Culturally diverse entity Essay Example for Free

Culturally diverse entity Essay Listing down the sources of my cultural programming sure opened up my eyes to the realities that I am facing. As a person who is growing up and trying to come to terms with my identity as it interacts with the world, it is amazing to know that there are a lot of sources of my cultural programming. Although I consider my family as one of the main sources of my understanding of my own world, I realize that I am also bringing in cultural diversity to my family. As a part of the new generation of people in the world, we are different from our parents and much more from our grandparents. As such, through the technology I use and the ideas that I come across with, I am becoming more diverse in terms of culture. There are times that several sources of my cultural programming come into conflict. I can think of several ones. The church and the morality and faith it is teaching sometimes come into conflict with the kinds of movies and TV shows I watch. Quite honestly, there are times that I feel that church stuff is boring but when I also realize the wars, the way that people tend to forget courtesy and the sense of right and wrong, I feel that the church still has something to offer. Another source of conflict is perhaps the way that my family expects me to behave in a certain way and the way in which my friends treat each other and the way that media such as television shows and movies portray the life of a teenager. There are times that I get confused with the expectations of my parents and the way that I want to live. But I know that I have to respect them and listen to them. Culture is very broad and I think that as young people of today, we are exposed to more shapers of culture than did our parents and grandparents. That is why there are conflicts in these cultures as they are developed in me.

Ronald Reagan and the End of the Cold War Essay example -- Ending the

The cold war was a post-World War II struggle between the United States and its allies and the group of nations led by the Soviet Union. Direct military conflict did not occur between the two superpowers, but intense economic and diplomatic struggles erupted. Different interests led to mutual suspicion and hostility in a rising philosophy. The United States played a major role in the ending of the cold war. It has been said that President Ronald Reagan ended the cold war with his strategic defense policies. In the year1949, Germany was divided by the victors of World War II and they occupied different zones. The western regions united to form a Federal republic and the Soviet eastern region became communist East Germany. The cold war had begun. Berlin, the former capital of Germany was divided into East Berlin and West Berlin but was located deep inside the soviet controlled zone.1 Then, in 1961, the Soviet government built a wall which separated the two halves of the city. It was not until the 1980s that cold war tensions eased through the glasnost (openness to public debate) polices of soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Finally, in November 1989, the wall crumbled under the hands of the Germans and the cold war ended.2 The downfall of the cold war started when Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981. Reagan had two main priorities. He wanted to cut taxes and increase defense spending. He felt that the United States of America should take a confrontational approach towards Russia.3 Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of Russia in 1985. He wanted to improve the Russian economy. He also wanted to improve relations with the United States. He used his glasnost (openness to public debate) policy and perestroika (restructuring) to help the Russian economy.4 Both leaders wanted a "margin of safety". Reagan took a tough stand against Russia and it's allies. The soviets could clearly see that when Reagan said he wanted a "margin of safety", he meant that the United States should be superior to Russia. Moscow would not let this happen. They wanted equality.5 Reagan also believed that military power and respect for America abroad were inseparable from economic strength. However, Reagan's defense policy resulted in the doubling of the debt of the United States. He used the money for new strategic ... ... References 1 Walter Lippman, The Cold War: A Study in U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1947) 48-52. 2 Charles S. Maier, ed., The Cold War in Europe: Era of a divided Continent (New York: Markus Wiener Publishing, Inc., 1991) 27. 3 Ralph B. Levering, The Cold War (Illinois: Harlan Davidson, INC.,1988) 169. 4 Levering, 169 5 Levering, 169 6 John Young, Cold War Europe 1945-1989 (New York: Edward Allen, 1991) 26. 7 Levering, 171-2 8 Levering 173 9 "The End of the Cold War" http://usa.coldwar.server.gov/index/coldwar/ 2 Feb. 1997 10 http://usa.coldwar.server.gov/index/coldwar/ 11 Young, 28 12 Young, 28 13 Tom Morganthou, "Reagan's cold war 'sting'?", Newsweek 32 August 1993: 32 14 Levering, 180 15"Ending the Cold War", Foreign Affairs Spring 1988: 24-25 16 Young, 28 17 Young, 29 18 Young, 29 19 Levering, 187-188 20 "Ending the Cold War", 27 21 "Ending the Cold War", 28 22 Brinkley, Alan An Uneasy Peace 1988-, Vol. 10 of 20th Century America, 10 vols. (New York: Grolier 1995):22 23 Brinkley, 30 24 "George Bush addresses Europe" http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/burke/ 13 March 1997.

Brief History of Shaheed Udham Singh Essay

Udham Singh, a revolutionary nationalist, was born Sher Singh on 26 December 1899, at Sunam, in the then princely state of Patiala. His father, Tahal Singh, was at that time working as a watchman on a railway crossing in the neighbouring village of Upall. Sher Singh lost his parents before he was seven years and was admitted along with his brother Mukta Singh to the Central Khalsa Orphanage at Amritsar on 24 October 1907. As both brothers were administered the Sikh initiatory rites at the Orphanage, they received new names, Sher Singh becoming Udham Singh and Mukta Singh Sadhu Singh. In 1917, Udham Singh’s brother also died, leaving him alone in the world. Udham Singh left the Orphanage after passing the matriculation examination in 1918. He was present in the Jallianvala Bag on the fateful Baisakhi day, 13 April 1919, when a peaceful assembly of people was fired upon by General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, killing over one thousand people. The event which Udham Singh used to recall with anger and sorrow, turned him to the path of revolution. Soon after, he left India and went to the United States of America. He felt thrilled to learn about the militant activities of the Babar Akalis in the early 1920’s, and returned home. He had secretly brought with him some revolvers and was arrested by the police in Amritsar, and sentenced to four years imprisonment under the Arms Act. On release in 1931, he returned to his native Sunam, but harassed by the local police, he once again returned to Amritsar and opened a shop as a signboard painter, assuming the name of Ram Muhammad Singh Azad. This name, which he was to use later in England, wa s adopted to emphasize the unity of all the religious communities in India in their struggle for political freedom. Udham Singh was deeply influenced by the activities of Bhagat Singh and his revolutionary group. In 1935, when he was on a visit to Kashmlr, he was found carrying Bhagat Singh’s portrait. He invariably referred to him as his guru. He loved to sing political songs, and was very fond of Ram Prasad Bismal, who was the leading poet of the revolutionaries. After staying for some months in Kashmlr, Udham Singh left India. He wandered about the  continent for some time, and reached England by the mid-thirties. He was on the lookout for an opportunity to avenge the Jalliavala Bagh tragedy. The long-waited moment at last came on 13 March 1940. On that day, at 4.30 p.m. in the Caxton Hall, London, where a meeting of the East India Association was being held in conjunction with the Royal Central Asian Society, Udham Singh fired five to six shots from his pistol at Sir Michael O’Dwyer, who was governor of the Punjab when the Amritsar massacre had taken place. O’Dwyer was h it twice and fell to the ground dead and Lord Zetland, the Secretary of State for India, who was presiding over the meeting was injured. Udham Singh was overpowered with a smoking revolver. He in fact made no attempt to escape and continued saying that he had done his duty by his country. On 1 April 1940, Udham Singh was formally charged with the murder of Sir Michael O’Dwyer. On 4 June 1940, he was committed to trial, at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, before Justice Atkinson, who sentenced him to death. An appeal was filed on his behalf which was dismissed on 15 July 1940. On 31 July 1940, Udham Singh was hanged in Pentonville Prison in London. Udham Singh was essentially a man of action and save his statement before the judge at his trial, there was no writing from his pen available to historians. Recently, letters written by him to Shiv Singh Jauhal during his days in prison after the shooting of Sir Michael O’Dwyer have been discovered and published. These letters show him as a man of great courage, with a sense of humour. He called himself a guest of His Majesty King George, and he looked upon death as a bride he was going to wed. By remaining cheerful to the last and going joyfully to the gallows, he followed the example of Bhagat Singh who had been his beau ideal. During the trial, Udham Singh had made a request that his ashes be sent back to his country, but this was not allowed. In 1975, however, the Government of India, at the instance of the Punjab Government, finally succeeded in bringing his ashes home. Lakhs of people gathered on the occasion to pay homage to his memory.

Brown Bess Musket in the American Revolution

The Land Pattern Musket, better known as the Brown Bess was the standard infantry weapon of the British Army for over 100 years until being replaced in the mid-19th century. A flintlock musket, the Brown Bess saw service wherever British forces marched. As a result, the weapon took part in conflicts in nearly every corner of the globe. Though phased out of frontline usage with the arrival of percussion cap and rifled weapons, it remained in the ranks of some armies into the latter part of the 19th century and saw limited use in conflicts as late as the American Civil War (1861-1865) and Anglo-Zulu War (1879). Origin Though firearms had become the predominant weapon on the battlefield by the 18th century, there was little standardization in their design and manufacture. This led to increased difficulties in supplying ammunition and parts for their repair. In an effort to solve these problems, the British Army introduced the Land Pattern Musket in 1722. A flintlock, smoothbore musket, the weapon was produced in large quantities for over a century. In addition, the musket was fitted a socket allowing a bayonet to be fitted to the muzzle so that the weapon could be used as a pike in close fighting or defeating cavalry charges. Brown Bess Within fifty years of the Land Patterns introduction, it had earned the nickname Brown Bess. While the term was never used officially, it became the overarching name for the Land Pattern series of muskets. The origins of the name are unclear, however some suggest that it may be derived from the German term for strong gun (braun buss). As the weapon was commissioned during the reign of King George I, a native German, this theory is plausible. Regardless of its origins, the term was in colloquial use by the 1770s-1780s, with to hug a Brown Bess referring to those who served as soldiers. Designs The length of the Land Pattern muskets changed as the design evolved. As time passed, the weapons became increasingly shorter with the Long Land Pattern (1722) measuring 62 inches long, while the Sea Service Pattern (1778) and Short Land Pattern (1768) variations were 53.5 and 58.5 inches respectively. The most popular version of the weapon, the East India Pattern, stood 39 inches. Firing a .75 caliber ball, the Brown Bess barrel and lockwork were made of iron, while the butt plate, trigger guard, and ramrod pipe were constructed of brass. The weapon weighed approximately 10 pounds and was fitted for a 17-inch bayonet. Fast Facts - Brown Bess Musket Wars Used (Selected): War of the Austrian Succession, Jacobite Rising of 1745 Seven Years War, American Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, Mexican-American WarYears Produced: 1722-1860sLength: 53.5 to 62.5 inchesBarrel Length: 37 to 46 inchesWeight: 9 to 10.5 poundsAction: FlintlockRate of Fire: Varied by user, typically 3 to 4 rounds per minuteEffective Range: 50-100 yardsMaximum Range: approx. 300 yards Firing The effective range of the Land Pattern muskets tended to be around 100 yards, though combat tended to occur with masses of troops firing at 50 yards. Due to its lack of sights, smoothbore, and usually undersized ammunition, the weapon was not particularly accurate. Due to this, the preferred tactic for this weapon were massed volleys followed by bayonet charges. British troops using the Land Pattern muskets were expected to be able to fire four rounds per minute, though two to three was more typical. Reloading Procedure Bite the cartridge.Push the frizzen forward to open the pan and pour a small amount of powder into the flash pan.Snap the frizzen back to position covering the flash pan.Hold the musket vertically so that the muzzle is up.Pour the remaining powder down the barrel.Insert the bullet in the barrel.Push the cartridge paper into the barrelRemove ramrod from pipe under the barrel and use to push wadding and bullet down the barrel.Replace the ramrod.Raise musket to firing position with the butt against the shoulder.Pull back the hammer.Aim and fire. Usage Introduced in 1722, the Land Pattern muskets became the longest-used firearms in British history. Evolving over its service life, the Land Pattern was the primary weapon used by British troops during the Seven Years War, American Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars. In addition, it saw extensive service with the Royal Navy and Marines, as well as with auxiliary forces such as the British East India Company. Its principal contemporaries were the French .69 caliber Charleville musket and the American 1795 Springfield. In the early 19th-century, many Land Pattern muskets were converted from flintlocks to percussion caps. This change in ignition systems made the weapons more reliable and less apt to fail. The final flintlock design, the Pattern 1839, ended the Land Patterns 117-year run as the primary musket for British forces. In 1841, a fire at the Royal Arsenal destroyed many Land Patterns that were slated for conversion. As a result, a new percussion cap musket, the Pattern 1842, was designed to take its place. Despite this, converted Land Patterns remained in service throughout the empire for several more decades