.  Perhaps the clearest example of this is the fact that a man who is half African-American is our president only 50 years after the Civil Rights Movement finally gave blacks the guaranteed right to vote.  We have many non-white leaders in all areas of life, showing that there is equality of opportunity in this country.

One the other hand, we can argue that we in the US do not have any of these things.  We can say that people are only free to do things in the US that are not terribly unpopular.  Religious people are not free to act according to their beliefs with respect to gay people.  Muslims in many places are not free to have places of worship where they do not have to worry about being harassed for their faith.  We can argue that Americans do not have justice.  We see how police officers can kill young black men with seeming impunity.  We know that innocent people are convicted of crimes and even sentenced to death.  We know that people with money can afford lawyers who can manipulate the legal system to their advantage.  We can say that Americans do not have equality.  Women do not make as much money as men.  Non-whites are badly overrepresented among the ranks of the poor. 

From these things, we can see that is possible to argue both that Americans do and do not have freedom, justice, and equality.