Of Mice and Men Assignment Essay Example for Free

Of Mice and Men Assignment Essay Q. With reference to chapter four, what do you learn about prejudice and injustice in 1930s America? Of Mice and Men was set around the 1930s in California, America; where at the time of this classic novel was located. The New York Wall Street stock market had hit an all time low which led to and helped contribute to The Great Depression. Unemployment had hit and harsh poverty too had meant that migrant workers travelled to California in search of work. As the paragraph continues, we learn that the living conditions and working conditions were very poor. Workers couldnt do their jobs properly and were always worried about being canned as they say. Living conditions werent very good either; the ranches were very dirty, compact etc. I believe that Steinbeck wrote this novel because of his past experiences. He was a labourer, he worked very hard, the characters in this book can relate to Steinbeck himself, he wanted to express his views for everyone to see. Also, you can really tell that in Steinbecks opinion he is in favour of the workers in this novel. He being a labourer sways his views as in favour of the workers; you can tell he really thought The Great Depression was an awful experience to be involved in. When you see what his characters are saying, they reveal his feelings and thoughts, give good and bad memories, only inside a book. As we are in chapter four, we learn many things about some of the main characters. At the very beginning, we learn about the relationship of some of the characters with each other. The scene is set in Crooks room, many of the men have gone to the cathouse which is basically a whore house; most of the men have gone but Crooks, Lennie, Candy and Curleys wife have not gone. The most probable reason for this is due to the fact that Crooks, is a black stable buck and also an outsider, Lennie was told not to go by George, Candy is a very old man and Curleys wife is a woman. Even though Lennie doesnt really understand, he stumbles across Crooks room and decides to go in. Lennie really sets this chapter alight; he breaks off the divide between black and white and wants to make friends with Crooks: Lennie smiled helplessly in an attempt to make friends. Despite not knowing he is doing it, he is helping out a divide of people and bringing it together. He is such an interesting character but he wouldnt really know that he is so different to the other characters. Noiselessly Lennie appeared in the open doorway and stood there looking in no one else in the bunkhouse would have had the guts to enter Crookss room although Lennie didnt really know he wasnt supposed to. Lennie does quite the opposite to the others, which makes him so astonishing. A major part in this chapter shows how the other characters act when he is around. His actions and works influence others to bring back memories of their childhoods and really open up to him. kI was born right here in California. My old man had a chicken ranch is one example of Crooks opening up to Lennie as he would do to no other person. The characters relax more with Lennie in reflection of this chapter. One more interesting thing in this section of the book is the way Lennie is and is not affected by prejudice and injustice. At one part, he is affected by prejudice and injustice as he witnesses it happening and is picked on by others; Listen Nigger, you know what I can do to you if you open your trap? This shows prejudice and injustice around him towards Crooks. On the other hand, he is not affected by it as he has George to protect him from it and also doesnt really understand what it is. A vast part of prejudice and injustice in his book is the way Crooks is treated. Crooks is a middle aged black man who has had to work hard all of his life. Sadly, his role on the ranch is an unfortunate one. He is not allowed in the bunkhouse at all, or play games with the other members or be with them at certain times. He lives way out of the way of everyone else in a small room and spends most of his time there. This really shows how black men were treated in this period of time. Luckily, Crooks is not treated as badly as he could have been. He has an education and can read and write which can and also cannot help him at times. For instance, he can understand what others are saying about him, which is not very good. They dont like him because of the colour of his skin. Listen Nigger. This shows the colour of his skin being used against him by Curleys wife. As Lennie enters the room, Crooks does not really want him to come in, You got no right to come into my room. Soon after, they get into conversation and are soon talking normally after opening up to each other like friends would. When Candy enters, he tells him he might as well come in as everyone else is. Soon, he joins in conversation too. Not until Curleys wife enters though, do we see a change in Crooks. He doesnt have any power over anyone in the ranch and soon goes back into his shell. Women were not treated well either, of course, but Curleys wife could say or do whatever she wanted to a black man, including Crooks. You know what I can do to you if you open your trap? This shows Curleys wife overpowering Crooks and unfortunately Crooks cannot do anything about it. With Crooks being educated and able to read, he has set himself real goals. He has learned how to cope with the bullying and racism and knows what to do. By not setting his goals too high, he does not expect anything too good, therefore does not mean he is too sad about what happens to him through his lie. Another person who plays a part in giving and experiencing racism is Curleys wife. She has certain powers compared to other women yet is still treated badly like other women. We learn that with women along with black people, had less power and were discriminated badly; therefore this shows that Curleys wife situation was similar to most other women, they were not respected and were treated badly. The men do not really like her in reflection, the likes of George, Crooks etc. dont really warm to her at any time. Her reaction to this is to snap at Crooks in this particular part of the book, she cannot take her anger out at anyone as she does not really have the power to apart from Crooks, so she bullies Crooks in this part, Well, you keep your place then, Nigger. I can get you strung up on a tree so easy it aint even funny. Curleys wife enters Crooks room with auction, she asks a question to which she knows the answer to, so she can join them, Any you boys seen Curley? shows this. In this chapter, we have to feel a bit sorry for her. We see how lonely she is at this time and since she is not allowed to be with anyone else, she cannot help herself looking for companionship. The reason behind her being so bitter about her life is simple; nothing has ever really gone right for her. By marrying Curley it has not helped her at all and she really thought she would make it as a Hollywood star, however, this did not turn out to be the life that she wanted, Think Im gonna lead with his left twice and then bring in the ol right cross? This piece shows her loneliness and her trouble which leads on to when she is told she is not wanted by the guys, she tells of her sadness and also decides to take it out on Crooks to help herself, it shows a similarity with Crooks, deprived of her rights and very lonely. Finally, the last person in this chapter to experience injustice and prejudice is Candy. A very old man, he was a typical old man who was not well liked, lonely and had a poor time of living with a bad job too. Candy, like most old men back then had a big worry of being canned as he was not really needed. There was no pension schemes or benefits, he would have had no where to go and would have probably just died. I planted crops for dam near everybody in this state, but they wasnt my crops, and when I harvested them, it wasnt none of my harvest. This shows Candy has worked very hard but does not have much and is not appreciated. The dream to have a place with George and Lennie means so much to him as if it does not happen, he will be eventually canned and have nowhere to go, You god dam right were gonna do it. This shows passion for the dream ranch. In truth, Candy is very similar to the dog he had. He, like the was old, not wanted and not of much use. This is very significant as you can see how much he was appreciated by everyone; not at all. In conclusion, we learn so much about life in the 1930s in America. We have four different accounts of people being treated unfairly and having injustice upon them. Lennie, Crooks, Curleys wife and Crooks all experience racism in some way. Lennie is abused for being quite clumsy and slow as well as being big, Crooks was racially abused for being old and black, Curleys wife is not liked because she is a woman and Candy is abused for being an old man. As you can see, there is not ethnic minority groups that escaped being abused; 1930s America was a racist and prejudice place to be. The writer Steinbeck is really sending a strong message out to the readers here. He tries to tell us all about how life could be if you were in a minority group. He repeats certain phrases and words to show enthusiasm of how bad it really was. All of his characters have strong points of view towards one another and really act as if they were real people. Basically, John Steinbeck shows that racism and injustice were strong in the 1930s and whoever you were, you could not really avoid it. Steinbeck gets this message across very well to the readers, by showing the characters different attitudes towards each other; most of the time there were not very pleasant. Whether you were black or white, male, female, disabled or anything else, you had a very good chance of either giving or being racially abused in America in the 1930s.

Vietnam: A History :: essays research papers

Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Vietnam War, to me, is the most interesting war in American history. As someone once said, it is like a â€Å"shroud of a mystery, wrapped inside an enigma.† Before reading this book I had a general knowledge of the war. I knew about the communist insurgents, the Gulf of Tonkin, Saigon and Ho Chi Mihn. I knew about Presidents Johnson and Nixon, posttraumatic stress disorder and demonstrations. What I did not fully understand was why. Why were the North Vietnamese so resilient? Why did the US make such poor judgment? Why were we really there? What was Vietnam’s history prior to our arrival?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"History is an organic process, a continuity of related events, inexorable yet not inevitable.† (pg 11) The roots of America’s involvement in Vietnam were nurtured by what Professor Daniel Bell has called America’s concept of its own â€Å"exceptionalism.† George Berkeley, an Anglican bishop and philosopher stated in 1726 as he departed from England to America, â€Å"Westward the course of empire.† The phrase, ‘manifest destiny,’ was coined in 1845 to promote the annexation of Texas, originally, and to extend America to its natural boundaries. Promoters of the Homestead Act sought to open new territory for small farmers.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Idealists such as Walt Whitman intended to project America’s â€Å"happiness and liberty† to the ancient cultures of Asia, â€Å"facing west from California’s shores, inquiring, tireless, seeking what is yet unfound†¦the land of migrations, look afar†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Around the turn of the century, America did grab Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines, but it seemed that America kept a hands off approach with Asia, which the Europeans already had their hands on. There was little inclination for America to dominate foreign territories, since Americans were former British Colonial rebels. So Cuba was granted independence, and bids by Haiti and San Domingo to become American dominions were rejected. America, unlike Europe, refrained from plundering China, however, the ‘pacification’ program in the Philippines foreshadowed US strategy in Vietnam. America’s expansionism was almost evangelical, â€Å"as if the United States had been singled out by some divinity for the salvation of the planet.† (pg13) After World War II, FDR stressed that international post-war peace and stability would depend on America’s global leadership, and Woodrow Wilson pledged to â€Å"make the world safe for democracy.† Meanwhile, American missionaries began pouring into China. Many prominent Americans envisioned a Christian China with crosses on every hill and valley.

Michelle v Canconcert

Since Michelle suffers from depression, a recognized psychiatric illness, and does not suffer any physical injury, this is a case of duty of care (DOC) under Mental Harm (MM), as provided in sis CLAW. Circumstantial factors will be used to answer the reasonable verifiability question. From the facts, ‘sudden shock can be established as Michelle was in the midst of buying water when she was suddenly shocked by the bang and screams. Determination of DOC then falls upon sis(2)(b). The contentious issue is whether hearing the accident and its aftermath constituted Witnessing.A similar (but not identical) statutory interpretation issue arose in Wicks/ Sheehan, and the courts took a broad interpretation of the statute. Following this trend in interpretation, the concept of Witnessing should therefore not be limited to sense of ‘sight' alone, as it is reasonable in such circumstances for one to be affected psychotically by sounds. By referring to provisions in sis(1)(c) CLAW, it can be further inferred that in general, statute intends for witnessing to encompass both concepts of ‘sight' or ‘sound' for MM.It was reasonably foreseeable that Michelle could suffer MM under sis(2)(b) as she dinettes Ben being injured and put in danger. The fact that Ben's leg was broken due to the collapsed seating area shows that he was injured and being put in danger, and is still continually injured and being put in danger till Ben receives medical assistance. Therefore in considering those factors, it was reasonable for Michelle to suffer MM. DOC is established. Breach: The facts indicate that Concerted had been careless and caused the seating area to collapse.Since Consonance's conduct was negligent, there is breach of duty. Causation: In establishing necessary condition, the ‘but for' test is satisfied by showing that the incident had a profound effect on Michelle, resulting in depression. This satisfies factual causation. No scope of liability (SOL) iss ues as Michelle MM is direct result of the collapse seating area. Michelle depression is the kind of harm that is reasonably foreseeable due to Consonance's admitted negligence for the incident. Defenses: No defense available, thus Concerted fully liable for negligence.Fauna v Concerted Pity Ltd Since Fauna suffers from a depressive episode, a recognized psychiatric illness, and does not suffer any physical injury, this is a case of DOC under MM, as provided in sis CLAW. From the facts, ‘sudden shock can be established as Fauna received sudden tragic news about the concert. Given her close relationship to Ben, it is reasonably foreseeable that she will suffer from nervous shock. Fauna satisfies the provision in sis CLAW as she is Ben's mother, hence satisfying both sis(2)(c) and CLAW.It was established that Concerted admit liability in the tort of negligence concerning Ben's injuries. In pursuant to sis(1)(a) of CLAW, Consonance's liability should also extend to Fauna, as she is a parent of Ben and a family member of Ben. Fauna would have legal remedy in the tort of MM. Ben v Lisa As Alias's conduct was a clear positive act causing further injury, this is a non- problematic case. Existence of DOC depends on reasonable verifiability of class of plaintiffs. By subsuming Ben under a broad class of plaintiffs – ‘persons receiving aid' – the requirement of verifiability is easily fulfilled.Thus, it was reasonably foreseeable that Ben would suffer subsequent injury if Lisa failed to take reasonable care while rendering Ben aid. Hence, DOC is established, and Lisa is liable in relation to positive acts. Alias's act of treating Ben with poison was negligent. Since the possibility of carelessly rather injuring Ben by treating the wound with poison is not far-fetched or fanciful, verifiability exists. The significance of further injuring someone is also a substantial risk.In considering the reasonableness of possible precautions, the issue of s ocial utility may be raised to Justify the lack of taking precautions to avoid these risks. Yet, the likely conclusion is that Alias's act of treating Ben's wound with poison, which created a serious risk of harm, was not warranted, as Lisa has the option of taking precaution by checking if the bottle was in fact antiseptic liquid or poison. It as been established that even when acting for social benefit, the standard of care is higher for professional defendant, and carelessly treating a wound with poison constitutes negligence.In balancing the risk against the end, the risk that Lisa took when she treated Ben's wound with poison was not Justified as Lisa has work experience from SST John's ambulance, hence Lisa should exercise a higher degree of caution when treating Ben's wound. In those circumstances, a reasonable man would have taken precautions to prevent foreseeable risk. Therefore, Lisa was negligent and this constitutes breach. There are no contentious issues in satisfying necessary condition here. ‘But for' Alias's not have sustained further injury.Pursuant to sis(1)(b) CLAW, we need to consider whether it is appropriate to extend the defendant's SOL to the harm. Alias's act of negligence directly caused Ben further injury when she treated him with poison instead of antiseptic. Sustaining further injury is the kind of harm that is a reasonably foreseeable result of being treated with poison, as it is not far-fetched or fanciful, indicating Ben's injury. However, Lisa might argue that ‘but for' her negligence, Ben was still injured by Christopher gelignite.The manner of harm was a foreseeable result of Ben's injury as it is appropriate to hold Lisa responsible for the entire course of injury, even if Ben has sustained prior injury from Christopher negligence. Thus, Lisa has fulfilled the kind of harm and manner of harm test as Ben's injury was reasonably foreseeable due to Alias's negligent act. Lisa will try to seek protection from liabil ity under so CLAW. Lisa fits the definition of â€Å"Good Samaritan† as she goes to Ben's aid without expecting payment. However, to successfully use this defense, Lisa must prove that her act of assisting Ben was done oneself, and without recklessness.There is nothing on the facts to suggest dishonesty, but her act of treating Ben's wound with poison could possibly constitute recklessness. Ultimately, this should be decided by courts subjectively based on her circumstances, and if the defense applies, Lisa will not be liable for negligence. Darryl v Sarah Sarah owes a DOC to Darryl as an occupier of land because Darryl is an invitee to Sarah's property, making him a lawful entrant. Occupier-entrant relationship is an established duty category, thus the existence of DOC presents no challenge.Since it s reasonably foreseeable that visitors coming onto Sarah's land would suffer some kind of harm if Sarah failed to take reasonable care, Sarah owes Darryl an obvious Donahue type DOC. The issue is whether Sarah's omission to warn is part of DOC. An existing duty to act has to be established for omissions to constitute negligence. Sarah's requisite duty to act arises from Occupier's liability in ACT legislation – sass CLAW. Similar to Azalea, Sarah has a general duty as an occupier to act positively to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to entrants, in the circumstances.The DOC therefore clearly affords Sarah liability for omissions. Using sis CLAW, the breach enquiry examines Sarah's particular conduct to ascertain, as a question of fact, if Sarah has breached DOC. If Sarah's behavior is not reasonable, breach is established. Three potential breaches: 1) Sarah's failure to warn (by erecting a warning sign) is the most likely omission to constitute breach. 2) Failure to patch the gully, or to engage in physical impracticality of such precautions. 3) Failure to fence the gully is unreasonable as the gully is not a latent danger.The gully, in these circumstances, could not cause harm to anyone without the person actively ‘Jumping over it, and it requires a fence all around, not Just at the particular area where accident occurred. Since the reasonableness of second and third precautions is uncertain and highly dependent on nature of gully, by common sense the first precaution (to warn) seems the most practicable. Similar to Wong, a contextual and balance assessment would establish that putting up a warning sign constitutes a reasonable and effective response to the foreseeable risk in this instance.In deciding the nature of required warning, obviousness of risk is a factor to insider. There is no breach when obviousness of risk makes it reasonable for defendant not to respond to the risk of injury. This usually relates to omissions to warn. With reference to the facts, a reasonable person would have warned the entrant about the â€Å"rugged† nature of the premises, and the gravity and likelihood of Dairy's probable injury if he were to engage in outdoor activity with Sarah's motorbike. In this context, Sarah was required to take reasonable care by warning of this obvious danger.From the facts, Sarah was negligent by failing to put up warning signs about the possible danger arising from the gully. Breach is established. There are two requirements for causation in sis CLAW. Firstly, negligence has to be a necessary condition of harm. Similar to Ideals Palace, there is no evidence to find that Sarah's omission to warn, was a necessary condition of Dairy's harm. The ‘but for' test, functioning as a negative criterion of causation, fails here, as it is unreasonable to assume that Darryl would not have â€Å"Jumped† over the gully if Sarah had not been negligent in warning him.Simply showing the possibility of different consequences in the absence of defendant's negligent omission cannot satisfy actual causation. Darryl must therefore establish on the balance of probab ilities that he would have responded to the warning in such a way as to avoid the danger. Given Dairy's thrill seeking nature, he would still have attempted to â€Å"Jump† over the gully with Sarah's motorbike. Therefore, Sarah's negligence in warning would not be found to be a necessary condition. The defendant's SOL to the harm.In this instance the kind of harm was not foreseeable as it would be far-fetched or fanciful to assume that Darryl would not have attempted to Jump over the gully even if Sarah did not breach the failure to warn. Manner of harm is not in contention, as Dairy's injury satisfies the manner of harm test in Wagon Mound – Dairy's injury, is exactly the manner of harm that Sarah had reasonable foreseen. Since Alfred admitted liability under negligence, he owes damages. Calculation of Damages: Compensatory damages are divided into pecuniary, and non-pecuniary damages.Pecuniary: 1) Derived-from-John's-loss-of-earning-capacity. John-is-entitled-to-reco ver-for-any diminution-in-capacity-to-earn. Since-he-is-still-able-to-work-after-accident, but in a- lower-paying-job, he-will-be-compensated-for-the-net-loss-in-prospective-earning opacity according-to-provisions-of sis CLAW. This-is-calculated-by-finding-the average-income-of-a-top-Rugby-League-player, since he was already a first grade Rugby-player-with the-Canberra-cavalry, and has-not-made-it-to-the-top yet. From that sum, deduct-his-predicted-earning-capacity-after-accident.Further-deduct-costs that-John-have-had-to-have-incurred-in-earning-the-income. 2) Compensation in claim for medical treatment expenses. As long as John has paid for past medical treatment, relating to relevant injury, he can claim the costs. John will also be compensated for subsequent, long-term medical care, even though they ere provided free of charge by Elena. Even though Elena personally provided the medical care, principle in Australia is such that John will still receive compensation for gratuitous services provided. Damages for this will be calculated based on reasonable and commercial costs of providing the care. ) Discounts are considered because a sum of money is given for future pecuniary loss. Discounts for all future economic loss. It is usually 3% in all cases for ACT. Next, discounts-for-vicissitudes-of-life-usually-applied-to-future earning capacity only, and starts with 15% but varies circumstantially. ) Collateral-benefits-does-not-apply, as the intention with-which-the-monetary benefits-from-his- â€Å"mates† was to-assist-John-in-bill-payments, and-not-reduce-the liability of Alfred. Non-pecuniary: 1) Compensation for loss of amenities (enjoyment of life) is set out in sis CLAW.It is likely that John will be compensated here as John has to give up his Rugby career and his pastime of waterier. 2) No compensation for pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life as no evidence in facts to suggest otherwise. Ben v Alex Vicarious Liability: Since Ben is u nable to sue Christopher, Ben might claim damages from Alex under legislation between Alex and Christopher. From Hollies/Stevens, it is necessary that an employer-employee relationship be established between Alex and Christopher for Alex to be vicariously liable.The case involves an independent method for distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor (C). From the facts, Christopher has specific skills as a builder who is able to make an independent career to generate ‘goodwill' given his reputation for having good workmanship. Alex had little control over the manner of how Christopher performs his work as Christopher has flexible working hours. Alex id not superintend Christopher finances, as Christopher was paid a fixed sum of money. Christopher also undertook the provisions of insurance and deducted taxes himself, and provided for his own leave arrangements.

Hamlet s Sanity Is A Subject Of Much Debate - 1632 Words

The question of Hamlet’s sanity has been a subject of much debate. As Stephan Greenblatt states in his observations about Hamlet in his essay â€Å"Hamlet†: â€Å"Is Hamlet’s madness feigned or true, a strategy masquerading as reality or a reality masquerading as a strategy?† (1181). While Greenblatt lays out two possible courses, could there be a third option in this scenario? â€Å"†¦ Hamlet cleverly uses madness as a cover under which he will determine the truth of the Ghost’s story before accepting the self-damning course of revenge† (Evans, 6). While Evans’ explanation can be seen as an argument that Hamlet is â€Å"acting† the part, could this observation also be used to imply that Hamlet knows the end result of his actions? Has Shakespeare set Hamlet†¦show more content†¦Over the relatively short time line of the story Shakespeare shows Hamlet internally direct this melancholy towards a warring state of res olve, yet with confusion about how things have gotten to this surreal point, â€Å"I have of late, but wherefore I/ know not, lost all my mirth / †¦ / and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition†(2.2.257,258,259) The reality of the situation overwhelms Hamlet, Shakespeare alludes to this in Hamlet’s references to bad dreams while speaking with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, â€Å"†¦ were it not that I have bad dreams. / †¦ / A dream itself is but a shadow† (2.2.231.16, 231.21). Not only does this appear to be alluding to the situation of his father’s death, his mother’s marrying his uncle, and his father’s ghost crying out for revenge, but here, is a hint of foreshadowing of his descent. Life is a whirlpool of events with the only foreseeable path out of it is toward revenge. It is this that has Hamlet questioning life itself: To be or not to be: that is the question, Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to takes arms against a sea of troubles And by opposing end them. To die †¦ (3.1.55-59) Ultimately, it is looking at the patterns within the text that gives clues to the true state of Hamlet’s sanity. It is his interactions with others within the play that is telling. Like a Greek actor, he puts