Alien Culture Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Alien Culture - Essay Example So to overcome this fear and to push myself out of my comfort zone I chose to sell. Negotiating is often not considered an imperative part of leadership but it is, for instance, if a student needs to ask the university to add a course in their curriculum, the leadership needs to negotiate (. I purchased back-support cushions that one puts on their office chairs. The logic behind these cushions is they support the back when the person needs to sit for longer hours for work. I purchased 10 of these and tried to approach people outside an office in the hopes of selling them. I put the bag that had 10 cushions aside and picked out one. I literally went up to people in suits and tried to sell these. The idea was not to sell at a profit, the idea was just to sell! This challenge taught me that the most daunting aspect of selling is the approach. The feeling one gets right before approaching someone, whether it is asking for a raise or asking to buy a product. There is another lesson that I learned that no matter what you are selling a person needs to stay calm, relaxed, confident and has to look the potential customer in the eye. However, one should not appear challenging or intimidating the customer. This challenge proved more difficult than I had imagined. I thought that people would buy these cushions when I offer them a discount, but that wasnt the case. Simply, people were not interested in them. But I stood committed. There was a moment during the day when I asked myself ‘am I wasting time?’ ‘Is selling, persuading and negotiating not my thing?’ But then my commitment compelled me to finish the task and I ended up making a certain profit which I wasnt even aiming for. After asking people for two hours without a positive response I got angry but more importantly, I became determined. I overcame the anxiety of having a difficult conversation. I realized that there isnt much to

Tradition and the Individual Talent Analysis

Tradition and the Individual Talent Analysis Tradition and the Individual Talent was originally published across two instalments of the Egoist in 1919 and later, in 1920, became part of T.S. Eliots full length book of essays on poetry and criticism, The Sacred Wood. Literary modernism is visible throughout the essay in the self-consciousness Eliot writes of with regards to writing poetry. The Waste Land, like much literature of the modernist era breaks away from traditional ways of writing and uses Eliots own understanding of tradition, literary allusion, in a unique way. This essay will be focusing on the arguments made by Eliot, with regards to literary tradition, in Tradition and the Individual Talent and how The Waste Land relates to those arguments. Eliot begins Tradition and the Individual Talent by arguing it is the poets treatment of their position within the historic context of literature that demonstrates talent. The essay asserts that the poet should use their knowledge of the writers of the past to influence their work. He states that we shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual part of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously. Eliot explains that to write with tradition in mind does not mean imitating, as this would lead to repetition and novelty is better than repetition. He defines tradition as something only to be gained by the labour of knowing literature of the past and by being critically aware of what techniques and content is of value. The poet should be aware of the simultaneous order of literary tradition, dating back to the classics. Tradition is the accumulated wisdom and experience of literature through the ages and is, according to Eliot, essential for great achievements within poetry. Eliot argues that no writer or piece of literature has value or significance when isolated from the literary cannon. In order to judge a work of art or literature it must be compared to works of the past. He believes that tradition is constantly changing due to adding new work to the literary cannon. He suggests that the author should conform to literary tradition and be informed by the past, but that by doing so the work of the author modifies the work they have been informed by. It is important for the poet to be aware of their own position within the present but also their relevance in relation to literature of the past. The modern author adds meaning to the traditional text by incorporating its influence into their work. Eliot acknowledges that the new work of art, when original, modifies the literary tradition in a small way. The relationship between past and present is not one-way, the present can alter the past, just as the past informs the present. Eliot then acknowledges that knowledge of the past as a whole would be impossible. In order to gain a good sense of tradition one must critically examine the past, focusing on works of art that are considered to be of high value. He explains that the definition of a sense of tradition is to be critically aware of trends and techniques which became typical of a particular age, movement or even author, and to have the ability to recognise deviation from this. An author with a good sense of tradition should also be aware that the main literary trends do not come, solely, from the most recognised poets, but they must be aware of trends set by poets of lesser recognition. Although the work of present poets is compared and contrasted to poets of the past, it does not determine whether the work of the present is better than the work of the past. Standards and principles are recognised to have changed. The comparison is made in order to analyse the new work, creating a deeper understanding of the text. It is only through this comparison the traditional and the individual elements can be determined. Eliot claims that art never improves. He argues that, despite changes in thinking, great writers such as Shakespeare and Homer remain relevant. He recognises that artists work with different materials and their art is a product of different eras, therefore it would be impossible to measure a qualitative improvement in any school of art. Eliot is aware that questions will be asked about the great level of knowledge that would be required of any one poet in order to meet his understanding of tradition. The essay will be criticised on the basis that there are great poets who did not have the level of education that Eliot is claiming is required. Eliot goes on to argue that it should be the duty of every poet to build their knowledge of the past for the duration of their career. He believes that it is knowledge of tradition that encourages and strengthens the poets ability to write great work. Eliot recognises that, at the start of a poets career, individuality will assert itself, but he notes that it is the sign of an immature poet and that as they continue to write one should lose the sense of the poets personality within the work they create. The poet should become objective with maturity. This therefore makes it irrelevant who wrote the poem under analysis, the relevance lies in the poems delivery of literary tradition. Eliot notes the necessity of the poet experiencing new situations and emotions without any changes being visible in their poetic voice. He states the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates. He notes that the personality of the poet should not be expressed in their work but should remain unchanged by external factors. Eliot expresses that poetry may be formed from singular or various feelings, emotions or a combination of the two. He argues that poetry is in fact the organisation of emotions and feelings rather than inspiration. He believes that the quality of the poetry is not determined by the intensity of feelings or emotions but the intensity of the process of creating and ordering those feelings as part of poetic composition. The more pressure involved in the creative process the better the quality of the end product. Eliot goes on to note the difference between personal emotions of the poet and the emotion of poetry itself. While personal emotions may be simple, the expression of these emotions may be complex. While it is not the role of the poet to express new emotions, the poet should express ordinary emotions in new ways. Eliot then goes on to reject Wordsworths theory of poetry that is has its origin in emotions recollected in tranquillity. He believes that the composition of poetry does not require emotion, recollection or tranquillity, but that original poetry results from concentration on experiences. He also argues that this concentration should not be deliberate but passive. Poetry should be an escape from the poet, not a reflection of them. Eliot is not denying the poet personality but is declaring that the impersonality required to create good poetry can only be achieved when the poet surrenders themselves to the poetry they create. In part three of the essay, Eliot concludes that the poet is only capable of surrendering themselves to their work if they have acquired a good sense of tradition. And he is not likely to know what is to be done unless he lives in what is not merely the present, but the present moment of the past, unless he is conscious, not of what is dead, but of what is already living. By this he means that the poet should be conscious not only of their position within the literary cannon of the past but also where they belong in the literature of the present and how their poetry is relevant as a statement of the world in which it is created. The arguments made by Eliot suggest he is of the didactic school of poetic literary theory, believing that poetry should educate as well as entertain. Tradition and the Individual Talent sets out rules to be a great poet. Although he does not go to the extreme of being a neo-Classical critic, his theories do bear some resembalance in that he speaks of the classics being as relevant to poetry now as ever. This suggests that Eliot believes alluding to classical poets can improve the quality of the poetry. While Tradition and the Individual Talent does argue for originality it does so in a way that relies upon literature of the past. This still fits with the understanding of literary modernity as suggested by Ezra Pounds statement Make it new as, rather than making something completely original, Eliot is suggesting you take the traditional and make that new by attributing new meanings to what has been expressed. Eliot does not allow for the expression of new emotions. The arguments Eliot makes for the absence of the individuals experiences within their poetry is limiting the originality and uniqueness of poetry. While Eliot allows for originality in the way in which poets react and respond to the literary and historic tradition, he limits free expression of the self. Whilst the poet often takes influence from the past there should be unlimited freedom for expressing new ideas and emotions relating to the new material and the world in which they live. The ideas expressed in Tradition and the Individual discourages poets who are less well educated and therefore could discourage naturally talented poets from creating truly unique poems. Overall the essay is flawed not in the expression of Eliots arguments but in the rigidity of rules he places on a creative process, which should be free from rules and allowing for complete creative freedom. In Tradition and the Individual Talent, Eliot stated that the most individual parts of [the authors] work may be those in which the dead poetsassert their immortality most vigorously. When placing this alongside his argument that the experienced and mature poets converse with literary tradition in their work, it is hardly surprising that The Waste Land is full of literary allusions. The way Eliot alludes to literary tradition is in itself a source of originality, fitting with his arguments, however, emotions, personality and the personal experience of T.S. Eliot are disguised within The Waste Land. These aspects become clear when studied from a biographical perspective. The Waste Land is often read as an attempt to put the ideas of Tradition and the Individual Talent into practice, but the remaining part of this essay will focus on how Eliot fails to separate his personal experiences from the creative process. The Waste Land was written in 1922 during a period when T. S. Eliot was under orders from his physician to take three months rest. It is generally believed that this was due to a nervous breakdown. As a result of this Eliot was treated for neurasthenia[1] under the care of Dr. Vittoz in Lausanne, Switzerland. Because the majority of The Waste Land was composed during the period of Eliots treatment, the poem can be viewed as representative of Eliots psychological condition and his healing. It is due to this that Eliots emotions and personality are visible in the themes, structure, language and even grammar of the poem. This is something which Tradition and the Individual Talent claims should be absent in the work of a great poet. It is perhaps due to Eliots belief that poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality there have been relatively few critics to study Eliots poetry alongside biographical examinations of the poet. Lyndall Gordon states that the more that is known of Eliots biographical life the clearer it seems that the impersonal faà §ade of his poetry-the multiple faces and voices-masks an often quite literal reworking of personal experience.[2] Eliot claimed that Tiresias is the most important personage in the poem, uniting all the rest it is therefore likely that Tiresias, as the main consciousness of The Waste Land, represents Eliot in his struggle to gain brain control. Tiresias fits Vittozs understanding of the neurasthenic as living very little in the present and his thoughts always turn to the past or the future.[3] Tiresias figured in this sense can be understood as throbbing between two lives (l. 218) where the lives represent the two different aspects of his mind, the conscious and the subjective. Tiresias can be assigned the role of the characterisation of Eliots illness as the positive driving force of inspiration within the poem. Eliot himself wrote on the theory of the impact of illness on art in a positive light: it is a commonplace that some forms of illness are extremely favourable, not only to religious illumination, but to artistic and literary composition.[4] Eliot took a rest break in Margate in October 1921 which proved unsuccessful: On Margate Sands. I can connect Nothing with Nothing. (l. 300-302) This demonstrates the symptom of hopelessness. There are no connections to be found between the speakers thoughts. The conscious and subjective aspects of the mind are unable to communicate with one another. There are multiple references in the poem to blindness, deafness, muteness and difficulties with the sensation of touch. Vittoz has stated that the neurasthenic often looks without seeing and listen[s] without hearing (p. 44). The narrator, whether it is considered to be Tiresias, Eliot or another refers to all of these issues: I could not Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither Living nor dead, and I knew nothing, Looking into the heart of the light, the silence.'(l. 38-41) It is the neurasthenic condition that could be preventing the speaker from connecting emotions to senses which results in further hopelessness. This is followed by a quotation from Tristran and Isolde, Oed und leer das Meer (Desolate and empty the sea) which again furthers the state of despair associated with neurasthenia. Along with the narrator and Tiresias there appears to be another character who, as Vittoz would describe, looks without seeing and listen[s] without hearing: My nerves a bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me. Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak. What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking. Think. (l. 110-113) The reference to nerves in line 110 should be attributed to insomnia, another symptom of neurasthenia. This furthers the argument that Eliots neurasthenia has impacted the poem greatly. Here we also see a lack of control in Eliots writing, he writes the question Why do you never speak without a question mark and the incomplete sentence What thinking? There is a severe lack of control in the poem so any semblance of narrative becomes blurred along with the sense of time, characters and their voices. The poem does seem to progress towards a sense of peace. It is in this way that it can be understood as Eliots process of recovery. In order to progress from this state of confusion Eliot must go through Vittozs therapy in order to reach the point of shantih. Vitozz wrote that several times a day the patient should repeat ideas of calm three times, this can explain the closing line Shantishantishanti (l. 434). In the manuscript version this movement can also be seen from the poem beginning with the horror, the horror to ending with the words still and quiet. In What the Thunder Said the tone of the poem begins to find its direction, or demonstrates the narrator approaching brain control. DA Damyata: The boat responded Gaily, the hand expert with sail and oar The sea was calm, your heart would have responded Gaily, when invited, beating obedient To controlling hands (l. 418-423) At this point in the poem Eliot is approaching a point of recovery. The poem has moved from the uncontrolled nature of neurasthenia to a calmer state of mind thanks to controlling hands. When linked to Vittozs technique of placing his hands on his patients temple in order to feel brain activity this passage is clearly in appreciation of his therapy. He spent time in the mountains recovering the symptoms of insomnia, hopelessness and confusion, In the mountains, there you feel free./I read, much of the night, and go south in winter (l. 17-18). These repeated references to symptoms, treatments and Eliots own experience of recovery certainly suggest neurasthenia is central to The Waste Land. This argument does not dispute the understanding of The Waste Land as a reflection on modern society. T.S. Eliots neurasthenia was a product of the financially focused post World War Britain in which he lived. The Waste Land can be seen as reflective of the sensibility of the time in Britain, struggling between the wars and trying to gain control, the poem could therefore be understood as diagnosing the society in which he lived. Whichever interpretation one believes, The Waste Land was composed as a result of T.S. Eliots mental health problems, whether it be an awareness of neurasthenia in order to diagnose society with or the expression of his internal struggle. This is clear through the fragmented nature of the text. The unannounced changes in speaker, time and location are as a result of Eliots mental state and yet have been studied in great depth without considering the biographical aspects of the context of the poem. The reason for neglecting this way of reading the text is lik ely to be a result of Eliots own arguments in Tradition and the Individual Talent, that The emotion of art is impersonal. The emotion of The Waste Land however is very personal to the poet, T.S. Eliot. [1] The symptoms of neurasthenia were notoriously vague-they included headaches, noises in the ear, bad dreams, insomnia, flushing, and fidgetiness, flying neuralgia, spinal irritation, impotence and hopelessness. Gold, M. K. 2000. The Expert Hand and the Obedient Heart: Dr. Vittoz, TS Eliot, and the Therapeutic Possibilities of The Waste Land. Journal of Modern Literature, 23 (3), pp. 519533. [2]Lyndall Gordon, Eliots Early Years (Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 2. [3] Roger Vittoz, Treatment of Neurasthenia by Means of Brain Control, trans H.B. Brooke (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1921). P. 19. [4] Eliot, T. S. and Kermode, F. 1975. Selected prose of T.S. Eliot. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. pP. 237.

Vonneguts Cats Cradle :: Vonnegut Cats Cradle Essays

Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle Vonnegut deals a lot with fantasy in his book, Cat's Cradle. From the beginning, he talks about the religion that he follows: Bokonism. This is not a real religion, however he has rules, songs, scriptures, and opinions of a person that practices this fantasy religion. Within his description of this religion however is black humor as well. I think that by him making up this whole religion and an entire island of people who follow it, is in a way mocking today's religion and the way that people are dedicated to their beliefs. This Bokonism is basically telling the religious believer that everything that they read or hear is a lie, and that they need to think for themselves. I think one of the greatest parts that shows black humor is on page 77, where Bokonon (like Adam) arrives on land, completely naked, and has a revelation. "A fish pitched up By the angry sea, I gasped on land, And I became me." Also I found it very interesting how it was illegal to practice Bokonism, yet everyone on the island, including Papa practices it. It's almost as if Vonnegut is trying to tell us how other religions are. . . and if any religion is a true and honest religion. I think that Vonnegut also deals a lot with surrealism. I just really thought it was funny how everything in his life sort of just fit together, like it was meant to happen. Like the Bokonon worshipers, they believed that everyone fit in a karass and all followed a similar life plan, rotated in, out, and around each other. For example, I thought that it was so interesting how everyone fit together. Jonah went on a plan to find Frank Hoenikker, and who does he sit next to, but the senator, who is reading a book, written by the man who owns the hotel where Jonah stays, was in love with the woman who Jonah is in love with, who is marrying Frank.

One of the Boys: Homosexuality in the Military during World War II Essay

All over the history of the United States’ military, its handling of sexual minorities such as homosexuals has changed both as popular and medical knowledge regarding homosexuality have changed and as the requirements of the armed forces themselves have altered. According to Paul Jackson (2004) in his book â€Å"One of the Boys: Homosexuality in the Military during World War II†, regulations have more and more shifted away from criminal trial to the release of homosexual military servicemen in reaction to varying opinions among medical professionals regarding the root and true causes of homosexuality. Nevertheless, Jackson (2004) claimed that within an institution that has formally forbidden the service of sexual minorities, particularly homosexuals ever since the 1940s, and the real execution of the ban has varied across branch of services and time, in addition to commanders. Throughout the time of war, rates and levels of dismissal have dropped as manpower requirements have increased as well. Many instances subsist of gay and lesbian military servicemen who have served with the information and consciousness of their commanders and colleagues. Moreover, not merely does a service member’s likelihood or opportunity of being dismissed differ by branch of service, but female military personnel likewise consist of an unequal number of those estranged under the rule. In writing about gay and lesbian history, the historian should decode and interpret the coded phrases that were employed to cover up homosexuality, and I believe that Jackson has done a commendable and marvelous job of this. His book is a thoroughly-researched analysis of homosexuality in the Canadian armed forces for the period of the war years. In writing the book, it is Jackson’s aim to investigate the existence of homosexuality in the military during World War II and to be able to share the result of his study to the readers. I can say that he has achieved these goals because this work has extensively studied the subject and is an outcome of hours of studying police reports, court-martial transcripts, conducting dozens of interviews, and pouring over psychiatric. In writing this book, I can say that Jackson has discovered and exposed a lot of homosexual experiences, and therefore has carried out an important involvement both to the social history and the queer history of the World War II. According to Jackson, throughout the period of World War II, military leaders engaged in extensive debate regarding the practices, rules, and policies connected to homosexuality in the armed forces, and substantial amendment of regulations took place all over the services. Furthermore, World War II needed a mass mobilization not like any formerly observed in the United States’ history. In fact, as asserted by d’Emilio (1998), the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 caused the instant registration of over 16 million men. Meanwhile, Jennings (1994) and the National Defense Research Institute (1993) said that discussions and debate regarding homosexual policies originated both from the prevalent disparity in the treatment of individual cases and the United States government’s dependence on the psychiatric establishment to help in discharging soldiers who were regarded as ineligible or unfit to serve. On authority, as I have previously said, the author presented several ideas about the subject by means of employing a wide array of sources such as personnel and psychiatric files, long-closed court martial records, oral histories, films, and unit war diaries. Jackson was able to consistently present his findings and views as he relates the struggle and hardships of queer military servicemen of all branches and ranks of the Canadian military to blend in and integrate and prevent losing their reputations and careers. According to Jackson, homosexual men were frequently well-liked and accepted within their units. However, if charged of homosexual behavior, they were asked to undergo psychiatric tests, prison terms, courts-martial proceedings, and finally dishonorable and shameful discharges. I think that Jackson’s ideas are credible and the findings and information are clearly presented. On perspective, I believe that Jackson’s work is not tainted by a clear bias that ignores or understates evidence and thus not favor one perspective alone. Moreover, the book imparts statements with adequate evidentiary support. Meanwhile, regarding the content of the book, when you read the book, it seems as if it is two books merged into one: on the one hand, it is a social history, and on the other hand, it is a policy analysis. The first three chapters of the book discuss how the institutions of the Canadian military tried to control homosexuality. In Chapter 1, Jackson examines the somewhat baffled efforts of the military to describe and delineate its policy regarding homosexuality. Next, Chapter 2 looks at the court martial proceedings of those military servicemen accused of homosexuality-related legal wrongdoings. Then, Chapter 3 of the book illustrates how military psychiatrists attempted to stress and affirm their authority and power over homosexuality as a medical concern. The last two chapters seemed to be a methodical reading of their respective principal sources, which are psychiatric examinations and court martial transcripts. I believe that Jackson analytically transports the reader through the a variety of stages of the psychiatric evaluation and court martial processes, giving personalized and detailed descriptions of how these two branches of the military coped with the concern of homosexuality, the first as a medical concern and the second as a moral and legal one. This difference between approved and formal military rule denouncing homosexuality and the usual acceptance of homosexual behavior is revealed in the first chapter of Jackson’s book, which looks at the a variety of aspects of the military’s rule on homosexuality as created by the military police, the National Film Board, the RCAF, and the medical services. The general organization of the first chapter of the book portrays a somewhat inconsistent and disorganized methodology in dealing with homosexuality in the Canadian military, which included cruel and brutal investigations on the one hand, and customary denials on the other hand. Moreover, Chapter 1 highlights entertainingly in the author’s ironic so-called â€Å"Routine Order† on homosexuality, wherein he explains the de facto military rule on homosexuality, without an official and formal rule. According to Jackson, the de facto military rule was to disregard or renounce homosexual behavior except if the person behind it was an eccentric or nonconformist or else has a behavioral problem. The de facto rule says that any punishment must be manageable or light for military men in combat units, and heavy and grave for noncombatants, except if they were popular and accepted. Persistently, the author thinks that the Canadian military attempted to disregard homosexuality except if the persons were difficult to handle or were showing their sexuality. Jackson says that this implicit rule originated from the 1940s concept or notion of sexuality, which states that every soldier was supposed or assumed to be male, heterosexual, and masculine, and in the absence of tremendous proof or confirmation to the contrary, would be considered as such. Meanwhile, the second half of the book is mainly a social history of homosexuality in the armed forces in the period of World War II. The book’s Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the experiences of queer and odd military servicemen in Canada and abroad; while chapter 6 inspects the effect of homosexuality on the military’s morale, cohesion, and esprit de corps. Personally, I think that these chapters of Jackson’s book depended mainly on war diaries and oral histories as well as the sources utilized for the previous chapters, and illustrate clear pictures of the experiences of queer military servicemen during wartime. Definitely, I think that these sections of the book evoke Desmond Morton’s outstanding work regarding the experience of Canadian military servicemen during World War I. By means of utilizing the personal reminiscences of various veterans, a number of whom are explicitly homosexual, whereas others are married and already have grandchildren, the author investigates the numerous aspects of the homosexual encounters and experiences that happened during the war, the stories and accounts of coming to consciousness of a different sexual orientation and behavior, the conflicting responses to these encounters, and the truthful account of brief sexual frolics in London hotel rooms for common enjoyment. Personally, I think that of specific concern in these parts in the book is Jackson’s portrayal of the open sexuality in England during wartime that would surely be interesting for British historians. In his book, Jackson exposes the label that homosexuality in the military was simply the result of an all-male situation, or that these experiences constantly concerned a blend of a masculine top and feminine â€Å"queen. † Despite the fact that this was the conventional representation and impression of homosexuality during the war, it was far from being its lone sign or even the prevalent one. Based on the investigations of Jackson, he found out that it is apparent that there was a stern unwillingness or reluctance on the part of authorities to dismiss homosexuals from military service. Jackson discovered that courts martial were mainly employed to discourage homosexual activity, but hardly ever led to the dismissal of noncommissioned military servicemen. Generally, the serviceman would be condemned and punished to serve time in a detention center, after which he would be permitted to go back to service. Meanwhile, military officers were more possible to be dismissed if they are found guilty, but were on the other hand much less possible to be sentenced. Jackson asserts that the motive or explanation here agrees with the explanation as to why psychiatrists were extremely hesitant, compared with the courts martial, to proclaim that a military officer or serviceman was homosexual. Furthermore, Jackson suggests that the medical archetype of homosexuality structured a homosexual as an antisocial, degenerate person a point of view revealed in the moral norms of the court martial officers. Nevertheless, it was difficult to resolve this idea with the healthy, productive military men who stood under inspection and scrutiny; thus, a lot of these men were set free, particularly when they had colleagues ready to guarantee for their good character. Regarding the effect of homosexuality on the military’s morale, esprit de corps, and unit cohesion, the author not astonishingly discovered that in recognized units a court martial of a charged military serviceman was more often than not more destructive to morale than the homosexual military man himself. Jackson said that frequently these men were well liked and well incorporated, and their fellow military servicemen hesitant to bear witness against them. Furthermore, the concern about sexuality was more difficult in training camps, when bonds had not yet been established. Nevertheless, Jackson also said that sexuality was not any greater an obstacle than a person’s behavior, ethnicity, race, or a lack of physical ability, all of which caused challenges to building unit cohesion throughout this period. In the meantime, I believe that a remarkable amount of research and study was obviously done in completing Jackson’s book, and I would be negligent and thoughtless if I will not talk about the visual part or element of his book. I think that the author portrays a remarkable and extraordinary array of war art, as well as several masterpieces by gay war artists that demonstrate facets or characteristics of homosexuality and the homosocial ties or connection that were established during the period of the war. A lot of these works or creations show and exemplify same-sex emotional connections and homoeroticism in the military more noticeably and openly than a chapter of text can illustrate. Together with imagery and descriptions from photos of young soldiers, stills from NFB films, and drag shows together, these pictures and examples add a rich and remarkable visual component or facet to the text. Meanwhile, Jackson said that the ban of the service of sexual minorities ever since the 1940s has not caused their discharge from the U. S. military. A lot of service members are not aware that they are homosexual when they enlist; while others do not regard themselves as homosexual, although their actions fits the military’s stringent definition. A number of these military servicemen who do recognize as sexual minorities join anyhow since they would like to serve their nation or as a consequence of the job prospects the military offers. The majority of these military servicemen work in virtual silence, informing just other gay and lesbian service members or a small number of trusted heterosexual contemporaries. Then as Sobel et al. 2000) and Berube (1990) said, despite the fact that military inquiries have led to the discharges of more than 100,000 service members since the 1940s, experts have the same opinion that a lot more have worked without being discharged. Moreover, as societal outlooks toward homosexuality have generally turned out to be more open-minded, there has been growing evidence and confirmation of acceptance among several heterosexual military personnel also. Nevertheless, the authorized and certified policy mandates removal of all recognized homosexual military servicemen, notwithstanding conduct and irrespective of their record. Even those personnel members who undergo acceptance from their contemporaries stay to be in danger that a change in command, an unanswered advance, or the antagonism of one person could bring about the end of their military careers. In the book, Jackson (2004) said that in 1943, new Navy regulations focused on homosexuals instead of sodomist. In addition, the National Defense Research Institute (1993) said that criminal penalties for sodomy were not, nevertheless, in fact removed. Those who engaged in same-sex sexual behavior were either to be administratively discharged or allowed to resign, unless their behavior was violent or involved a minor. Berube (1990) claimed that the Navy directive likewise noted that the policy applied to the Women’s Reserve also. Under Army policies, those who were not â€Å"confirmed perverts† and who were viewed to have a salvage value were to be returned to duty following proper disciplinary action. Then, by the year 1944, the medicalization of homosexuality was finished. Berube (1990) also asserted that the Army circular widened the category of offenders who may possibly be reclaimed from those who had gone off track to the true or confirmed homosexuals whose cases practically point to the likelihood of reclamation. In addition, the Navy’s 1944 circular introduced for the first time in that military branch the idea of those who have homosexual tendencies and stated that even if no sexual contact in fact took place, those with homosexual tendencies were to be recognized and prohibited from serving in the military or dismissed upon discovery (National Research Defense Institute, 1993). Personally, I believe that the reader should likewise praise Jackson for his utilization of explicit and frank language in explaining and illustrating homosexuality in the period of World War II. I personally think that not merely does this suggest or reveal the real language employed in the records Jackson discovered, but it is suitable or proper to the sexually-charged work he is discussing and doing. Moreover, I also think that the author conveys the story and information about the subject with enough wit and candor. Therefore, I am awed that Jackson managed to obtain the subtitle for his segment on inter-rank relationships, entitled â€Å"Officers and their Privates† past his editor. All in all, I extol Jackson for his interesting and frequently intimate story and description of the experiences and experiences of homosexual military servicemen that will be interesting to both a general and academic readers.

Confirmation Letter Essay

The reason why i am seeking the rite of confirmation is because i have followed the catholic religion all of my life and want to be part of the catholic religion for the rest of my life. i would like to raise my children and family as catholics. I believe in jesus christ and all the teachings of the bible. I have been baptized, i’ve had my first communion and its only natural that i would take the next step to be confirmed. im looking forward to being seen as an adult in the eyes of the catholic church. I will attend church masses on a regular bases. Another reason why i want to be confirmed is because its one of the seven sacrements. Sacrements are signs of God’s life and love. Confirmation is the sign that gods holy spirit will love you and always be with you. The sacrement of confirmation is the strength to be faithful to gods will, to be a strong and perfect catholic. Confirmation is a stage in catholic religion after Baptism, and is completed in the reception of the holy eucharist in communion. One last reason why i would like to get confirmed is to recieve the holy spirit and you become more responsible. When you recieve the holy spirit you are recieving God and it will help you make decisions and it will comfort you and strengthen you. Getting confirmed will also make you become more responsible because if you say you want to be confirmed then you are responsible for coming to church each week, praying more and acting more like jesus.