Contracted Dining Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Contracted Dining - Research Paper Example They would then be given, in many cases, a usual or average plan (Occidental College). In-house eating offers the best solution for college students to meet there food and meal needs . Discussion Today, there are companies that have become specialized in contracting foodservices to schools and educational institutions. These include Aramark Corporation based in Philadelphia, Sodexo, Inc. based in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and U.S. Foodservice, Inc. based in Rosemont, IL. (Chartwells). The one which services my school (Wentworth xxxx), is Chartwells Educational Dining Services, which operates out of Rye Brook, New York (Chartwells). Off campus dining can normally be expensive, but it depends on the location of the school. For example Cornell University speaks of a place called Collegetown that has a lot of restaurants offering all kinds of food from organic to ethnic (Cornell). And then in Ithaca, New York, there are places where one can get fast foods or go to sit-down restaurants. Off campus eating has the advantage of offering more options to students. Usually one may find special discounts and coupons and promotions. Plus there is the ability offered to be able to find out about an area, to mix the residents and to encounter and enjoy other atmospheres. But then there are certain disadvantages to off-campus eating. These disadvantages have to do with not knowing the area well. Becoming victim to sharpies or even just to crime, or course, can be a problem. Then there is the transportation option, the time involved. Certainly, every student should experience off-campus eating. But one should not base their entire meal plan on it. Most schools have meal plans. They vary in price and most schools seem to offer alternative plans. One school has a program which recognizes three plans of which two average in comparison to other plans and one costs more. Plans have to be gauged according to what the student generally spends, the amount of financial aid, and of course, the costs of the meals including service. The plans can cover a full 30 weeks or arranged over two semesters that are 15 weeks each. The plan at MIT has three levels. One costing $3,800/year includes 7 dinners and breakfasts, or 14 meals per week. The $3,400/year includes only 6 dinners and 6 breakfasts per week for a total of 12 meals per week. It is not open to freshmen. Notice that none of these plans include lunch. The MIT report notes that students all spend in variable amounts for food, and some cook for themselves. The figure for median spending over 30 weeks was $2,100. But this median figure differs widely in its breakdown, going from $2,422 to $3,000. Yet the school itself uses median figures representing the 75th percentile of all student spending. This figure averages from $3,000 to $3,600 covering all undergraduates to the level of students who dine in the house. The officials then base their plan on $2,900 to $3,800. (All figures from MIT report covering 2010-2011 per iod). The MIT lists the expenses of over plans. These are mostly from Ivy League schools and include the following figures. Yale University averages $6,000 for a full plan. Boston college's full residential plan is $4,632 and Boston University is $4,632 for its full residential plan. Harvard University charges $4,606 for its full plan. There are other variables. For example, Cal Tech's figure of $4,956 is buttressed by an

Ethics Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Ethics Paper - Essay Example The ethical responsibilities I have to the families of children would call for me to contact all parents involved but chiefly the lesbian mothers in order to let them know what is going on in the classroom and what kind of treatment their child is being exposed to. The family of this child deserves respect due to its individual beliefs and child-rearing values, and should be highly engaged in the solution to their child’s classroom problems. I would ask these parents what their reaction to this behavior of the child’s peers is, and if they have any specific course of action that they would like to take or ask of me. I would be sure to make clear that I am in a position to do everything possible to help them and their child find a solution to this that fits their expectations, and am not coming to them without my own determination to resolve the issue. If they had no special expectations I would furthermore make clear to them that I can be trusted to adhere to the ethica l code of keeping mutual trust while completely respecting their families values as well as their child’s individual character. My next course of action would be to speak with the parents of the other children involved, and explain to them that as a teacher I operate by an ethical code of conduct that requires me to have a special, open, and considerate position towards all children in my class.

A Revolutionary Road | Analysis

A Revolutionary Road | Analysis In a society that promotes conformity it is hard enough to come to find oneself as an individual and to find your own identity. In a society that sucks the best out of our personality. Maintaining your own identity has little chance when being around a false image of affluence. This place is known as the suburbs. The ideas of deception pulled in a lot of people that were raised around nice families that only had the American Dream in their mind. In Revolutionary Road, by Richard Yates, Frank and April Wheeler are sucked into suburbia with the dream of raising their two kids in a safe and comfortable area. But, as the two quickly find out, suburbia is not all its cracked up to be. Soon, suburbia and the complimentary standard gender role poses a problem for the couple as their relationship begins to deteriorate over time. But, in order to understand the situation, you must first understand the times. The suburbs were created as an escape from the hectic and, sometimes, dangerous life in the city. As time went on, the suburbs became known as a middles class paradise with ties to a nearby big city. Along with the suburbs came the stereotypical suburban family. The father was the head of the family while his wife was completely under his rule. Her main job was to take care of the kids and cook for the tired man when he got home. This family was supposed to have everything together and be the picture perfect example of the achievement of the American Dream. This stereotypical view of the suburbs created a strong misconception that attracted many families to the area and created a place void of individualism. The fantasy of the American Dream in the 1950s formed a naive view of suburban life and its equivalent standard gender roles and rigid view of the ideal family structure. The American Dream in the 1950s produced an idealistic view of life in the suburbs. In Dwight D. Eisenhowers State of the Union address in 1954, he describes what is the beginning of suburbia when he says, The details of a program to enlarge and improve the opportunities for our people to acquire good homes will be presented to the Congress by special message on January 25. This program will include: Modernization of the home mortgage insurance program of the Federal Government (Eisenhower). This place, as endorsed by one of the most popular presidents of all time, was sugar-coated from its inception. When Eisenhower spoke, people listened. When he endorses a housing development that will improve the opportunities for anyone living there that can help them achieve the American Dream, the public was willing to jump on the bandwagon in a moments notice. So began the false advertisement of the suburbs that ensnared so many families with good intentions of bringing up a beautiful family in a place that was supposed to ease them along the way. In an article about the history of American families, the author describes how people derived their beliefs on the typical suburban family by saying, The Leave It to Beaver ideal of breadwinner father, full-time homemaker mother and dependent children was a fiction of the 1950s, she shows. Real families of that period were rife with conflict, repression and anxiety, frequently poor and much less idyllic than many assume; teen pregnancy rates in the 50s were higher than today (The Way). The false impression that a popular television show had on 1950s society contributed to the even greater fallacy that all suburban families had everything together. The reality is that the suburbs was a place stricken with the same basic problems that everyone else had and maybe even more. Many families were under the impression that everything was going fine because they had all the elements of a traditional suburban family: a breadwinning dad, a stay-at-home mom, and servile children. But, simply being able to claim these things does not make a family tantamount to the perfect family that they are perceived to be as evidenced by the conflict, repression, and anxiety. In Richard Portons article on the American Dream and the suburban nightmare, he describes the delusion that many families drowned in when he argues, Lewis Mumford maintained that the suburb served as an asylum for the preservation of illusion. He fumed that suburbia was not merely a child-centered environment; it was based on a childish view of the world' (Porton). Since the suburbs were associated with prosperity and happiness, they also became linked to the American Dream. When families entered this suburban paradise they immediately became seduced by the lore and awe of finally achieving that dream. Unfortunately, many never came out of that dream and continued to be deceived by this fantasy land that was almost juvenile at times. It is easy, now, to be o n the outside looking in and wonder how they fail to see that things crashing down around them. But since they were so deeply rooted in their dream world, it seemed that everything was going perfectly when, in reality, their personal life was a disaster. The American Dream provided the fuel that led to the conflagration that was the impractical view of suburbia. The American Dream in the suburbs formed absurd family roles that were usually stereotypical. In an article about the role of women in the 1950s, the author explains, Women who spent too much time outside the home, social commentators were quick to warn, were endangering their families, neglecting their husbands and especially their children. Life magazine, in a special issue devoted to the American woman, deplored the changing roles of married couples and placed most of the blame on the increasingly aggressive wife (Womens Roles). The fact that women had to be regulated shows how they were mistreated and forced to fit into a role that no one could be completely happy with. A woman who wanted pursue a career was viewed as overaggressive and held responsible for the breakdown of the family. Women were expected to sacrifice themselves for the family and become stay-at-home mothers all because that is what American society says a perfect mother should do. In the same article, the author says, The belief in a womans destined social role was reinforced by the popular media of the dayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ The magazines of the time were filled with images of dedicated housewives whose only pleasures were that their families were satisfied and their chores made easier (Womens Roles). From the start, women never really had a chance to become what they wanted or pursue a career. From an early age, it was drilled into them that they would become a mother and that they would look to their husband to bring home the bread and make important decisions. The American Dream stripped women of their ability to overcome the status quo by sending a relentless message that their purpose in life was to become a housewife and nothing more or less. In another article about the plight of the 1950s woman, the author says, When women started complaining of boredom, society invented the sowing and quilt making clubs. They would do anything to please their men because their life depended on them s o much. To disagree with her husband would have been the gravest of all errors. The men had almost total control over their wives (A Womans Role). Women who tried to establish themselves as an individual and stand up against societys twisted view of what a suburban family should look like were repeatedly shoved back into their rightful place. When women started getting out of line, men were quick to invent something to occupy their time and get their minds back on their tasks. Disagreeing with the man was an unforgiveable mistake that could have negative consequences in the future. In spite of their will to change, efforts to change the system were kept at bay by the scheming man who did not want to see his power diminished by a lowly, rebellious wife. Overall, the American Dream shaped an unjust role for women in suburban society. In Revolutionary Road, the foolish quest for the American Dream creates an unbalanced family with identity problems and, quite often, complete subjugation. As Frank finally convinces April that having an abortion would be a terrible mistake, she cries in his arms as he proudly thinks, And it seemed to him now that no single moment of his life had ever contained a better proof of manhood than that, if any proof were needed: holding that tamed, submissive girl and saying, Oh, my lovely; oh, my lovely, while she promised she would bear his child (Yates 52). The head of the family in the ideal suburban household was the father. This father was supposed to have everything in complete control and solve every problem that crossed his family. By conquering his wifes emotions and desires, Frank establishes himself as the rightful head of the family because that is what he thinks he is supposed to do. His actions were influenced by the ridiculous thinking of that time period and not because he truly believes that was how he should have handled the situation. When Frank tries to diagnose Aprils problems, he rants on and on about a story of a girl who wished to be a boy and says, I think we can assume, though, he said, just on the basis of common sense, that if the most little girls do have this thing about wanting to be boys, they probably get over it in time by observing and admiring and wanting to emulate their mothers- I mean you know, attract a man, establish a home, have children and so on' (Yates 245). Franks ignorant comments show the fallacy in the thinking of the 1950s. He says that their goal in life was to attract men and bear their children. Franks comments show the misunderstanding of suburban families because it is hard to believe that someones lifelong goals would be that shallow and without any other ambitions. Women probably wanted more than that but were sucked into believing that that was all they should want which eliminated them as an individual and l ed them to be controlled by men. After a fight with April, Frank leaves to go do yard work and thinks to himself, Even so, once the first puffing and dizziness was over, he began to like the muscular pull and the sweat of it, and the smell of the earth. At least it was a mans work. At least, squatting to rest on the wooded slope, he could look down and see his house the way a house ought to look on a fine spring day, safe on its carpet of green, the frail white sanctuary of a mans love, a mans wife and children (Yates 47). Under the influence of suburban folklore, Frank feels that he needs to establish his identity as a man by physically exerting himself and doing something that no woman could do. The sweat on his brow and the strain of a good days work are what make Frank feel like a man all because someone said that was how a man should act and how a man should feel. The immense workload gives Frank a feeling of masculinity that no woman can give him. Instead of solving his proble ms with April, he decides to do what a man was supposed to do in that situation instead of the right thinking to do. By and large, the ideal suburban family was so heavily influenced by the American Dream that they failed to find themselves and, instead, fell into a general role that they did not belong nor function well in. In Revolutionary Road, the American Dream has also created a warped and impractical view in the minds of suburban families. When April tries to convince Frank to move to Paris, she tries to pry him from his suburban way of thinking by arguing, Because you see I happen to think this is unrealistic. I think its unrealistic for a man with a fine mind to go on working like a dog year after year at a job he cant stand, coming home to a house he cant stand in a place he cant stand either, to a wife whos equally unable to stand the same things, living among a bunch of frightened little my God, Frank, I dont have to tell you whats wrong with this environment Im practically quoting you. Just last night when the Campbells were here, remember what you said about the whole idea of suburbia being to keep reality at bay? You said everybody wanted to bring up their children in a bath of sentimentality. You said - (Yates 115). At this point, April finally sees the lies that they were sucked into when they first bought a home in the suburbs. She is trying to convince Frank who, although he has realized the same lies, is still having trouble letting go of a doctrine that he has held fast to for so long. She realizes that what she and Frank have been experiencing in the past few years is not reality and that they need to find a way to break free and Paris would be a great place to do so. In the same instance, April goes further to say, Thats how we both got committed to this enormous delusion- because thats what it is, an enormous, obscene delusion- this idea that people have to resign from real life and settle down when they have families. Its the great sentimental lie of the suburbs, and Ive been making you subscribe to it all this time (Yates 117). April continues to elaborate on the lies that were told to the couple when they entered the fabled suburbia. When they first got there, they were led to believe that starting a family was the end to real life. The whole time they had been living a lie that neither of them was willing to admit which caused a loss in crucial years of their lives that could have been spent establishing their family as a unique tight-knit group that was not influenced by the ignorance of the time period. When Frank and April go on a walk with John Givings, he fumes on and on about the self-deception of suburbia and the failures of society by stating, Its as if everybodyd made this tacit agreement to live in a state of total self-deception. The hell with reality! Lets have a whole bunch of cute little winding roads and cute little houses painted white and pink and baby blue; à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and if old reality ever does pop out and say Boo well all get busy and pretend it never happened (Yates 68-69). John hits the nail on the head when he describes the fantasy that the people of the 1950s live in. He describes suburbia as a flowery place where everything looks t he same and everyone lives far away from reality. When confronted with reality, they act as if it never occurred and go back to the dream that they never want to wake up from never mind the fact that it is destroying them as a person. The American Dream in their lives has distorted their take on reality and led to them to believe that their way of life is real. By listening to the lies of the American Dream, suburban families were deceived into creating a dream world away from bona fide life that the rest of the world had to face every day. The desire for the American Dream in the mid-1900s created an immature outlook on suburban life and its corresponding gender roles and unyielding doctrine of the perfect family. Ever since its creation, suburbia has been sugarcoated to please potential home buyers and consequentially ensnared many families during the 1950s through its bold but enticing lies and the twisted view on what a real American family should look like. It produced absurd roles for a family that made it hard to function properly and took advantage of the wife by forcing her to subject to her husband. Furthermore, the suburbs distracted its residents from real life by giving them a false euphoria that rarely lasted long. Finally, it made many people give up their dreams and sacrifice their individuality in order to conform to its views. Its never beneficial to give up your identity which is why so many families have suffered and continue to suffer even today. Rather, it is always best to preserve the individual inside rather than change your beliefs and morals to fit society. Posttramatic Stress Disorder: Causes and Effects Posttramatic Stress Disorder: Causes and Effects A War Without End:  The Struggle of Posttramatic Stress Disorder Abstract This analysis is divided into two major parts. The first portion is dedicated to describing  posttramatic stress disorder, as well as the stress response and its contribution to developing PTSD. Along with describing PTSD is a reaction to a Frontline Documentary on veterans struggling with the  disorder. The second portion is an analysis of a personal friend that is currently undergoing treatment  for PTSD. Though the information of his treatment is true, information about his identity or personal  life will be altered. Part I. The issue of PTSD has gained a lot of attention with the United States fourteen year endeavor in  the middle east. The number of veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD is quite  staggering. To better understand PTSD it is important to look at stress and trauma, and how these two  mechanisms manifest. Their manifestation is crucial to our understanding of PTSD. Stress Stress can best be exemplified as our natural physiological response to a treat. To say that stress  itself is a bad thing would imply that our survival is bad. The stress response is what has allowed our  species to adapt and reach our current status. So what is the stress response? It all starts at the hypothalamus which sits dorsal to the limbic system, the system that is  responsible for our stress response. The hypothalamus than triggers our endocrine system by relaying  electrical signals to the pituitary gland, also know as the master gland of the endocrine system. When  the stimulation of the pituitary is that of a perceived threat, adrenocorticotropic hormone is released  stimulating the adrenal glands (Cohen, 2013). The adrenal cortex responds by releasing cortisol, and  the adrenal medulla releases epinephrine. Cortisol is responsible for raising glucose levels by  stimulating the release of stored glycogen in the liver. Epinephrines response is what raises heart rate,  dilates blood vessels, and prepares us for the situation that of which caused the initial reaction. All of  what falls under this description of stress results from the sympathetic nervous system, and its effect on  what is known as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal ( HPA) axes (Siegel, et al. 2005). Trauma When people experience a traumatic event, in more cases than not, they attach an emotional  response to said event. Looking at traumas long term effects, we see that these responses can be acted  out through unpredictable behavior/emotion, flashbacks, unstable relationships, and even physical  pains (APA, 2013). Trauma can affect anyone at any age, and can result from events such as rape,  abuse, and as it is most prevalent to this topic, combat. When someone suffers from trauma, a nonthreatening  event can set off a stress response if triggered in some way (Comer, 2014). PTSD In a simplified explanation of posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD could be seen as an over  active stress response that follows a traumatic, or series of traumatic events. As is common with those  who see combat or the gruesome consequences of combat, PTSD has left psychological scars on the  veterans who return home after serving. A 2005 Frontline documentary depicted PTSD in a way that was both informative and  emotional. One point that stood out about the documentary was the culture of military life, especially in  the army and marines. The culture is basically this; Being violent and reactive is very much  encouraged, showing empathy is weakness, disobeying an order is cowardice, and showing signs of  psychological issues is as cowardice as it is weak. Because of this disturbing belief system it is really  not a topic to stay politically correct on. Let us start with the fact that violence and reactivity are  considered virtues of a soldier. Finding a peaceful resolution has never resulted from fighting fire with  fire. Attempts to find peace are crushed by the surge of reaction (Martin Luther King Jr., 1965), and for  a very obvious reason. When someone is reactive in a situation that does not readily call for it, more  times than not mistakes are made. In the case of Rob, this issue came center stage when he opened fire  on a civilian women after hearing reports of suicide bombers. She fell with a white flag in her hand  (Frontline, 2005). It is not Robs fault that this civilian died, but rather a consequence of war. He felt  that the threat of a suicide bombing was approaching, and instinctively tried to preserve his life, and the  men he fought along side. When he began to struggle with the event, the men around him labeled him a  coward. Robs story is not uncommon for those who have fought in this war. Turning to a soldier by the  name of Jeff, we see the consequences of not seeking help after a traumatic event. According to the  Frontline documentary, Jeff told his family of a haunting memory which seems to depict the  consequece of blindly following orders. Jeff was commanded to execute two unarmed prisoners of  war, and his obedience cost him his sanity. Jeffs mental decline was shown through his abuse and  excessive use of alcohol (Frontline, 2005). Jeff committed suicide roughly about a year after serving,  which alcohol could be seen as a contributing factor. The experiences of those interviewed in the Frontline Documentary provided great insight in  terms of PTSD, and with this insight the signs and symptoms can easily be spotted. With this  information a brief diagnostic assessment will be attempted, and as stated earlier, some of the  information about this particular individual has been altered. Part II. Background John is a white male in his mid-twenties. He was released from active duty in the Army July,  2013. John has been receiving psychiatric care for PTSD for a year and a half, and he claims that he has  been improving. His psychiatrist has him undergoing drug treatment to help with the symptoms. As is  common with those suffering from PTSD, John takes Lithium to help with his anxiety and feelings of  depression attributed to stress. As an adolescent John was diagnosed with ADHD, and had been  prescribed Adderall up until 10th grade. He has been back on Adderall for the past six month to help  with concentration, and also for the anti-anxiety benefits of taking a low dose stimulant. Behavior John is rather evasive when talking about his time in Afghanistan. When asked about his  experience, John seems to steer the conversation towards boot camp, seemingly as an attempt to keep  his mind off of his duty served in Afghanistan. The only thing that could be confirmed is that John had  seen combat on a number of occasions. At times his speech seems disorganized and forced. He looses  attention during conversation quite often, and has trouble holding eye contact. When John initially  returned to civilian status he began using methamphetamines for a short duration before seeking help.   John has also been trying to limit his consumption of alcohol since being releaved of duty, and though  he has stopped drinking every night, his troubles with alcohol have persisted. Summary Johns behaviors that of which can be observed fall in line with most of the behaviors of those  mentioned earlier in the Frontline Documentary. Drug abuse has been the most prevalent issue in Johns  life after serving, but he has shown signs of progress with his current treatment plan. References Comer, R. J. (2014). Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.  Revised July 2014 Fulton, Germer, Siegel. (2005). Mindfulness and psychotherapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Cohen, B. J. (2013). The human body in health and disease. 12th Edition. Baltimore, MD:  Lippincott Williams Wilkins. Aronson, Raney (2014) A Soldier’s Heart [Video]. Retrieved February 2015 from  http://www/pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/view King, M. L. (1965). The three evils of society. (Speech). Retrieved from  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8d-IYSM-08

Women in Shakespeares Much Ado About Nothing and Taming of the Shrew E

During the early modern period, despite Queen Elizabeth’s powerful rule in the mid-sixteenth century, women in England had very few social, economic, and legal rights. According to the British system of coverture, a married man and wife became one person under the law, thus, â€Å"all the legal rights and responsibilities a woman had when she was single transferred to her husband upon marriage† (McBride-Stetson 189). Additionally, once married, the entirety of a woman’s property and wages came under the husband’s control; thus, in essence, women became the responsibility and property of their husbands (McBride-Stetson 189). Shakespeare, through his writings, illustrates the early modern period’s obsession with maintaining the legal subordination of women through marriage. Shakespeare’s leading lady in The Taming of the Shrew severely contrasts her obedient and demure sister and, in doing so, transcends the gender roles appropriated to her and , thus, must be tamed. In contrast, Much Ado About Nothing’s Hero plays the role of the ideal early modern woman until the nature of her chastity comes into question. Despite the fundamental differences between the characters of these two women, the financial and object-based language used to describe women as well as the institution of marriage in The Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing demonstrate the early modern period’s view of women as pieces of property. The play introduces Petruccio as Katherine’s potential suitor before Petruccio, in fact, meets Katherine; however, Petruccio asserts, â€Å"I have thrust myself into this maze/ Happily to wive and thrive as I may† (1.2.52-53). Interestingly, Petruccio lists â€Å"wiving† as his first goal, followed by â€Å"thriving.† In a sense, the ... ...r to that of property and subject to male control. Clearly, the study of these plays serve as prime examples in demonstrating the effect of British common law during the early modern period as well as depicting the society’s anxieties in regards to maintaining the ultimate upper-hand in regards to women’s rights, or, lack thereof. Although Hero is, for the most part, painted as a virtuous character throughout Much Ado About Nothing, the question of her virtue is not only known to be a false-accusation to the audience, but her chastity is quickly restored at the end of the play. Likewise, Petruccio is able to remedy Katherine’s shrewish behavior into that of a young lady. Clearly, the plots of these plays as well as the repeated associations between women and one’s property overtly demonstrate a societal desire to maintain a sense of power and domination over women.

Americans win the War of Independence Essay

Before the first shots were fired in the American War of Independence, very few people gave the Americans (also known as the ‘colonists’ or ‘patriots’) a chance. Britain had a population of 11 million compared to the patriots 2.5 million of whom 20% were slaves. Furthermore Britain had the most powerful navy in the world, an experienced and well-armed standing army of 48,000 men and the support of tens of thousands of loyalists and Indian tribes. Britain also held the economic advantage as they could rely on the profits from the South Atlantic system and the industrial revolution. So at the beginning of the war, an American victory seemed distinctly unlikely for American forces weak and British military and naval power enormous by comparison.[i] Foreign aid obtained by the colonists was extremely important in their victory. In 1776 France extended a secret loan to the colonies and supplied them with gunpowder. These loans of gunpowder were extremely important in enabling the patriots to defeat Britain in the Battle of Saratoga. In February 1778 France and America signed The Treaty of Alliance that stated once France entered the war against Britain, there would be no more treaties before the colonists gained liberty, sovereignty and independence.[ii] The treaty also opened both nations ports to the others commerce and guaranteed French possessions in the New World. Therefore this alliance was very important as it brought optimism and boosted the morale of the patriots. As one soldier from Pennsylvania said, â€Å"There has been a great change in this state since the news from France†. France gave money, supplies and in the last phase of the war, military force. France supplied most of the muskets, bayonets and canons used by the colonists and without French aid it is debatable if they could have won the war. For example at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, 20 French war ships prevented Cornwallis’ escape and led to the surrender of the British force and the end of the war. Furthermore France’s participation in the war and Vergennes’ (French foreign  minister) influence was a big factor in persuading other countries to join the American war effort. In 1779 and 1780, both Spain and Holland respectively entered against Great Britain and soon after Catherine of Russia organised the League of Armed Neutrality which when threatened by Britain in the early 1780’s, responded by deterring British trade. So foreign aid was a very important factor in America’s victory as it is probable that they did not have the power to defeat the British on their own. The logistics of the war was a second major reason for the American’s victory. Britain encountered many logistical problems in the war which all contributed in some way to its defeat. Howe thought that driving the American army from the battlefield in any area would return that area to loyalty to the crown or at least neutrality. However this was not the case. Britain was only able to control areas that the military occupied so therefore when the army moved it had to abandon the area it previously occupied. As a result when a British force was defeated its only hope was to retreat to a fortified port and so if the navy was not there with its usual overwhelming power, the army would be in serious trouble, as exemplified with the Battle of Yorktown. Another logistical problem was that the British army could not expect supplies from any area it did not occupy and also the areas Britain did occupy were too small to provision the British army.[iii] Therefore they had to be dependent on supplies from Britain but even this was often a major problem as the obtaining of these supplies was held up administratively. The British Treasury and Admiralty did not co-operate with each other to make provisioning efficient or effective. For example in 1776 Admiralty agents insisted that army suppliers be licensed and applications accompanied by exact cargo manifests. Therefore, as ships were loaded at Cork and applications made in London, voyages could be delayed for weeks and sometimes months and as a result hampered the British war effort. Britain also suffered a number of transport problems that further complicated proceedings. In October and November 1775, 36 supply ships loaded with  hundreds of tons of food and supplies left Britain to make sure the 11,000 soldiers, sailors and marines in Boston would have a comfortable winter. However the ships witnessed some of the worst storms of the century and many sunk, were captured or fled towards the West Indies. In the end only 13 supply ships reached Boston by which time most of the food had gone bad.[iv] So therefore transport problems are another logistical problem that contributed to Britain’s defeat. Food that did reach America created another problem for the British, as there were no good means to store or distribute the food. Therefore the food often sat on the ships holding them up when they could have been used for battle or getting more supplies. Logistical problems also hit the British army directly as they could only operate freely as long as the supplies they could carry lasted. Therefore they had to move as soon as they ran out of supplies, even if it was not militarily expedient. So as the army was always moving it could not force an American army to battle, which created a big advantage for the colonists as they could decide when to fight.[v] So overall Britain had to deal with many distribution and communication problems and despite having more supplies than the enemy, because of the above problems this proved to be no advantage. A third major reason for the patriot’s victory revolved around the military strategy of both sides. On three notable occasions Britain made terrible mistakes in battle that contributed massively to their overall defeat. At the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775, Britain went against all accepted military practice by attacking American forces on Breeds Hill, having to go up a steep and grassy hill in the open carrying sixty pound packs whilst the colonists were under cover. Of three British attacks, the colonists won two and Britain suffered a 50% loss of soldiers and didn’t make another offensive for fourteen months. On top of this, the battle seriously strengthened American morale and gave Washington over a year to build an army and prepare for the next battle. [vi] At the Battle of Long Island in 1776 Britain made a massive strategic error of not exploiting their success. The British army had marched unexpected straight into the rear of the colonists and quickly forced a retreat. Britain had thousands of fresh troops available and had the momentum but allowed the colonists to escape from Brooklyn to Manhattan by boat. Therefore Britain lost their best chance of destroying the Continental army, capturing Washington and winning the war.[vii] The final major military mistake by Britain was in 1777 when General Howe’s plan to attack Philadelphia instead of going to Albany to help Burgoyne backfired when the Continental Congress fled Philadelphia. Therefore Burgoyne had to send further supplies and troops to support Howe instead of using them on his way to Albany. Howe underestimated the colonist’s ability to evade the British and made a massive mistake because Burgoyne needed those troops, supplies and Howe’s help at the Battle of Saratoga. In complete contrast, the colonists displayed some excellent tactics and strategies at vital times that proved extremely important in their victory in the war. During the collective battles known as the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, at Fort Stanwix Britain were at first in control. However the patriots sent Hon Yost Schuyler to the fort and he promoted a superstition that caused the Indians to desert the fort and as a result caused the British to retreat to Oswego and abandon their siege. Therefore the great tactics at Fort Stanwix proved vital as the British were previously in a great position in the battle. At Bennington, the patriots played another great trick sending men disguised as loyalists to mingle with British troops. They went to the rear of the British army and when the patriots attacked they turned against the British. So again the great tactics shown by the Americans provided a massive victory and the British suffered huge casualties and loss of supplies that proved significant in the war. A final example of the great tactics used by the patriots was at Freemans  Farm, when American riflemen forced a retreat in the first British assault after shooting from the tops of trees and then in the second assault caused huge losses to Burgoynes army after being situated on a low hill.[viii] This battle carried extra significance as the victory brought an American alliance with France, which as explained before was crucial in the outcome of the war. However, whilst discussing military strategy it is also important to acknowledge the role played by the terrain as a factor for America’s victory. Britain found it difficult to cope with the many rivers and poor roads that they encountered and there were no large open fields where the cavalry could manoeuvre. It was rare to see Britain using whole regiments and disciplined fire across open ground. The territory thus prevented Britain from moving rapidly to surround rebels and from making the most of their superior discipline in formal lines of battle. So therefore Americans benefited from their own familiar terrain. As they did not have the fire discipline or military expertise and skills to fight formal battles, it was suited to their guerrilla warfare type battle techniques. Washington was also crucial to the shape and outcome of the war. By 1777 Washington had fought Howe five times and lost every one, however Washington never lost his army.[ix] He was a big stabilising force and from his militia experience, was excellent at managing an army and keeping it together. As a Southerner, Washington was also vital in bringing southern support into a war that originally was being fought mainly by New Englanders. However most importantly Washington’s tactics on two notable occasions were massive factors in the outcome of the war. First in 1776 at the Battle of Long Island, whilst in serious trouble, Washington enabled an escape for the colonists from Brooklyn to Manhattan by boat. In doing this, Washington prevented Britain’s best chance of winning the war. Secondly in Virginia in October 1781, Washington was influential in leading five thousand French and two thousand American troops across Pennsylvania into Virginia. Washington moved them so fast that Britain didn’t even know  of the Yorktown attack until it was too late. This piece of military mastermind by Washington soon led to a British surrender and subsequently signalled the end of the war. The fourth and possibly final major reason for the American’s victory revolved around the contrasting motivation and passion of the two sides. The patriots were always willing to continue fighting because they had a strong desire to win their independence and loved their homeland. On the other hand British soldiers were not fighting for a cause that directly affected them as they were in a country almost three thousand miles from home. Therefore as the war continued patriot fervour increased whereas British morale went down. In the colonies, the desire to fight the British was never in question. Before the outbreak of war Thomas Paine’s pamphlet ‘Common Sense’ was able to sway public sentiment in favour of complete independence and against King George’s tyranny. During the revolution Paine continued to stir up enthusiasm and patriotism in America with ‘The Crisis’ with comments such as, â€Å"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph†.[x] Therefore ‘The Crisis’ affected soldiers and civilians in all levels of society, increasing morale, confidence and belief. Paine marched with troops, understood them and kept them fighting under horrible circumstances. Thus, Paine played an important role in the patriot’s victory. Propaganda also played a big role in influencing public opinion. Anti-British cartoons were popular throughout the colonies and influenced the public. The inhumane treatment of American prisoners was a main topic of propaganda and there were many newspapers detailing atrocities by the British; for example, the fact that more prisoners of war died than were killed in action. Therefore the use of propaganda was very influential and turned many loyalists against the British. So overall in conclusion, I have identified four major reasons why the Americans won the War of Independence. Foreign aid from France was vital through their money, supplies and military force. France also helped bring Spain and Holland into the war and without them the colonists would have found it difficult to win. Secondly, Britain suffered many logistical problems including the obtaining and distributing of supplies and also communication problems. With regards to military strategy, Britain made a number of strategic errors and struggled to come to terms with the difficult terrain, whereas the colonists under the influential command of Washington made some excellent tactical decisions in battle. Finally the Americans displayed great motivation and passion to secure victory and independence and never lost their desire to fight. In contrast British soldiers were not directly affected whatever the result of war and this proved crucial. ——————————————————————————– [i] Bonwick, Colin. The American Revolution (Macmillan, 1991) 86 [ii] Henretta, James. America: A Concise History (St. Martin’s, 1999) 147 [iii] Bowler, Arthur. Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America: 1775-1783 (Princeton, 1975) 239 [iv] Perret, Geoffrey. A Country Made by War (Vintage Books, 1990) 20 [v] Heller, Charles. America’s First Battles: 1776-1965 (Lawrence, 1986) 24 [vi] Perret, 15 [vii] Heller, 31 [viii] Perret, 42 [ix] Leckie, Robert. The Wars of America (Harper & Row, 1981) 179 [x] Perret, 34 Bibliography Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard College, 1967 Bonwick, Colin. The American Revolution. Macmillan, 1991 Bowler, Arthur. Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America: 1775-1783. Princeton, 1975 Conway, Stephen. The War of American Independence 1775-1783. Arnold, 1995 Heller, Charles. America’s First Battles 1776-1965. Lawrence, 1986 Henretta, James. America: A Concise History. St. Martin’s, 1999 Leckie, Robert. The Wars of America. Harper & Row, 1981 Perret, Geoffrey. A Country Made by War. Vintage Books, 1990

This Cody

â€Å"This Cody† Comparison Essay â€Å"What I wanted, I know now, was just to say our son’s name out loud. The crisp â€Å"c† and the rolling â€Å"o† and the slight flick of the tongue for the â€Å"dy†Ã¢â‚¬  (Anderson 5). This quote comes from the story â€Å"This Cody† by Lauri Anderson. It states how the narrator misses being able to say her sons name for he died not too long ago because he was kidnapped in a park. The husband feels as though his wife is a shame to him and she believes that the reason he does not look at her the same anymore is because the son looked exactly like her.Every time he looks at her face he sees his son and misses him so much. Although the author talks about many different types of scenes that the wife talks about in this story, Lauri Anderson portrays the narrator as a static character. I say she is a fixed character because her beliefs stay the same throughout the entire passage. For instance, she thinks t he dam is going to break constantly, she thinks her husband does not love her anymore because it was her fault for their son dying and also she tells the cops three bold face lies about her son.The narrator has dreams about the dam breaking throughout the entire short story. In these dreams, the author has the narrator use imagery to describe her dreams and how intense they were. For example, â€Å"I have dreams about it. They all start the same way. We wake to water two inches deep and the dogs whining, backed into their corners. All night we sweep the water out, but by morning, we’re wading waist-deep in the cold, fishless shallows, filling our buckets† (Anderson 4).The river that used to go through their neighborhood is not being stopped by the dam and the wife gives the river and the dam human characteristics, which is personification, and says that the river is mad and wants to destroy everything that is now in its path. â€Å"What I have learned is that when the river returns, it won’t be the same river. All that time pushing against a wall will make you desperate. All that time, you won’t care about this tidy home or that. If you are the river, you will say, show me a thing I can’t destroy, and if you are the dam, and you are tired of pushing back, you will secretly want to let go† (Anderson 6-7).The narrator also says â€Å"Sometimes I can hear a humming that seems to come from two places at once: from far down the creek and also somewhere inside me, as if the dam is as much aware of me as I am of it. As if I need only to step onto the porch and open my arms† (12). This is an example of personification. The wife thinks that the dam knows as much about her as she knows about the dam. She thinks that the dam is going to spill all of her secrets and make everything worse than what it is now between her husband and herself.The dam is also an example of a symbol because it represents the relationship between the wife and the husband. â€Å"The dam is holding back every drop it was built to contain. Its concrete walls are eight feet thick. It is designed to collapse in and not out† (Anderson 16). All of the lies that she told the police and her husband are hidden behind the dam and the moment that the dam breaks is the moment when the entire world will know that she was selfish. â€Å"I told myself that he was fine, the park was safe. I told myself I deserved a few minutes alone with the sun and with the trees moving overhead† (Anderson 16).She was selfish in thinking that she needed time to rest her eyes in a public place instead of looking out for where her son was and knowing exactly where he was. Instead of thinking he is just in one of his hiding places or sitting on the ground right in front of her, she should have been going everywhere that he went. The wife’s husband did not start getting mad at her and being disgusted with her presence until their son died. The wife lied to the cops three times when their son died so that the blame was not on her and the husband would not leave her. On the day I lost our son, I told three lies. First, I said he had only been missing for fifteen minutes, when it was really more like an hour. Fifteen minutes still sounded hopeful, I thought† (Anderson 6). She thought that the lie would make herself feel better and it did for a while but she eventually started feeling bad about lying to the cops about something that was her fault. â€Å"The second lie I told on that day I lost my son was about a hat. I told the detective he was wearing one-a blue baseball cap with an orange fish on the front.I said this because it was a hot day, nearly ninety degrees in the city, and when we arrived at the park, I saw all of the kids were wearing hats and even tiny pairs of glasses† (Anderson 10-11). The wife did not want to seem like a bad mother because she lost her own son, although later it would be estab lished that she was, so she lied to the cops about her own son wearing a hat and watched the man write it down on his notepad without even flinching or showing regret on her face. There were a number of things that the narrator confesses to the audience about what she did not tell the cops at the end of the story. I’ve never said that I leaned my head back and closed my eyes. I’ve never said that that I’d forgotten my sunglasses, and that the sun threw dappled shadows on my eyelids. No one knows that for maybe half an hour before I faded into sleep, I listened to my son playing nearby with another child, the sound like birds chasing each other in the trees† (Anderson 15). This quote is an example of dramatic irony in that the husband does not know that it was the wife’s fault for their son being kidnapped. We the audience knows that she was the reason that her son was stolen at a park and kidnapped and had God know what done to him.The narrator also uses imagery to show how much the husband changed the way he looked and how different and difficult her life is now that their son died. â€Å"Some days I don’t recognize him. He’s grown out his beard, and the paunch I so lovingly stroked is now all muscle, his abdominals like flat stones stacked atop one another† (Anderson 4). The narrator’s husband changed the way he looked after the death. â€Å"I’m different two. Our dogs, two purebred Heelers Brian insisted we buy to go with our new life, won’t come when I call. The chickens peck my head when I reach for the eggs. The garden dies all at once, overnight.Last night, I found a scorpion on my pillow, his dancer’s arms poised to strike† (Anderson 4). This quote states how much the place that she is living now does not like her and she feels as though they are all out to get her, including her own husband. The author of the story â€Å"This Cody†, Lauri Anderson, uses di fferent types of figurative language and imagery to portray the narrator as a static character. The wife is constantly thinking that the dam is going to break and all of her secrets will be revealed to her husband and the rest of the world and she everyone would know how bad of a mother she is.Throughout the story the narrator believes that her husband does not love her anymore because he blames her for his son’s death. He can not stand to look at her for their son looked exactly like her and every time he looks at her he sees his dead son. Also she continuously tells lies to the police and her husband about their son and what really happened that day at the park when he went missing. Works Cited Anderson, Lauri. â€Å"This Cody. † The Greensboro Review. 91. Spring (2012) : 4-16. Print.