Colonialism in Ireland and Australia

Colonialism in Ireland and Australia A CRITICAL COMPARISON OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHIES OF COLONIALISM IN IRELAND AND AUSTRALIA Table of Contents (Jump to) Introduction Background Historical Geography Colonialism Post-Colonialism and Said’s ‘Orientalism’ Similarities between Australia and Ireland Differences between Australia and Ireland The notion of ‘discovery’ Conclusion Works Cited Introduction This essay will compare the historical geographies of colonialism in Ireland and Australia. First, it defines what we mean by ‘historical geography’ as this is fundamental to how this analysis will be made. Second, it discusses what we mean by colonization and why it plays such a central role in historical geography. Third, it discusses the work of Edward Said, and in particular Orientalism. It compares and contrasts the colonial experiences of Australia and Ireland within this context. Fourth, it explores the notions of ‘exploration’ and ‘conquering’ using early maps of Australia and Ireland. Ireland and Australia are both post-colonial nations and there is a multitude of similarities in their historical geographies. Yet Ireland and Australia were fundamentally different places in the pre-colonialism era and remain so in the era of post-colonialism. This essay will compare and contrast the similarities and differences of their colonial histories. Background Historical Geography For the purposes of this essay, ‘historical geography’ is defined as a division of geography that concerns itself with â€Å"how cultural features of the multifarious societies across the planet evolved and came into being† (Wikipedia, 2006b). The discipline has traditionally considered the â€Å"spatial- and place- focused orientation of geography, contrasting and combining the spatial interests of geography with the temporal interests of history, creating a field concerned with changing spatial patterns and landscapes† (Guelke, 1997: 191). As Donald Meinig, one of the most influential American historical geographers once stated: â€Å"I have long insisted that by their very nature geography and history are analogous and interdependent fields† (1989: 79). Colonialism Any discussion of colonialism also requires a definition of what we mean by the term. Colonialism is one of the most important features of ‘modern’ history and, some might argue, the undertaking that led to the birth of ‘geography’ in the first place. To define colonialism we must first define two other key terms in history: empire and imperialism. The historian Michael Doyle defines empire as â€Å"a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society. It can be achieved by force, by political collaboration, economic, social, or cultural dependence† (in Said, 1993). Imperialism is broadly the practice, the theory and the way of thinking of a dominating centre that controls a far-off land (Said, 1993); as Doyle states, â€Å"imperialism is simply the process or policy of establishing or maintaining empire† (in Said, 1993). Within this context, colonialism can be defined as the â€Å"implanting of settlements on distant territory† and is virtually always a result of imperialism (Said, 1993). To analyse and contrast colonial experience, as well as to understand why colonialism figures so prominently in the discourse of historical geography, one must try to understand the sheer scale of colonial expansion. As Said (1993: 1) explains: Western power allowed the imperial and metropolitan centres at the end of the nineteenth century to acquire and accumulate territory and subjects on a truly astonishing scale. Consider that in 1800, Western powers claimed fifty-five percent, but actually held approximately thirty-five percent, of the earth’s surface. But by 1878, the percentage was sixty-seven percent of the world held by Western powers, which is a rate of increase of 83,000 square miles per year. By 1914, the annual rate by which the Western empires acquired territory has risen to an astonishing 247,000 square miles per year. And Europe held a grand total of roughly eighty-five percent of the earth as colonies, protectorates, dependencies, dominions and Commonwealth †¦ No other associated set of colonies in history were as large, none so totally dominated, none so unequal in power to the Western metropolis†¦ The scale of British colonialism in 1897 is visible in Map 1, marked in pink. Map 1. The British Empire Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire Map 2 shows all territories ruled by the British Empire (1762-1984) and England (1066-1707) – Ireland and Australia are coloured orange to signify that they were ‘Dominions’ of the British Empire. Map 2. All territories ruled by England and the British Empire Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire Post-Colonialism and Said’s ‘Orientalism’ One of the most influential texts on post-colonialism discourse is undoubtedly Edward Said’s book Orientalism, originally published in 1978. ‘Orientalism’ is, in essence, the ‘study of Near and Far Eastern societies and cultures by Westerners’ (Wikipedia, 2006c). Since the publication of Said’s book, the term became (rightly) laden with negative connotations; Said’s book was at heart a critique of Orientalism as â€Å"fundamentally a political doctrine that willed over the Orient because the Orient was weaker than the West, which elided the Orient’s difference with its weakness†¦As a cultural apparatus Orientalism is all aggression, activity, judgment, will-to-truth, and knowledge†. The book serves as the basis for one of the primary dichotomies in the study of human geography: ‘us’ and ‘other’ (or the ‘Orient’/‘Occident’ distinction). Similarities between Australia and Ireland It is in this context that we can identify the primary similarity between the historical geographies of Ireland and Australia. If within this context we are meant to define the ‘colonisers’ as ‘us’ (i.e., those involved in Western geographical discourse) and the ‘colonised’ as ‘them’ or ‘other’, we reach a crucial problematic area with regards to the two nations at hand. Ireland and Australia are both nations left out of the post-colonial dialogue even though they are undeniably post-colonial. However, discussing these two nations within the dialogue of post-colonialism would ignore the fact that they are both relatively wealthy nations, members of the First World, with few similarities to the nations that are generally being discussed within the sphere. Yet, within the framework of ‘other’, they do share many similarities mainly because they are both peripheral from a Euro-centric viewpoint (Litvack, 2006: 2) – though this, economically at least, is increasingly untrue concerning Ireland. Macintyre (1999: 24) writes with regard to Australia: The Orient came to stand for a whole way of life that was inferior to that of the West: indolent, irrational, despotic, and decayed. Such typification of the alien and other, which the critic Edward Said characterizes as Orientalism, had a peculiar meaning in colonial Australia where geography contradicted history. Fascination and fear mingled in the colonists’ apprehension of the zone that lay between them and the metropole. As a British dependency, Australia adopted the terminology that referred to the Near, Middle and Far East until, under threat of Japanese invasion in 1940, its prime minister suddenly recognized that â€Å"What Great Britain call the Far East is to us the Near North†. Slemon has argued for a discussion within post-colonial discourse of a â€Å"Second World† to accommodate those nations that cannot place themselves â€Å"neatly on one side or the other of the ‘colonizer/colonized’ binary† (Kroeker, 2001: 11). After all, both nations could be considered not just ‘victim’ but also ‘accomplice’ and ‘beneficiary’ of colonialism (Litvack, 2006). Slemon’s idea is helpful in creating an alternative for the â€Å"difficult examples of post-colonial, white, settler cultures† like that of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Though Ireland is different, one could easily argue that the ‘Second World’ is a better fit than the ‘Third’. In short, Ireland and Australia’s position in between these two very separate worlds of ‘colonizer’ and ‘colonized’ is an underlying similarity in their historical geographies of colonialism. Differences between Australia and Ireland There is an important discrepancy within the context of ‘Orientalism’ between Australia and Ireland. Abiding by the rules of historical geography, just as humans make their cultures and ethnic identities we also make our own histories. More often than not, memory is matched to history but as Collingwood (1970 in McCarthy, no date: 13) states â€Å"memory is not history, because history is a certain kind of organized or inferential knowledge, and memory is not organized, not inferential at all†. Though undoubtedly ‘memory’ impinges on Irish history the same as any other, Irish history at least seems to have some type of consensus. On the other hand, there are two distinct versions of Australian history: one that begins when the British landed in Botany Bay in 1788, and one that begins at least 40,000 (and possibly 120,000) years before that. Conventional Australian history to this day remains the version that begins with the arrival of the British â₠¬â€œ as the old African proverb goes: only when lions have historians will the hunters cease to be heroes. Key to the differences between Australia and Ireland in this context are issues of ‘domination’ and ‘race’. The underlying argument here is that whilst the Irish were undoubtedly oppressed by British rule, it was a fundamentally different kind of oppression than that faced by Australia’s Aboriginals. The domination and repression of the Irish during British colonial rule was done in the context of engagement. The ‘native’ Irish were certainly disadvantaged by the British, and this was a typical feature of colonialism – Meinig has long drawn attention, within his geographical analysis of imperial expansion, to the employment of supreme political authority by the invaders over the invaded (Meinig, 1989). The relationship between the British and the Irish fits very neatly into Meinig’s theories of subjugation. One of his arguments is that the goal of imperial expansion was to extract wealth and in doing so to forge new economic relationships to reach these ends. The political authority of the British (invaders) over the Irish (invaded) is illustrated by the manipulation of ethnic and religious identities that occurred â€Å"in order to keep the subject population from uniting against the occupying power† (Wikipedia, 2006a). Economic exploitation und er British rule had an â€Å"ethnic (and latently nationalist) dimension because it was expressed through religious discrimination† (Komito, 1985: 3). The legacy of this ‘divide and rule’ strategy (as well as the link between religion and nationalism) remains in Ireland today. The Great Irish Famine remains, to this day, â€Å"the defining moment in Irish†¦history† (Kenny, 2001). Between 1840 and 1850, the Irish population was reduced from 8.2 million to 4.1 million – including out-migration as well as deaths from starvation (Guinnane, 1998). Irish land was by and large owned by English landlords and worked by Irish tenants; at the time of the famine, these peasants had to choose between paying the rent for the land with their other crops (and possibly starving), or eating their rent and being liable to eviction. The British government first ignored the famine and when relief effort was made it was erratic and unreliable. â€Å"Many had died from starvation; those who emigrated, and those who survived in Ireland, remembered the inadequate and uncaring response of Britain. More than any other single event in history, the Famine came to epitomize, for many Irish people, the quintessential example of British attitudes to its neighbour† (Komito, 2006: 3). On the other hand, the policy of the British towards the Aboriginals in Australia was not one of subjugation but extermination. Whereas most of the Irish in Ireland (as well as the estimated 80 million Irish that live abroad) proudly claim Celtic ancestry, the natives in Australia suffered a dramatic decline with European settlement, brought on by the â€Å"impact of new diseases, repressive and often brutal treatment, dispossession, and social and cultural disruption and disintegration† (Year Book Australia, 1994). Conservative estimates of the Aboriginal population pre-1788 place the figure at somewhere around 300,000, though many anthropologists now believe there were probably closer to one million Aboriginals in 1788. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveals that in 1966 (approaching the ‘bicentennial’ of the ‘founding’ of Australia that was so widely – and rightly – protested by the Aboriginal population) there were onl y 80,207 ‘indigenous’ members of the population. Even if one assumes (or accepts) a figure of zero population growth, this figure is still only about 26 percent of the original population. Whilst the Aboriginal population continued to expand at the end of the 20th century – an ‘estimated resident Indigenous population’ of 469,000 is projected for this year – it is clear to see that it came close to being exterminated. This increasing number of indigenous people still represents only about 2.4 percent of the total Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). And so comes the issue of race. Much of Said’s work, for example, deals with the ‘white’ man’s oppression of the ‘brown’. Whereas the Irish were certainly subjugated, they were viewed simply as inferior. The Aboriginals, in contrast, were viewed as subhuman, â€Å"and as animals they possessed no rights, nor any claim to morality† (Pilger, 1989: 27). Australia, here, seems to have more in common with the ‘Dark Continent’ than with any imperialism within Europe. Some colonial nations, often referred to as ‘settler countries’, had the same attitude towards the natives as that in Australia. In Canada, New Zealand, and even Latin American settler countries’ Argentina and Uruguay, little effort was made by the colonist to maintain the existing order, to establish commercial (or other) relations with the inhabitants, or even to recruit them as labour. Instead of involving themselves with the native populations, these lands were simply cleared and settled as â€Å"fresh field of European endeavour† (Macintyre, 1999: 20). Again, this is not to argue that the Irish were not oppressed during English dominion but simply to state that they were at least acknowledged in a way that the Aboriginals were not. One might even venture to argue that the treatment of the Aboriginals in Australia was so horrific that it has led to their virtual writing out of traditional Australian memory and consequently history. In The Fatal Shore, Robert Hughes’ describes what he calls ‘a national pact of silence (Pilger, 1989) over the Aboriginal issue. There is no topic more sensitive in Australia than that of the Aboriginals. This aspect of the British colonial legacy has certainly constructed a version of history that, as many Australians say, is â€Å"missing something† (Pilger, 1989). Burgmann and Lee make clear at the beginning of their book, A People’s History of Australia, th at their aim is ‘not merely to compensate for past neglect, but to assert that we can only understand Australia’s history by analysing the lives of the oppressed’ (in Pilger, 1989: 3). After all, â€Å"a nation founded on bloodshed and suffering of others eventually must make peace with that one historical truth† (Pilger, 1989: 3). In short, the history of the colonizer and the colonized in Australia and Ireland is enormously different. Australia has, for the last few decades, seemingly been coming to terms with their national past and incorporating the near total-destruction of Aboriginal life and culture into their accepted version of history. Ireland, of course, maintains a history as ‘constructed’ as any other nation’s – theirs, unlike that of the Australians, does not seem to be ‘silencing’ any important truths. The notion of ‘discovery’ In the early nineteenth century, the primary aims and concerns of Geography were: to collect and publish new facts and discoveries, to develop instruments of use to travellers, and to accumulate geographical texts, in particular maps. Geography was, in many ways, an instrument of the empire, an impression that is illustrated well by the number of military men that were members of the Royal Geographic Society in the early nineteenth century. Topography and mapping by and large went hand in hand with notions of colonialism and expansion. Wood wrote that maps ‘work’ because they â€Å"give us reality, a reality that exceeds our vision, our reach, the span of our days, a reality we achieve no other way† (1993: 4-5). In short, maps â€Å"manage to pass off for evident truth what is hard won, culturally acquired knowledge about the world we inhabit; a reality unverifiable by the naked eye† (Klein, 1998: 1). This section will argue that early colonial maps of both Ireland and Australia used cartography to meet their colonial desires. The key difference was that early maps of Australia displayed a land ‘unconquered’ and ‘uninhabited’ whereas colonial maps of Ireland represented a land very much ‘conquered’. Early maps of colonial Australia and Ireland also illustrate another key difference: the British believed they had discovered Australia, whilst they never assumed to have discovered the Emerald Isle. In reality, they had not ‘discovered’ Australia either – â€Å"the very fact that Cook discovered Australia strikes many today as false as the British claim to sovereignty over it† (Macintyre, 1999: 25). After all, â€Å"how can you find something that is already known?† (Macintyre, 1999: 25). The conception of ‘unconquered’ and ‘vacant’ land figures very prominently in the geography of discovery and colonialism. The sheer size of Australia allowed its settlers to believe they had found a previously unconquered, uninhabited landmass. Clearly, there is an element of sheer size. The Australian continent has an astronomical area of 7,682,300 square kilometres, compared to Ireland’s 70,300. Early maps of Australia often displ ay an indeterminate continent, and â€Å"decorated it with lush vegetation and barbarous splendour† (Macintyre, 1999: 25). Other maps often neglected the south coast entirely, and left a vacant (or unexplored and therefore non-existent?) centre, as seen in Map 3, which is believed to date from the 1800s. Part and parcel of colonial imagination has been to make out no territorial limits in its desire for the unknown and the unconquered. Map 3. Early Map of Australia Source: MSN Encarta. Map 4. Early Map of Australia Source: http://www.chr.org.au/earlymapsofaustralia/Images/Map%20before%20captain%20cook%201753%20Jacques%20Nicolas.jpg Map 4 further emphasizes the unconquered aspect – by leaving great tracts of the continent blank on maps it was easier to believe that those very tracts were untouched and uninhabited. The vast emptiness of early Australian maps can also be viewed as a reactionary defensive mechanism. Numerically, the colonizers in Australia were (initially) a minority. In colonial theory in general, this was problematic because minorities were established as ‘outsiders’ in society. It was doubly problematic in Australia because of its role as the ‘dumping-ground for convicts’ (Macintyre, 1999: 18) in its early English settlement. To conceptualise and construct a large vacant space allowed for the idea of an uninhabited continent to flourish, and allowed the early colonizers to reject the idea of being a minority. In contrast, early maps of Ireland try to conceptualise a country that is controlled and conquered. In a study of the English construction of Irish space in a series of Elizabethan and Jacobean maps, Klein (1998: 4) found that most â€Å"do little to hide their involvement in the colonial politics of their historical moment. In gradually redefining the ‘savage’ Irish wasteland as a territorial extension of the national sphere, they are quite openly engaged in negotiating the political accommodation of Irish cultural difference into a British framework†. Baptista Boazio’s Irlande (Map 5) is believed to be the first map of Ireland, dating from 1559. Today, this map does not meet with much approval – â€Å"the lavish ornamental flourish, the purely fictional character of some of the map’s topographical details and †¦ the extravagant use of colour are all features that suggest that precise geographical information was not the map’s principal objective† (Klein, 1998: 15). Map 5. Boazio’s Irlande Source: Klein, 1998. The Kingdome of Ireland (Map 6) was the standard representation of Ireland for the first half of the 17th century. This map portrays a â€Å"neat and perfectly controlled area; a peaceful and quiet expanse†. The â€Å"pictorial surface of the map achieves both homogeneity and balance, suggesting a spatial harmony devoid of conflict† (Klein, 1998: 17). Moreover, the ‘wild men and women’ of Ireland depicted on the map seem to register a cartographic â€Å"transfer of political authority in Ireland from native Irish to English colonizers† (Klein, 1998: 17). Map 6. Speed’s Kingdome of Ireland Source: Klein, 1998. In short, early maps of Ireland and Australia made great attempts to represent (and reaffirm) colonial ‘truths’. As Klein (1998: 1) states, â€Å"it should be noted that some eyes are as blind as others are observant, and contemporaries also recognized that the abstraction of geometric scale may quietly conceal rather than openly disclose geographical information†. Representation of these two nations were different in that Australia was represented as unconquered and ready for the taking, whereas Ireland was represented very much as ‘conquered’. This had to do with both the differences in size of the two nations at hand, as well as with their proximity to England. Conclusion This essay has attempted to analyse the historical geographies of colonialism in Australia and Ireland. It has shown that though the two nations share some overriding similarities (many simply attributed to being post-colonial), there are also a multitude of differences in their historical geographies. The comparison was made in two basic contexts. First, the analysis was made within Said’s Orientalism. It argued that both Ireland and Australia were stuck between the binary of ‘us’ and ‘other’, between the First and Third Worlds. However, it argued that due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, race, proximity, and area, their experience of ‘Orientalism’ was fundamentally different. The second sections analysed the representation of colonialism in early maps of Australia and Ireland. Here the countries again displayed significant difference: Australia was depicted as a land waiting to be conquered, and Ireland as ‘neat’ and ‘controlled’. A further general note can be made in that this essay demonstrated the power of memory and history on geography, and vice versa. Having analysed the historical geographies of Australia and Ireland, one would certainly agree that geography and history are â€Å"analogous and interdependent fields†. Works Cited Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) Yearbook Australia: Population – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population, available from: www.abs.gov.au Guelke, L. (1997) ‘The Relations Between Geography and History Reconsidered’, History and Theory, 36 (2), pp. 191-234. Hughes, R. (1986) The Fatal Shore: The epic of Australia’s founding, New York: Vintage Books. Klein, B. (1998) ‘Partial Views: Shakespeare and the Map of Ireland’, Early Modern Literary Studies, Special Issue 3, 1-20. Kroeker, A. â€Å"Separation from the World: Post-colonial aspects of Mennonite/s wiring in Western Canada†, Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba. Litvack, L. (2006) Theories of Post-Coloniality: Edward W. Said and W.B. Yeats, available from: www.qub.ac.uk/en/imperial/ireland/saidyeat.htm Macintyre, S. (1999) A Concise History of Australia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. (no date) ‘Historico-Geographical Explorations of Ireland’s Heritages: Toward a Critical Understanding of the Nature of Memory and Identity’, available from: http://www.ashgate.com/subject_area/downloads/sample_chapters/IrelandsHeritagesCh1.pdf McCarthy, M. (2003), ‘Historical geographies of a colonized world: the renegotiation of New English colonialism in early modern urban Ireland, c. 1600-10, Irish Geography, 36(1), 59-76. Meinig, D. W. (1982) ‘Geographical analysis of imperial expansion’, in Baker, A. R. H. and Billinge, M. (eds.) Period and place: Research methods in historical geography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meinig, D. W. (1989) ‘The Historical Geography of Imperative’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79, 79-87. Pilger, J. (1989) A Secret Country, Sydney: Random House. Said, E. (1979) Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books. Said, E. (1993) Culture and Imperialism, lecture given at York University, Toronto, Canada, 10 February 1993. Wikipedia (2006a) British Empire, available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire Wikipedia (2006b) Geography, available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography Wikipedia (2006c) Orientalism, available from: http://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Orientalism Wood, D. (1993) The Power of Maps, London: Routledge

Why Lower status groups have higher crime rates?

According to some sociologists, lower status groups have higher crime rates because they do not have access to legitimate means of achieving. This view is supported by sociologists such as Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin who believe members of the lower classes commit crime because they are not given the same opportunities to achieve as other members of society. However, this view could be disputed, as it is by sociologists such as Miller and Murray who believe other factors are involved such as the focal concerns. This essay will assess the extent to which lower status groups commit crime because they are denied access to the legitimate means of achieving success. According to Cohen, lower class boys have the same success goals as the rest of society but have no opportunity to enjoy these goals. He believes that the lack of opportunity here is because of their educational failure and then their dead-end jobs. This could be supported by Willis' ethnographic study on a number of ‘lads' at school. This study showed that these boys had come to terms with the fact they were going to be stuck in dead end jobs as they did not achieve anything at school and therefore formed anti-school subcultures to deal with this. According to Cohen this amounts in status frustration as the individuals become frustrated that they cannot achieve anything and with their low status in society. Due to this, they turn their attentions to achieving through other means – crime, they reject the success goals of common culture and replace them with others as Merton described in his responses to cultural goals. This new found calling can help them to gain status and recognition, especially from their peers, albeit for the wrong reasons and thus a delinquent subculture is formed. It can be seen as a collective solution for all the problems faced by the lower classes. Cohen believes that â€Å"the delinquent subculture takes its norms from the larger culture but turns them upside down. † Thus, the subcultures are a negative reaction to a society that has denied opportunity some of its members. This would suggest that the members of lower status groups deviate because they are denied access to the normal routes of success and shows that because of this there is greater pressure on certain groups in society to deviate. Cloward and Ohlin follow the same path as Cohen, however they develop his ideas. According to them Cohen failed to look at the illegitimate opportunity structure. They believe that lower status groups are denied access to the legitimate means of achieving success; however an illegitimate route is available to them. This opportunity could come from the fact that in some areas there may be a high rate of adult crime and this means that there is access for adolescence to follow the same path; however in other areas this culture may not be present. According to Cloward and Ohlin areas with a high rate of organised adult crime creates a learning environment for younger generations, meaning the common norms and values in these areas are different from those who apply themselves to the legitimate opportunity structure and a criminal subculture is created. Conflict subcultures are created in areas where there is little opportunity for adolescence to achieve through the illegitimate opportunity structures. This means that there is no access to either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structure. According to Cloward and Ohlin the response to this situation is usually gang violence as a means of reaching built up tension and frustration towards the lack of opportunity. Retreatist subcultures are also created by those who have failed to have access to illegitimate or legitimate opportunity structures, thus they retreat from society and enter a retreatist subculture. Thus, all of these subcultures are created because these people do not have access to the normal means of achieving success. Other sociologists however, believe that it is not the opportunity for success but other factors that influence lower class crime rates. Miller, who studied lower class subcultures in 1950s America, discovered that the subcultures were not formed because of the inability to achieve success, but because of the existence of distinctive lower class subcultures. According to Miller there are a number of long held cultural traditions followed and these differ to those of the higher strata. He believed that these traditions passed down from generation to generation actively encouraged lower class men to break the law. Miller believes that there are a number of focal concerns of the lower class. These focal concerns are toughness that involves trying to prove their masculinity; smartness, which involves trying to outsmart each other and excitement which involves having ‘fun' which could involve alcohol, drugs, gambling and joy riding. According to Miller argues that delinquency is just the members of the lower strata acting out the focal concerns, if in a slightly exaggerated way! He believes that it has a lot to do with boredom of work and these focal concerns help them to live with the day-to-day boredom. Thus, the crime rates of the lower class are not because of the opportunities available to them but because of they have their own norms, values and traditions that are carried through from generation to generation. Murray also believes that it is not due to opportunity but believes in an under-class who are a group of either unemployed or unemployable people. He believes that this underclass share there own common norms and values and reject those of mainstream society. He believes that the welfare states are to blame as it means that people do not feel the need to work and can live of the state and reject the idea it is important to hold down a job, thus they turn to criminality. This means that he does not agree that crimes are committed because of the lack of opportunity, but more because of the opportunity to be given money from the state and not have to do anything. Stephen Jones also agrees that there us an underclass, but believes there are also number of side issues such as racial tension and gang warfare that helps to add to the crimes. This view could be supported by crimes in Britain such as the shootings of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis in 2003. Overall, it can be said that there are a number of reasons as to why crime rates are high in the lower class. It could be because they are denied access to legitimate means of achieving success as they need to fine some way to succeed. However, it could also be due to the fact that learning environments are created and traditions are passed though the generations making it common and normal in the lower classes for crimes to be committed and normal for aspects such as racial tension to be a big part of life. Therefore, there it could be said that it is not just because of there is a lack of opportunity for members of the lower class, but because they already have there own norms and values of which t follow.

Bleak House Imagery of Bleakness

The Imagery of Bleakness and Disease in Charles Dickens’s â€Å"Bleak House† Having been referred to as one of Dickens’s best novel, â€Å"Bleak House† is a novel which stands out, not only through its narrative technique, but also through the complex imagery the author conveys, managing somehow to relate this imagery to the real world, namely the XIXth century England. Thus, in spite of some instances of humorous, ironical scenes and a few comic characters, the novel reveals the sordidness and disease which seemed to prevail in England during those times. From the opening sentence of the novel, the Court of Chancery is introduced, being associated with the symbols of fog and mud: â€Å"Never can there come a fog too thick, never can there come mud and mire too deep,†¦ holds, this day† The word â€Å"fog† appears thirteen times in one paragraph, and many times throughout the novel, the author conveying thus a bleak imagery, symbolic for the English society of the XIXth century. Making use of a special narrative technique, Dickens chooses to have his story told by two different narrators, an omniscient third-person narrator and a first-person narrator, Esther Summerson, who is presenting her life from her own viewpoint. Unlike the generalizing, highly rhetorical voice which opens the novel, Esther’s voice begins hesitatingly, almost self-deprecating herself. This manner of presenting her story is highly relevant as it is seen as a result of her life as an orphan in the sordid house of a cruel, merciless aunt. Thus, regarding the imagery of bleakness, Esther can be deemed to have passed through a series of symbolic â€Å"bleak houses† before she reaches the real Bleak House, which proves to be the least bleak of all. Consequently, it can be considered that the names of the two houses – â€Å"Bleak House†, is nothing more than Dickens’s irony which becomes obvious only in the end of the novel. With regard to Esther’s evolution throughout the novel, the first and apparently worse bleak house is that of her childhood, where she is raised by her cruel aunt who tells her that â€Å"It would have been better †¦ hat you had never been born†. The little girl is taught to make use of submission, self-denial and diligent work so as to compensate for her guilt of having been born. Another bleak house situated in Esther’s long evolutionary path is the house of Mrs Jellyby, an apparently philanthropic woman who is more preoccupied with Africa than w ith her own numerous family. This was meant as a metaphor of imperial England, which was so much engaged around the world in those times, that it became out of touch with the problems it had at home. The imagery of bleakness is here complex, revealing a dirty, unkept for house, with children running all around it, without having anyone to care for them. The imagery of bleakness and disease is also evident in the description of Krook’s rooming house, an emblem of waste and neglect. Krook is described as a ragged man who keeps documents, â€Å"the detritus of legal London†(Davis,42) in his bottle shop, while his apartments are the home for the victims of Chancery, little Miss Flite and the ill law writer Nemo, two characters who represent two powerful instances of the imagery of disease. What is interesting is the way Dickens chooses to relate the bleakness of these houses to the law and the system of injustice, which serves itself, but ignores the effects its actions have upon humans. But even the law is perceived inside a bleak house, namely Tulkinghorn’s house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, which is described as having been â€Å"let off in sets of chambers; and in those shrunken fragments of its greatness, lawyers lie like maggots in nuts†¦ Here among his many boxes labelled with transcendent names, lives Mr. Tulkinghorn. Everything that can have a lock has got one; no key is visible. † As far as the disease metaphor si concerned, this seems to be very complex in Jo, the illiterate sweeper, who is seen most of the time starving and begging. Given the society with no public education, Jo is allowed to know nothing, he is neglected by the system itself, being somehow forced to move on, regardless of his deprivations. The most seemingly bizarre expression of the disease metaphor is found in the figure of Krook, the illiterate rag and bottle merchant who seems to be the underworld equivalent of the Lord Chancellor. Just like him, Krook collects legal documents but he is not able to understand their content, and so they cannot help justice. As a warning for the established legal system stands the episode of Krook’s improbable death by spontaneous combustion, which is symbolic for legal England ending in fire, as â€Å"When the law becomes totally absorbed with itself and its own procedures, it is bound to destroy itself†, according to Dickens. In the light of the above-mentioned evidence, it can be said that the imagery of bleakness and disease in the lives of his characters is used by Charles Dickens so as to reveal the bleakness of England itself and how a sick system caused many injustices and perils for the poor, while the rich had a life of luxury and abundance. Works cited Primary sources: Dickens, Charles, Bleak House, Collins, London and Glasgow, 1953 Secondary sources: 2. Davis, Paul, Charles Dickens A Literary Reference to his Life and Work, Infobase Publishing, 1999, pp 41-45 3. Aubrey, Brian, Novels for Students, Gale Publishing, pp 84-86

Common Sense Thomas Paine - 1050 Words

Nathaniel Jackson Mr. Miserendino AP U.S. History 5 December 2014 Common Sense Thomas Paine’s revolutionary pamphlet, Common Sense was an immediate sensation in the thirteen colonies in 1776. Paine strayed away from dense and scholarly writing and wrote in the language of the people, often citing the bible. The pamphlet provided clear justification and explained the advantages of the need for independence from Great Britain. Thomas Paine argues in his instant best seller, for independence from England and for the creation of a democratic republic. Paine begins proving his argument by differentiating between government and society. Paine states, â€Å"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries By A Government, which we might expect in a country Without Government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer† (Paine 153-154). This quote shows how Paine believes society is productive and denotes it positively. Whereas on the other hand government is signified as evil and the cause of the nation’s suffering. Paine is arguing for the abolition of the current government due to the fact that it does not accomplish what it is supposed to. Paine states that the government’s only objective is to protect life, liberty and property. The British government is too complex and predominant withShow MoreRelatedCommon Sense by Thoma s Paine859 Words   |  3 Pagesâ€Å"Common Sense† Common Sense is a pamphlet made in 1775-76 by Thomas Paine. This pamphlet inspired the thirteen colonies to declare war and fight for independence against Great Britain. It was straight forward and told Great Britain exactly the advantages of being independent from them. On January 10, 1776 during the American Revolution, the pamphlet was published and became a huge topic in the community. It was the biggest talk of the colonies. In proportion to the population, the book was the biggestRead MoreCommon Sense by Thomas Paine1396 Words   |  6 PagesCommon Sense was written by Thomas Paine and published in 1776. Paine wrote it as a plea for the American people to break away from Britain and to declare independence from the king. He was asking his audience to take a step back and see that just because something is tradition, does not mean it is necessarily right. Paine wanted to show his readers that government and society is not the same thing, which is how most people viewed it. Society was something that people should want to have, whileRead MoreCommon Sense By Thomas Paine957 Words   |  4 Pagespolitical pamphlet known as Common Sense was written by Thomas Paine in 1776. This pamphlet contributed in promoting the independence of America. In the pamphlet Thomas Paine challenged the American colonists to separate from England and create a democratic and independent society. Along with challenging the American colonists, he hinted at his own opinions about a democratic government that America should plan towards if they seek to separate from England. Thomas Paine also bluntly proposed thatRead MoreCommon Sense By Thomas Paine1574 Words   |  7 PagesCommon Sense was written by an Englishman, Thomas Paine, who came to the American Colonies in 1774. He had strong opinions about the British Monarchy – and monarchy in general – including the fact that by nothing more than an accident of birth one man had rule over so many other humans. He v iewed this elevation to monarch unnatural as all men are created equal. Additionally, Paine notes that â€Å"there is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man fromRead MoreCommon Sense By Thomas Paine1036 Words   |  5 PagesCommon Sense is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine that inspired people in the Thirteen Colonies to declare and fight for independence from Great Britain. It was actually first published anonymously. Thomas Paine’s basic theme throughout Common Sense is that government is a â€Å"necessary evil†. His argument begins with more general reflections about government and religion, then progresses onto the specifics. There is a quote from the first page of Common Sense that lays out Paine s general conceptionRead MoreCommon Sense By Thomas Paine1244 Words   |  5 PagesIndependance, Why They Should Thomas Paine, an English political philosopher and writer made his way to the colonies when his good friend, Benjamin Franklin convinced him to do so. He worked as an editor for the Pennsylvania Magazine. Although, published anonymously in 1776, Paine was the man behind Common Sense, a political pamphlet that was distributed between all the colonies and challenged the British government by suggesting American Independency. Paine wrote the Common Sense because in his mind heRead MoreCommon Sense By Thomas Paine992 Words   |  4 PagesAmerica what it is today. Common Sense by Thomas Paine was inspiring to many American colonists as it was persuasive in showing how the colonists should have their own independence. Paine appealed the average citizen’s rationale, hence the title Common Sense. Paine’s pamphlet illustrates the importance of independence, and argues that colonial life under British rule was detrimental to America’s potential to become prosperous. In a fairly lengthy, but readable style, Paine discusses the differencesRead MoreThomas Paine And Common Sense1579 Words   |  7 PagesThomas Paine and Common Sense In colonial America, Britain’s colonies were subjected to many Parliamentary acts that were considered to be, by many of the colonists, oppressive. The Declaratory Act, the Coercive Acts, and numerous other tax-based acts were just a few of the many examples of the controlling behavior displayed by the British Parliament toward their North American colonies. This seemingly oppressive behavior by the British Parliament had not gone unnoticed by those outside ofRead MoreCommon Sense By Thomas Paine1438 Words   |  6 PagesKayla Boucher Doctor Hockin AMH 2010 22 January 2015 Common Sense The book Common Sense by Thomas Paine was an American pamphlet written during the American Revolution, which was around the time when America was trying to gain independence from Britain. Paine discusses government, religion, and colonial issues. In the first chapter Paine differentiates between the society and the government. He described the society as being positive and constructive and he described the government beingRead MoreCommon Sense By Thomas Paine770 Words   |  4 PagesThomas Paine first published Common Sense anonymously in 1776 and immediately became popular. I choose to read Common Sense by Thomas Paine, in order to know America and hopefully to understand the philosophy behind the founding of the country and how its government system was set up to function. In my opinion, one of the main reasons Thomas Paine’s pamphlet became favoured was because Paine used a lot of common sense opinions that most people could understand. In his pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas