Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Industrialism and the Victorian era
Industrialization victorian england
Industrialization victorian england
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Industrialism and the Victorian era
Hidden Fraud in Trollope’s The Way We Live Now
Hamilton K. Fisker supplies “the impetus for rolling Augustus Melmotte onwards into almost unprecedented commercial greatness” (Trollope 1.324). While his character occupies very little narrative space, Fisker functions as the catalyst which sets the novel’s financial ventures in motion; Melmotte rolls because Fisker has pushed. Not only does Fisker bring the Great South Central Pacific and Mexican Railway (or at least the prospectus) to England, but he also delimits the board members’ role in the venture. He places Melmotte, the novel’s “great financier,” in charge and repels Paul Montague’s desire to involve himself as an active director in the railroad’s daily operations (1.217). Fisker rejects Paul’s attempt to oversee the Mexican Railroad’s actualization by arguing that building railway lines does not concern an investor such as Paul:
But Fisker got the better of him and put him down. “Fortune! what fortune had either of us? A few beggarly thousands of dollars not worth talking of, and barely sufficient to enable a man to look at an enterprise. And now where are you? look here, sir; — there’s more to be got out of the smashing up of such an affair as this, if it should smash up, than could be made by years of hard work out of such fortunes as yours and mine in the regular way of trade.”
Paul Montague certainly did not love Mr Fisker personally, nor did he relish his commercial doctrines; but he allowed himself to be carried away by them. (1.85)
If Fisker’s momentum rolls Melmotte, it carries away Paul, and the force of Fisker’s rhetoric subjugates Paul to his “commercial doctrines”: Fisker “put him down.” Fisker gets the “better” of Paul by making speech subservient to lucrative economic principles. He does not want Paul to enforce honest practices in the railroad’s financial transactions. Fisker’s first commercial doctrine, then, declares that we should consider small investors “not worth talking of.” Since small, individual investments financed the majority of English railway ventures in Victorian England (Robb 36), Fisker essentially declares that the Mexican Railway’s investors should not receive any narrative attention. Even though Paul does not love Fisker or respect him personally, Fisker’s dominant narrative carries him away. Similarly, even though The Way We Live Now cynically satirizes fraudulent business practices, Trollope takes Fisker’s declaration that a few thousand dollars are “not worth talking of” to heart.
During the late 1800's and early 1900's, change in American society was very evident in the economy. An extraordinary expansion of the industrial economy was taking place, presenting new forms of business organization and bringing trusts and holding companies into the national picture. The turn of the century is known as the "Great Merger Movement:" over two thousand corporations were "swallowed up" by one hundred and fifty giant holding companies.1 This powerful change in industry brought about controversy and was a source of social anxiety. How were people to deal with this great movement and understand the reasons behind the new advancements? Through the use of propaganda, the public was enlightened and the trusts were attacked. Muckraking, a term categorizing this type of journalism, began in 1903 and lasted until 1912. It uncovered the dirt of trusts and accurately voiced the public's alarm of this new form of industrial control. Ida Tarbell, a known muckraker, spearheaded this popular investigative movement.2 As a journalist, she produced one of the most detailed examinations of a monopolistic trust, The Standard Oil Company.3 Taking on a difficult responsibility and using her unique journalistic skills, Ida Tarbell was able to get to the bottom of a scheme that allowed the oil industry to be manipulated by a single man, John D. Rockefeller.
characterizes the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America and it is valid that they would be properly distinguished as corrupt “robber barons”.
... when the grocery store owner called him a thief William began to lose faith in the system. After that there was the Nazi surplus store owner who thought the two were so much alike, the restaurant that wouldn’t give him breakfast because he was three minutes late, the plastic surgeon that made abundantly more money than he made saving people’s lives, and the highway construction that was a result of greed and not necessity.
So when he does this he set up fake chair organizations which only help one to meet but still had and publish Literature but all which course actually from King Leopold and he commissions famous explorer Henry Morgan Stanley best known for finding doctor Livingstone. Stanley was the guy who actually explore Africa for King Leopold and mark out the territory for his organization which pretends not to be Belgium. This is an important powerful book which provides concise account of the abuses which have really held Africa backs for so long. The focus of the colony after a while became the Rubber trade so there we be basically a cowry labor system where people would be a force by the threat of destruction of their villages or suction of their children to me rubber codes. The problem with harvesting rubber is the vines near the village will gets exhausted will not
Incomplete An exploration of Shakespeare’s presentation of trickery and deception in his play ‘Much Ado about Nothing.’ In William Shakespeare’s play ‘Much Ado about Nothing’, there are many instances of trickery and deception, which seem to surround the whole of the play. These instances are as follows: Don Pedro wooing hero for Claudio, Don Pedro wooing hero for himself, Claudio pretending to be Benedick to find out information from Don John and Borachio, Don John and Borachio both know that Claudio is not Benedick but trick Claudio into thinking that they believe that Claudio is in fact Benedick, Benedick pretending to be somebody else whilst talking to Beatrice, Beatrice pretending to believe that she is in fact talking to Benedick, Beatrice having romantic feelings for Benedick, Benedick having romantic feelings for Beatrice, Beatrice not having romantic feelings for Benedick, Benedick not having romantic feelings for Beatrice, Hero is unfaithful with Borachio, Hero is dead, and Antonio having another daughter.
Through his writing, war tactics, financial prowess, and leadership skills, Hamilton succeeded in demonstrating how previously marginalized people took on the responsibility and burden of shaping the American history. Miranda’s Hamilton—though presented as an ambitious immigrant hustler and the protagonist in one of the Republic’s early sex scandals is also unambiguously and properly shown as the godfather of the idea that America should be a place of speculative enterprise backed up by big money. It is due to his unfailing effort that Hamilton’s legacy of heroism lives through his portrait in the ten-dollar
Henry Rearden is the paragon of the American industrialist: a self-made millionaire, famous for the uncompromising integrity of his business deals and the physical properties of his steel (the cornerstone of his business). Externally, he appears to many to be a perfectly integrous being. Yet he bears the guilt of a great sin; contradiction. He refuses to employ in his interpersonal relationships the very same principles which permit him to excel in industry. As his friend-to-be Francisco D’Anconia inquires later: “You who won't allow one per cent of impurity into an alloy of metal—what have you allowed into your moral code?" (Rand 4...
The captain of industries were businessmen who also benefitted society through their accumulation of wealth, using methods such as increased productivity, the expansion of markets, offering up new jobs to the working class, and other acts of generosity. All of the notable industrialists dubbed “robber barons” were also named “captain of industries” as well. Therefore, there have been many debates as to whether the term “robber barons” really did justice to the industrialists, when taking into account of their effects on America’s economy, and not just the negative aspects. While the robber barons did harm specific groups of people in order to meet their selfish goals, as well as execute ruthless tactics to surpass their competitors, they have also created an economic boom in which they created larger manufacturing companies, created many employment opportunities for the working class. Even though robber barons went to extreme measures and harmed others in their pursuit of wealth, they have also, and built a stable and prosperous
...to figure out who Bartleby is. Pinsker also mentions that the lawyer fear of having to confront the isolation and loneliness is the reason behind him wanting to reach out to Bartleby. In some manner I think that the lawyer and Bartleby are alike. In the text its talks about how the lawyer went to Wall Street and found Bartleby in the office. Suggesting that both the lawyer and Bartleby are lonely individuals.
The author expresses his grievances towards industrialized businesses during the Gilded Age and supports the American farmer. Therefore, the author references the “fakers” as fraud politicians who did not support the beliefs of the Populist Party. He then characterizes the “makers” as the independent business owners and farmers because they made lives for themselves without a strong dependency on these “dictatorship-like” businesses. The author primarily focuses on voicing his reproach for the “takers” of the Gilded Age, or the monopolistic business owners such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. He negates these industrialists suppressing individualism while showing little regard for the well being of lower class Americans. In other words, the author believes that Carnegie and Rockefeller’s monopolistic industries offered an unspoken ultimatum for Americans: either submit to our control or we will c...
Henry Ford, the man who revolutionized the car industry forever, founded his company under the beliefs that a car wasn’t a high-speed toy for the rich but instead a sturdy vehicle for everyday family needs, like driving to work, getting groceries or driving to church. However, Henry ford did much more than just this feat. He also tried to make peace in WWI before America had joined the war. In addition, Ford made the radical new five dollars a day payment. However, Ford also had his lows. At an early age, his mother died. His first two companies had also been failures. Against many of his closest friends protests, he published an anti-semitic (Jewish) newspaper. Ford had a very interesting and unique life and he changed the automotive industry forever.
In today’s society, free speech is a right guaranteed to every American in the U.S., but not all countries give their citizens that right. As computer and internet technology has grown, so too has the number of violations against free speech around the world. Some of these include censorship of the press by the government, punishment for speaking against the government, and punishment for voicing unpopular opinions. The computer and internet technology of the world is often used in these suppressions of free speech.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” - George Washington. Freedom of speech is one of the universal declarations of human right, created on the 10th of December 1948. It is the complete opposite of what censorship of the internet entails. “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Censorship of the internet not only goes directly against this, but it prevents a free flow of information, our ability to communicate as a society and places governments in control of our rights of expression.
Although writing has been around for thousands of years, the medium of books is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the mid 15th century, German Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press that made multiple, cheap copies of works that were easily available for the masses. With the help of other technological developments including the linotype in the mid-1880’s, the printing process became easier and faster and therefore books became cheaper and more available. Also in the mid-1880’s the development of public education increased the demand for books making them even more popular and ensuring them as a permanent form of media for the masses.
As the Internet has become more widely recognized and used by people all over the world, it has brought a new medium in which information can very easily be broadcast to everyone with access to it. In 1995 there was a projected 26 million Internet users, which has grown to almost 300 million today. One major problem with this is that everyone represents different countries and provinces which have different outtakes on certain types of freedom of speech as well as different laws about it. This proposes a new type of law that would need to be written in order to determine whether or not something is illegal on the Internet. A person in one country can express what they want to, but that expression may be illegal in another country and in this situation whose laws are to be followed? What I propose to do accomplish in this paper is to discuss the freedom of speech laws of the United States of America and those of France, China, and Canada. I will examine what about them is similar and what about them is different. The bringing of the Internet has brought many new types of businesses as well as ways in order to communicate with the world, but as with each new endeavor or invention, there needs to be a way in order to govern its use and policies. There must also be ways in order to punish those not following the new laws and policies of use, since that the country that the person is in may allow what they did, but it may not be allowed on the Internet or in a different country. In other words, there is the need for international laws governing the Internet.