as a message that “when different groups oppose each other against the Registration Act (as the allegory of the PATRIOT Act), they lose their focus on what is the most important thing: fighting against terrorism” (Millar; Veloso and Bateman). Finally, Travis Langley’s analysis adds to the discussion by saying, “To think that one might beat someone else into seeing one’s rationale is itself an irrational expectation. At Civil War’s end, Captain America sees this as well.” Langley’s analysis shows us that no matter how hard Captain America fights he won’t be able to change the opinion of Iron Man or the American public. By building off of these critics work, this analysis examines the confrontations between Captain America and the characters …show more content…
You fund this sickness with your dirty billions.” By focusing the consequences of the superhero’s actions on random children, it becomes evident through the mother’s statement how the superhero’s actions affect the next generation. The mother’s statement brings Stark’s generativity into sharp focus because he sets out to enact laws that will keep the public, as well as the next generation, safe by requiring more accountability from superheroes. Furthermore, She-Hulk’s comment of, “Public opinion would have forced S.H.I.E.L.D. to bring down every superhero in America. You guys gave us all a future,” further demonstrates Stark’s generativity because his actions have made sure that the role of the superhero still has a place in the United States for years to come. The mother's and She-hulk's comments show how Stark's ideology is psychologically strong because of the effects of generativity felt by Iron Man.
On the other hand, the character of the Punisher (aka Frank Castle) also evidences an ideological conviction. However, his ideology is unique in the realm of Marvel comics because he fits into the category of a retributive anti-hero, which is, “One who makes his own rules and follows his own conscience.” This makes him drastically different from the other heroes because, unlike them, he kills the criminals that he goes up against, which expresses his ideology of punishment of the wicked. However, just like the other
…show more content…
So when the Punisher thinks, “there’s a war going on in this country – between citizen and criminal – and the citizens are losing – just as my family lost,” it shows Affect Heuristic because Punisher's experiences in Vietnam have led him to have a far more emotional response to his families death than most . However, since an Affect Heurista is characterized as an emotional response based upon our past experiences, shouldn’t Castle’s emotions eventually die down and allow him to leave his war behind? Unfortunately, Kent Worcester’s insight of, “He exists in a state of permanent rage, which he masks behind a steely, single-minded resolve,” shows how Affect Heuristic can permanently fuel his ideology because his inner emotions never calm down. The best summary of his violent ideological conviction comes from the character’s inaugural appearance in which he says, “I kill only those who deserve killing… It’s not something I like doing; it’s simply something that has to be done.” Even the character’s clothing, which is a "black shirt and pants contrasted by a pair of white gloves, boots, and large skull insignia," visually illustrates, the character’s binary way of viewing the
This would create a productive discussion between readers, not the sporadic, vague, non-committal suggestions the author currently included. McPherson only begins to touch upon an idea for an argument in the last two pages, where he looks into the suggestion of whether or not John Brown was a terrorist or not. However, he leaves this answer up in the air with the statement that what one person believes counts as terrorism, another believes is an act of heroism – yet another open-ended thought with no assertions as to what a firm answer may be. For me, this was the only part in which I was truly made to think deeper into the impact of an individual’s actions as a symbol beyond the Civil War. It was only after that I was able to look back and dig through the essay to find the vague assertion of the broader impact that was woven through the narratives of these individuals’ lives. I understand that these topics are incredibly subjective and sensitive, but that is why, more than any other reason, that McPherson should be writing towards a clear answer in this hotly debated topic as opposed to subtle
The American Civil War is one of the biggest turning points in American history. It marks a point of major separation in beliefs from the North and the South and yet somehow ends in a major unification that is now called the United States of America. It still to date remains the bloodiest war in American history. The book “This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War” by Drew Gilpin Faust better explains the change in thought from the American people that developed from the unexpected mass loss of soldiers that devastated the American people. Throughout this review, the reader will better understand the methods and theory of this book, the sources used, the main argument of the book, the major supporting arguments, and what the author did well and what the author didn’t do well.
I felt like the author could clearly show the true contributing factors of the civil war. As an admirer of history, I could use utilize his book for references later on in my academic studies. The book is 127 pages chronicling the events that led to the civil war. Holt gives novices history readers a wonder firsthand look into the world of young America pre-civil war. His book brought out new ways to approach the study of pre-civil war events. The question whether the Civil War was inevitable or could have been derailed was answered in The Fate of Their Country. Holt places the spotlight on the behaviors Politicians and the many congressional compromises that unintendedly involved the actions of the residents of American. These factors at hand placed the Civil war as inevitable. Most of the politician’s views in The Fate of Their Country were egotistical and shortsighted which left gaps in American’s social future. To consider the subject of why, first we need to understand the contributing causes, America’s great expansion project, the Manifest Destiny the driving factor behind the loss of virtue and political discord.
The American Civil war is considered to be one of the most defining moments in American history. It is the war that shaped the social, political and economic structure with a broader prospect of unifying the states and hence leading to this ideal nation of unified states as it is today. In the book “Confederates in the Attic”, the author Tony Horwitz gives an account of his year long exploration through the places where the U.S. Civil War was fought. He took his childhood interest in the Civil War to a new level by traveling around the South in search of Civil War relics, battle fields, and most importantly stories. The title “Confederates in the Attic”: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War carries two meanings in Tony Horwitz’s thoughtful and entertaining exploration of the role of the American Civil War in the modern world of the South. The first meaning alludes to Horwitz’s personal interest in the war. As the grandson of a Russian Jew, Horwitz was raised in the North but early in his childhood developed a fascination with the South’s myth and history. He tells readers that as a child he wrote about the war and even constructed a mural of significant battles in the attic of his own home. The second meaning refers to regional memory, the importance or lack thereof yet attached to this momentous national event. As Horwitz visits the sites throughout the South, he encounters unreconstructed rebels who still hold to outdated beliefs. He also meets groups of “re-enactors,” devotees who attempt to relive the experience of the soldier’s life and death. One of his most disheartening and yet unsurprising realizations is that attitudes towards the war divide along racial lines. Too many whites wrap the memory in nostalgia, refusing...
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
“Domestic tranquility”, and “All men created equal”, words used in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, irony at its finest in the period known as the Civil War. One month into the Civil War a black man, Alfred M. Green, gave a speech in Philadelphia to a Union audience about just that. In the oration he urged the African American people, who at this time were not eligible to enlist in the Union army, to fight for domestic harmony and equality. In doing so, Green uses figurative language and strong diction to help garner an emotional appeal, as well as establish a tone of empowerment.
As Tony Horwitz illustrates in Confederates in the Attic, the Civil War is far from over. Horwitz, determined to find the answers to this conflict, treks through the South, seeking to explain man's longtime obsession with a war that divided the nation. Talking to historians and Civil War reenactors of all kinds, he finds that people are still divided today when it comes to the war and present issues in society. He collects a vast amount of data, which proves to make things very difficult in drawing a general conclusion. Horwitz learns how differently the south views the war, discovers the way in which people use history to suit their own needs, and explores issues of race.
Book Title: The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. Contributors: Robin Higham - editor, Steven E. Woodworth - editor. Publisher: Greenwood Press. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Publication Year: 1996
One of the strongest basic values that Lincoln expressed was that the civil war as a devastating situation for most people. He expressed this by saying, “Both parties deprecated war.” Meanwhile, a more fragile basic value of his speech is the classification of the South as the destructive force and the North as the protective one. He said, “But one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive. And the other would accept war rather than let it perish.” This value splits the public into two factions (Hansen 244) that was defined by Lincoln as “good” and “bad”.
Allen Moore’s sordid depiction of twentieth century life presents a complex world, where the distinction between a virtuous hero and a villainous wrongdoer is often blurred. In stark contrast to the traditionally popularized portrayal of superheroes, whose unquestionably altruistic motives ultimately produce unrealistically idealized results; the realistically flawed characters of Watchmen exist in a multi faceted world characterized by moral ambiguity. America’s imperialistic ambitions have long been justified as an expression of American idealism. Much like the portrayal of superheroes in popular culture, America’s intervention in foreign affairs was portrayed as the result of a clearly defined problem, where American intervention was necessary and consensual. The Watchmen exist in an American reality that does not depend on them as the archetypal hero as demonstrated by the fact that their presence is not necessary to the survival of the world. Collectively the characters of Watchmen parallel the tumultuous relationship that as a superpower the United States of America has with the rest of the world.
Thoreau explains “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin” (Thoreau 3). George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are two prominent figures of American nationalism and independence, and many American citizens regard them as idols. Thoreau exploits their credential to motivate people to take actions against an ineffective government and oppose the war and slavery in the U.S. Thoreau also questions citizens by explaining what is ethical as a citizen. Thoreau states “but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret” (Thoreau 4). Thoreau explains that people of the U.S. do not put in their efforts to change such as voting or protesting, yet they still expect other people to discard evils such as corruption, slavery, and government tyranny. Thoreau justifies the uselessness as unethical and condemns the citizens. By using the word such as evil, Thoreau wants people to fight against the evil, government tyranny, and express the true American nationalism. The author employs ethos throughout Civil Disobedience to make the people of the U.S. ethical and become more involved with the problems about the
...deration, and finally, the U.S. Constitution. However, a more philosophical analysis can be drawn about the Civil War. In essence, the War challenged the idea of whether self-government and democracy prevail over pandemonium. And in the words of James Buchanan “Our example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted a conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.” The sheer legacy of the United States of America was imperiled and the Union was on a macrocosmic stage, with spectators seeing if the avant-garde idea of a democratic would draw to a close or perpetuate through onerous times. The Civil War was a test, and the tenuous America indeed passed it, knowing that more hurdles have been bound to come. But, there has been hope that success has always been possible and the American Dream has maintained for generations to come.
Lencioni (2013) addressed five dysfunctions of a team including “absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results.” The dysfunctions exhibited by the team are fear of conflict and lack of commitment. The other employees do not express their opinion; they were just standing by and watching the officer grab and handcuff the nurse. If the team was committed to each other, they would support their coworker by voicing their opinion rather than just looking around. When Alex was screaming for help, no one tried to caution the office for being disrespectful and causing a scene in an acute care setting.
Satire is defined as “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues” (Oxford). The best satirical writers can make the readers believe that an idea is “logical and practical.” This is seen in great abundance in Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World. Through his writing, Huxley uses satire to effectively point out the flaws of society at the time. Even though Brave New World was written in 1931, the satirical points Huxley makes are still relevant in today’s world.
“Captain America Profile” Superhero Stuff. Superhero Stuff, 2014. Web. Retrieved on February 11, 2014 from http://www.superherostuff.com/biographies/captainamericabiography.html