Massachusetts and the Puritans

Massachusetts and the Puritans Nhat Nguyen Now the state of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was established by Puritans (see  Puritanism) fleeing religious persecution in England. Composed of numerous settlements established at various times, the colony had its beginning on June 19, 1630, when John Winthrop stood aboard the ship Arbella and delivered a sermon to a group of sick and weary passengers about to begin a new life in the howling wilderness of New England. Winthrop reminded his listeners that their removal from England did not break their social and political ties, indeed those ties should become tighter and more closely follow the will of God. The colony was to be an ordered community, dedicated to realizing the will of God and to creating a model society for old England to emulate. The rulers of old England however, did not wish to, follow the Puritan lead. Both James I and Charles I were suspicious of the Puritans, especially their rejection of bishops, which they saw as tantamount to rejecting royal authority. James, I had been surfeited with this rejection of episcopal authority while the king of Scotland, having seen the Scottish Presbyterians remove his mother from the throne and place him upon it while still a youth. When he succeeded to the throne of England, James knew that he wanted to retain the Church of Englands bishops and promised to make his Puritan subjects conform or harry them out of the kingdom or worse, as he put it. This anti-Puritanism was continued and expanded by his successor, Charles I. Charles and his archbishop of Canterbury engaged in a process of persecution that led to the great migration of thousands of English Puritans to British North America. This migration, led by the Arbella and accompanying ships, resulted in numerous Puritan colonies in New England, the most significant of which was Massachusetts Bay. The colony was originally organized as a stock company with voting rights limited to stockholders who chose the colonys leaders, but this changed soon after their arrival in America. Winthrop, who held the title of governor, gathered the colonys inhabitants on October 29, 1630, and by a show of hands gave all the freemen of the colony the right to elect assistants or legislators. This action, which soon encompassed nearly all adult males in the colony, gave Massachusetts Bay a much wider franchise than England and most of Europe, despite its limitation to church membership. The Puritans desired to build an ordered community, under the watchful providence of God. This society was not, however, the theocracy that many have claimed it to be. In fact, ministers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony had less formal power than anywhere in Europe and did not constitute a recognized class with special privileges. This absence of inherited privileges was a significant factor in the life of the colony. Although the Puritans firmly believed that there were greater and lesser people, and titles such as Goodwife, Mistress, and Master constantly affirmed these divisions, the range was much less than in England. Sumptuary laws governed the nature of individual dress-limiting the colors, amount of gold, and jewelry a person could wear. These laws both affirmed social distinctions and limited ostentatious displays of wealth and power. When combined with the Puritan doctrine of human sin and of human equality before God, they resulted in much less overt social differences in M assachusetts Bay than the home country. The desire to maintain harmony, stability, and social order was great. The magistrates enforced the laws against blasphemy and punished those who failed to attend church services. The nature of colonial settlement also served to strengthen social stability and cohesion. The land was allocated to each colonist for farming, but people lived in towns, traveling out to their farms each morning and returning in the evening. Towns centered on the meetinghouse, the church building that functioned as the center of the communitys social, political, and religious life. The stereotypical independent settler separated from the community was not acceptable in Massachusetts Bay. Such a settler, separated from the bonds of family, church, community, and government, was bound to lapse into antisocial and irreligious behavior. The godly life could be lived only with others. Conflicts over the nature of that life, however, were such that the harmony desired by the colonys political elite was never realized. These conflicts emerged early in the colonys life. The first was the so-called Antinomian Controversy. Occasioned by the religious instruction thatAnne Hutchinson provided in her home and involving conflicts between the growing merchant class and the colonys political and religious elite, the Antinomian Controversy was typically Puritan in that it was fought over theology and the role of social harmony in theology. Similarly, the expulsion of Roger Williams from the colony was a response to theological differences that authorities viewed as destabilizing. Williamss belief that the government had no right to enforce the first part of the decalogue-the first four of the Ten Commandments dealing with worship-was seen as an assault upon the social stability of the colony. Indeed, many viewed any failure of the state to enforce these laws as an invitation to divine destruction. To outlaw blasphemy was not only an act of religious faith but also helped ensure social survival. Such conflicts, like those with other socially disruptive groups such as Baptists, Quakers (seeFriends, a Religious society of [Quakers]), and witches (see Salem witchcraft trials) recurred as the Puritans attempted to build a viable society in a hostile land. They struggled mightily to establish the social institutions that would provide for the colonys stability. Churches and towns were the first to appear, then came a college (Harvard, 1638), printing presses, and schools. Soon Massachusetts Bay was an expanding and successful colony, kept alive by fishing, agriculture, timber harvesting, and even the slave trade. Prosperity did not, however, ease the difficulties of creating an ordered society pleasing to God. Tensions emerged within the New England way among not only those outside but those within it as well. The first concern was the perception that piety was declining within the colony. From the heroic period of settlement, when the colony seemed to have been dominated by great men and high religious concern, many saw a decline by the mid-17th century. Religious interest appeared to have waned and the number of visible saints to have declined. This concern became so prevalent that the sermons preached about it have received their ow n name. Jeremiads, as they are known, were directed against this perceived declension. Whether the decline was as great as the ministers claimed is debatable, but it is true that the colony experienced the shift from a time when people immigrated from religious conviction to a period when people simply were born into the society. A telling anecdote, probably apocryphal, illustrates this change well. A Puritan minister once berated a man he caught unloading fish on Sunday, reminding him of the religious nature of the colony and its founders. The fisherman quickly responded, My grandfather came here from God, I came here for cod. The colony faced other challenges. Chief among these were the local Indians and the French who, from their outposts in Canada, occasionally harried the colonys more distant settlements along with their Native American allies. These challenges ended with the eventual British conquest of Frances North American colonies in 1759. The removal of this external threat only exacerbated the internal one, the ongoing conflicts between the colonists in America and the mother country. This conflict was not to be taken lightly, and in Massachusetts, it had a religious dimension. The late 17th century had seen an apparent victory of the Puritan party in its monarchical form in England. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had removed the Catholic king, James II, and with it the threat to the colonys independent existence under James, who had revoked the colonys charter and established an Anglican foothold at Kings Chapel in Boston. But this was not the only religious threat that England presented to the colony. If some contemporary writers are to be believed, the most significant conflicts and the true start of theAmerican Revolution began with the rumor that England would send a bishop to the colonies. The imposition of a bishop was seen by many colonists as an inherent threat to their liberties. InMassachusetts Bay, where stories of episcopal persecution of Puritans were still remembered, this was the final assault on everything they had tried to create. Already forced to allow toleration to other Protestants, they now faced the final loss of their religious independence. The Puritan tradition of self-government, the rule of law, and human activity helped to set the stage for the American Revolution. The revolution in the hearts and minds, as John Adams-a Puritan scion-wrote, had already occurred. It was no coincidence that a great deal of the revolutionary leadership came from Massachusetts. The colony and i ts Puritanism had helped to pave the way. Work Cited Timothy Breen Puritans and Adventurers: Change and Persistence in Early America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980) Cedric B. Cowing, The Saving Remnant: Religion and the Settling of New England (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995) David Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment (New York: Knopf, 1989) Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956) Edmund Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (New York: Longman, 1999) Samuel Eliot Morison, Builders of the Bay Colony (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930)

Role of Greed and Grievance in Civil War

Role of Greed and Grievance in Civil War The role that greed and grievance play in civil war is its emergence. Their role is a crucial and controversial one in the creation of civil wars. There have been various arguments concerning their role in its emergence, with most for greed as the key factor as the backbone of all conflict including civil war while a few others also consider grieves role. However, it is my opinion that both work hand in hand to create the violence that is civil war. Some could even see how one begets the other, legitimizing the creation of one through the existence of the other. Either way the role both greed and grieve play is one of an instigator. This paper will illustrates how both factors have intertwining roles in the occurrence of civil war; the aim is to show how one factors role influences the other and how one factors role can overlap and blur the other out. This will be done by looking at various explanations for civil war attributed to greed and grieve individually. To discuss these terms and their role in the emergence of civil war it is crucial to understand what they mean and why they are considered active role players in the creation of civil war. Civil War is conflict that arises when militant groups of people attack a government and or civilians persistently (Collier, 2003:54).What exactly is greed and how does it come into play in the occurrence of civil war? Greed according to the English dictionary (dictionary.com) is ‘excessive or rapacious desire especially for wealth or possessions. It is the need to acquire more than you need taking or having more of what you already have. So who is the greedy in civil war? Based on the definition, do the greedy exist in the sense of the word? If they do, then it is crucial to ‘investigate how the greed generates grievance and rebellion, legitimizing further greed (Keen,2000:32) as part of its role in the occurrence of civil war through, the actions of the greedy. Various economic and political factors contribute to the emergence and creation of civil war starting from inequality in terms of resource allocation to participation in the decision making process. There have been various arguments as to what really causes civil war; the prominent answer is economic inequality. The general idea is that people want more access to resources and because they cannot get it, they take it by force. In this sense, then yes the greedy exist and play a major role in the occurrence of civil war. On the other hand, those who do not have access to recourses at all and just want to enjoy the benefits and access to it in the first place (not more access) are not greedy but needy. The actual participants(people doing the actual fighting, and protesting) of civil war are not acting according to greed, for greed as earlier defined is wanting more of what you already have. They on the other hand just want access to resources denied of them, denoting previous lack. It is easy to link economic need and lack of resources to greed even more so as the focus is often on how the elite manipulate the situations to create civil unrest and strife, and how they and a few others benefit from it. The error is in considering these groups of people to be the only actors of civil war. The aim here is not to diminish the role of greed, for it plays just as important a role as grieve does as will be later discussed. The aim is to point out that it is important to consider those acting from greed and those from grieve, and the role of grievance in causing civil war before giving all the credit to greeds role as the dominant player in the creation of civil conflict. It is impossible for one factor (grieve or greed) to stir up conflict without the presence of the other factor. The greedy, often times are some entrepreneurs, rebel lords and their gangs, and a few elites (including some governments) that have something to gain from civil unrest are motivated by their greed, their desire to hoard more resources, their access to it, and the benefits gained from said resources (in form of employment, education, wealth etc). Their interest is vested in the continuation of war and so they manipulate the grieve that exists in the society which more often than not is a result of their greed. These are the few Collier talks about when he says, ‘civil war creates economic opportunities for a minority of actors even as they destroy it for the majority (Collier, 2000:91). This brings me to the point that the greedy are few but their impact and influence on the occurrence of civil war is big. Greed plays a minor yet visible role in civil war. The greedy few use the genuine grieve of the majority to advance their own economic agenda. According to Collier (2000), gr ieve is used to recruit actors in civil war. To understand the role of grieve; it is important to define it and consider what constitutes the sentiment. Grieve refers to pain over injustice or unfortunate circumstances as used in the English dictionary ‘grieve is to feel great sorrow, be mentally distressed or oppressed and wronged (Dictionary.com). This attribute is evident when considering factors that contribute to civil war. Looking at the case of Rwanda (Caplan, 2007) where the Tutsi had previously oppressed the Hutus during colonialism. The Hutu ethnic group embarked on an ethnic cleansing mission of the Tutsi ethnic group when they gained political power. This example illustrates how grieve came into play for Rwandas civil war. Ethnic differences, which resulted in oppression of one group by the other, created tension and grieve that erupted into violence. The role of Grieve and greed as creators of civil war is evident in that they are the foundations for each explanatory factor given for the occurrence of civil war. They are the driving forces behind factors contributing to civil war like ethnic differences, manipulative leaders and so forth. For each factor attributed to greed, there is grieve working with it making it possible for greed to be pursued, and for each grieve backed reason for civil war, greed is presently active. Both factors work together, greed creates grieve and it is also possible for greed to emerge from that grieve (Cramer, 2002) without one, the other really does not exist in civil war. Thus far, the contribution and role of greed and grieve as individual factors in the occurrence of civil war in a country has been show, now focus is directed to illustrate how their individual roles intertwine and work hand in hand. This aspect of the essay is going to examine the roles both grieve and greed play in different gr eed or grieve specific explanations offered for the cause of civil war. The most prominent explanation or contributing factor to civil war in literature and media seems to be economic agenda (Collier 2003) (greed explanation) and inequality (grieve explanation) between groups and people in the society as previously noted. The idea behind this is that people engage in conflict in order to advance their own economic agenda, be it access to previously denied resources or to gain more access to said resources. Collier (2000:93-95) uses a number of proxies to explain how greed motivates conflict. For instance, the availability of primary loot-able resources(also discussed in Collier, 2008) in a country creates an avenue for conflict to develop out of greed because of what is to be gained from looting (be it profit from actual sale of good or use of it). Another proxy used was the number of young men without job prospects whose income earning potentials and educational levels are low (Collier, 2000:95). According to this analogy jobless young men with no prospects living in a country with an abundance or somewhat large number of â€Å"primary resources† is a recipe for conflict in said society because of idleness and availability of loot-able resources and of course greed. These young jobless men without prospects do not have jobs or proper paying jobs because they have been denied access to proper and good or any form of education(also a factor that contributes to grieve). They may even have one but cannot get any or good employment because of inequality in the society. A country with large â€Å"commodity exports† obviously has the resources to make things better for these people or at least the means (sale of said commodity resources) to make things better. The availability of young men and primary export commodities shows how greeds role as a generator of civil war works. The explanation also illustrates how grieve (also an instigator of civil war) plays its role i n this dominantly greed backed explanation. Grieve experienced over the unfavorable conditions and employment status or lack thereof of these â€Å"young men† led them to resort to conflict to acquire some of the economic resources not made accessible to them. Colliers argument is that countries with â€Å"large primary resources† are prone to more civil war. The logic of his argument is that ‘resource-rich countries have a higher probability for conflict than resource-poor ones (Soya, 2000:120). Well certainly, there is some credit to this logic because resource poor countries have little or no resources. The difference between these two types of countries is that resource rich countries have resources. The scarcity of said resources within the country where the benefits of such resources are not visible or made equally available to its citizens are bound to experience rebellion from the majority of the population considering how only a minority benefits. The sense of injustice and feeling of unfairness likely to arise from the knowledge that certain resources are available but to only a few elite is enough to bring about grieve. This is also likely to motivate rebels and cause an uprising, and not only the idea that there is excess to acquire and more to be made from black market so let us loot and make our own profits like Collier and Soya would have us believe. The greed proxies (available young men, primary resource and education level) and explanations show greeds role at work, and shows that of grieve in civil war, illustrating how one cannot work without the other. The grievance factors of civil war and some of the grieve backed explanations for civil war like differences and animosity existing between groups in the society, and how they contribute to the emergence of civil war also illustrate the role of greed. The first of many is ‘raw ethnic or religious hatred (Collier, 2000:95). The logic behind this is that people are afraid of what they do not know or understand. Therefore, a society that is deeply separated based on different ethnicities and religious views will experience civil unrest at some point or the other because the society is invested in the differences that exist. Take for instance the Biafra war of Nigeria. The Biafra civil war broke out because of the three major ethnic groups (Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo) in the country, out of which the Igbo were not represented in government. They no longer were actively included in politics after years of being at the forefront of Nigerian politics, and running the country with the las t president (removed through a coup dà ©tat) being from the Igbo ethnic group (Ralph, 2004). Their lack of representation meant their access to certain resources were limited. The ethnic groups in power based on solidarity-favored members of their own ethnic group, their regions had better systems of education, and employment opportunity was regularly based on whom you knew and what ethnic group you belonged to. They only cared about and helped â€Å"their own people† while members of other ethnic groups were being slaughtered and maltreated. This goes to show how deeply rooted the society was in ethnic identities and differences. So much so, that the Igbo felt oppressed and resentment grew. The situation escalated because of problems surrounding the presence of crude oil in the region of the country occupied by the Igbo. The profits made from the resources found in their regions or â€Å"their lands† was not distributed equally around the regions of the nation and es pecially not in the regions, they were found in. In addition, the Igbo leaders decided to keep the profits to themselves to improve the standard of living of maltreated ethnic group members (Global Security.org). Out of grieve over the extent of inequality in the nation the Igbo felt the need to secede. The Nigeria Biafra war illustration of ethnic identities and differences creating civil strife supports the idea that ‘societies that are highly fractionalized by both ethnicity and religion (Collier, 2000:95) will have more incidence of civil war. Furthermore, the illustration not only shows grieve playing its role as a creator of civil war by supporting the grieve backed explanation for causes of civil, in this case ethnic differences and inequality, it also shows greeds role in the occurrence of the Nigerian Biafra civil war. The Igbo were oppressed, agreed but they did not threaten to secede up until they lost their position of power in government (an Igbo was in the presidential office) and found an excuse (Using the proceeds to help the oppressed) to keep the benefits and profits from the valuable natural resource found in the southeast region of Nigeria, where the Igbo reside to themselves. The presence of such a valuable resource like crude oil turned the Igbo greedy an d their state of oppression created an avenue for that greed to show. They wanted to keep the benefits from crude oil to themselves and break from the country. With the already existing situation of the ruling ethnic groups (Hausa and Yoruba), isolating resources based on ethnicity, and their greed in taking and keeping the benefits of the resources without any of it trickling down to the Igbo added to the existing rage and grieve over inequalities that abound in the society and oppression. More importantly, it legitimized the greed of the Igbo group; if it was all right for the ruling groups to hoard resources, it was all right for them to take their resource and keep it for themselves. The ruling groups out of greed kept resources for themselves, this resulted in the neglected groups (Igbo) grieve. Because of their greed, the ruling ethnic groups (Hausa and Yoruba) desired to keep the resource within their grasps and power so they can benefit more from it. This greed possibly led them to resist the secession of the Igbo group away from the nation. The Igbo on the other hand out of grieve over limited access to resources grew greedy and wanted to break from the country at the discovery of a valuable resource (crude oil) they wanted to keep to for themselves. This just goes to show how greed causes grieve and how both factors work together to manipulate situations in a way that results into violence. Another grieve backed factor for civil war that shows the role of both grieve and greed as creators of civil war is the idea of economic inequality again. This factor shows the perfect relationship between the roles of greed and grieve. The latter stemming from the unavailability of certain things like land for instance which Collier (2000) uses as proxy for inequality to others because the elite of the society have access to it. The greed of some in accumulation of resources for themselves and in the process causing grieve for those who do not have access to or are unable enjoy certain benefits derived from it. Ultimately greed from one side coupled with grieve from another equals civil war or at least leads to some form of conflict and even more so in a country with weak governance. A weak government implies ‘government economic incompetence (Collier, 2000:96) and an inability to control or prevent an outbreak of conflict in case one arises from said incompetence. Where there is an incompetent government, greed and grieve have an avenue to breed and reinforce each other in the creation of civil war. An incompetent government is to some extent responsible for economic inequality. The government is tasked with the duty of making resources available to its citizens equally or at the very least provides social safety nets when and where needed. If the government fails to provide these resources in an equal manner and create an equal atmosphere, inequalities are bound to be more apparent in the society and grieve from such inequalities as explained earlier may erupt into civil war. In addition, having a government that supports greed and is itself greedy and corrupt is another aspect in which a weak governance can and often adds to the incidence of civil war an d reinforce the role of greed and grieve as its creators. Through its greedy activities like accepting bribes from elites to maybe get more electricity in certain parts of the country or a government that fails to maintain public amenities such as the public school system because funds for such maintenance out of greed are diverted into their personal accounts creates grieve. Those that cannot afford private school for their kids or those that cannot afford to bribe them are ultimately denied the use of and access to basic resources. This type of behavior creates the foundation for inequality starting from basic education, which would later reflect in other areas of life like employment and income amongst other things. Government incompetence enhances the role of grieve and greed and creates a breeding ground for them to fester. A government with no desire to end conflict because of how they benefit from it be it through bribes from those that want to keep the situation the way it i s or based on their own interest legitimizes greed which goes on to create grieve which may or may not turn into greed and the cycle continues. Ultimately the role of greed and grieve in civil war is the creation of civil war. Factors that explain why civil wars occur are based on greed or grieve and are generally categorized as grieve based or greed based showing how important their role is in civil war. Without the presence of these factors (Greed and Grieve) civil war does not exist, it does not escalate and it does not continue. They are the fuel to the fire that is civil war. In conclusion, greed and grieve as creators of civil war reinforce each. One does not exist without the other and so to ignore the role of one in causing civil war is to leave the glass half-empty. To understand how various explanations of civil war factors work, it is important to recognize that both grieve and greed work together to effectively create the situation. For without greed, grieve cannot effectively play its role and create civil war, and neither can greed without grieve. Bibliography Amartya Sen. (2008). Violence, Identity, and Poverty. Journal of Peace Research. 45 (1), p Caplan, Gerald. (2007). Rwanda:Walking the Road to Genocide. In: Allan Thompson The media and the Rwanda genocide. London: Pluto Press. p20-40. Collier, Paul. (2008). The Conflict Trap. In: Collier The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. New York: Oxford University Press. p17-37. Collier, Hoeffler, and Sambanis. (2005). The Collier-Hoeffler Model of Civil War Onset and the Case Study Project Research Design. In: Paul Collier, and Nicholas Smbanis Understandying Civil War. 2nd ed. Washington DC: World Bank. p1-35. Collier, Paul. (2003). What makes a country Prone to Civil War. In: Paul Collier,World Bank Breaking the conflict trap: civil war and development policy. Washington, DC: Oxford university press and World Bank. p53-91. Collier, Paul. (2000). Doing Well out of War: An economic Perspective. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p91-112. Cramer, C. (2002). Homo Economicus Goes to War: Methodological Individualism, Rational Choice and the Political Economy of War. World Development. 30 (11), p1845-1860. David Keen. (2008). Greed: Economic Agendas. In: Keen Complex emergencies. Cambridge: Polity Press. p25-50. David Keen. (2008). Combatants and their Grievances. In: Keen Complex emergencies. Cambridge: Polity Press. p50-62. David Keen. (2000). Incentives and Disincentives for Violence. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p19-42. Global Security. (nd). Biafra War. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/biafra.htm. Last accessed 5 January 2010. Indra de Soya. (2000). The Resource Curse: Are Civil Wars Driven by Rapacity or Paucity. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p113-136. Jacoby, Tim. (2008). Grievance. In: Jacoby Understanding Conflict and Violence: Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Approaches. London: Routledge. 103-123. Raph Uwechue. (2004). The Revolution of January 1966- Mismanaged and Misunderstood. In: Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War: Facing the Future. Victoria: Trafford. p23-33.

Persian Gulf War Essay -- essays research papers

The Persian Gulf War all started because of one country’s greed for oil. Iraq accused Kuwait of pumping oil and not sharing the benfits, and Kuwait was pumping more oil than allowed under quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, it decreased the price of oil, Iraq's main export. Iraq's complaints against Kuwait grew more and more harsh, but they were mostly about money. When Iraqi forces began to assemble near the Kuwaiti border in the summer of 1990, several Arab states tried to intervene the dispute. Kuwait didn’t want to look weak so they didn’t ask for any help from the United States or other non-Arab powers for support. Arab mediators convinced Iraq and Kuwait to negotiate their differences in Saudi Arabia, on August 1, 1990, but that meeting resulted only in charges and countercharges. A second meeting was planned to take place in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, but Iraq invaded Kuwait the next day, leading some people to think that Ira qi president Saddam Hussein had planned the invasion all along.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Iraqi attack began shortly after midnight on August 2. About 150,000 Iraqi troops, many of them veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, easily overwhelmed the unprepared and inexperienced Kuwaiti forces, which numbered about 20,000. By dawn Iraq had assumed control of Kuwait City, the capital, and was soon in complete control of the country. The United Nation Security Council and the Arab League immediately condemned the Iraqi invasion. Four days later, the Security Council forced an economic restriction on Iraq that forbidden nearly all trades with Iraq. Any armed attempt to roll back the Iraqi invasion depended on Saudi Arabia, which shares a border with Iraq and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia didn’t have the power to fight Iraq alone .So Saudi rulers did eventually open the country to foreign forces, in mainly because they were worried by Iraq's aggressive negotiations also U.S. intelligence reports claimed that Iraqi forces were well positioned for a strike against Sa udi Arabia. Beginning a week after the Iraqi take over of Kuwait and continuing for several months, a large international force called the â€Å"international coalition† gathered in Saudi Arabia. The United States sent more than 400,000 troops, and more than 200,000 additional troops came from Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, France, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Sene... ...ps. The UN continued to maintain most of the economic restriction on Iraq after the war, and several coalition countries enforced other sanctions. The sanctions allowed Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil for food and medicine if it also designated some of the revenue to pay for damages caused by the war. Until December 1996, Iraq rejected this deal as an violation on its power. Hussein also complicated matters by mobilizing forces on the Kuwaiti border in late 1994 and by interfering with the work of UN inspectors. This interference almost led to new military conflict in 1998, but a UN binding agreement allowing the inspectors to resume work averted the immediate crisis. Reports that Iraq was continuing to block inspections prompted the United States and Britain to launch a four-day series of air strikes on Iraqi military and industrial targets in December. In response, Iraq stated that it would no longer comply with UN inspection teams, called for an end to the sanctions, and t hreatened to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Through early 1999, Iraq continued to challenge the patrols, and British and U.S. planes struck Iraqi missile launch sites and other targets.

THE EVOLUTION OF CARIBBEAN SOCIAL POLICY Essay -- essays research pape

THE EVOLUTION OF CARIBBEAN SOCIAL POLICY: Reasons for the Changes and Shifts in the Social Policy Agenda From the 1940’s to the Present Period. Social Policy may be broadly defined as a system of social welfare that includes economic as well as non-economic objectives and involves some measure of progressive redistribution in command over resources1. Using Mishra’s typology of social welfare models (see Fig. 1 below), this paper describes the evolution of social policy in the English-speaking Caribbean. Drawing primarily from the experiences of Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, four chronological periods are used to highlight the factors contributing to the major developments in social policy: 1) the Immediate Post-War Period and the Moyne Commission (1940 to 1950); 2) Transition to Self-Government (1950 to 1961); 3) Ideology and the Immediate Post-Independence Period (1962 to 1973); 4) the Oil Crisis, World Recession and Structural Adjustment (1970 to 1980’s); 5) (Conclusion) The Present Period (1990 to present)2. A review of the literature revealed that a combination of social, economic, political/ideological and international factors contributed to policy development at each stage of this evolutionary process. This paper argues that as a result of these factors, Caribbean social policy gradually moved from a strong residual approach prior to the Moyne report, and tended to a more institutional approach during the transition period to full internal self-government, then to a more structural approach in the immediate post-independence period, and back to a residual approach when structural adjustment policies were instituted in the 1980’s. Of course, in reality the policies formulated in the various periods do not conform perfectly to Mishra’s types. However, this does not detract from the applicability of the model to the present analysis, as it is an inherent feature of all ideal types (as is implied by the descriptor â€Å"ideal†). Also, while the general factors contributing to the evolution of Caribbean social policy has been highlighted, the specific ways in whi ch these factors manifested in each country are extensively discussed. Fig. 1 Mishra’s Welfare Models1 Main Features Type of Welfare Residual Institutional Structural State responsibility in meeting needs (ideology of state intervention) Minimal Optimal... ... Henry, Ralph and Moesire, Alicia. â€Å"Poverty Alleviation and Reduction Programmes: the Commonwealth Caribbean Experience† in Poverty, Empowerment and Social Development in the Caibbean. Ed, Norman Girvan. Mona: Canoe Press UWI, 1997, 101 – 136. Mac Pherson, Stewart. Social Policy in the Third World: The Social Dilemmas of Underdevelopment. UK: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd. 1982. Neil, Joan. Targeting and Poverty: New Trends in Social Policy – Social Projects for Alleviation in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. UNECLAC, 1992. Robothom, Don. Social and Economic Policy: Starting Gates and End-States, UWI, 1995. Sinha, D.P. â€Å"Health Care of The Population† in Children of the Caribbean. CFNI/PAHO, 198 8. 123-144. Stone, Carl. â€Å"Power Policy and Politics in Independent Jamaica† in Jamaican in Independence: Essays on the Early Years. Ed, Rex Nettleford. Kingston: Heinemann Caribbean, 1989, 19-53. Thomas, Clive, Y. â€Å"The interrelationship between economic and social development† in Poverty, Empowerment and Social Development in the Caribbean. Ed, Norman Girvan. Mona: Canoe Press UWI, 1997, 20-49. Titmuss, R. Social Policy: An Introduction.

Consent forms

Although many people may think that signing a consent form is crazy, but there are many different think that people may hear about signing consent forms such as; you have to pay for the form, there are a lot of questions on the form, and they are not real at all. The real question we should all ask ourselves is that.Should informed consent be limited in certain situation? I'm about to give you some good reasons why we should sign consent forms at the doctor's office and the hospital. For example, while reading he book about Henrietta Lacks gave me a different outlook on what really goes on in the doctor's office and the hospital, and we all need to watch out and read everything that we get from the hospital and doctors.Now if Henrietta got consent form she would have read that paper before she signed it and then the doctor's would have never took her cells Just to run some test on them without her knowing, and that is where the consent form comes in at. As though many of us do not re ad everything that is on that form and the entire only thing that we do see on the paper is ignature and date, but we really need to read the whole thing before we go and sign a form and we have no idea what they will do without cells Just like Henrietta.One of the quotas that stand out to me in â€Å"Transparency: informed consent in primary care (Hoard Brody)†, and I feel that this quote was a good one because it gets right to the point about signing consent forms: Physicians may also view informed consent as an empty charade, since they are confident in their abilities to manipulate consent by how they discuss or divulge information (Brody par 4). While reading this quote had e thinking about a lot of thing that we may not know about these consent forms because our doctors do not really tells us about them, yet the only thing they do is give it to us so that we can read it and sign the paper.However many of us may have a lot of questions that about signing a consent form a t the doctor's office and we may not think that it is very important to sign and most of us do not want to sign that paper and they doctors may do something to you cells, and you did not sign that paper the only person that you can be upset with is yourself because you did not ead that consent form all of the way, but the one that you was ready to do is not sign that paper and Just walk out the doctor's office.Another quote that I thought that Howard Brody wrote about in his article was: Some positive side-effects of this might be more focus on good diagnostic and therapeutic decision making on the physician's part, since it will be understood that the patient will be made aware of what the physician's reasoning process has been like, and better documentation of management decisions in the patient record (Brody middle of par 18). The speed of edical research together with drug companies race to create products has overtaken the system designed to keep people safe (Robert Davis par 2 ).While reading this quote from â€Å"U. S. : Human Medical Test Lack Oversight (Robert Davis)†, I feel that we should get a better understanding of the medical, and consent forms because if we don't read and understand something then we will signing something tor someone to take without us knowing. In conclusion many people may not understand why we should sign a consent form Just in the case something may happen to us while we are at the doctor's office or in the hospital.While reading these articles and the Henrietta Lacks book made me realize that signing a consent form is important because you do not give the doctors the rights to take anything from you that they did not ask for, but back in the day they could Just take anything that didn't belong to them; however, now you have to ask that patience if you can, but most of the time they will say no.

Broad Narrow View of CSR

In my learn the statement the societal responsibility of art is to gain shekels is true to a point, however, I study a corps responsibilities break beyond only if maximising gain. The minute View argues that receipts maximisation is the only objective for a blood. Levitt. T wrote, In the end occupation has yet 2 responsibilities- to obey the elementary canons of face-to-face niceness (h adeptsty, good faith and so on) and to strain material gain. Milton Friedman argued that argumentation has no loving responsibilities separate than to maximise profit.Friedman in like manner argues that the corporation is an artificial person and can, at that placefore, only have artificial responsibilities. Business is manifestly an even more artificial design and in that locationfore we ar left with just proprietors and integrated executives who can actually be responsible. Because the function of tune organisation is to fill gold, the possessors of corporations em ploy executives to accomplish the goals, thus managers atomic number 18 obliged to act in the kindle of owners. According to Friedman, executives have accessible corporate responsibilities beyond pursuit of profit.They must make it shareholder money for general social occupy such as onerous the owners and spending taxes on social causes. (Friedman, 1970) in that location is one and only one social responsibility of moving in is to use its resources and assimilate in activities designed to increase its profits so gigantic as it corset within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and sinless competition without deception or fraud. If there was no initiation of throw, there is postal code wrong with profit. However, at the same time, there are many instances of initiation of force that give subscriber linees, and the market, the illusion of profit.Most of the time, these initiations of force bonk in the form of which creates regulation realizeing one keep company at the disadvantage of free competition or some block out of subsidy which takes money from taxpayers. Every traffic has a responsibility to its owners and shareholders to increase its profits, precisely successful businesses also help contribute for the community. Financial managers dont often think some the business social responsibility to increase profits. However, fleck their main concern whitethorn be aking money for themselves and their company, their efforts will often succumb revenue within the community, providing benefits which business owners and shareholders may never consider. All things being equal, the profit and loss of a business tells an owner how well or how poorly a business is meeting the wants and needs of individuals in society. This is true for a small or the largest of corporations. It doesnt matter whether a business services a few folk locally, or a mass of race internationally, the role of profit and loss is noneffervescent the s ame in any business situation.The only way a business can increase profit is if a business, small, medium, or large is providing something of value to early(a) individuals. Each of these businesses is benefiting someone in society, and the business knows this because of such profit. In contrast to what Friedman and Levitt utter about business has former(a) obligations in addition to pursuing profits, the broad view maintain that a corporation has obligations not just to its shareholders but to other constituencies that are affected.Keith Davis stated that social responsibility implies that business decision maker in mental process of serving his own business interest is obliged to take actions that protect and arouse societys interest. Shareholders own the company and they entrusts management with their funds and in reelect the management make as such(prenominal) money for them. The manager of a corporation does indeed have a fiduciary duty to look after the shareholders inte rest. In argue with the fix view theory, management have duties to other constituencies as well like employees and customers. A stakeholder value perspective places worth on social responsibility above profit.However, if the business is not profitable, it cannot provide for its valuable stakeholders. Thus, the business has a social responsibility to all involved to increase its profits. As long as the business works to commensurateness the needs of all stakeholders, it should have no problem meeting its social responsibilities. When businesses increase their profits, they often create new jobs. Employees benefit from these jobs, and the community benefits from the money spent by these employees. When employees are able to spend money and pay taxes, they indirectly contribute to schools, libraries and other public institutions.

Factors Affecting Organizational Behavior Essay

All companies at present earn ind headspringing and external forces that impact organisational port. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of internal and external forces on organisational mien. The four forces we provide discuss ar, client demands relating to Sinclair Oil, sparing forces proscribedside of conduct Portfolio Servicing, restructuring deep down cling to, and worldwideization factors relating to Northrop Grumman.Customer DemandsCustomer demands defy a large impact on systemal behavior (OB) of the Sinclair Oil jackpot (SOC). SOC owns and operates three fossil oil refineries, a trucking division, a pipeline division, the sell service stations, and 8 hotels and resorts. The diverse nature of the caller leads to many different customer demands.The oil refineries conduct ii emblems of customers. The first is the retail service stations. The refineries mustiness(prenominal) produce enough unblemished product to each one day to tot up th e service stations in 17 different states. The second type of customer is the federal g everyplacenment. Over the last eight old age SOC has held the contract to provide jet fuel to hummock Air Force base. The average amount of finished product produced at the refineries is 600 hundred thousand put a day. This output is usually enough to supply the service stations needs and earn whatsoever oil to put into reserve. Working conditions within the refinery atomic physique 18 inherently dangerous, if production can non go along up with demands operators a lot begin to feel additional pressure to keep pace this distress can lead to additional dangers.There ar three different types of hotels and resorts within the SOC/Little the States organization. There are wayside properties, which cater to travelers and tourists, the elegant hotels and the ski resorts. Each type of property gears itself and its organizational behavior towards the customer base. The roadside properties, su ch as Little America Cheyenne, have a to a greater extent casual approach to the customers ascribable to the affluent nature at the Grand America the environment is formal. The resorts are highly influenced with a European flair. This help the customers feel a sense of adventure. sparingWhile customer demands are one of the primary election forces on SOC, economic forces greatly impact the OB of Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS). SPS is a mortgage religious service company. The re bloodline conclave or hardship group is within the lend block department. Loan solution assists borrowers who have fallen tatterdemalion on their mortgage. The resource group assists customers that have hardship, such as, illness, death, loss of calling for extended periods of time, and property damage. When the deliverance falters the activities of loan final result are in higher demand.Loan answer and the resource group profit off the economic hardship of their customers. The purpose of loan resolution is to acidulate loss into profit for their investors. Loan resolution limits or prevents the loss which the investor experiences when a customer defaults.Loan resolution is paid based off of the percentage of delinquent accounts that they get re-performing, get paid in full, or liquidate for a loss.With the faulty miserliness in that location is more a more bunk that loan resolution must perform. Loan resolution is short-handed and overworked. The influx of high phone call volumes has caused precise time for the resource group to complete their administrative duties. Morale is low department wide, largely ascribable to the administration feeling they are performing two jobs daily. Answering phone calls and trying to complete the work the inbound calls generate cannot be completed eight hours a day. While loan resolutions numbers still satisfy the investors giving them disdain, the administrative departments, such as, the resource group are comely stressed and ove rwhelmed with a never-ending workload.RestructuringEconomic factors touch companies like SPS and Nestl alike, but Nestle has chosen restructuring as the answer to its dilemma. Nestle is suffering fromthe big elephant syndrome. In the old market diversifying and buying up the ambition allowed it to survive and prosper, but in the new economy which is consumer driven the big elephant has been asked to dance for the customer. Nestle must rise to the challenge of change or it give be driven into extinction. The strategic decision makers at Nestle are trying to trim the plenteous on the elephant, and they have turned to organizational behavior to restructure their workforce.Globalization and technology have evened out the playing field for Nestle and its competition. Nestle as well as the competition is able to give the same raw materials at the same prices, and technology has allowed each company quick and efficient ways to bear on information. So, where will Nestle come about i ts sustainable competitive advantage for the future? The innovation and the pauperization of its employees will be the source of its sustainable advantage. Nestle needs to find a way of unlocking this source of intellectual capital. The corporate leaders feel restructuring is the key.This restructuring fulfil has changed the organizational behavior of the company from a stiff hierarchical structure to a facilitator driven, empowered employee structure. The organization believes improving speed at the point of slaying will make the business more successful, and it is the precedent line employees that are at the point of execution. To climb up empowered employees organizational behavioral changes needed to be made. Monthly training has taken place on subjects like change, communication, one hundred percent responsibility, situational leadership, and teamwork so far. Layers of supervision have been cut, and reincorporated into the workforce. Supervisors are being educate as coache s and facilitators, instead micromanaging. Equipment operators are learning automatonlike first aid to fix small problems and repair efficiency. A mentoring program has been instituted, so that empowered employees with verifying attitudes are the role models for new workers.GlobalizationNorthrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) considers itself a world class leader inthe production of military demur products. Many of these products are created for, and consumed by, customers in the United States, but many are also created and sold to companies and or countries all over the world.The companys current position has not been easy to reach. Maintaining and growing this position requires perpetual care in an ever expanding global market place. In fact, global factors in todays economy have forced the company to make constant internal improvements to remain competitive in the global market. Exportation of intellectual property and gains in proficient advances and capabilities of companies in countries abroad have resulted in more foreign competition. The entry of additional competitors in the defense business market has forced companies like NGC to pick up closely at internal business processes to find ways to gain or maintain a competitive edge.NGC has learned to modify the organizations overall behavior by training individuals in the use of business methods such as LEAN, Six Sigma and Training inside Industry (TWI). The following is a simplified rendering of what each of these business methods is intended to do. LEAN is specifically used to improve processes, love inventory and manage movement of product throughout the production anatomy as well as eliminate practices which weart add value. Six Sigma is applied as a tool to measure critical processes in a way that insures they stay under control.This is basically done by setting control limits and therefore collecting selective information and analyzing the trends or movement of data as it relates to the con trol limits. TWI is being employed to break that every employee has the proper skill set to execute within their specified job requirements. This training process employs a regiment of training that teaches, measures what has been learned, as well as maintains critical training information and/or tricks of the trade. This training method also provides the company with detail of each employees specific capabilities and certifications.These internal changes have proven themselves invaluable to the company, saving NGC time, money, and valuable recourses as well as assist them in observe the companys daily business. Most of all, changes in NGCs OBhas been noticed by a number of the companys customers who have noted the coercive impact.