The Indictment of the United States in John Steinbecks The Grapes of Wrath Essay Example for Free

The Indictment of the United States in John Steinbecks The Grapes of Wrath Essay The Grapes of Wrath is a novel written by John Steinbeck. In the bulk of modern literature, it is consider a masterful epic unmatched in the realm of the written word. The novel centers around a family of workers who are immigrants The Joads. When the novel takes place they are in California attempting to survive the scarce conditions of the depression. Steinbeck monitors and recounts the ups and downs of the family and their experiences in United States. The Grapes of Wrath is an indictment of the United States because much of the plot is Steinbecks commentary on the rampant capitalism which literary sucked the land and the people dry during the 1930s. The story is based on real life excerpts of John Steinbecks field research. The real life conflict was created by greedy business men, and lending institutions which bought up land and employed workers to farm. The majority of these workers were lower class immigrant families that were paid so little that their struggles have often been paralleled to that of slavery which plagued the United States in the 16th and 17th centuries. The old adage was particularly relevant when examining this novel, as the rich get richer, the poor end up dead worked to death. Steinbeck is not casual in his assault of capitalism and it not fearful to express his disgust for the supposed American dream. He has a clear political viewpoint and asserts: the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds throughout all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. (333). A major theme developed by Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath is his believe that the survive of the lower class is based on their dedication to family. His approach is a delicate mixture of Marxism and Socialism, both of which promote cooperative living. In the context of the time, Steinbecks beliefs were not just controversial but also dangerous. The United States went through a two periods in which the government hunted after individuals they considered unamerican, the 1920s and the 1950s. This novel was written in the the 1930s. However, Steinbeck intricately weaves a tale of family strife, struggle, and survival, in The Grapes of Wrath, which has become a beloved and honored classic since its publication. Steinbecks depiction of the devastating conditions during the 1930s is historically accurate. In particular, Steinbeck articulately describes what a Dust Bowl actually is and how it was created. He explains that the great plains experienced the greatest droughts ever during the great depression. The Dust Bowl was created due to lack of rain and also the over use of the land. Once pieces of land are over farmed they lose their nutrients and crops will not grow. These areas, once plush with grass and trees became â€Å"virtual deserts. † It was this drought which forced families, hungry and tired, to see out new hope in the west. The west promised folks clean and cheap living, and with access to regular work. Steinbeck describes the Dust Bowl in the following way, â€Å"The wind increased, steady, unbroken gusts. The dusts from the roads fluffed up and spread out and fell on the weeds besides the fields . . .the sky was darkened by the mixing dust, and the wind felt over the earth, loosened the dust, and carried it away. † For the people living in these devastated lands, this was a very accurate account as to what the â€Å"weather† was like for weeks and months. There are two general groups of people at conflict in the novel the rich bosses and the labor force. Steinbeck writes heart wrenching characters of the lower class which are just barely surviving. These workers are victimized by the greedy upper classes, their bodies treated like commodities. The audience can feel nothing but empathy for these immigrant workers who toil the land drawing figures in the dust with bare toes, (10), while the men that own the land [sit] in their cars to talk out of the window, (43), making money on the backs of the poor folk. Steinbeck explains that these capitalists have never done a day of hard work in their life and their only motive in using big earth augers into the ground for soil tests (43) is to squeeze more money from the land they own. Steinbeck is also quick to point out that farmers and these land owners are different. While landowners corrupt the land leaving it near death with their iron penes [and] orgasms set by gears [rape] methodically, [rape] without passion. (50). Whereas the farmer works with the land keeping it healthy. He explains A bank isnt like a man. Or an owner with fifty thousand acres, he isnt like a man either. Thats the monster. (46). Steinbeck does offer an alternate choice to this capitalistic nightmare which is represented by the Weedpatch Camp. This a town in which folks elect their own cops (400), and everyone who lives and works in the town has say about the choices are made. It is within Weedpatch, that all people including immigrant are treated fairly and with kindness. Steinbeck asserts that it is socialism that ensures that there is respect, and equality between all its citizens. It is in Weedpatch that Joads family ends up and while their struggle is not over, at least their victimization is. Steinbeck fully explores the cruel experiences that many migrant workers had to face in the 1930s and continue to face today. Steinbeck accurately and historically portrays the perils which many family has to overcome in the newly capitalistic culture in the United States.

Writing from the Center: The New York Times and the Florida Election Dispute :: Essays Papers

Writing from the Center: The New York Times and the Florida Election Dispute The result of the 2000 Presidential election was one of the most closely contested elections in our nation’s history. Soon after the polls closed, it became apparent that the final tally between the Democratic candidate Al Gore and the Republican candidate George W. Bush would be extremely close. Network news programs broadcast on election night well into the next morning as one candidate, then the other, seemed to gain the advantage. As the election results became more distinct, however, attention turned to Florida, where less than one thousand votes separated the candidates, with Bush enjoying a tenuous lead. Over the next few weeks the Florida election dispute went through several Byzantine twists and turns, with the Gore team pushing for—and in some cases getting—recounts of Gore‑friendly counties, and the Bush forces feverishly working to declare the whole matter settled and Bush the new President of the United States. Finally, in early December, the matter went to the United States Supreme Court. The Court decided in Bush v. Gore that there were insufficient grounds for continuing the recount process and in effect declared Bush the next President. The mainstream media—including The New York Times—were fixated with the entire electoral drama, with the story usually given the lead slot on the evening news or the front page of the newspaper. Yet after the Court handed down its decision, this coverage virtually ceased except for a cursory analysis of the Court’s decision. There was little attempt to question the basis of the Court’s ruling, or whether Gore would have had sufficient votes to achieve victory had a recount been allowed to proceed. Why? The answer, it seems, lies in the â€Å"centrist† bias of The New York Times. Jeff Cohen, the executive director of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has argued that mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times emphasize â€Å"syst em supporting news† that focuses on how well â€Å"the system works† in resolving difficult situations, rather than questioning the wisdom of the system itself.1 By comparing how the Times portrayed the aftermath of the Court decision with the coverage given by media outlets on the left (The Nation, Extra!) and outlets on the right (The National Review) we will be able to see the â€Å"centrist† bias of the Times and its editorial mandate to preserve the authority and status of â€Å"the system.

On the sidewalk bleeding Essay

Don’t judge a book by its cover. We all grow up listening and trying to live day in and day out following the metaphorical phrase. For most of us, this idiom means little however; Evan Hunter uses a character from On the Sidewalk Bleeding to influence the reader of its importance Andy is a young gang member growing up in the rough neighborhood of The Bronx. As a result, the attraction of membership leads Andy to join The Royals, a gang represented by a bright purple jacket. We are first made aware of Andy just after a rival gang member has fatally stabbed him. It is made clear to us that Andy is no stranger towards violence and gang culture even at his young age. He thought to himself â€Å"That was a fierce rumble, they got me good that time† indicating that fighting is a common occurrence for him that he is still unaware of how serious the stab wound is. As Andy lays helpless down a dark alleyway, we are made aware of three groups of public denying Andy help, a direct result of this appearance and his relationship with the gang culture. Most notably, one young couple is felt inclined to leave Andy helpless. The couple’s first reaction in finding Andy was â€Å"He’s a Royal† demonstrating the immediate prejudice. This is again reinforced when they leave him to die due to his gang connections, suggesting that because of this, he doesn’t deserve to get help. â€Å"We help him and the Guardians will be down our necks† It is also made clear that the Guardians are another rival gang. This is confirmed when Andy comments about these gangs being â€Å"two of the biggest† As the couple flee the scene, Andy thinks to himself, â€Å"Why are they afraid of the Guardians? I’ve never turkeyed out of a rumble with the Guardians† The emphasizing how Andy is no stranger to violence. However, Hunter positions the reader to understand what is beneath the purple jacket. Hunter demonstrates how Andy is simply a young and impulsive boy therefore is inclined to make poor decisions. In the first paragraph, Hunter uses the word ‘boy’ twice and also makes reference to his age, 16. The author’s intention is to create sympathy for Andy. He does this successfully because we relate the word ‘boy’ to someone who is young and naà ¯ve. The  reference to his age convinces us that everyone is inclined to make mistakes, especially at his age. Andy made one poor decision and he should not lose his life be cause of it. Hunter also reveals how Andy is a kind and caring person. The positive personality is evident when Andy talks about his girlfriend Laura, and his hopes and plans for his future with her. â€Å"Someday he would marry Laura, someday he would marry her and have lots of kids, and then move out of the neighborhood† Though this we learn how this gang member ship is just a phase that Andy is going through and how he wants to start a clean project with good opportunities. We also see how Andy believes in traditional values, not the norm of a gang member. This is further emphasized when we see him put Laura’s needs first â€Å"He wondered if Laura would be angry† Andy is also revealed as tenacious and determined, which are qualities that we admire. He realizes that â€Å"they had only stabbed the jacket and the title† Because of this, Andy was driven to take the jacket off, so when he was found, he would not be seen as a Royal, but just Andy. Andy’s determination is shown when he fights the pain just to remove his jacket. â€Å"With great effort, he rolled over onto his back. He felt great pain tearing at his stomach when he moved† Hunter also uses the verbs â€Å"squirmed and fought and twisted† These verbs have great impact on the reader because it develops our appreciation of just how determined and tenacious Andy is. Andy has taught us a very important lesson in the short story On the Sidewalk Bleeding. He has demonstrated how we are not all synonymous to our appearance. Evan Hunter conveys this throughout the text influencing us to understand how maybe we are inclined to make unsafe judgments based on appearances, or is it in our power to prevent it.

How the Romans Voted in the Roman Republic

The vote was almost a side issue. When Servius Tullius, the sixth king of Rome, reformed the tribal system of Rome, giving the vote to men who had not been members of the three original tribes, he increased the number of tribes and assigned people to them on the basis of geographic location rather than kinship ties. There were at least two main reasons for the extension of the suffrage, to increase the tax body and to add to the rolls of young men suitable for the military. Over the next couple of centuries, more tribes were added until there were 35 tribes in 241 B.C. The number of tribes remained stable and so new citizens were assigned to one of the 35 no matter where they lived. So much is pretty clear. Details are not so sure. For instance, we dont know whether Servius Tullius established any of the rural tribes or just the four urban ones. The importance of the tribes was lost when citizenship was extended to all free people in A.D. 212 by the terms of Constitutio Antoniniana. Posting Issues Roman assemblies were called to vote after notice of issues had been publicized. A magistrate published an edict in front of a contio (a public gathering) and then the issue was posted on a tablet in white paint, according to the University of Georgias Edward E. Best. Did Majority Rule? Romans voted in a couple of different groupings: by a tribe and by centuria (century). Each group, tribe or centuria had one vote. This vote was decided by majority vote of the constituents of said group (tribe or tribe or centuria), so within the group, each members vote counted as much as anyone elses, but not all groups were equally important. Candidates, who were voted on together even when there were multiple positions to fill, were counted as elected if they received the vote of one-half of the voting groups plus one, so if there were 35 tribes, the candidate won when he had received the support of 18 tribes. Polling Place Saepta (or ovile) is the word for the voting space. In the late Republic, it was an open wooden pen with probably 35 roped-off sections. It had been on the Campus Martius. The number of divisions is thought to have corresponded with the number of tribes. It was in the general area that both tribal groups and comitia centuriata held elections. At the end of the Republic, a marble structure replaced the wooden one. The Saepta would have held about 70,000 citizens, according to Edward E. Best. The Campus Martius was the field dedicated to the war god, and lay outside the sacred border or Pomoerium of Rome, as Classicist Jyri Vaahtera points out, which is significant because, in early years, Romans may have attended the assembly in arms, which didnt belong in the city. Voting was also held in the forum. Centuriate Voting Assembly The centuriae may also have been started by the 6th king or he might have inherited and augmented them. The Servian centuriae included about 170 centuriae of foot soldiers (infantry or pedites), 12 or 18 of equestrians, and a couple of others. How much wealth a family had determined which census class and therefore centuria its men fit in. The wealthiest infantry class had close to a majority of the centuriae and were also allowed to vote early, just after the cavalry whose first position in the metaphorical voting line (may have) earned them the label praerogativae. (It is from this use that we get the English word prerogative.) (Hall says that later after the system was reformed, the first [selected by lot] centuria to vote had the title of centuria praerogativa.) Should the vote of the wealthiest (infantry) first class and that of the cavalry be unanimous, there was no reason to go to the second class for their vote. The vote was by centuria in one of the assemblies, the comitia centuriata. Lily Ross Taylor thinks the members of a given centuria were from a variety of tribes. This process changed over time but is thought to have been the way the vote worked when the Servian Reforms were instituted. Tribal Voting Assembly In tribal elections, the voting order was decided by sortition, but there was an order of the tribes. We dont know exactly how it worked. Only one tribe might have been chosen by lot. There might have been a regular order for the tribes that the winner of the lottery was allowed to jump over. However it worked, the first tribe was known as principium. When a majority had been reached, the voting probably stopped, so if 18 tribes were unanimous, there was no reason for the remaining 17 to vote, and they didnt. The tribes voted per tabellam by ballot by 139 B.C., according to Ursula Hall. Voting in the Senate In the Senate, voting was visible and peer-pressure-driven: people voted by clustering around the speaker they supported. Roman Government in the Roman Republic The assemblies provided the democratic component of the mixed form of Roman government. There were also monarchic and aristocratic/oligarchic components. During the period of kings and the Imperial period, the monarchic element was dominant and visible in the personage of the king or emperor, but during the Republic, the monarchic element was elected annually and split in two. This split monarchy was the consulship whose power was deliberately curtailed. The Senate provided the aristocratic element. References The Centuriate Assembly before and after the Reform, by Lily Ross Taylor; The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 78, No. 4 (1957), pp. 337-354.Literacy and Roman Voting, by Edward E. Best; Historia 1974, pp. 428-438.The Origin of Latin suffrÄ gium, by Jyri Vaahtera; Glotta71. Bd., 1./2. H. (1993), pp. 66-80.Voting Procedure in Roman Assemblies, by Ursula Hall; Historia (Jul. 1964), pp. 267-306