How successful was Alexander II in transforming Russian Society Essay

Despite being donned ‘The Great Reformer’ by various historians, there are two sides to the opinion of Alexander II. Although he emancipated the serfs, brought about military, government, judicial, educational, censorship, economic and church reforms, society was unsatisfied. E. Radzinsky, author of ‘Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar’ suggested that he was ‘two-headed’, with one head for reform, the other for the past, which may be proven in his retracting of reforms due to fear of how much power the people of Russia were acquiring, yet in terms of transforming society, through change and modernising, he was successful. In 1861, just 6 years after coming to power, Alexander II emancipated the serfs. Such an action was revolutionary, yet he was not without his reasons. He assured a group of Moscow noblemen that â€Å"it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below†. The Ukase meant serfs were free men, they could marry, create businesses, have rights and own property without need of approval from the landowner who previously owned them. They could keep the land they previously farmed and the landlords received compensation from the loss of land. This was a huge undertaking, to completely change the Russian system of serfdom, and it brought about enterprise and the seeds of modernisation. Following this reform, Alexander II set out to change even more. Local governments were set up, called the ‘zemstva’, and they could improve public services and administer relief. Towns were now represented by ‘Dumas’ and the electorates understood the town’s issues, so could improve education and local welfare. In the zemstva, liberals were able to discuss the running of the country – a nod towards the western government system. The relaxing of censorship, which had even begun before the emancipation, meant western ideas would spread further. Foreign works were permitted and Russia saw far more books and newspapers published, from a meagre 1836/year in 1,855 to 10,691 in 1964. There were new regulations; no longer did every title of a book need to be checked before being published. Wider reading meant greater education, whilst the emancipation meant that a greater number needed to be educated. The zemstva allowed these educational changes to be funded. Alexander Golovnin was appointed the Minister of Education in 1962, and under him, for the next 15 years education was transformed. In 1970, schools adopted an ‘open for all’ policy. Women and all races could attend secondary school. Between 1856 and 1880, the number of primary schools almost tripled and during the 1870s, the number of students at university did also. The zemstva took over the church’s educational responsibility in 1864, leading to more liberal and modern thinking. The educational reforms lead to all communities being brighter, encouraging further business and free education lead to social mobility and opportunity. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Pyotr Valuev set up the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1862 to investigate church organisation and practise. The church, as a powerful weapon of the government had to retain the loyalty of the people, especially after the abolition of serfdom. In 1868, reforms meant the most talented and educated priests could be promoted within the church, and furthermore, Russia began to accept Polish Catholicism and relaxed her stance on the Jews and promoted the Finnish language. A hugely important reform was economic. After the defeat in the Crimean war, Russia needed to earn back worldwide respect. Mikhail von Reutern, the Minister of Finance from 1862 – 1878 ensured there were taxes, budgets and a watch on government spending. Tax-farming was abolished, whilst banks were allowed credit facilities. Subsidies were spread to encourage the creation of railways and foreign investment in Russia was encouraged. The mining and cotton industries also thrived and national growth did too. This was a big step towards modernisation, exports meant industry and railways meant transport, which also assisted the moving of modern military weapons and soldiers, Russia was moving forward. Ttaxation was fairer now, and that idea of equality spread to the judicial system. In 1864, Dmitrii Zamyatnin modelled a new system on western ideas. There were different types of courts, Volost courts to deal with emancipation, minor offences and the like, with judges who were elected unbiased peasants. The judges were paid more, which meant there was less corruption in the system, and careers in law began to emerge with the greater education system. Open courts meant the public could view sentencing and be deterred from crime, and the press were free to document court cases. Surprisingly, the issue that triggered many reforms such as economic and the emancipation due to the shame in Crimea was the last to be brought about. The military reforms began in 1874, a while after the defeat.. Milyutin, the War Minster, recognised the importance of having a smaller, more professional army as opposed to a large and untrained one. Being in the army was no longer a punishment, and for some a career, as nepotism was stopped by military colleges. The length of service was reduced by 10 years to just 15, and class had nothing to do with whether or not you were conscripted. This all lead to reduced government expenditure on the military, and a small victory against Turkey in 1877. Despite the huge impact of Alexander II’s reforms, they did not all transform society, especially as he withdrew several in years to come. Emancipation did not stop any discontent from the lower classes, as following the Ukase, there were 647 riots in 4 months. Many had less land than before, and were forced to pay ‘redemption payments’ for 49 years at a 6% rate of interest. The nobility were not satisfied either, and by 1905, 50% of the remaining land had been sold, as profits fell. Other reforms were also not without fault. Zemstvas and Dumas never truly had the demands of the peasants fulfilled and they had no greater power. The Provincial Governors, who were appointed by the Tsar, could overrule any decision and by 1914, still only about 60% of provinces had a local government. This caused limitations in all other reforms. The economy remained relatively weak, and despite the open courts in the judicial system, government budgets were definitely not open for public viewing. 66% of government revenue came from indirect taxation and with the changing value of their currency, the rouble; Russia was still not financially stable. The church was certainly not transformed greatly, as if it lost its power, so would the tsar. Clerical poverty was still rife and not all priests were educated. The church still censored media, as did the military and both religious and military courts were not reformed. Unlike the rest of the courts which now had a jury, any political or important crimes were dealt with by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and revolutionaries were still arrested by the Third Section, with peasants still being treated with a degree of inequality in the courts. Educational and Censorship reforms also incited rebellion, with greater opportunity to spread radical ideas or even to spread general intelligence, which meant the government was threatened. The Ministry of Internal Affairs also still held the right to fine and prevent some publications in the media. The Military reforms were not without drawbacks either. Illiterate peasants (of which there were still vast numbers, despite the spread of education) could not benefit from the new training, and officers were still largely the product of nepotism. The army was still in essence peasant conscription and despite the railways, supply was far from perfect, as the trains were slow to develop and spread. Alexander II, the man with whom Queen Victoria herself fell in love with, the ‘tsar liberator’ and the man who transformed a system that had not changed for 300 years was certainly ‘the great reformer’. He revolutionised almost every aspect of Russian society, and despite the fact that it may not have lasted, he still managed to begin modernisation for Russia. He could never satisfy the whole country. Before his death, there were many attempts on his life, and many were close. But he brought about greater equality, rights and hope. He showed the Russian people that change was possible, and strengthened the economy. Even though he grew scared of the nationwide liberation, the Loris-Melikov constitution is proof enough that he didn’t want the country to stay oppressed. Even on the day he was killed, he tried to transform Russia.

Rhetorical Speech Analysis- Robert F. Kennedy

Rhetorical Speech Analysis- Robert F. Kennedy Free Online Research Papers The famous Indianapolis speech, given by Robert F. Kennedy, breaking the news of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (informing a mostly black audience) is a perfect example of the humble, humanistic speech style of former Presidential candidate. Although short, Kennedy’s words in this speech are profound and lasting, a simple approach which was mastered by this great social thinker. Through rhetorical analysis of this somber speech it is clear that Kennedy was a clever, emotional connected public speaker who used his time at the podium to not only commemorate a life, but also build support for his campaign. The speech was given the evening of April 4, 1968 during Kennedy’s campaign tour. Kennedy had just arrived in Indianapolis, Indiana when he heard the tragic news of Kings Assassination. Immediately after his plane landed Kennedy was expected to appear publicly to promote his campaign. While the police highly urged Kennedy to skip this stop on his tour because the area was considered to be a dangerous ghetto, Kennedy insisted he reach out to its inhabitants. The sudden, unexpected, and devastating news was the catalyst for an immediate change of agenda as Kennedy would have the difficult task of speaking to a mostly black, very up-beat audience, none of whom were aware of the recent assassination of King. This set the scene for what would be a memorable, reflective, and impromptu memorial speech that has been preserved as a Kennedy trademark. Because of the spur-of-the-moment nature of this speech, it is hard to categorize. Obviously Kennedy was working on a campaign but the speech, both in content and format, is presented as a special occasion style speech. Kennedy begins by breaking the news of Kings death to his audience (who reaction is horrifying) then quickly brings the attention back to himself by using humanistic, thoughtful language which sets up the rest of his unplanned speech as a tribute of sorts. It was clear that Kennedy was particularly aware of his mostly black audience as he makes every effort to relate to them through sympathy and equality. He never speaks down to them about King but rather speaks as if he were one of them. Throughout the speech Kennedy stayed calm and collected yet never seemed desensitized (as is so often the case with more modern speakers). You could see through the delivery of his speech and the tone of his voice and language that this was a very serious occasion not to be discussed in a sterile manner but rather through respectful commemoration. He constantly reminds the audience of the goals for King and cleverly connects those goals to his own, further gaining audience respect as a leader and equal individual. An example of this is presented toward the beginning of the speech when Kennedy states â€Å"Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, its perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.† This is beautifully poet and political as it seamlessly and honestly pays tribute to King and his work, while at the same time build momentum for Kennedy’s own work as a Presidential candidate. While this speech is very eloquent and appears to be crafted, it is important to recognize the atypical circumstances that shape the delivery of the speech. Since it was a unarranged speech the language, while poet and constant, is ultimately informal in terms of a political rally. Kennedy has a very solemn tone of voice that isn’t recognizable as a political quality. This is not at all in appropriate, but rather due to the circumstance very effective as it automatically allows the audience to share these words rather than just receive them. Furthermore Kennedy centers the body of the speech around social injustice, equality, and national division all topics relevant to the life of King, and his own work. It is clear that the audiences fear and devastation quickly turns into a powerful excited energy to continue King’s mission. This displays a certain level of brilliance on the part of Kennedy because it is surely assumed that he new a situation like this could turn to riot and destruction, yet through his smart and personal language he reversed a possible disaster before it could even begin. This genius is displayed when he states â€Å"For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling†¦But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond these rather difficult times. Finally Kennedy ends with a reflective quote from Aeschylus, and once again repeats for the third time â€Å"What we need in America† then going on to his quick agenda. This repetition is an affective tool in his speech, especially one as short as this. Again this allows him to stay connected to the theme of a tribute speech while also driving his point into the minds and more importantly the hearts of his audience. Kennedy not only rose to the occasion but rose above it. He was seamlessly able to honor the life of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King by connecting King’s life’s dreams to his career and campaign goals. His words were simple and clear (specifically being adjusted to his lower economic class audience) but poetic and profound. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated himself only two months after the night he gave this speech. His words echo through decades and his powerful skills as a social leader and kind nature as a human being as forever sealed within the unforgettable words of this speech. Research Papers on Rhetorical Speech Analysis- Robert F. KennedyHonest Iagos Truth through DeceptionComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoBringing Democracy to AfricaAnalysis Of A Cosmetics AdvertisementHip-Hop is ArtCanaanite Influence on the Early Israelite ReligionRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andThe Masque of the Red Death Room meaningsWhere Wild and West Meet19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided Era

Marshal Philippe Petain in World War I

Marshal Philippe Petain in World War I Philippe Ptain - Early Life Career: Born April 24, 1856 at Cauchyla-Tour, France, Philippe Pà ©tain was the son of a farmer. Entering the French Army in 1876, he later attended the St. Cyr Military Academy and the École Supà ©rieure de Guerre. Promoted to captain in 1890, Pà ©tains career progressed slowly as he lobbied for the heavy use of artillery while repudiating the French offensive philosophy of massed infantry assaults. Later promoted to colonel, he commanded the 11th Infantry Regiment at Arras in 1911 and began contemplating retirement. These plans were accelerated when he was informed that he would not be promoted to brigadier general. With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, all thoughts of retirement were banished. Commanding a brigade when the fighting commenced, Pà ©tain received a rapid promotion to brigadier general and took command of the 6th Division in time for the First Battle of the Marne. Performing well, he was elevated to lead XXXIII Corps that October. In this role, he led the corps in the failed Artois Offensive the following May. Promoted to command the Second Army in July 1915, he led it during the Second Battle of Champagne in the fall. Philippe Ptain -Hero of Verdun: In early 1916, German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn sought to force a decisive battle on the Western Front that would break the French Army. Opening the Battle of Verdun on February 21, German forces bore down on the city and made initial gains. With the situation critical, Pà ©tains Second Army was shifted to Verdun to aid in the defense. On May 1, he was promoted to command the Centre Army Group and oversaw the defense of the entire Verdun sector. Using the artillery doctrine he had promoted as a junior officer, Pà ©tain was able to slow and eventually halt the German advance. Philippe Ptain -Finishing the War: Having won a key victory at Verdun, Pà ©tain was irked when his successor with Second Army, General Robert Nivelle, was appointed Commander-in-Chief over him on December 12, 1916. The following April, Nivelle launched a massive offense at Chemin des Dames. A bloody failure, it led to Pà ©tain being appointed Army Chief of Staff on April 29 and ultimately replacing Nivelle on May 15. With the outbreak of mass mutinies in the French Army that summer, Pà ©tain moved to placate the men and listened to their concerns. While ordering selective punishment for the leaders, he also improved living conditions and leave policies. Through these initiatives and refraining from large-scale, bloody offensives, he succeeded in rebuilding the fighting spirit of the French Army. Though limited operations occurred, Pà ©tain elected to await American reinforcements and large numbers of new Renault FT17 tanks before advancing. With the beginning of the German Spring Offensives in March 1918, Pà ©tains troops were hit hard and pushed back. Ultimately stabilizing the lines, he dispatched reserves to aid the British. Advocating a policy of defense in depth, the French progressively fared better and first held, then pushed back the Germans at the Second Battle of the Marne that summer. With the Germans halted, Pà ©tain led French forces during the final campaigns of the conflict which ultimately drove the Germans from France. For his service, he was made Marshal of France on December 8, 1918. A hero in France, Pà ©tain was invited to attend the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. Following the signing, he appointed vice chairman of the Conseil Supà ©rieur de la Guerre. Philippe Ptain -Interwar Years: After a failed presidential bid in 1919, he served in a variety of high administrative posts and clashed with the government over military downsizing and personnel issues. Though he favored a large tank corps and air force, these plans were unworkable due to lack of funds and Pà ©tain came to favor the construction of a line of fortifications along the German border as an alternative. This came to fruition in the form of the Maginot Line. In September 25, Pà ©tain took to the field for the final time when he led a successful Franco-Spanish force against the Rif tribes in Morocco. Retiring from the army in 1931, the 75 year-old Pà ©tain returned to service as Minister of War in 1934. He held this post briefly, as well as did a brief stint as Minister of State the following year. During his time in government, Pà ©tain was unable to halt the reductions in the defense budget which had left the French Army unready for a future conflict. Returning to retirement, he again was summoned to national service in May 1940 during World War II. With the Battle of France going poorly in late May, General Maxime Weygand and Pà ©tain began to advocate for an armistice. Philippe Ptain - Vichy France: On June 5, French Premier Paul Reynaud brought Pà ©tain, Weygand, and Brigadier General Charles de Gaulle into his War Cabinet in an effort to bolster the spirits of the army. Five days later the government abandoned Paris and moved to Tours and then Bordeaux. On June 16, Pà ©tain was appointed prime minister. In this role, he continued to press for an armistice, though some advocated continuing the fight from North Africa. Refusing to leave France, he got his wish on June 22 when an armistice with Germany was signed. Ratified on July 10, it effectively ceded control of the northern and western parts of France to Germany. The next day, Pà ©tain was appointed head of state for the newly formed French State which was governed from Vichy. Rejecting the secular and liberal traditions of the Third Republic, he sought to create a paternalistic Catholic state. Pà ©tains new regime quickly ousted republican administrators, passed anti-Semitic laws, and imprisoned refugees. Effectively a client state of Nazi Germany, Pà ©tains France was compelled to aid the Axis Powers in their campaigns. Though Pà ©tain showed little sympathy for the Nazis, he permitted organizations such as the Milice, a Gestapo-style militia organization, to be formed within Vichy France. Following the Operation Torch landings in North Africa in late 1942, Germany implemented Case Aton which called for the complete occupation of France. Though Pà ©tains regime continued to exist, he effectively was relegated to the role of figurehead. In September 1944, following the Allied landings in Normandy, Pà ©tain and the Vichy government were removed to Sigmaringen, Germany to serve as a government-in-exile. Unwilling to serve in this capacity, Pà ©tain stepped down and directed that his name not be used in conjunction with the new organization. On April 5, 1945, Pà ©tain wrote to Adolf Hitler requesting permission to return to France. Though no reply was received, he was delivered to the Swiss border on April 24. Philippe Ptain -Later Life: Entering France two days later, Pà ©tain was taken into custody by De Gaulles provisional government. On July 23, 1945, he was placed on trial for treason. Lasting until August 15, the trial concluded with Pà ©tain being found guilty and sentenced to death. Due to his age (89) and World War I service, this was commuted to life imprisonment by De Gaulle. In addition, Pà ©tain was stripped of his ranks and honors with the exception of marshal which had been conferred by the French Parliament. Initially taken to Fort du Portalet in the Pyrenees, he was later imprisoned at Forte de Pierre on the ÃŽle dYeu. Pà ©tain remained there until his death on July 23, 1951. Selected Sources First World War: Philippe PetainBBC: Philippe Petain World at War: Philippe Petain

Employment Law for Animal Care Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4750 words

Employment Law for Animal Care - Essay Example We share different cultures and beliefs inherited from our forefathers. It is one’s sovereign right to gain entry to a job of choice that he has been prepared for. The Anti-Discrimination law allows every man to share equal rights in the workplace by citing potential discriminatory acts committed by employers that are definitely punishable. In the case of animal care keepers and service workers in zoos, more specifically their jobs entail the preparation of the respective diets of animals, cleaning the enclosures or cages, raise their young, monitor eating patterns, physical ailments and ensure the safety of the visiting public. Keepers also serve as guides and ensure the safety of the visiting public. Depending on the zoo keepers they may be assigned to work on a broad group of animals or may work on a limited collection. Animal trainers are also hired to train animals for riding; performance and entertainment; and the process sometimes take months and even years of repetitio n. Employers would often see that a job that requires broad responsibilities would entail a man’s hand to do the work. The advent of sex discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom and the European region in general saw significant cultural changes across the workplace. When the European Convention on Human Rights recognized individuals other than the traditional gender classification of male and female a ground breaking law was established. Under the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and the Employment Equality Regulations (2003). ... 1975)1 and the Employment Equality Regulations (2003)2, the limitation of a woman's right to practice her knowledge and skills by virtue of sexual classification as the weaker sex is prohibited. To discriminate a person by virtue of her sex is tantamount to an insult on her person. It is a woman's civil right to choose a career of her own and to earn for herself and her family just like any man. With the advent of this law, we can now see a lot of women allowed to excel in their chosen fields. We share different cultures and beliefs inherited from our forefathers. It is one's sovereign right to gain entry to a job of choice that he has been prepared for. Race Relations Act (RRA1976)3 allows every man to share equal rights in the workplace by prohibiting racial discrimination of workers. Gone are the days when colored workers are separated from the whites. Asians and Mexicans are no longer restricted to work anywhere they like. Everyone is given the opportunity to exercise one's profession or training despite his racial origin. This act creates inter-dependence among men of different cultural backgrounds to share their expertise in the workplace thereby affording the country a stable economic stature. Discrimination also materializes as well during the recruitment and selection process by denying or subjecting a person to a detriment or loss of opportunity similarly in the case of Chanya, a Kenyan woman whose application as a zookeeper at the Middlesex Zoo was turned down d espite excellent training and qualification most likely owing to her gender and race. It should be noted that under the employment-related purposes, the Sexual Discrimination Act has been changed by the Sexual Discrimination Act (Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001(SI 2001 No. 2660)4. As the name