A Study On The European Citizenship Politics Essay

A Study On The European Citizenship Politics Essay Citizenship is not an essence but a historical construction. The idea of European Union citizenship was first acknowledged in the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed in 1991 and came into effect in 1993. European patriotism and identity obviously draw on the concept of European citizenship. The complicated nature of European collective identity and the different collective identities of European nations eventually link the process of common identity-building to the legal formation of a European citizenry and the distribution of rights and duties guaranteed for citizens by European law (Von Beyme, 2001). Today, citizenship has moved to the forefront of political debates in many European countries as well as the European Union institutions, and it has become a volatile policy area where change is dynamic and continuous even if the citizenship laws remain robust to major changes mainly due to the friction between the nation state and supranationalism in terms of political sovereignty. While Maastricht Treaty establishes Union citizenship for every person holding the nationality of a Member State; the Amsterdam Treaty addresses this issue by adding that Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship (Treaty on European Union Article 8, February 7, 1992). There is a problematical area which the European Charter on Fundamental Rights will not overcome: the citizenship is merely a derived condition of nationality, while certain fundamental rights are based on a mixture of various criteria other than citizenship or nationality alone. Even if the Charter on Fundamental Rights in the European Union adopted as a legally binding instrument with EU law, it will not change anything in this direction and this dilemma will remain to exist. An important problem of the current formulation of European Union citizenship is that it is not defined as an autonomous concept in Community Law at the supranational level, but defined exclusively by the appl icable member state legislation for granting of nationality only at the national level. From the perspective of the legal aspects of citizenship, EU citizenship might be characterized as a derived condition of nationality simply because there is no Community competence to set up its own criteria for defining nationality or citizenship, thus the formal European identity. The conception of European citizenship is one of the mechanisms that the integration process generates for further deepening of the Union. After several rounds of enlargements and accession of more than ten new member states in the last decade, the European integration project must focus its efforts on deepening its structures and organization rather than enlargement especially at a time of fast globalization. Today, Europe is in need of defining the borderlines of European citizenship which cannot be constructed by a model built on the nation state principles. Although the identity building stage for peoples of the European Union is similar to the process of national identity building; the EU citizenship shall be comprehended and structured as a whole different entity than national citizenship. Today, the European society is in trouble because of the unclear definition of the EU citizenship and common European identity, or the unhealthy practice of European citizenship through natio n state based models in the integrated Europe of our day. So far, the prospects of a common European citizenship have been basically failure when it comes to practice and the reason is that European citizenship is incorrectly formulized to serve the aims of national interests rather than the supranational institutions of the European Union. The ultimate attempt of the European Commission to consolidate political integration through a Constitutional Treaty in the year 2005 was rejected by citizens of France and the Netherlands. The public opinion indicates that most citizens in Europe are not eager to become citizens of Europe they are not willing to shift their sovereignty, political allegiance and identities from the national to the supranational level (Baubà ¶ck, 2006). The results of successive editions of the Eurobarometer suggests that European political identity is weak and there is a great variation across EU member states, while in most EU countries only a very small percentage of people around five percent declare having an exclus ive European identity while up to fifty percent do not have any sense of European identity (Gubernau, 2001: 176). Indeed, Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 makes it clear that citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship and that the Union shall respect the national identities of its member states. Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty of the European Union: Article 1, October 2, 1997). Therefore, Community law does not recognize any authority of the Union in determining its own citizens (Baubà ¶ck, 2006). Instead, the current legislation suggests that the European Union citizenship is simply derived from national member state citizenship, which is highly problematic to serve the jurisdiction of the European Union institutions. Before the enlargement of 2004 which resulted with ten new member states joining the EU, the European Commission identified three priorities for the EU which highlighted giving full content to European citizenship (European Commission, 2004). In 2006, the second phase of the EU Programme to Promote Active European Citizenship was launched. The concept of a European citizenship incorporating shared values and a sense of belonging to the European Union in addition to legal rights were officially acknowledged by the Programme. However, today the European Union citizenship is increasingly challenged in domestic politics and may eventually become a source of conflict between member states, if it has not become an important area of intra-tension yet. Recent European experiences suggest that natural and spontaneous convergence among EU member states towards cosmopolitan liberal norms is no longer a reasonable expectation. Almost two decades after creating a citizenship of the Union, it shal l be the time that European policy-makers take the initiative of introducing common European standards for the citizenship laws of the member states to create an active and functioning European Union citizenship. Although this does not require imposing a single European citizenship law, the process might start with an open method of coordination and could result in an authority of EU law to regulate those aspects of national legislation that violate principles of European solidarity or result in discrimination and exclusion of third-country nationals (Baubà ¶ck, 2006: 6). Furthermore, problems exist at the supranational governance level as the European Parliament is the primary legislative body of the European Union but it is not a sovereign legislative body. . After all, the EU citizenship has unfortunately remained a metaphor with some added value to it until today. The European Union citizenship in order to practically exist needs direct effect of Community law in order to becom e e a genuine source of rights for citizens of Europe. Although Europe gave birth to the nation state system and the Europeans are creators of the idea of citizenship; peoples of the European Union are in desperate need of making an up-to-date definition of the EU citizenship today. The Classical Model of Citizenship, also known as the National-Political Citizenship, is a product of Europe in the context of the classical European nation state. One major problem in todays Europe is that this model is crumbling and no more capable of providing a complete comprehension of citizenship in the integrated Europe under our days dynamic conditions. The Classical Model applies to two types of nation state formations in Europe: the republican or civic model supported by France or the nationalist or ethnic model supported by Germany and the Eastern European states. Although the French model, also adopted by the Americans, focuses on the political qualities of culture and the German model focuses on the ethnical qualities as major elements; both incl ude the concept of nation, in other words people on a certain territory with certain rights and liberties as their main element. However, the strict attachment to territory when defining citizenship is no more applicable under todays European Union conditions; as free movement within the Union is established in recent years. On the other hand, the rights and liberties given to the increasing immigrant population and ethnic groups are questioned as the main factors of inconsistency, distress and tension in the socio-political life in Europe today. After all, the European Union is not a nation-state; it entails a whole different type of organization, a supranational entity above the level of member nation-states. If the EU is imagined as a large nation state, then its cultural politics stays on the top-bottom line as elitist discourse to create Europeans (Strath, 2000) and do not touch social identities of the people, except Euro-bureaucrats only (Shore, 2000). Nonetheless, today the EU citizenship rights are derivative of national citizenship and currently they do not form a compelling basis for an active European citizenship of participation (Delanty, 2000a: 83, Baubà ¶ck, 2006). On the other hand, to what extent EU citizenship departs from the nation-state norms of citizenship remains the question. The European integration has a positive impact on the decline of nation states as they begin to share their sovereignty for building a supranational entity which entails an economical as a well as a political unification of Europe. However, the National-Political Citizenship Model is out of date with the formation of todays integrationist Europe. European nation states are breaking down as they face with drastic changes driven by diverse outcomes of globalization, such as heterogeneous multicultural structure and free movement within the European Union which challenge the territory principle of the nation state structure. In Scholtes words, contemporary governance is multilayered; it includes important local, substate regional, suprastate, regional, and transworld operations alongside and intertwined with national arrangements (Scholte, 2000: 143). An important consequence of these shifts is that governance has become more fragmented and decentralized. Globalization has accelerated t he efforts for building European citizenship by creating gaps in effective governance at national level and refocusing attention on problems best dealt with at the sub-national or supra-national level (Rumford, 2003). Therefore, one can conclude that globalization has opened up the field of European governance. As a result, the new supranational state organization in Europe does not allow powerful nation states of the 20th Century to exist, and therefore the Classical Model of Citizenship which relies on the nation-state structure simply needs to be changed or reconfigured under todays circumstances. The present formulation of European Union citizenship has failed to establish a direct connection between the citizenry and the European Union institutions, without ties to the nation state. In the literature of liberal democracy, citizenship is meant to empower citizens of a state to hold governments accountable. In this respect, Union citizenship hardly satisfies democratic aspirations (Baubà ¶ck, 2006). Baubà ¶ck argues that the true value of being a citizen of the European Union lies not in rights one has towards the institutions of the Union, but in rights towards the other member states as the Union citizenship extensively prohibits national governments from discriminating against the citizens of other EU states (Baubà ¶ck, 2006: 1).. After all, there is a broader aspiration to promote relationships between the Union and European people which are to be more direct and substantial than they were in the past and which are less intervened by the member states. Almost a decade a fter the EU citizenship was introduced, the European Commission had confessed that EU citizens have little in the way of a European political consciousness and are not given much encouragement nor facility to engage in a consistent political dialogue with European institutions (European Commission, 2001:7). Therefore, Europeanists also believe that EU citizenship is also important for the future of the Union as it entails an enhanced relationship between the EU and its citizens which in turn will increase effectiveness and efficiency of European institutions, reducing the EUs democratic deficit while increasing the Unions political legitimacy. Meanwhile, the European citizenship has been a rather insignificant area of law and source of rights so far, after nearly two decades it had been introduced into the Community Law. In practice, the concept of EU citizenship has been used with an intention to close up certain gaps of free movement issues within the European land. The legal rights associated with citizenship of the Union are to travel and reside anywhere in the EU; to vote and to stand for election in municipal and European elections in the member state of residence, regardless of nationality; to have consular protection by the consulate of another member state while outside the EU; to petition the European Parliament and apply to the European Ombudsman (Consolidated Treaty of Rome Articles 18-22). Based on general principles of the Community law, specifically the principle of non-discrimination having direct effect, an extension of the substance of citizenship to third-country nationals who have legally lived within t he boundaries EU for a long time; and the issues that correlate with the interrelation between rights and duties remain as a question (Reich, 2001). Deviating from the past trend towards liberalization, there are numbers of countries, such as Greece, Denmark, and Austria, where restrictive citizenship laws have been either retained or further advanced largely due to the growing trend of external migration to the Union. The Netherlands, which used to have a liberal naturalization policy for immigrants, is the most dramatic example of a turnabout of citizenship policy. Furthermore, citizenship tests were introduced in Germany, Denmark, Greece, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in addition to the widespread requirement of learning the dominant language, these tests include questions about the countrys history, constitution, and everyday culture which almost require university level education for immigrants in order to become citizens (Baubà ¶ck, 2006: 5). While language skills are universally accepted as useful for social as well as political integration for immigrants seeking citizenship, the usefulness of the largel y implausible questions asked in citizenship tests raise doubts. This new approach in European Union member states to naturalization reminds of exclusionary ethnic conception of citizenship as the new naturalization policies emphasize integration as a precondition for citizenship and they define integration as an individual achievement rather than a structural condition of equal rights and opportunities. Although citizenship is no longer attached to ethnic identities in todays Europe, it cannot be accepted as a tool for integrating societies which have heterogeneous origins. Today, the current formulation of the EU citizenship has three main features. First, it is not autonomous and genuine as it is derived from member state citizenship; second, it cannot establish a direct link between the European Union and its citizens without ties to the national level; and third, in practice it only gives free access to other member states for European citizens within the boundaries of the Union, and does not provide more. Moreover, it is a source of inequality and exclusion for Europeans. Some European Union member states may give national citizenship to immigrants in three years while another state can call for ten years of residence; thus there is no standards for becoming a European Union citizen for immigrants as the Union citizenship is merely connected to national citizenship. On the other hand, current policies do not serve as a unifying factor at the supranational level but remain merely connected to the national level as immigrants who move frequently betw een different member states of the EU while staying within the territories of the Union for an overall long period of time cannot become European Union citizens, because citizenship policies still operate at national level which does not only harm the unity of European society but also embarrass European Union by proving it as an ineffective political entity. In fact, nearly all European states require a certain period of continuous residence in their national territory rather than the territory of the European Union as a condition for naturalization according to their natural laws. Theoretically, the EU citizens have the right of free access to employment in other member states of the Union. However, this right has been temporarily suspended in some member states for the citizens of countries that have recently joined the EU which introduced a temporary form of second-class citizenship within the Union that is hard to reconcile with the basic commitment to free movement and non-dis crimination on grounds of nationality among the European Union citizens (Baubà ¶ck, 2007: 459).Therefore, one may conclude that there is a great inconsistency between the aims of the European Union citizenship and its current formulation due to the tension between national and supranational levels and the fact the EU citizenship is not genuine and remain merely a derivation from natural citizenship policies. There are different ways of responding to these problems and all entail a new formulization of European Union citizenship. A radical solution would be to turn the relation between supranational and national citizenship upside down, so that the former determines the latter (Baubà ¶ck, 2006). This would propose a federation for the European Union and there is not much political support among European citizens as well as governments for building such a European federation. The alternative remains to be to hope for a spontaneous convergence of national citizenship policies from below; which experience suggests that is not realistic to expect anytime soon. Many national reforms have moved in similar directions over the past decades, but it would be rather optimistic to believe that member states are willing to change their laws in order to avoid burdening other states with immigration problems or in order to secure roughly equal conditions for access to citizenship across Europe (Baubà ¶ck, 2006). Rainer Baubà ¶ck (2007) summarizes three major approaches to future European Union citizenship: The statist approach, the unionist approach and the pluralist approach. The statist approach view the European Union in as progressing towards a federal state, and suggests federal norms of citizenship such as the example of the United States for the EU citizenship. The unionist approach aims to strengthen citizenship of the Union by making it more inclusionary for the Europeans. It is different from the federal modal in terms that it seeks to emancipate EU citizenship from member-state citizenship rather than integrate the latter into the former. The pluralist approach seeks to apply general norms of democratic legitimacy at both supranational and national levels and to balance these concerns where they may coincide or conflict. Although this approach is not primarily committed to strengthening the EU citizenship by weakening member state citizenships; it is reformist in promoting a more consistent conception of multilevel citizenship which can be applied to the EU under todays conditions. The statist, in other words Federal approach has only few advocates and involves substantial departure from the path the European Union has been following until today which makes it a non-feasible solution. The Unionist approach has many advocates among Europeanists and immigrant populations; but in larger civil society it still remains a marginal proposition for European politics. Finally, the pluralist approach is the most feasible solution for European Union citizenship, but still it is too ambitious to have any chance of adaptation in the near future (Baubà ¶ck, 2007). After all, all three approaches propose different paths for European citizenship but they share a commitment to Union citizenship and they are opposed to Euroskeptic nationalist or intergovernmental perspectives on EU citizenship. In the general literature, In the general literature, there are several alternative formulations other than the Classical Model of Citizenship which may serve as basis for a common European Union citizenry.Revised National Citizenship Model is a new approach to citizenship; it is basically a version of the national-political model of citizenship which is arguably updated to todays conditions in Europe. Indeed, this model is probably the most commonly practiced citizenship model by the European states today, which simply took place of the classical model or mixed with the classical model due to change of the environment in Europe. Although this model supports openness in terms of a potential of citizenship for resident non-citizens, political rights are not given to the non-citizen residents which is central to discussion to overcome the potential problems in Europe centered in minority issues. Therefore, this model does not seem to provide a solution for the European Union citizenshi p in todays circumstances as it has already been largely practiced in parts of Europe. Finally, although the revised model makes it easier for non-citizen residents to earn citizenship rights while it simultaneously closes the doors for newcomers by establishing effective control over borders. The model makes it even harder to migrate into a country in any legal status which would decrease the non-citizen resident population. Most states in Europe such as England and Germany which are regarded as the hardest countries to earn citizenship; empower this model rather than the classical model today, to create a solution for their migration problems. The Post National Citizenship Model is the most complex, revolutionary and appropriate model for the future of European integration. Habermas, as a well-known European constitutionalist and pro-integrationist who comes from a republican nation state tradition, puts a lot of emphasis on civil rights and liberties while his arguments center on the idea of constitutional patriotism. The main argument is that Europe needs a public sphere, a public opinion and a political culture to create a common identity but the values used in creation of this singular European identity should not be ethnic or nationalist values and solely political elements of culture (Habermas, 1994). Ratification of a European Constitution would provide the easiest way to achieve these values to create a single European identity, which definitely cannot be created with ethnic or nationalist elements, which should remain as secondary identities. On the other hand, Habermas argues that further enlargement of the EU wi ll make integration even more difficult and the deepening of European Union is more important than its widening policies under todays conditions (Habermas, 2005). Finally, the newcomers are seen as a risk for the model of citizenship and the future of Europe because they must adapt to the European political culture or they will surely pose a threat to the democratic system of the state. Habermas concludes that a resident non-citizen should be entitled as a citizen only when being a part of the European political culture by building positive relations with the majority of the society and by being schooled in the educational system of the host country to for full adaptation (Habermas, 1994). On the contrary, Yasemin Soysal uses a different perspective while discussing the Post National Citizenship Model. The main argument which lies at the heart of the debate is that the human rights are more important than political rights because citizens are individuals which raise the importance of human rights (Soysal, 2000). The key point here is the fact that, although political rights are highly related to the nation state structure, the human rights are not related to the development of nation-state thus they are independent from a nation-state based citizenship model. Massive decolonization, the rise of transnational agencies, the emergence of multilevel politics and most importantly, increasing immigration after the Second World War are four developments that created the historical background for the rise of human rights in Europe in last fifty years. In Todays Europe, boundaries of citizenship are fluid, multiplicity of membership and universal personhood exist which are basi c characteristics of the Post-National Citizenship Model. As a result, the post-national citizenship model is compatible with todays European Union, as it does not count on national borders and only universal characteristics rather than national ones. Therefore, post national citizenship model suits well with the concept of a European citizenship, not created by ethnic, national or religious elements of culture but the political culture, as it was also argued by Habermas (1994, 2003). On the other hand, there is a counter-argument about the possible success of the Post-National Model application in Europe. The critical argument made by Soysal is that the rising trend of human rights creates a paradox, which lays as the main reason behind the increasing minority violence events across Europe. Soysal asks in todays environment of emphasized civil rights and post national individualism, how are particularistic identities affected, given the rise of human rights, particularistic identities such as ethnical, religious and national identities rise simultaneously (Soysal, 2000). The conclusion is that the Post National Citizenship Model sits on top of the paradox; civil rights and particularistic identities rise simultaneously as increasing liberties prepare grounds for expressing these identities. Although human rights are rising for the privileged citizens, not each and every individual in a society such as immigrant minorities in France has full access to human rights because they remain as non-citizen residents, outsiders to the culture and this causes the creation of socio-economical inequality. On the other hand, when these groups are given cultural rights under todays conditions without the establishment of necessary economic and social integration; the outcomes may be further expression of particularistic identities which will again create a threat to the social system. The rise of cultural rights is a crucial issue in the post national debate. Cultural rights are defined as an issue of human rights; the issue is related to group rights rather than individual rights in the post-national context (Taylor, 1999). For example the minority violence events on European streets can be understood by observing the rights of these groups of people who are all resident non-citizens and who all dont have national political rights; and it is important that all are group actions instead of individual actions. Cultural rights of these groups are crucial in a multicultural post-national Europe, and most of the social tension centers on the issue that how much cultural rights should the minority groups have in the context of an integrated Europe rather than a nation state structure. What makes these people different than European Union citizens in the cradle of democracy is the fact that majority rules in democracies and minorities are excluded from the system as a s acrifice simply because democracy is a majority system. On the other hand, in democracies, minorities have belief in the system because they have hopes to be a part of the majority and thus the ruling class one day and thats how the mechanism of democracy works. However, these minority groups in EU member states seemed to lose their hopes of having political rights, or becoming citizens in other words; thus they pose a threat for the democratic system under todays national-political citizenship model as Habermas also argues (1994). As these minority groups were left outside by segregation in Europe, and they have no political rights as resident non-citizens; the expression of their adaptation problems turned out to be attacks against the social and democratic structure in the country. These are all problems caused by the crumbling model of classical citizenship and post-national citizenship idea would bring solutions to most of these problematic areas. Immigrant minority groups in Europe would have citizenship rights that would integrate them into the democratic system and give them the chance to be represented, which will provide these groups hope and trust in democracy. As a result, violence on streets would be prevented because these groups would have the chance to fight for their rights in the democratic arena rather than the streets. The integration of non-citizen minority groups will give pace to the deepening process of Europe and it should be achieved before further widening which would slow down the integration in Europe by adding more complexities (Habermas, 2000). Cultural rights and cultural policy is another important area of tension in the debate of a European Union citizenship. In the Classical Nation state, or Liberal Model in other words, which is exercised by most European states today, public and private are two distinct and clearly separated realms (Habermas, 2003). Cultural rights can be exercised in the private area of life while public area is kept neutral and ethnic or cultural signs are kept out strictly. In France, people are asked not to wear even cross as a symbol of Christianity in the public area, however one can see women wearing headscarf in public in Paris; so the picture is mixed and complex. Taylor argues that this clear separation of public and private spaces aimed by the Liberal model cannot be achieved in a multicultural environment (Taylor, 1999), such as todays Europe. However, under a multicultural model suggested by Taylor which means the end of the Liberal model, all citizens will not be equal but groups of citi zens will have different rights in practice. If such a system will be designed for Europe it would be problematic to govern multicultural societies in European Union, more rights will be asked from the state to overcome the inequalities between the groups and it is questionable how much cultural rights a European state can give as a reply to the enormous demand by different groups. Such a system will lead to chaos in both governance and the society thus keeping the public sphere neutral as it is in the liberal model still is a better proposition for Europe while increasing the cultural rights homogenously to an extent supported by the Post National Citizenship Model. As a result, one may conclude that citizenship is increasingly post-national, rather than national, and the rights and benefits of citizenship frequently accumulate to resident non-citizens. Equally, the spaces within which citizenship is enacted and contestation and claims-making take place do not necessarily coincide with either the nation-state or the EU (Soysal, 2000). In short, there exists a proliferation of new forms of participation, and multiple arenas and levels on which individuals and groups enact their citizenship (Soysal, 2001: 160). The bond between citizenship and civil society can no longer be assumed, and nationally coded public spheres do not hold (Soysal, 2001: 172). The application of civil society to a transnational context has attracted criticism; particularly that such a move represents an attempt to reproduce on the supranational level a model that has reached its limits on the national level (Delanty, 1998). There is also

Childhood Conduct Disorder Essay -- Diseases/Disorders

Introduction: A History and Brief Overview of Conduct Disorder Conduct Disorder has been a part of the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic Statistical Manuel (DSM) since its original release date in 1994. Although, there is new information about the disorder that was previously unknown, Conduct Disorder is distinguished by a â€Å"repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate norms or rules are violated† (American Psychiatric Association, 1994.) This mild, moderate, or severe antisocial behavior begins to appear either in childhood, categorized as early-onset conduct disorder , or in adolescence after ten years of age, classified as adolescent-onset conduct disorder (Passamonti et al., 2010.) The criteria to meet to be diagnosed with this disorder are separated into four subgroups: aggressive conduct, nonaggressive conduct, deceitfulness or theft, and serious violations of the rules. Three or more incidents must be present in the past twelve months with at le ast one of the characteristics being present in the past six months. This disorder causes severe impairment of functioning across a variety of situations so it is important to keep in mind society and individual situations because this diagnosis may be â€Å"misapplied to individuals in settings where patterns of undesirable behavior are sometimes viewed as protective† (American Psychiatric Association, 1994.) For example, a patient that has recently relocated from a war torn country would most likely not be a candidate for Conduct disorder even though he or she may exhibit some of the characteristics. An interesting distinction between the two subcategories is that those diagnosed with early-onset Conduct Dis... ...004). Childhood Adversity, Monoamine Oxidase A Genotype, and Risk for Conduct Disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 738-744. Lahey et al. (2004). Predicting Future Antisocial Personality Disorder in Males from a Clinical Assessment in Childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 389-399. Maughn et al. (2004). Prenatal Smoking and Early Childhood Conduct Problems. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 836-843. Milich, R., Widiger, T. & Landau, S. (1987). Differential Diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder Using Conditional Probabilities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 726-767. Miller, G. E. & Prinz, R. J. (1990). Enhancement of Social Learning Family Interventions for Childhood Conduct Disorder. Psychological Bulletin. Passamonti et al. (2010). Neural Abnormalities in Early-Onset and Adolescent-Onset Conduct Disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 729-738.

The Economics of the South and the Civil War Essay -- U.S. History

Introduction Most people believe the Civil War was fought only over slavery and for abolition. Because of the speech Abraham Lincoln gave â€Å"The emancipation Proclamation,† it looks like the Civil War was a war about the morals of the nation. A war could not be stopped from happening once the Compromise of 1850 happened. The South was frantic to keep slavery going. Their whole economy was bases around the economics of slavery. The North did not realize that there was more than freeing the slaves to do with the war. The economics of the south was free labor caused by slavery. The black slave was a God sent for the Southern states in that it allowed them to make a great profit off their crops. William Freehling said, â€Å"Posterity thinks of slavery as the South’s leading economic interest† (239). The Northern states were against slavery but they did not realize what it would do to the South when slavery is abolished. â€Å"The Southern economy, however, was buil t on the labor of the African-American slave, who were oppressed into providing cheap labor.† (History Central, web) This paper will allow us to look at the complete economics side of slavery and what effect it would have on them. History of Slaveries start in the South The Dutch West India Company was commissioned â€Å"to supply the colonist with as many Blacks as they conveniently can.† (Morison 75) When the South started to be developed in 1625 when The Virginian Company said, â€Å"Any Englishmen who agrees to take out at least 250 people at his own expense was allowed to choose †¦ 1250 acres or more† (Morison 54) This is how the Plymouth Colony was started. These men were not blue-collar workers, for they had money and position. They did not want to work with their... ...nd the North blockaded the Southern ports the south was doomed. They needed money to live and pay for the war and without being able to export their only cash crop they could not keep going. Their whole economy was about slavery and the great economics it creates for the owners, and for the Southern States. Works Cited Allen, J. Michael Allen & James B. World History from 1500. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993, Print. Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion, Volumn II. Vol. II. New York: Oxford university Press, 2007, print. History Central. "Economics of the Civil war." 2008. History Central. Web 23 April 2011. Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Oxford History of the American People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, print. Readers Digest. The Story of America. New York: Readers Digest Assoc., 1975, Print.

Why We Should Brush Our Teeth

Nicholas Ruiz VPA 192 Informative Speech Why we should brush our teeth Goodmorning, Let me ask have you ever been on the train and been sitting next to someone with terrible breath? Or been on a date and you kiss the person your with and they have a horrid smell seeping out of there mouth. These simple smelly encounters would be easily avoided if we all keep up with out oral hygiene. My name is Nicholas Ruiz and today I am here to inform you of how to keep your oral hygiene up to par and why it is so important to do so.As a dental assistant for the past 3 years I have been taught to show people how to keep the general oral hygiene were it should be. A couple of the most commonly asked questions I get is what kind of tooth brush should I use or what kind of tooth paste they should use. I tell them a soft brisal toothbrush(show soft toothbrush) is the way to go and any kind of toothpaste with Fluoride in it will work. I spoke with a doctor in my office Dr. Tad Picker he stated,† I always recommend a soft brisal toothbrush.It nurtures your teeth while you brush as were a firm brisal toothbrush can wear away the enamel of your teeth. (show firm toothbrush) And when it comes to toothpaste I say aslong at it has Flouride in it it is ok. Me personally I use Aquafresh. † Also, an equally big part is flossing everyday. You can be fantastic at brushing your teeth but only floss can get into those nasty area that your couldn’t get when you brush. Finally, a good product to use is Listerine it really does kill any of those excess germs left in your mouth after brushing.Now you should be brushing your teeth 2 times a day. I brush 3 times a day but that’s just a preference. Now when you get ready to brush your teeth, you don’t glob the toothpaste on like in the commercials with the little tale like in the commercials. (Show how not to apply toothpaste) You apply as small but sufficient amount of paste. (Show how to apply toothpaste) Now when you begin to brush you suppost to do it on a 45 degree angle as so †¦like your messaging your teeth. show example) Brushing hard does not help in your efforts to keep your teeth clean. It pushes the germs and everything in your mouth further down and makes it harder to reach. Now let me ask you why is it so important to brush and what happens when you don’t. ( Let audiences react) A lot of great answers. It is important because not only does oral hygiene effect your mouth but it can also effect other parts of your body such as your heart. Oral hygiene is a very important ingredient to the collection of things that keep your body balanced.Now when you don’t brush your teeth what happens is that any food that you eat stays on your teeth which breakdowns to sugars which turns into acids that burns away your tooth enamel. This cause things such as cavities and other infections. In conclusion oral hygiene is and should be a major part of your daily life. It is importan t that you have the right tools to be able to keep up with it. If kept up with your teeth with stay healthy and you wont have to wear those bulky dentures. Thank you.

Second Foundation 11. Stowaway

It was a little over a month before the summer could be said to have started. Started, that is, to the extent that Homir Munn had written his final financial report of the fiscal year, seen to it that the substitute librarian supplied by the Government was sufficiently aware of the subtleties of the post – last year's man had been quite unsatisfactory – and arranged to have his little cruiser the Unimara – named after a tender and mysterious episode of twenty years past – taken out of its winter cobwebbery. He left Terminus in a sullen distemper. No one was at the port to see him off. That would not have been natural since no one ever had in the past. He knew very well that it was important to have this trip in no way different from any he had made in the past, yet he felt drenched in a vague resentment. He, Homir Munn, was risking his neck in derring-doery of the most outrageous sort, and yet he left alone. At least, so he thought. And it was because he thought wrongly, that the following day was one of confusion, both on the Unimara and in Dr. Darell's suburban home. It hit Dr. Darell's home first, in point of time, through the medium of Poli, the maid, whose month's vacation was now quite a thing of the past. She flew down the stairs in a flurry and stutter. The good doctor met her and she tried vainly to put emotion into words but ended by thrusting a sheet of paper and a cubical object at him. He took them unwillingly and said: â€Å"What's wrong, Poli?† â€Å"She's gone, doctor.† â€Å"Who's gone?† â€Å"Arcadia!† â€Å"What do you mean, gone? Gone where? What are you talking about?† And she stamped her foot: ‘I don't know. She's gone, and there's a suitcase and some clothes gone with her and there's that letter. Why don't you read it, instead of just standing there? Oh, you men!† Dr. Darell shrugged and opened the envelope. The letter was not long, and except for the angular signature, â€Å"Arkady,† was in the ornate and flowing handwriting of Arcadia's transcriber. Dear Father: It would have been simply too heartbreaking to say good-by to you in person. I might have cried like a little girl and you would have been ashamed of me. So I'm writing a letter instead to tell you how much I'II miss you, even while I'm having this perfectly wonderful summer vacation with Uncle Homir. I'II take good care of myself and it won't be long before I'm home again. Meanwhile, I'm leaving you something that's all my own. You can have it now. Your loving daughter, Arkady. He read it through several times with an expression that grew blanker each time. He said stiffly, â€Å"Have you read this, Poli?† Poli was instantly on the defensive. â€Å"I certainly can't be blamed for that, doctor. The envelope has ‘Poli' written on the outside, and I had no way of telling there was a letter for you on the inside. I'm no snoop, doctor, and in the years I've been with-â€Å" Darell held up a placating hand, â€Å"Very well, Poli. It's not important. I just wanted to make sure you understood what had happened.† He was considering rapidly. It was no use telling her to forget the matter. With regard to the enemy, â€Å"forget† was a meaningless word; and the advice, insofar as it made the matter more important, would have had an opposite effect. He said instead, â€Å"She's a queer little girl, you know. Very romantic. Ever since we arranged to have her go off on a space trip this summer, she's been quite excited.† â€Å"And just why has no one told me about this space trip?† â€Å"It was arranged while you were away, and we forgot It's nothing more complicated than that.† Poli's original emotions now concentrated themselves into a single, overwhelming indignation, â€Å"Simple, is it? The poor chick has gone off with one suitcase, without a decent stitch of clothes to her, and alone at that. How long will she be away?† â€Å"Now I won't have you worrying about it, Poli. There will be plenty of clothes for her on the ship. It's been all arranged. Will you tell Mr. Anthor, that I want to see him? Oh, and first – is this the object that Arcadia has left for me?† He turned it over in his hand. Poli tossed her head. â€Å"I'm sure I don't know. The letter was on top of it and that's every bit I can tell you. Forget to tell me, indeed. If her mother were alive-â€Å" Darell, waved her away. â€Å"Please call Mr. Anthor.† *** Anthor's viewpoint on the matter differed radically from that of Arcadia's father. He punctuated his initial remarks with clenched fists and tom hair, and from there, passed on to bitterness. â€Å"Great Space, what are you waiting for? What are we both waiting for? Get the spaceport on the viewer and have them contact the Unimara.† â€Å"Softly, Pelleas, she's my daughter.† â€Å"But it's not your Galaxy.† â€Å"Now, wait. She's an intelligent girl, Pelleas, and she's thought this thing out carefully. We had better follow her thoughts while this thing is fresh. Do you know what this thing is?† â€Å"No. Why should it matter what it is?' â€Å"Because it's a sound-receiver.† â€Å"That thing?† â€Å"It's homemade, but it will work. I've tested it. Don't you see? It's her way of telling us that she's been a party to our conversations of policy. She knows where Homir Munn is going and why. She's decided it would be exciting to go along.† â€Å"Oh, Great Space,† groaned the younger man. â€Å"Another mind for the Second Foundation to pick.† â€Å"Except that there's no reason why the Second Foundation should, a priori, suspect a fourteen-year-old girl of being a danger – unless we do anything to attract attention to her, such as calling back a ship out of space for no reason other than to take her off. Do you forget with whom we're dealing? How narrow the margin is that separates us from discovery? How helpless we are thereafter?† â€Å"But we can't have everything depend on an insane child.† She's not insane, and we have no choice. She need not have written the letter, but she did it to keep us from going to the police after a lost child. Her letter suggests that we convert the entire matter into a friendly offer on the part of Munn to take an old friend's daughter off for a short vacation. And why not? He's been my friend for nearly twenty years. He's known her since she was three, when I brought her back from Trantor. It's a perfectIy natural thing, and, in fact, ought to decrease suspicion. A spy does not carry a fourteen-year-old niece about with him.† â€Å"So. And what will Munn do when he finds her?† Dr. Darell heaved his eyebrows once. â€Å"I can't say – but I presume she'll handle him.† But the house was somehow very lonely at night and Dr. Darell found that the fate of the Galaxy made remarkably little difference while his daughter's mad little life was in danger. The excitement on the Unimara, if involving fewer people, was considerably more intense. *** In the luggage compartment, Arcadia found herself, in the first place, aided by experience, and in the second, hampered by the reverse. Thus, she met the initial acceleration with equanimity and the more subtle nausea that accompanied the inside-outness of the first jump through hyperspace with stoicism. Both had been experienced on space hops before, and she was tensed for them. She knew also that luggage compartments were included in the ship's ventilation-system and that they could even be bathed in wall-light. This last, however, she excluded as being too unconscionably unromantic. She remained in the dark, as a conspirator should, breathing very softly, and listening to the little miscellany of noises that surrounded Homir Munn. They were undistinguished noises, the kind made by a man alone. The shuffling of shoes, the rustle of fabric against metal, the soughing of an upholstered chair seat retreating under weight, the sharp click of a control unit, or the soft slap of a palm over a photoelectric cell. Yet, eventually, it was the lack of experience that caught up with Arcadia. In the book films and on the videos, the stowaway seemed to have such an infinite capacity for obscurity. Of course, there was always the danger of dislodging something which would fall with a crash, or of sneezing – in videos you were almost sure to sneeze; it was an accepted matter. She knew all this, and was careful. There was also the realization that thirst and hunger might be encountered. For this, she was prepared with ration cans out of the pantry. But yet things remained that the films never mentioned, and it dawned upon Arcadia with a shock that, despite the best intentions in the world, she could stay hidden in the closet for only a limited time. And on a one-man sports-cruiser, such as the Unimara, living space consisted, essentially, of a single room, so that there wasn't even the risky possibility of sneaking out of the compartment while Munn was engaged elsewhere. She waited frantically for the sounds of sleep to arise. If only she knew whether he snored. At least she knew where the bunk was and she could recognize the rolling protest of one when she heard it. There was a long breath and then a yawn. She waited through a gathering silence, punctuated by the bunk's soft protest against a changed position or a shifted leg. The door of the luggage compartment opened easily at the pressure of her finger, and her craning neck- There was a definite human sound that broke off sharply. Arcadia solidified. Silence! Still silence! She tried to poke her eyes outside the door without moving her head and failed. The head followed the eyes. Homir Munn was awake, of course – reading in bed, bathed in the soft, unspreading bed light, staring into the darkness with wide eyes, and groping one hand stealthily under the pillow. Arcadia's head moved sharply back of itself. Then, the light went out entirely and Munn's voice said with shaky sharpness, â€Å"I've got a blaster, and I'm shooting, by the Galaxy-â€Å" And Arcadia wailed, â€Å"It's only me. Don't shoot.† Remarkable what a fragile flower romance is. A gun with a nervous operator behind it can spoil the whole thing. The light was back on – all over the ship – and Munn was sitting up in bed. The somewhat grizzled hair on his thin chest and the sparse one-day growth on his chin lent him an entirely fallacious appearance of disreputability. Arcadia stepped out, yanking at her metallene jacket which was supposed to be guaranteed wrinkleproof. After a wild moment in which he almost jumped out of bed, but remembered, and instead yanked the sheet up to his shoulders, Munn gargled, â€Å"W†¦ wha†¦ what-â€Å" He was completely incomprehensible. Arcadia said meekly, â€Å"Would you excuse me for a minute? I've got to wash my hands.† She knew the geography of the vessel, and slipped away quickly. When she returned, with her courage oozing back, Homir Munn was standing before her with a faded bathrobe on the outside and a brilliant fury on the inside. â€Å"What the black holes of Space are you d†¦ doing aboard this ship? H†¦ how did you get on here? What do you th†¦ think I'm supposed to do with you? What's going on here?† He might have asked questions indefinitely, but Arcadia interrupted sweetly, â€Å"I just wanted to come along, Uncle Homir.† â€Å"Why? I'm not going anywhere?† â€Å"You're going to Kalgan for information about the Second Foundation.† And Munn let out a wild howl and collapsed completely. For one horrified moment, Arcadia thought he would have hysterics or beat his head against the wall. He was still holding the blaster and her stomach grew ice-cold as she watched it. â€Å"Watch out – Take it easy -† was all she could think of to say. But he struggled back to relative normality and threw the blaster on to the bunk with a force that should have set it off and blown a hole through the ship's hull. â€Å"How did you get on?† he asked slowly, as though gripping each word with his teeth very carefully to prevent it from trembling before letting it out. â€Å"It was easy. I just came into the hangar with my suitcase, and said, ‘Mr. Munn's baggage!' and the man in charge just waved his thumb without even looking up.† â€Å"I'll have to take you back, you know,† said Homir, and there was a sudden wild glee within him at the thought. By Space, this wasn't his fault. â€Å"You can't,† said Arcadia, calmly, â€Å"it would attract attention.† â€Å"What?† â€Å"You know. The whole purpose of your going to Kalgan was because it was natural for you to go and ask for permission to look into the Mule's records. And you've got to be so natural that you're to attract no attention at all. If you go back with a girl stowaway, it might even get into the tele-news reports.† â€Å"Where did you g†¦ get those notions about Kalgan? These†¦ uh†¦ childish-† He was far too flippant for conviction, of course, even to one who knew less than did Arcadia. â€Å"I heard,† she couldn't avoid pride completely, â€Å"with a sound-recorder. I know all about it – so you've got to let me come along.† â€Å"What about your father?† He played a quick trump. â€Å"For all he knows, you're kidnapped†¦ dead.† â€Å"I left a note,† she said, overtrumping, â€Å"and he probably knows he mustn't make a fuss, or anything. You'll probably get a space-gram from him.† To Munn the only explanation was sorcery, because the receiving signal sounded wildly two seconds after she finished. She said: â€Å"That's my father, I bet,† and it was. The message wasn't long and it was addressed to Arcadia. It said: â€Å"Thank you for your lovely present, which I'm sure you put to good use. Have a good time.† â€Å"You see,† she said, â€Å"that's instructions.† Homir grew used to her. After a while, he was glad she was there. Eventually, he wondered how he would have made it without her. She prattIed! She was excited! Most of all, she was completely unconcerned. She knew the Second Foundation was the enemy, yet it didn't bother her. She knew that on Kalgan, he was to deal with a hostile officialdom, but she could hardly wait. Maybe it came of being fourteen. At any rate, the week-long trip now meant conversation rather than introspection. To be sure, it wasn't a very enlightening conversation, since it concerned, almost entirely, the girl's notions on the subject of how best to treat the Lord of Kalgan. Amusing and nonsensical, and yet delivered with weighty deliberation. Homir found himself actually capable of smiling as he listened and wondered out of just which gem of historical fiction she got her twisted notion of the great universe. It was the evening before the last jump. Kalgan was a bright star in the scarcely-twinkling emptiness of the outer reaches of the Galaxy. The ship's telescope made it a sparkling blob of barely-perceptible diameter. Arcadia sat cross-legged in the good chair. She was wearing a pair of slacks and a none-too-roomy shirt that belonged to Homir. Her own more feminine wardrobe had been washed and ironed for the landing. She said, â€Å"I'm going to write historical novels, you know.† She was quite happy about the trip. Uncle Homir didn't the least mind listening to her and it made conversation so much more pleasant when you could talk to a really intelligent person who was serious about what you said. She continued: â€Å"I've read books and books about all the great men of Foundation history. You know, like Seldon, Hardin, Mallow, Devers and all the rest. I've even read most of what you've written about the Mule, except that it isn't much fun to read those parts where the Foundation loses. Wouldn't you rather read a history where they skipped the silly, tragic parts?† â€Å"Yes, I would,† Munn assured her, gravely. â€Å"But it wouldn't be a fair history, would it, Arkady? You'd never get academic respect, unless you give the whole story.† â€Å"Oh, poof. Who cares about academic respect?† She found him delightful. He hadn't missed calling her Arkady for days. â€Å"My novels are going to be interesting and are going to sell and be famous. What's the use of writing books unless you sell them and become well-known? I don't want just some old professors to know me. It's got to be everybody.† Her eyes darkened with pleasure at the thought and she wriggled into a more comfortable position. â€Å"In fact, as soon as I can get father to let me, I'm going to visit Trantor, so's I can get background material on the First Empire, you know. I was born on Trantor; did you know that?† He did, but he said, â€Å"You were?† and put just the right amount of amazement into his voice. He was rewarded with something between a beam and a simper. â€Å"Uh-huh. My grandmother†¦ you know, Bayta Darell, you've heard of her†¦ was on Trantor once with my grandfather. In fact, that's where they stopped the Mule, when all the Galaxy was at his feet; and my father and mother went there also when they were first married. I was born there. I even lived there till mother died, only I was just three then, and I don't remember much about it. Were you ever on Trantor, Uncle Homir?† â€Å"No, can't say I was.† He leaned back against the cold bulkhead and listened idly. Kalgan was very close, and he felt his uneasiness flooding back. â€Å"Isn't it just the most romantic world? My father says that under Stannel V, it had more people than any ten worlds nowadays. He says it was just one big world of metals – one big city – that was the capital of all the Galaxy. He's shown me pictures that he took on Trantor. It's all in ruins now, but it's still stupendous. I'd just love to see it again. In fact†¦ Homir!† â€Å"Yes?† â€Å"Why don't we go there, when we're finished with Kalgan?† Some of the fright hurtled back into his face. â€Å"What? Now don't start on that. This is business, not pleasure. Remember that.† â€Å"But it is business† she squeaked. â€Å"There might be incredible amounts of information on Trantor, don't you think so?† â€Å"No, I don't.†*** He scrambled to his feet â€Å"Now untangle yourself from the computer. We've got to make the last jump, and then you turn in.† One good thing about landing, anyway; he was about fed up with trying to sleep on an overcoat on the metal floor. The calculations were not difficult. The â€Å"Space Route Handbook† was quite explicit on the Foundation-Kalgan route. There was the momentary twitch of the timeless passage through hyperspace and the final light-year dropped away. The sun of Kalgan was a sun now – large, bright, and yellow-white; invisible behind the portholes that had automatically closed on the sun-lit side. Kalgan was only a night's sleep away.

Recognition Speech

To the ever steadfast director and school principal, Mr. Bartolome L. Avila, to the highly competent and deeply motivated teachers and staff; other officials who are present on this occasion;to the proud and loving parents; to the very important people- the stars, in today’s ceremonies, the awardees, ladies and gentlemen, a pleasant morning. Like most of you today, my feelings are really overwhelming. I know, you guys are as excited about this event as I am so excited to speak before you today.Not so long ago, I was seating exactly where you are right now and hearing an inspirational talk from a guest speaker back then. Yes, I am but a proud alumna of Pililla Academy and soon you too will be part of the Alumni. Today, Pililla Academy will name those outstanding students who brought honors to themselves, and to this school. As we, you gather here and start viewing those simple and ordinary faces, you will realize that these achievers are exactly as everyone else.The only thing different is that, they have made their choices. That is to STAND and be recognized in the area where they choose to be the best one. It is a matter of CHOICE. It is between doing the right thing or not, or be recognized in good things or in all foolish activities. Sa ngayon, sa hirap ng buhay na dinaranas natin, tanging ang mga parangal na inyong matatanggap ang siyang magsisilbing tanglaw, gabay at pag-asa tungo sa magandang kinabukasan.Bawat medalya at sertipiko na inyong makakamit ay higit na mahalaga kaysa anumang kayamanan, sapagkat ito ang sumisimbolo sa natatanging kahusayan at galing na inyong pinamamalas. â€Å"Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most importantly, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow a lready know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary. †

Erich Maria Remarque and the Nature of War Essay

Unlike truly historical works emphasizing the human side of war, for example, Cornelius Ryan’s The Longest Day or A Bridge Too Far, in which the author provides highly detailed accounts of historical events through the eyes of participants leading to an objective treatment and analysis of those events, Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front is a novelization of the experience of German soldiers in World War I. Remarque thus follows a literary line which includes William Shakespeare’s Henry V, Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage, and Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace and extends through cinematic efforts such as â€Å"The Big Red One† and â€Å"The Hurt Locker†, which utilize historical context in order to examine the transformative nature of war on those most intimately involved. Each work examines a central theme, e.g., patriotism, cowardice, social change, brotherhood, etc., interwoven with and supported by details of v arious wars. The particular details chosen by the authors, with the possible exception of Tolstoy who seemingly left nothing out of his opus, are those lending support to that central theme. Thus, to understand the process used by Remarque in making his choice of which details of World War I to include in All Quiet on the Western Front, one must first ascertain his thesis and its origin. Referring to the biographical notes following the novel, we learn that Remarque â€Å"was himself in combat during World War I, and was wounded five times, the last time very severely (Remarque, 1928, p. 297).† That during the time of his service Remarque was near the age of his protagonist, Paul Baumer, suggests an autobiographical nature to the novel and lends credence to the story that no second hand account could provide. Yet Remarque does not take the opportunity to provide closure to his experience or to provide a set of objective conclusions to the war. Drawing again from the biographical notes, Remarque possessed â€Å"intense determination to concentrate in his fiction upon the worst horrors of the age, war and inhumanity (Remarque, 1928, p. 297)†. Three major themes can be found within All Quiet on the Western Front combining to support Remarque’s ideology – the legitimacy of statehood, the futility of war, and the dehumanizing effects of war. Given his experiences and his viewpoint, what details did Remarque expound upon and to what purpose? In a discussion  among the soldiers as to the origins of the war, they openly question the authority by which war was declared. When Tjaden asks how wars begin, Albert answers, â€Å"Mostly by one country badly offending another (Remarque, 1928, p. 205).† Yet it is this notion of country which perplexes the most. In Europe’s past, wars were fought over disputes between smaller nation states by order and to the benefit of local rulers. This was clearly not the case in World War I, a fact not lost on the soldiers: â€Å"But what I would like to know,† says Albert, â€Å"is whether there would have been a war if the Kaiser had said No.† â€Å"I’m sure there would,† I (Paul) interject, â€Å"he was against it from the first (Remarque, 1928, p. 203).† What the soldiers had not yet come to terms with was the rampant nationalism that had swept Europe. Rising from the Industrial Revolution, nurtured by the Atlantic revolutions, and spurred by the globalization of trade, Europeans of smaller states set aside their notions of subjects under a common ruling dynasty to a sense of unity among peoples bound by blood, customs and culture. â€Å"All of this encouraged political and cultural leaders to articulate an appealing of their particular nations and ensured a growing circle of people receptive to such ideas. Thus the idea of â€Å"nation† was constructed or even invented, but it was often presented as an awakening of older linguistic or cultural identities (Strayer, 2011, p. 797).† Such were the notions the young schoolboys received from their schoolmaster Kantorek who spoke of country and honor before shepherding them to their enlistment. Yet, when those identities failed to adequately address the cultures affected, as in Austria-Hungary, nationalism failed to suppress dissent. With the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, by a Serbian nationalist, the system of rigid alliances established among the emerging nations plunged the world into war (Strayer, 2011, p. 979). After further reflection, the soldiers began to understand how they came to be in a war whose causes could not be satisfactorily explained by patriotism alone: â€Å"State and home-country, there’s a big difference.† (Kat) â€Å"But they go together,† insists Kropp, â€Å"Without the State there wouldn’t be a home country (Remarque, 1928, p. 205).† Remarque addresses the futility of war in various ways. He describes the effects of the material  advantages of the Allies throughout the war, particularly following the entrance of American forces, foretelling defeat for Germany in a war of attrition: â€Å"Our lines are falling back. There are too many fresh English and American regiments over there. There’s too much corned beef and white wheaten bread. There are too many new guns. Too many aeroplanes. But we are emaciated and starved. Our food is bad and mixed with so much substitute stuff it makes us ill†¦..Our artillery is fired out, it has too few shells and the barrels are so worn that they shoot uncertainly and scatter so widely as even to fall on ourselves (Remarque, 1928, p. 280).† Most tellingly, Remarque condemns the madness of trench warfare which â€Å"resulted in enormous casualties while gaining or losing only a few yards of muddy, blood-soaked ground (Strayer, 2011, p. 982).† Paul’s Company engages in a protracted, vicious trench battle in Chapter Six in which they are first driven back in retreat, regain the lost ground after an hour to eat, and push forward into the French trenches before realizing their new position is untenable. â€Å"The fight ceases. We lose touch with the enemy. We cannot stay here long but must retire under cover of our artillery to our own position (Remarque, 1928, p. 117).† In the end, it was everything ventured, nothing gained. The senseless loss of life on both sides and the indifference to the carnage is highlighted in his description of the battlefield itself. â€Å"The days are hot and the dead lie unburied. We cannot fetch them all in, if we did we should not know what to do with them. The shells wil l bury them (Remarque, 1928, pp. 125-126).† Lastly, Remarque relentlessly stresses the dehumanization of the soldiers throughout the course of the war. In his forward, Remarque makes his purpose for writing All Quiet on the Western Front clear: â€Å"It will try to simply tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped shells, were destroyed by the war (Remarque, 1928, p. i).† The first step in the process comes with the realization that those shaping their future have done so with an agenda of their own. In speaking of Kantorek the schoolmaster and Corporal Himmelstoss, Paul reflects, â€Å"For us lads of eighteen they ought to have been mediators and guides to the world of maturity, the world of work, of duty, of culture, of progress – to the future†¦the idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our  minds with a greater insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief (Remarque, 1928, p. 12).† The second phase in the downward spiral is presented as the desensitization of the individual. Remarque portrays this through the soldier’s continued acceptance of the squalor of their condition. Through poor rations, living in mud filled trenches, and being in constant fear for their lives from regular shelling associated with trench warfare and from the use of a deadly new weapon, mustard gas, Paul and his comrades develop a detached persona which shields them from their hideous reality: â€Å"Just as we turn into animals when we go up to the line, because it is the only thing which brings us through safely, so we turn into wags and loafer when we are resting†¦We want to live at any price so we cannot burden ourselves with feelings which, though they might be ornamental enough in peacetime, would be out of place here (Remarque, 1928, pp. 138-139).† A third phase lies in the objectification of the soldier by others. Remarque best accomplishes this in his portrayal of medical treatment for the wounded. Early on, he establishes this premise through the death of Franz Kemmerich. A lack of supplies has denied him morphine to reduce his suffering. The higher than expected casualty count has begun to turn doctors into processors of human flesh: â€Å"One operation after another since five-o’clock this morning. You know, today alone there have been sixteen deaths – yours is the seventeenth. There will probably be twenty altogether – (Remarque, 1928, p. 32).† Kemmerich’s body is quickly processed: â€Å"We must take him away at once, we want the bed. Outside they are lying on the floor (Remarque, 1928, p. 32).† As the war drags on and casualties mount, the individual casualty becomes less a patient and more a number. Following an injury, Paul enters the hospital to learn of the latest advance in wartime triage: â€Å"A little room at the corner of the building. Whoever is about to kick the bucket is put in there. There are two beds in it. It is generally called the Dying Room. They don’t have much work to do afterwards. It is more convenient, too, because it lies right beside the lift to the mortuary (Remarque, 1928, p. 257).† Through his experience in the hospital, Paul comes to a stark realization, and Remarque drives home his point: â€Å"A man cannot realize that above such shattered bodies there are still human faces in which life goes its daily round. And this is only one hospital,  one single station; there are hundreds of thousands in Germany, hundreds of thousands in France, hundreds of thousands in Russia. How senseless is anything that can ever be written, done, or thought, when such things are possible. It must be all lies and of no account when the culture of a thousand years could not prevent this stream of blood being poured out, these torture-chambers in their hundreds of thousands. A hospital alone shows what war is (Remarque, 1928, p. 263).† The ultimate phase is the transition of the soldier from object to invisibility. Paul’s death, and the â€Å"matter if fact† manner in which Remarque presents it, stands in stark contrast to the official report of the day – â€Å"All quiet on the Western front. (Remarque, 1928, p. 296).† The fate of a man has been subordinated to the fate of a nation without the nation realizing his sacrifice. Throughout All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque selects his details of World War I to support his themes decrying nationalism, the meaningless state of war, and the disintegration of the human spirit through the pursuit of warfare. No mention is made of specific battles or individual acts of heroism. The lack of specificity adds to the tone of the general, unyielding nature of war. Heroism, writ with a capital â€Å"H†, is a concept not to be found in Remarque’s world of war. In presenting his details of World War I, Remarque remains unyielding in his portrait of the destruction of the human condition on the altar of national pride. REFERENCES Remarque, E. M. (1928). All quiet on the western front. Ballantine Books. Strayer, R. W. (2011). Ways of the world; a brief global history with sources, volume 2: Since 1500. 7th edition: Bedford/St. Martins.