The Placement Of Blame By Homer s Odyssey - 1487 Words

The Placement of Blame Blame can always be placed several different ways, and the accused and accusers of situations battle this all the time in literature. In one text however, several arguments can be made for one side of this ever-present schism. In this particular book, more arguments can be made to assign blame to one side of the argument rather than the other. In Homer’s Odyssey, mortal men cause their own misfortune. One way mortal men cause their own misfortune is by disobeying Odysseus, their leader. They, Odysseus’ crew, did this several times, but two instances significantly stand out in the argument of assigning blame. Before reaching Thrinakia, the island of Helios, Odysseus told his men of the warnings he had received about†¦show more content†¦During his visit to the underworld, Odysseus was informed of one of his most formidable enemies: desire. Teiresias plainly told him that â€Å"if [he could] contain [his] own desire, and contain [his] companions†¦ [they] might all make [their] way back to Ithaca† (Homer 171). When they finally saw the island, Odysseus did feel the desire to stop at the island, but tried to heed the warnings he received. His men however did not feel the same way he did. His me pestered him until he felt they had â€Å"[forced him] to it† but in reality he was just making an excuse to give in to his desires† (Homer 193). After indulging in his (and his crew’s) desires, he thought they would soon proceed off the island, however this was not the case. While exploring the island, his food deprived crew came upon the cattle of Helios, and being starving, began to cook and eat them, even sacrificing a part to the gods. Odysseus was walking back to their camp on his own when â€Å"the pleasant savor of cooking meat came drifting around [him], and [he] cried out [his] grief aloud to the gods immortal (Homer 194). Once he smelled the meat he knew that the horrific actions that were predicted would come true. All these things happened because Odysseus’ crew did not follow the instruction of their leader and instead followed their desires, but an even worse fate comes true when they disobey the gods themselves. With the warnings he received from the gods and Teiresias the seer, Odysseus tried to

Civil Rights Heroes By Jonathan Kozol - 1504 Words

The names Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Langston Hughes, Jackie Robinson, Fannie Lou Hamer and Thurgood Marshall are all civil rights heroes, not to be forgotten. However, Jonathan Kozol reveals that the schools he has had experience with that are named after these civil rights champions are actually dishonoring the dead. Professor Gary Orfield indicates that schools that are comprised mostly of minority students, less than 1% white, are essentially â€Å"apartheid schools.† There is a reciprocal action, â€Å"To give up on integration†¦.requires us to consciously and deliberately accept segregation†(Orfield and Eaton, 20). It is noted that some of the reasons New York has this problem is due to government enforced school boundaries, housing segregation and non-enforced fair housing laws. Thus, the schools are named after the heroes in a show of respect and honor, yet their segregation is a dishonor to the namesakes. The racial isolation of the students le aves them feeling hidden, unwanted and inferior. This is a dishonor to those students and the people who fought so persistently for equal opportunities. Among other injustices, some schools in the South Bronx and other areas do not have basic essentials needed to conduct a safe environment ripe for learning. The apartheid schools are unsafe and underfunded, lacking enough rooms, chairs, play areas, libraries and enriching programs such as art and music. The funding disparity is saddening; with the Board of Education

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility

Question: Discuss about theStrategic Corporate Social Responsibility. Answer: Introduction From time to time organizations are bound to respond to opportunities and threats that arise in the dynamic environment in which they operate. The modern workplace environment has emerged as quite challenging for organizations. There are several pressures to which Modern organizations continue to be exposed to, and on which they must compete. Businesses continue to come up with organizational responses to counter these opportunities and threats. Business pressures are the factors that affect business operations. This essay will focus on some pressures faced by organizations and remedies that businesses have to counter them. Corporate social responsibility. This is organizations responsibility for the impacts of its decisions and actions on the society and the environment. From their operations business are bound to impact on the environment and communities in a number of ways (Crane,2008). Corporate social responsibility has emerged as a factor for organization success or failure. From the increasing levels of community awareness, there has been a growing emphasis on businesses to act responsibly in their dealings, with organizations that are socially responsible becoming a favorite for many consumers. This and various others government legislations have put immense pressures on organizations to act responsibly for them to compete on the same level with their competitors. The stakeholder theory of corporate social responsibility described by Edward freeman is focused on business stakeholders or the individuals who are likely to affect or be affected by business operations. This theory lays emphasis on t he obligations that can be imposed on organizations by these stakeholders, their rights with regard to the actions of an organization as well as their genuine claims on the business. In short, this theory focuses on how these stakeholders can control the operations of an organization (Chandler Werther, 2013). Organizations are therefore being pressured each day to minimize their negative impact and maximize their positive impact on the environment and the community. Strategies. Organizations or managers have at their disposal several strategies that they can put in place to meet the demands of their various stakeholders. Philanthropic responsibility requires organizations to come up with projects that support the welfare of the communities in which they operate (Lee Kotler,2013). Organizations can initiate education support programs such as offering scholarships to the needy members of the society in order to facilitate their education and their ability to transform their communities. Apart from education organizations can also support healthcare programs such as building community-based health centers as well as contributing funds towards other community initiatives. Organizations can also act responsibly by ensuring that their actions have minimal impact on the environment. They can do this by adopting recycling programs to minimize the wastes generated from business operations, the can also ensure that they minimize consumption of resources as much as possible to avoid affect the quality of life lived by the future generations as a result of depletion of natural resources. Organizations can also adapt usage of alternative sources of energy that do avoid depletion of natural resources and the subsequent negative impacts that come with it (Visser Institute for Corporate Culture Affairs,2010). Changing nature of the workforce. The needs of organizations workforce are increasingly becoming diversified. Among the demand that has been brought about by this diversification is the need for employees to be more empowered (Huq, 2010).While traditionally employees were seen as people who were to follow orders from their managers, modern workplace brought immense pressure on organizations to involve employees in decision making and view them as partners instead of subordinates. Employees want to be more involved in decision-making and other operations of the organization and because of this, there has been increasing pressure on organizations to empower their employees.(Wodden, 2009) views the implementation of empowerment strategies by organizations as an attempt to maintain a shared vision, institutional recognition, organizational support, knowledge, and learning. Employee empowerment involves giving employees power, information, reward, and knowledge and asserts that without th ese four there can be a hindrance of employee empowerment. According to Kanters theory of structural empowerment, leaders powers grow based on the leader's ability to share the power through empowerment. He further states that empowerment enables employees to make informed decisions and become more productive hence benefiting not only themselves but also their organization (Pettinger, 2012). Strategies. There are several strategies that organizations can employ to respond to the increasing empowerment demands at the modern workplace Employee training and development is one of the strategies that organizations have to meet these demands. Frequent training opportunities capacitate employees to go about their assigned duties and responsibilities with much ease and without having to consult their managers frequently. Employees require training to be equipped with the required skills for the assigned tasks. Apart from training, authority is also a strategy that can be applied to empower employees. There has been increasing demand for responsibilities followed by Authority from employees as a result of the diversifications at the modern workplace. Organizations/Mangers can ensure that that they give sufficient authority to employees to enable them to make decisions on how well they can complete their assigned tasks instead of concentrating all the authority at the top. Manager s can also make sure that they maintain a personal touch with their employees, encourage and constantly give positive feedback about their performance. This can be an effective strategy to empower them and develop them professionally. As noted by expectancy theory, managers can also build confidence in their employees to make them more productive and improve their job satisfaction (Rainer Cegielski,2011). Conclusion In conclusion, there has been increasing pressure on organizations regarding their interaction with both their internal and external environments. These pressures can contribute to the failure or success of organizations depending on how they are able to handle them. Organizations that are socially responsible have continued to enjoy more fruitful interactions with their stakeholders while the pressure to be socially responsible has continued to increase for those that are not. Changing nature of workforce has also made it necessary for organizations to devise appropriate strategies such as empowerment in order to reduce employee turnover and improve productivity. Reference List Chandler, D. B., Werther, W. B. J. (2013). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders, Globalization, and Sustainable Value Creation. Crane, A. (2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huq, R. (2010). Employee empowerment: The rhetoric and the reality. Axminster, Devon: Triarchy Press. Johnson, P., Wood, G., Brewster, C., Brookes, M. (2009). The rise of post-bureaucracy: theorists' fancy or organizational praxis?. International Sociology, 24(1), 37-61. Rainer, R. K., Cegielski, C. G. (2011). Introduction to information systems. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley Sons Pettinger, R. (2012). Business studies for dummies. Chichester: Wiley. Lee, N., Kotler, P. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Visser, W., Institute for Corporate Culture Affairs. (2010). The A to Z of corporate social responsibility. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley.

Lorenzo Colbert Jr. Essays (637 words) - Americas, Structure

Lorenzo Colbert Jr. Speech Writing Assignment #1 Red Cross The emotions that I am experiencing after listening to the broadcast are confusion and frustration. I feel confused because the Red Cross is supposed to be an organization that is non-profitable. The confusion rises when I think of exactly where the money actually went. I am frustrated because we as a people look to Red Cross to assist us when needed not take advantage. It doesn't make sense how you take all of that money yet continue to let those in Haiti suffer and wait on the assistance the promised. The reporter sounded very credible. She provided endless facts to back up every statement she made. She also has used voice recordings to make her argument more trustworthy. I feel as if she knows exactly what she is discussing and has done an extensive amount of research. I can tell that she has dug deep to get the information about this faulty organization. The Red Cross spokesperson did not sound credible whatsoever. The spokesperson could not answer questions directly and deflected them with ease. The spokesperson also went in circles to answer questions so they would not s lip up and say the wrong thing on recordings. For the spokesperson to be a part of Red Cross, they did not sound very concerned about the ongoing issues in Haiti. The spokesperson only could revert back to one thing to support their end of the argument. The most disturbing thing to me about the broadcast was the information that Red Cross was withholding. Even though there were facts proving that they did not do what they said they would do, they were still in denial of what they were being accused. I can't believe that they would knowingly still let the people of Haiti suffer when they have more than enough resources to help. If Red Cross is not being truthful about what they say they are going to do, then what and who else are these non-profit organizations hiding from us. Based off what I heard from the broadcast, non-profit organizations are full of lies. They are manipulative and they deceive you into thinking they are for the greater good. They will take your money in surplus and only do enough to get the media attention then they will take the rest of the money for themselves. They don't have our best interest at heart at all. My knowledge of Red Cross has never been much but that they have been assisting people for a long time now. What I already knew and believed was that they were an organization that sticks their necks out for people in need of assistance. But after hearing the broadcast, I now know that it all just a disguise to acquire more money. Red Cross takes from people who would give their last to help others in need and doesn't use your money for what you intended on it going to. A. I will tell everyone I know who cares about assisting others. I would also inform everyone who donates to these non-profit organizations so they can know exactly what goes on behind closed doors. I'm willing to tell anyone with a heart and who cares. B. I would tell them because people need to become aware of what's really going on in our corrupt society. They also have the right to know where their money is actually going and not going. Information like this should not be shadowed and should be out for the world to see clear as day. C. The answer is self-explainable. People should know when they are being ripped off. Especially by the people they are actually putting their trust into.

Why Julius Caesar Was Assassinated

Why Julius Caesar Was Assassinated Introduction Gaius Julius Caesar remains one of the most important figures for his prolific conquests that he made during his life as an emperor and probably his untimely-preplanned death. This was a genius in making, combating with not only the minute Egypt but also with world giants like Germany, Gaul, and Britain (Appian 1949, 115).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Why Julius Caesar Was Assassinated specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Nevertheless, his ingenuity did not save him from death in the hands of his enemies in disguise as friends, Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinu, when they descended on him on Ides of March. These two men, in company of a pack of others, carefully designed the death of Caesar behind his back. However, why would they want to kill their friend? It is important to note that, Caesar’s leadership or tyrannical rule policies had nothing to do with his death. Despite his leader ship skills, all seemed to be well with Romans. All the indicators of a thriving economy were prevalent in Rome. From creation of thousands of employment opportunities to economic stimulation through export and import, confidence levels amongst Romans were rising by the day and every one seemed to be happy save for some leadership flaws here and there, which are common in any leadership. These leadership flaws could not move anyone to rebel against and plot assassination of the emperor. Even though there are many schools of thought giving different reasons as to why Caesar was assassinated, the most compelling school of thought is the one stating that, Caesar was assassinated because his assassins wanted power. All other malicious claims directed to Caesar were only to cover the truth. Brutus and Cassius were formerly enemies to Caesar and after he defeated Pompey, they swore allegiance to him but their initial rebellion did not go away and this is evident from the assassination the y carried out. Why Assassination The fact that the men that assassinated Caesar wanted some grounds to accuse him and justify their assassination, implies that they had to plot how to win other people’s hearts and allegiance. Unfortunately, Caesar made many gullible mistakes exposing him to the wiles of these assassins. Many a times he failed to read signs that would signify impeding danger. In the opinion of the writer of this paper, nothing Caesar would say or do that would avert his inevitable death. Brutus and Cicero were very much aware of the damage they would cause to Caesar once they managed to brand him a tyrant (Yavetz 1983, 186). Therefore, the only thing that these two men needed was to come up with a strategy that would subject Caesar to public ridicule and then attack him after gaining enough support. To do this, they had to convince other senators to get into their scheme; fortunately, they got huge backing from senators, who joined them for different reasons.A dvertising Looking for essay on ancient history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More According to Nicholas of Damascus (1964), the chief principals of this plot were men who knew for sure that if Caesar were dead, then they would gain power to run the nation. This persuaded many senators to consent to the plot of killing their emperor. Other people agreed to the plot because they were still angry because of losing their relatives and friends in the civil war. Therefore, to end such impunity, they wanted to be led through democracy, not despotism. However, Nicholas of Damascus (1964) notes that these were mere cover-ups, the fact is that these people were hypnotized by the promise of ascending to power and they would find any excuse to assent to the plot. Moreover, some people joined the plot not because they had anything against Caesar, but because they loved the pioneers of the plot. Interestingly, men who had been genu ine friends to Caesar also took part in the plot. How did this happen? After Caesar forgave the likes of Brutus and Cassius who had been his enemies and gave them powers in his authority, the men who had remained loyal felt betrayed. They could not understand this form of kindness. When Cassius approached them to take part in the plot, they gave in easily for they wanted to revenge what Caesar had done to them. It is unfortunate that these loyal Caesar friends could not enjoy the good reaps from the war and by joining the plot; they knew they would access power and finally enjoy what they had labored for all that long. Finally, after spurring people from all lifestyles into rebellion, Brutus and Cassius had to fool Caesar into stupid acts that would leave him exposed (Taylor 1949, 173). This opens up the next element of this conspiracy; that is, the plot. In the Greek culture, no man was to become a king as long as he lived (Yavetz 1983, 193). Wittingly, these assassins painted Caes ar as a king by offering him several honors. Unfortunately, Caesar gave in to the ill plans of these brutes and as time went on, he started acting against the law, something that would cost him life. The disregard for the law would give the assassins a foothold to censure him. The conspirators started by voting on how Caesar would appear in public. According to the vote passed, Caesar was to appear in all public places wearing exultant attire and sit in the chair of state. The aim of this vote was to make bring him close to people who would easily fault him as he mingled with them often. Additionally, they bestowed on him the power and right to â€Å"offer the so-called spolia opima at the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, as if he had slain some hostile general with his own hand. To have lectors that always carried the laurel and after the Feriae Latinae, to ride from Albanum to the city mounted on a charger† (Cassius Dio 1949, 12). This meant that his status was elevated almost to a state of a king. This was just but the beginning of the honors Caesar received.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Why Julius Caesar Was Assassinated specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More To hypnotize Caesar completely, the conspirators named him the father of the nation. This was followed by inscribing his image in all the coins used in Rome around that time. Additionally, they passed a vote that Caesar’s birthday was to be celebrated by offering public sacrifice and his statue was to stand in all cities. Two of Caesar’s statues were to stand in all temples one signifying him as a savior of people and the other as a savoir of the city under siege. A temple was to be built in his honor to symbolize peace. To cap it all, they appointed him the high priest and conferred powers to censure life to him alone. Mistakenly, Caesar accepted all these accolades with unfathomed gullibility. This saw the passing of t he law that required prayers be made to him and he accepted the garbs worn by kings. Finally, after a series of honors that Caesar accepted readily, they â€Å"addressed him outright as Julian Jupiter and ordered a temple to be consecrated to him and to his Clemency† (Cassius Dio 1949, 16). The motive behind all these awards was to paint Caesar as a king or a god, something that would attract disapproval readily, hence justifying their assassination. Actions of these people spoke loudly and it was evident that they did not have any good faith in what they were doing. â€Å"Others, and the majority, followed the courses mentioned because they wished to make him envied and disliked as quickly as possible, that he might the sooner perish† (Renard 1987, 568). This explains clearly the motive behind these accolades. However, this was not the only reason why these senators gave Caesar all these honors. Going back to Caesar’s life as an emperor, he was always under the watch of a guard. This meant that the senators could not meet him whatsoever; hence, they would not get chance to carry out the assassination. After receiving many honors, Caesar was convinced that these people would never try to eliminate him (Taylor 1949, 175). Therefore, he let his guard leave for he was now comfortable in the presence of the senators, who had apparently become his friends. As time went by, he dismissed all other guards and now he would remain under the watch of knights and senators. Caesar’s gullibility continued to portray itself as he consistently became mesmerized by the â€Å"kindness† of his subjects. However, it did not take long for these power-hungry assassinators to find a loophole in what they would easily exploit at the expense of this gullible emperor.Advertising Looking for essay on ancient history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More One evening these conspirators approached Caesar to explain why they would carry some of the house businesses in his absence to show that they worked involuntarily as opposed to compulsory duty (Suetonius 1913, 77). However, Caesar did not wake up from his seat and this dismayed many of them. Sympathizers of Caesar tried to explain that he could not walk because he had a bout of diarrhea; nevertheless, they could not justify these claims because he eventually stood up and walked without support. These assassins pretended to be dismayed by this act of pride; however, this is all they wanted from the beginning; a foothold to accuse Caesar. Well, they got it fully later when Caesar accepted to be made a dictator for life. Nevertheless, the end was yet to come. Some of the people still supported Caesar and the conspirators had to look for a way to embitter them. The next course of action was well plotted. As aforementioned, among the Romans, there could not be a king for this was outrig ht scorn to the tribunes. Then the time came, and the senators tried to brand Caesar a king but he refused vehemently. However, after scrutinizing the events, it appears that Caesar wanted the title. Firstly, it would be expected of him to rebuke such people, put them into prison, or worse kill them (Adcock 1951, 693). However, he did not do anything to them. This showed that he was pleased by the title; something that caused many people to disdain him. To cover up his behavior, Caesar told people that he was not a king but only a Caesar. Even though he took some actions against the first people to call him a king, the measures were not severe as expected for he only relieved them of their duties as tribunes and banned them from public speaking. He went ahead to rub their names from tribune-ship; however, this did not quell the mounting disapproval among citizens. Did he really dissent the title? The answer to this question is no! If Caesar were totally, against the title, he would come out clearly and refuse it. However; Antony with his fellow priests saluted him as king and surrounding his brows with a diadem said: â€Å"The people give this to you through my hands.† He answered that Jupiter alone was king of the Romans and sent the diadem to him to the Capitol, yet he was not angry and caused it to be inscribed in the records that the royalty presented to him by the people through the consul he had refused to receive. It was accordingly suspected that this had been done by some prearranged plan and that he was anxious for the name but wished to be somehow compelled to take it, and the consequent hatred against him was intense (Cassius Dio 1949, 17). This shows that he somehow accepted the title â€Å"king†; hence, making him a tyrant. Thus, the assassination would not be branded as such, but it would be called tyrannicide. However, Caesar was still popular amongst middle and lower classes and they vowed to fight Brutus and his team. The fact t hat Brutus went to organize troops in Greece to topple Antony is a clear indication that all he wanted was power. Conclusion Despite his ingenuity in conquering his enemies, Caesar could not deal with his closest enemies who disguised as friends. They led him into believing that they liked and honored him by awarding him with several accolades until they won his trust. First, they had to win his trust to a point of him letting go of his guards. This would ensure that the senators gained access to Caesar and have the opportunity to kill him. Luckily, this worked well for them as they accomplished it. Secondly, they had to paint Caesar as a tyrant in the eyes of the citizens to justify their assassination, which in effect it would be termed as tyrannicide. They also accomplished this by branding him a ‘king†, a title that he was not supposed to hold. Their craftiness was aided in part by Caesar’s gullibility and failure to read the two sided of the coin. There is cl ear indication that Caesar wanted to be called a king and this was the biggest mistake that he made. However, this assassination was inevitable and nothing he would have done to prevent it. It was a political attack where the assassinators were power hungry and the only way they could gain it was through assassination. However, they failed in their bid to rule Rome as opposition mounted against them leading to a series of wars. Bibliography Adcock, F. 1951. Caesars Dictatorship. Cook, S. Charlesworth, P. Ed. The Cambridge Ancient History, New York: Cambridge University Press 9(2): 691-740. Appian. 1949. The Civil Wars. 111-117 Cassius Dio. 1944. â€Å"The Accounts of Dio.† 1-11 Nicolaus of Damascus. 1984. Life of Augustus. Bellemore, Jane. Bristol Classical Press, 26-50. Renard, Marcel. 1987. Caesar’s Personal Enemies on the Ides of March. 568-573 Suetonius, Tranquillus. 1913. Life of Caesar. New York: Loeb Classical Library, 76-79. Taylor, Lily R. 1949. Party Politic s in the Age of Caesar. Berkeley: University of California Press. 172-179. Yavetz, Z. 1983. Julius Caesar and his Public Image. London: Thames and Hudson.

Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford - Tudor Lady-in-Waiting

Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford - Tudor Lady-in-Waiting Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford, born Jane Parker (circa 1505 - February 13, 1542), was a noblewoman and a courtier at the court of Henry VIII of England. She married into the Boleyn/Howard family and spent the rest of her life embroiled in their intrigues. Early Life Jane was born in Norfolk, though the year is not recorded: record-keeping was imperfect at the time, and a daughters birth was not significant enough. Her parents were Henry Parker, 10th Baron  Morley, and his wife Alice (nee Alice St. John). Like most girls of noble birth, she was likely educated at home; records are scarce. She was sent to court sometime before her fifteenth birthday to join the court of Katherine of Aragon. The first record of Jane being noted at court came in 1520, where she was part of the royal party that traveled to France for the Field of the Cloth of Gold meeting between Henry and Francis I of France. Jane was also recorded as participating in a court masquerade pageant in 1522, which indicates she was likely considered very pretty, although no confirmed portraits of her survive. Joining The Boleyns   Her family arranged her marriage to George Boleyn in 1525. At the time, Georges sister Anne Boleyn was a leader in court society, but had not yet caught the kings eye; her sister Mary had recently been Henrys mistress.  As a respected member of a powerful family, George earned a wedding present from the king: Grimston Manor, a house in Norfolk. By 1526 or 1527, Annes power had increased, and with it the fortunes of all the Boleyns. George Boleyn was given the title Viscount Rochford in 1529 as a mark of royal favor, and Jane became known as Viscountess Rochford (Lady Rochford was the appropriate form of direct address). Despite all these material gains, Janes marriage was probably an unhappy one. George was unfaithful, and historians have debated the exact nature of his debauchery: whether he was promiscuous, gay, violent, or some combination thereof. Nevertheless, the marriage did not result in any children. Boleyn Rise and Fall In 1532, when Henry VIII entertained the French king Francis I at Calais, Anne Boleyn, and Jane Boleyn appeared together. Henry finally divorced Katherine, and Anne married Henry in 1533, at which time Jane was a lady of the bedchamber to Anne. The nature of her relationship with Anne is not recorded. Some speculate that the two were not close and that Jane was jealous of Anne, but Jane did risk temporary exile from court to help Anne banish one of Henrys younger mistresses. Annes marriage to Henry began to fail, however, and Henrys attentions began to turn to other women. Anne miscarried in 1534 and had discovered that Henry was having an affair. Somewhere along the line, Janes loyalties shifted away from the faltering queen. By 1535, Jane had definitely sided against Anne, when Jane was part of a Greenwich demonstration protesting that Mary Tudor, not Annes daughter Elizabeth, was the true heir. This incident led to a stay in the Tower for Jane and for Annes aunt, Lady William Howard. In May 1536, the Boleyns fell. George was arrested and accused of incest and treason, and Anne was accused of witchcraft, adultery, treason, and incest. Some have concluded that the idea that Anne and her brother George were committing incest may have been spread by Jane. While this is unknown, Janes testimony was likely key evidence used in Thomas Cromwells case against Anne.  Another charge against Anne at her trial, though it was not spoken in court, was that Anne had told Jane that the king was impotent - a piece of information Cromwell had obtained from Jane.   George Boleyn was executed on May 17, 1536, and Anne on May 19.  Janes motivations in this betrayal are lost to history: she may have been terrified by Henrys vengeance, but the reputation she gained in history was as a jealous harpy who schemed against her in-laws. Lady To Later Queens After her husbands death, Jane Boleyn retired to the country. She was in serious financial trouble and obtained some help from her father-in-law. Apparently, Thomas Cromwell was also helpful to the woman who had been helpful to him in making the case against Anne, and she was allowed to continue using her aristocratic title. Jane became a lady of the bedchamber to Jane Seymour and was selected to bear the train of the Princess Mary at the queens funeral. She was lady of the bedchamber to the next two queens, as well. When Henry VIII wanted a quick divorce from his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, Jane Boleyn provided evidence, saying that Anne had confided in her in a roundabout way that the marriage had not actually been consummated. This report was included in the divorce proceedings. Now firmly with a reputation for eavesdropping and meddling, Jane became a crucial figure in the household of Henry VIIIs young, new wife, Catherine Howard  - a cousin of Anne Boleyn.  In that role, she was found to have been a go-between arranging visits between Catherine and her love Thomas Culpeper, finding them meeting places and hiding their meetings. She may even have instigated or at least encouraged their affair, for reasons unknown. Downfall and Depictions When Catherine was accused of the affair, which amounted to treason against the king, Jane  first denied knowledge of it. The interrogation of Jane over this matter caused her to lose her sanity, raising questions whether shed be well enough to be executed. A letter to Culpeper was produced in Catherines handwriting, in which was found the sentence, Come when my Lady Rochford is here, for then I shall be at leisure to be at your commandment. Jane Boleyn was charged, tried, and found guilty. Her execution took place on Tower Green on February 3, 1542, after Jane made a prayer for the king and alleged she had falsely testified against her husband. She was buried at the Tower of London, near Catherine, George, and Anne.   After her death, the image of Jane as the jealous accuser and manipulator firmly took hold and was accepted as fact for centuries. Most fictional portrayals of her have depicted a jealous, unstable, vicious woman at worst and an easily manipulated tool of powerful men at best. In recent years, however, biographers and historians have revisited her legacy and questioned whether or not Jane simply did the best she could to survive one of the most dangerous courts in history. Jane Boleyn Fast Facts Full Name:  Jane Boleyn, Viscountess RochfordBorn:  circa 1505 in Norfolk, EnglandDied:  February 13, 1542 on Tower Green, LondonSpouse: George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford (m. 1525 - 1536)Occupation:  English nobility; lady of the bedchamber for four queensKnown for:  Sister-in-law to Anne Boleyn who may have testified in her downfall; lady-in-waiting to five of Henry VIIIs queens Sources Fox, Julia.  Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford.  London, Weidenfeld Nicolson, 2007.Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII.  New York, Grove Press, 1991.

Mid Term Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Mid Term - Essay Example ations and it is an accepted fact that most of the law enforcement agencies are reluctant in appointing African- American officers in their organizations because of their concern over such intergroup conflicts. Discipline is the main requirement, of a law enforcement organization and the introduction of more African-American into such organizations may result in conflicts between the African-Americans and the Americans which will damage the discipline in the organization. African-Americans have a strong belief that their community is discriminated in America because of the racial issues. An officer who experiences discrimination within his organization may behave rudely against the white community while enforcing the law and order. The feeling of isolation will force them keep an aggressive nature against the white people. Apart from English language, foreign language proficiency is a must for the employees of a law enforcement agency. Most of the African-American may not have good proficiency either in English or in any other foreign language which prevented the agencies from appointing more people from these communities into the organization. MS-13 gang (named after La Mara a street in El Salvador and 13 th street in Los Angeles) is one of the most dangerous and organized criminal groups in America. It is an international criminal group with roots in El Salvador, Mexico, and Honduras like countries. This group originated in El Salvador in order to participate in their civil war and when the war approaches to an end they shifted operations to the nearest country, Honduras. Honduras government has adopted strict measures to control their activities which forced them to move to Mexico. â€Å"The Mara Salvatrucha gang (MS-13) moved into the Los Angeles area in the late 1980s as immigrants from El Salvador began arriving in the city† (MS13 Gang), MS 13 gang members often put numerous tattoos on their body and also wear blue and white colour clothes (colours of El