The Bloody Sunday
January 1972 has produced such different historical interpretations of
what happened on bloody Sunday for a number of different reasons. The
two big divides in what happened on that day are down to politics,
religion and culture and the social society at that time in Ireland.
As we know Ireland was facing many troubles politically and
religiously, there seemed to be many marches and protests against the
discriminate laws that persecuted the catholic people in Ireland. On
the 30th of January 1972 a nationalist demonstration took place
illegally in the centre of Derry, the police and government banned the
march as they thought it would provoke violence.
The march was lead by catholic supporters who were demonstrating
against the protestant-biased law of internment for Catholics. The
British army and also the para troopers opposed the march at the end
of it 14 people were killed, and many were injured all were catholic,
when it came to whom was to blame for these deaths each side blamed
each other and gave different interpretations on what happened on that
brutal day and lead to numerous enquiries one of them lead by Lord
Saville.
The reasons interpretations of events change over time are that all
people witnessing what happened are seeing things from different
views; there views can be reinforced or altered over time, the
interpretations given by a person can be altered by different things
like if their views disagrees with the majority of others, pressure
put on by the opposing argument and could cause a threat to a person
and evidence undermined or re evaluated. Also interpretations can be
reinforced by new evidence, being in the majority and also if there
could be consequences if a person's interpretation changed.
The two main different interpretations there are on what happened on
bloody Sunday are that brought from the catholic community and
protestant community, as there was a divide between the communities
before bloody Sunday there is no doubt that they are going to have
different views on what happened, neither side could be lying in what
There was a short time where all was calm right after the civil war. king charles the second and his father were both dead so Charles brother took over. this is king James the secondf and he was a Catholic sao he appointed many high positions in the government. Most of his sibjects were protestant and did not like the idea of Catholicism being the religion theyd have to abide by. like his father and brother king james the second ignored the peoples wishes and ruled without Parliament and relied on royal power. an English Protestant leader wanted to take the power away from james and give it to his daughter Mary and Her husband William from the Netherlands. William saled out to the south of england with his troops but sent them away soon after they landed
The Americans acted on this plan, so British troops would be removed off American soil. The Americans had to plan about this riot for days and knew that some lives was going to be lost. The citizen were not thinking about the outcome of their plan, or how lives would be changed forever because their decision to pick a fight with the British troops would have been changed. My personal ethic perspective would be deontological ethic because I would react to by thinking about the wrong and right way because of my religion. Since I am a Christian, I would have to think to see if the result going to affect me in a negative way or influence my life in a positive way. If Americans would have thought about their religion and beliefs, then the Boston Massacre would have been an idea not an event. If I was one of the Americans in the Boston Massacre, I would have tried to talked people out of doing the deed. I would have questioned their beliefs and make them picture the outcome of picking a fight with the soldiers. Some of the American citizen would have backed down, but most of them was going to act upon the deed. Even someone would have tried to stop the angry mob, the results would have been the same anyways. If the Boston Massacre was avoided, American’s history would have been very different in terms of what would have happened with
because they felt it was their duty to fight for their respective side. Most who fought, however,
On March 5, 1770 a fight broke out in the streets of Boston, Massachusetts between a patriot mob and British soldiers. Citizens attacked a squad of soldiers by throwing snowballs, stones and sticks. British Army soldiers in turn killed five civilians and injured six others. The presence of British troops had been stationed in Boston, the capital of Province of Massachusetts Bay since 17681. The British existence was increasingly unwelcome. The British troops were sent to Boston in order to protect and support the crown-appointed colonial officials attempting to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation.
The central conflict in Robert Hayden’s poem “Those Winter Sundays”, is the unfortunate realization that the speaker never truly thanked or appreciated his father’s sacrifices when he was a child. After growing up, taking on responsibilities, and achieving a rehabilitated understanding of the world through experience, Hayden expresses his ingratitude that often accompanies with youth. The first line of the first stanza writes, “Sundays too my father got up early/and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold” (Hayden, 17). Out of these two lines, the word “too” is filled with importance because Sunday’s are dedicated to either religious practices, or rest for a working man. Fortunately, this was not his father’s case as his father would wake up early in order to perform his loving and self-sacrificing duties.
Bloody Sunday was a big impact of Nationalism, what started out as a peaceful march of Petersburg workers marching to the Winter Palace led by Father Gapon turned out to be a nightmare. The marchers wanted to establish an eight hour work day, establish minimum wage, and assemble a constitution, while the marchers marched they was fired upon by Russian troops and several hundred marchers was killed. People believed that Bloody Sunday happened under Nicholas II because he could not be found when the marchers were marching to the Winter Palace causing Russian troops to panic. The result of Bloody Sunday caused riots to break out; forming the councils of workers in St. Petersburg and Moscow and the bond between Nicholas II and the people was broken causing October Manifesto. A result of a short term solution October Manifesto was granted, which was a constitution to stop the riots. The primary intentions of the October Manifesto were to divide the revolutionaries.
the first shot of many was fired. The question of who was to blame was
The conflict with in the short story is an internal conflict. The Irishmen are forced to forget about all humanity when dealing with the enemy during combat. This was extremely hard for the guards because all but Donovan had befriended the prisoners. It was stated that if any Irish prisoner was killed by the English, then Hawkins and Belcher would be executed. This was hard for both the guards and the prisoners because although they knew that Hawkins and Belcher would have nothing to do with executions elsewhere, they would be the target of punishment. As enemies, not by choice, the Irish must enforce this because they are on the lower chain of command. So in a way they are absolved from their feelings of guilt because they "have a duty to do so."
The St. Valentine Day Massacre is the epitome of organizational conflict, competing teams, fighting for profits and territories. Baack, (2012) defines conflict saying “To some, conflict represents a negative force, accompanied by words such as “destructive,"
As Patriarch Bartholomew I said eight years ago, “The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred.” These words should drive the actions of the Christian population when apologizing for the heinous actions of the Crusades toward the Jewish and Muslim communities. Although all the people who were a part of the actual event are no longer living, the situation continues on because there has been no closure. The Crusades, an event close to 900 years ago, needs to be ended with a formal apology from Christians to all those effected. To the Muslim and Jewish families today, who are ancestors to some of the victims of the Crusades, an apology would finally close the open wounds. Christians have apologized before for other similar events, and eventually they are going to have to do the same for the Crusades. Additionally, the positive connotation of the word “crusade” needs to be altered because there is nothing to honor in this situation. It is important that the Christian religion go through a “cleansing” process to improve their relationship with outsiders otherwise future generations will be unable to advance in their ways of thinking.
Throughout history, events are sparked by something, which causes emotions to rise and tensions to come to a breaking point. The Boston Massacre was no exception; America was feeling the pressure of the British and was ready to break away from the rule. However, this separation between these two parties would not come without bloodshed on both sides. The British did not feel the American had the right to separate them from under British rule, but the Americans were tired of their taxes and rules being placed upon them and wanted to succeed from their political tyrants. The Boston Massacre would be the vocal point in what would be recognized, as the Revolutionary War in American history and the first place lives would be lost for the cost of liberty. Even though the lives were lost that day, eight British soldiers were mendaciously accused of murder when it was clearly self-defense. People who are placed in a situation where their lives are threatened have the right to defend themselves. History does not have the right to accuse any one event those history may have considered the enemy guilty when they are fighting for their lives.
In the roaring twenties, the life of organized crimes was at its peak. What was the greatest mob hit ever pulled off in history? Well I'll tell you. It all happened on Valentines Day, the morning of February 14th, 1929. This incident was call, "The St. Valentines Day Massacre". The man behind this infamous crime was none other than, the infamous Al "Scarface" Capone. Al Capone was the all time greatest mobster of all time. The idea of organized crime fascinates me in so many ways. Capone was the only person to have pulled off such a crime. Al Capone was top gangster in Chicago and was one of the greatest members of the Italian Mafia and George "Bugs" Moran was the leader of the Irish/German mafia and he was the main target behind this hit. He targeted Capone because Al Capones had a bounty on his head, $60,000,000, and found George Moran as a threat. George was Capone's biggest threat of all. He needed to take him out quickly. (Al Capone, True Crime Story). Writing this paper will let me learn a lot more about this massacre. There is one question I would like answered, "Why hadn't Moran's crew made an attempt to fight back?" (Al Capone, True Crime Story). Moran's men had a long history of being violent with others. This is one question that we will never know. My most used source on this essay will be internet information and a book. I feel these sources will give me the most amount of information. Using a magazine will too but it was very hard to find a 20's magazine article.
What do you think of when you hear the words Valentine's Day? Probably love, hearts,
penance" (Campbell p.14). A pilgrimage to the Holy Land was not an easy task to
Religion in James Joyce's Dubliners Religion was an integral part of Ireland during the modernist period, tightly woven into the social fabric of its citizens. The Catholic Church was a longstanding tradition of Ireland. In the modernist spirit of breaking away from forces that inhibited growth, the church stood as one of the principal barriers. This is because the Catholic faith acted as the governing force of its people, as portrayed in James Joyce’s Dubliners. In a period when Ireland was trying to legitimize their political system, religious affiliations further disillusioned the political process. The governing body of a people needs to provide a behavioral framework, through its constitution, and a legal process to make delegations on issues of equity and fairness. When religion dominates the government that is in tact, it subjects its citizens to their religious doctrines. In terms of Catholicism in Ireland, this meant that social progress and cultural revolutions were in terms of what the church would allow. The modernist realized that this is what paralyzed the Irish society of the times. In the stories of Dubliners the legal system is replaced by the institute of religion, and it is the presence and social context of the Catholic Church which prevents the Irish community from advancement. ...