Comparison of War on Terror with the Cold War

Comparison of War on Terror with the Cold War Does the ‘Global War on Terror’ inaugurated by George W. Bush have similarities to the Cold War? Since 2001, academics and the United States administration have continuously compared the war against terrorism to the Cold War. The confrontations that the United States and its allies experienced during the war against communism in the Cold War and, more recently, the War on Terror arguably share significant similarities. Although there is significant debate across academia, some argue that Terrorism is the new Communism which similarly seeks to challenge and overthrow Western ideas and the whole structure of the liberal democratic world order. Others, among them revisionist historians, Claim that the main similarity between the Cold War and the War on Terror is the desire of the US to benefit from conflict, capitalise and secure other countries in its economic structures for own benefit. However, even though these are significant arguments, there has been a significant rise of discourse that seeks to separate the War on Terror from other conflicts, including the Cold War, stating that it is a new kind of war which symbolises a profound social transformation in the contemporary globalised world. For the purpose of this essay I summarise the nature of the War on Terror and its prevalent similarities to the Cold War. After that I present arguments stating that the War on Terror is in fact significantly different. After 9/11 the Bush administration urged the national policy to strengthen the core need to focus on a stronger homeland defence. The Department of Homeland Security was established as a movement toward centralisation of security at a national level. The 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) relied on force and action to uphold international standards, unlike the previous years where leadership through co-operation was emphasised instead. Arguably that was the case because of the change of the nature of threat that was exerted on the US. Before the War on Terror the threat was to American values, whereas now the threat was a lot more serious, questioning survival. In the 1990’s the United States were involved in peace and humanitarian operations, supporting and extending American values worldwide. 2001, however, symbolised a shift in world order which directly threatened not just the United States but also its allies in Europe and elsewhere (Vrooman, 2004: 82). The United States were faced with a new type of war: a war without an easily identifiable enemy, which was not tied to a nation-state as we would traditionally expect (NSS, 2002: 5). This posed a number of problems with deterrence: The impossibility of destroying an enemy in a single manoeuvre, difficulty of identifying the enemy, and possibility of a costly counter-attack by the enemy. Terrorist groups were thought to have the ability, with the help of modern technology, to communicate while staying in the shadow, coordinating strategies and tactics. This allowed them to be highly decentralised and elusive while at the same time have the ability to act simultaneously for greater effect. The attackers were further seen to be mobilised by a common ideational standpoint: fanatical militarism legitimised through interpretation of religious texts in a certain way. This posed a serious problem as the attackers could not be negotiated with and shared little of the ideas the ‘westâ₠¬â„¢ and America had (Vrooman, 2004: 83). What we can deduct from this is that the War on Terror now had a more direct dimension, posing physical threat to the United States while at the same time being strongly ideological in nature, showing a confrontation of civilizational ideas (Stokes, 2003: 571). It also meant that, because the attackers could not be intimidated or discouraged by the cost that their attacks would incur upon themselves, that the potential magnitude of terrorist attacks was unprecedented and had to be dealt with similarly unprecedented force. While the War on Terror has become a primary focus of the United States in the aftermath of 9/11, 2001, with the Bush doctrine, it was largely carried out as continuation of exiting struggles that the U.S. faced in the middle-east during the Cold War, particularly during Reagan’s presidency in the 1980’s. The Reagan’s administration, during that time, was also expected of reacting quickly and as a result drafted many concepts, that were later used in the Bush doctrine, such as identifying terrorism as a form of warfare and not crime, or fighting regimes that could be seen as sponsors of terror rather than inter-state or transnational organisations (Toaldo, 2012: 3, Tirman, 2006: 3). Elements of the War on Terror, including fatal terrorist strikes, were present during the Cold War. Therefore, we can expect that the experience gained by the U.S. government during the Cold War would reciprocate into the post-2001 War on Terror (Smart, 2005). The desire to be influential, rather than coercive through hard power, was seen as the main weakness that led to the increase of terrorist threat. In the late half of the 1980’s the secretary of state, George Shultz would actively advocate for a more aggressive stance, focusing on Libya in 1986. Scandals during the time made office officials leaning towards isolationism less inclined to act in this new manner. These ideas, however, would inspire the Bush administration in 2001 (Toaldo, 2012: 5), revolving around maintaining a physical presence of military might: â€Å"To be safe, the US must be strong, with strength measured by readily available military might. Yet merely possessing military power does not suffice. Since perceptions shape reality, the US must leave others in no doubt as to its willingness to use power. Passivity invites aggression. Activism, if successful, enhances credibility† (A. Bacevich, 2011). The US administration was interested in maintaining a foothold in the middle-east throughout the entire cold-war period, and the emphasis of the Bush doctrine on its importance is nothing new. The middle-east was an area of confrontation between the two superpowers of the time – The USSR and USA. The US identified the nations in the region as either violent radicals or moderate reformists, with the latter being their allies. Interestingly, the distinction originally used to categorize between areas of US and Soviet influence, saw a revival after 9/11, but this time with terrorists taking the place of the soviets. The philosophy of â€Å"with us or against us† that was so prominent during the Cold War remained a crucial factor affecting US involvement and foreign policy in the region (Harling and Malley, 2010). What is fundamentally different with the new War on Terror, from the acts of terror that happened during the Cold War, is that it was no longer seen within the limits of being a tool in the Global Cold War, but an enemy in itself, since the threat of terrorism did not go away with USSR. The US was once again motivated to take action as soon as it saw a threat to the primacy of American ideals and its status as an absolute superpower (Toaldo, 2012: 23). The War on Terror continues the legacy that was conceived with the Cold War as there are: â€Å"affinities between terrorism and totalitarianism: both regard violence as an appropriate means to their political ends†¦ Both reject the basic moral principles of Judeo-Christian civilization†(Jeanne Kirkpatrick in Toaldo, 2012: 24). Indeed, for the US, similarly to Middle-Eastern terrorists the ‘oriental’ Russian mind was viewed to do nothing more than pretend to be civilized and use this false image to work discret ely in achieving its own ‘barbaric’ ends (Kennan, in Hutchings and Miazhevich, 2009: 4). Larry Diamond (2002) categorizes terrorist groups that pose a threat to the US as the ‘new Bolsheviks’ due to their struggle against the same elements of leading capitalist nations that the ‘old Bolsheviks’ struggled against: corrupt, exploitative alliances and imperialism supported by the ‘West’ with US in charge. This logic is prevalent among large sections of the Muslim world, outside of terrorist groups, that was spared the benefits of post-Cold War world order led by US, because of corruption. Terrorist attack on the World Trade Center can therefore be seen as a symbol of a revolution, similar to that which happened in Russia in 1917: â€Å"Like Hitler, Lenin and other charismatic demagogues before him (ideological enemies of the US), Osama bin Laden offers and alluring explanation: It is the fault of Jews, of the international capitalist system, and of the United States and the globalizing order it is imposing† (Diamond, 2002: 2). As the War on Terror developed, some academics went as far as to see its development a representation of a new Cold War, between post-Yeltsin Russia and the US-led ‘West’. Russia was blamed for its involvement in Afghanistan which resulted in formation of Al Qaeda, and the ‘West’, primarily the US, was blamed for providing the conditions necessary for terrorism to flourish through its intervention in Iraq and desire to form and maintain a form of imperialistic hegemony. In this case, terrorism, even though not under control of any of the sides, can be seen to function as a source of continuing competition and friction between the US and post-soviet Russia. (Hutchings and Miazhevich, 2009: 2). The ‘us versus them’, shows that during the Cold War and after it with the War on Terror, there is a continuity of an ideological confrontation based on competing ideas. Some writers (revisionist historians such Chomsky, Gaddis, Stokes, J. and G. Kolko), took that further, to argue that behind the ideological confrontations which were, and still are so obvious, is hidden the true purpose of the perpetuating conflict of the US with the rest of the ‘non-Western’ world. They see the confrontation as being in place to justify broader geoeconomic interests of US capital. They argue that all along it was â€Å"not the containment of communism, but rather more directly the extension and expansion of American capitalism, according to its new economic power and needs† (Kolko J., and G., 1972: 23). Therefore, we can see the Cold War as structural feature of a much longer period of exploitative relations between advanced capitalist economies and less developed, poorer nations. In order for the US economy to progress after the end of the Cold War confrontation between USSR and US and not stagnate, it had to find another front for its military-industrial complex which generated significant revenue and economic growth for the US. Massive military spending was once again justified when the War on Terror was brought to the table. Between the Cold War and the War on Terror there was a confrontation with Latin American countries which symbolized the continuity of economic interests as guiding foreign policy of the US. Latin America, being rich in natural resources, saw great amounts of US influence which ensured control over the area, preventing egalitarian socioeconomic reform that could potentially threaten US interests (Stokes, 2003). Us involvement in regional governments can be seen with the case of Colombia in the context of the Drug War in 2000 (Stokes, 2003: 577). Arguably we can see that ideology was not the only common theme present in the Cold War and the War on Terror, but there was also a geoeconomic rationale that was guiding US foreign policy from within in both wars. The US was not only interested in promoting democracy, but also in constructing a capitalist world order conductive to its interests (Chomsky, 1997). War on Terror also poses some new challenges to US Foreign Policy, and it is a weakness to discuss it simply from the premise of ideological confrontation and structural, geoeconomic standpoint without giving the necessary attention to its unique nature. Indeed, some scholars do not find the link between US foreign policy during the Cold War and War on Terror convincing. The War on Terror can also be seen resulting from a completely new development in social conditions connected with globalization due to a bridge between Industrial and Information Age. Therefore the war is no longer about ideas or the economy, but against competing global structures symbolized within terrorism. Al Qaeda has become a brand resembling the corruption of Western ideas. Modern Western society now has terrorist networks within its borders with many young terrorists born within its countries fighting against it through symbols of Islam. This is, perhaps, a very important distinction between the Cold War, wh ich was fought between two distinctive camps, and the War on Terror. US foreign policy makers understand this, as globalization and its impacts are discussed within National Security Strategy (Smart, 2005: 3). What is important however is that the American policy-makers still fail to understand the fact that terrorist groups are often not acting as a single organization within a centralized or decentralized structure, they act independently from each other. In Hardt and Negris Empire (2000), the multitude (or people of the modern proletariat) struggle against capitalism independently yet, at the same time, as a group. They do not communicate or organize, but pursue own small goals against the capitalist ‘empire’ system which add on to a greater picture and together represent a greater struggle. What is profoundly different about the War on Terror from the Cold War is that it pioneered this very same principle within terrorism: of many independent actors forming a greater struggle against a system (in this case the Western civilization) through their independent and autonomous actions. Similarities can, without doubt, be seen in US foreign policy during the Cold War and the War on Terror. However these similarities are present even between the two wars, suggesting a pattern for US approach to foreign policy. Ideological, civilizational struggle, going as far as to claim it is still against Russia and America, can be used to describe the stance of US foreign policy in both conflicts just as well as structural economic and internal factors. However, reducing to these two points does not allow us to explain why the US has seen relatively low success in its fight against terrorism. It is a failure to identify the War on Terror in the same way the Cold War has been identified, since the first is fought on a new, rather obscure battleground that we do not yet fully understand against a highly decentralized enemy which is not embodied in any physical representative and works from within modern liberal society, against it. No matter how many similarities there are between the Cold War and the War on Terror, the US cannot fall into a trap of dealing with Terror the same way as it dealt with Communism as this is likely to never remove it, if not make it an even more significant threat. Bibliography: Bacevich, A. (2011), ‘Secretary of Self-Defence‘, Financial Times, 13 February. Chomsky, N. (1997), â€Å"The Political-Economic Order†. In: World Orders, Old and New. Pluto Press: London. Diamond, L. (2002), â€Å"Winning the New Cold War on Terrorism: The Democratic-Governance Imperative†, Institute for Global Democracy, Policy Paper No. 1. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000), Empire. Harvard University Press: USA. The White House (2002), The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Hutchings, S. and Miazhevich, G. (2009), â€Å"The Polonium trail to Islam: Litvinenko, Liminality, and Television’s (Cold) War on Terror†, Critical Studies on Terrorism, vol. 2 (2). University of Manchester: UK. Kolko, J. and G. (1972), The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1945–1954. Harper and Row: New York. Malley, R. and Harling P. (2010), â€Å"Beyond Moderates and Militants: How Obama Can Chart a New Course in the Middle East†, Foreign affairs, September/October. Smart, C. (2005), â€Å"The Global War on Terror: Mistaking Ideology as the Center of Gravity†, Center for Strategic Leadership (CSL), Vol. 8 (5). Stokes, D. (2003), â€Å"Why the end of the Cold War doesn’t matter: the US war of terror in Colombia†, Review of International Studies, vol. 29, pp. 569-585. The White House (2002), The National Security Strategy of the United States Of America. Tirman, J. (2006), â€Å"The War on Terror and the Cold War: They’re Not the Same†, The Audit of Conventional Wisdom, vol. 6 (6). Center for International Studies, MIT: MA. Toaldo, M. (2012), â€Å"The War on Terror and Its Cold War Burdens: An Assessment of the Reagan Legacy†, Wednesday Panel Sessions, June 20th, British International Studies Association. Vrooman, S. (2004), Homeland Security Strategy from the Cold War into the Global War on Terrorism: An Analysis of Deterrence, Forward Presence, and Homeland Defense. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The Significance of Chapter 5 to Mary Shelleys Frankenstein :: Papers

The Significance of Chapter 5 to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Chapter 5 has a significant part in the novel Frankenstein as a whole because it links to what happens later in the story. This is shown by the language, setting, character's behaviour, the relationship to gothic tradition and contemporary issues. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which is a very well know gothic horror story was first published in 1818, where traditional gothic conventions are used. Mary Shelley was born on the 30th, August, 1797 and she first met Percy Bysshe Shelley and immediately fell in love with him and later on got married. However society didn't approve with their marriage because he was already a married man and she was only 16 and they weren't married to each other. Victor Frankenstein was born in Genevese, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph, "I am by birth a Genevese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic." The basic story of Frankenstein is about a monster that was created by Victor and when he discovered this he was shocked. Since this day close family has been murdered and the monster has been following Victor. A lot of suspicious things have happened and until the end of the story Victor is fighting against the Monster. The monster finally dies and Victor's ambition is complete in destroying the monster. The past of the novel gives a contemporary significance as it brings forward the subject of cloning and stem cell research, which is a controversial subject matter today. Frankenstein's monster is created by Victor, this brings the matter forward of cloning and stem cell research, as Victor would have needed to do a lot of research before completing his creation. The novel shows that by creating clones, it doesn't always turn out to plan, as Frankenstein's monster turns out to be evil and commits several murders. In the novel it has many modern gothic conventions. In Frankenstein there are boundaries between life and death and emphasise on real horror. Mary Shelley explores the darker side of the human psyche and

Importance of dreams in the novel of ‘Mice and Men’ Essay

The novel ‘Of Mice and Men’, written by John Steinbeck is a truly fascinating novel based upon the theme of dreams. This novel was published in 1937, which was towards the end of ‘The Great Depression’ that hit the United States. The novel was set in Soledad, California, during the same time period as published. This was an era in which the economy collapsed; many Americans lost their jobs, therefore leading into a lot of poverty and despair. Although many people were depressed, this was also the era of dreams. This is what Steinbeck’s novel is all about, dreams during the great depression. Dreams were very important in the novel. They played a huge role in the character’s lives, affected their behaviors, as well as their personalities. Steinbeck uses dreams as a tool to enrich the novel ‘Of Mice and Men’; therefore he emphasizes their importance throughout the novel by making them the main theme. Dreams have a rather important role in the novel ‘Of Mice and Men’. The whole novel is based around dreams, as well as decisions that were made according to these dreams. The author, John Steinbeck has emphasized this by the plot of the novel, the character’s personalities, as well as their actions. The plot of the novel is based on two characters that were chasing their dreams. These characters are Lennie and George, who left a town called Weed because they got in trouble. They were searching for a job, in order to get better paid, which will help them achieve their dream, ‘The American Dream’. The American dream is a dream shared by many of the characters in the novel, it is the desire to have a happy life, be part of a family, have a stable job, and maybe even own some land. Page 47 of chapter 3 gives an insight why the characters Lennie and George left Weed. It turns out Lennie was accused of raping a woman, George said â€Å"Well, that girl rabbits in an’ tells the law she been raped. The guys in Weed start a party out to lynch Lennie†¦ An’ that night we scrammed outta there.† The characters left Weed because Lennie was in trouble. However, he didn’t want to go to jail; he’d rather chase his dream, which he shares with his lifelong pal George. So instead they make  the decision to leave Weed, and head to Soledad. The characters’ personalities are affected by their dreams, and so are their actions. Their dreams weaken them, which results in them doing things that they end up regretting just for the sake of attempting to make their dream come true. Although dreams can be a source of strength for the characters, they contribute a great deal in their weaknesses, which is what leads to their fatal actions. In chapter five, Lennie and Curley’s wife were confessing their dreams to one another. Curley’s wife stayed longer than she should have with Lennie, because he was a man and during that time period women were not permitted to interact with men, especially if the woman was married. However, she made that decision because she dreamed of having a friendship. Lennie said, â€Å"Well, I ain’t supposed to talk to you or nothing.† â€Å"I get lonely,† She said â€Å"You can talk to people, but I can’t talk to nobody but Curley. Else he gets mad, How’d you like not to talk to anybody?† (Chapter five, page 98). Clearly Curley’s wife felt extremely lonely, empty, and sad. Even though she made a bad decision, she chose to stay longer and risk the consequences in order to achieve one of her desirers, even if it was for a little while. It was her weakness, and when she got a chance she grasped it without thinking. It was almost as though she lost her sanity. Later through that chapter, Lennie physically hurt Curley’s wife. She screamed, thus he made the decision to cover her mouth in attempt to stop her from screaming. He feared if George hears her screaming and finds out so he would get mad. Consequently, Lennie wouldn’t be able to join George in owning some land, tending rabbits, and living their dreams. â€Å"She screamed then, and Lennie’s other hand closed over her mouth and nose†. Lennie said â€Å"Oh! Please don’t do that!† George’ll be mad†¦ George gonna say I done a bad thing. He ain’t gonna let me tend no rabbits†¦ You gonna get me in trouble jus’ like George says you will.† â€Å"And she continued to struggle, and her eyes were wild with terror. He shook her then, and he was angry with her†¦ he shook her; and her body flopped like a fish. And then she was still, for Lennie had broken her neck.†(Chapter 5, page 103). Lennie killed Curleyà ¢â‚¬â„¢s wife, because he didn’t want her to stand in the way of his dreams. Due to the fact that his dream blinded him, he couldn’t differentiate between  what’s right or wrong. He chose his actions carelessly. Achieving his dream was his priority, so much so that he sacrificed a human being for nothing to stand in his way. Not only did dreams have a key role in the novel, dreams also played an important role in the characters’ lives. Dreams were a crucial part of the characters’ lives. The characters were not living the life they craved, and it is safe to say that a few of them were depressed. However, their dreams were a source of motivation to them. In chapter one, on page 15, George said â€Å"Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. . . With us it ain’t like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us. We don’t have to sit in no bar room blowin’ in our jack jus’ because we got no place else to go. If them other guys gets in jail they can rot for all anybody gives a damn. But not us.† It can be noted through this quote, the fact that George truly believes in his dream, and how it will keep him motivated. Not only does it make him not want to give up on his dreams, it also makes him strive and work harder to achieve his goals. Moreover, having dreams, and goals, brought the characters happiness. This is because their dreams give them an image of a better life, and what it would be like. In chapter one, George and Lennie were feeling down and they were upset over the limited amount of food they had, but then they cheer themselves up by reminding themselves of the bright future that would lay ahead for them. George said â€Å"Someday- we’re gonna get the jack together and we’re gonna have a little house and a couple of acres an’ a cow and some pigs, and –† â€Å"An’ live off the fatta the lan’† Lennie shouted. â€Å"we’ll have a vegetable patch and a rabbit hutch and chickens. And when it rains in winter, we’ll just say the hell with goin’ to work† said George (chapter one, page 16). George and Lennie spoke with enthusiasm; this indicates how much happiness their dreams bring them. Obviously, dreams had a major impact on the characters’ lives; therefore they were a major aspect of the novel. Not only do dreams impact the characters’ lives, but they also affect several characters in the novel. Dreams had a role in molding the characters. They had an effect on the characters personalities, behavior, dialogue, as well as their decisions. As  stated before, characters made their dreams their priority; this automatically changed the way they thought. Therefore, their behavior changed. The characters only said what would benefit them, and eventually tried to refrain from saying anything that could cause trouble, so that impacted their dialogue. Their dreams also affected their decisions because they either didn’t want to cause trouble so they decided not to do some things, while other characters were blinded by their dreams so they made reckless decisions while trying to achieve their dreams. George’s personality was affected by his dreams. One can see this by his behavior and his dialogue. For example, in chapter 2 (page 28) when Curly lashes at George because he was answering all of the questions that were asked to Lennie, Curly rudely says â€Å"By Christ, he’s gotta talk when he’s spoke to. What the hell are you getting’ into it for?† George didn’t lash back at him, instead he replied coldly; this symbolizes George’s patience towards people, even the rudest people just for the sake of his dream. If he stirred up a fight with Curly just to gain back his dignity he would have gotten fired from his job, but instead he spoke coldly because he couldn’t risk losing his dream or doing anything that could possibly threatens it. Another character whose personality has been affected by his dreams was Crooks. However, unlike the others, Crooks’ personality is greatly affected. Crooks’ dream has a different effect on him. It brings him misery, because he once had everything and now he lost it all. Although, he has accepted that fact that his dream is unattainable, he may still have a little bit of hope. However he has accepted his fate better than the rest of the characters who seem to be unable to accept the reality that their dreams would most likely not come true. As a result, he is bitter and he has isolated himself from everyone. It has drastically affected his personality and his attitude towards life. He knows he won’t have his ‘Happily ever after’; therefore he doesn’t look forward to what the future would bring. â€Å" I ain’t a southern Negro†¦ I was born right here in California. My old man had a chicken ranch, ‘bout ten acres. The white kids come to play at our place, an’ sometimes I went to play with them, and some of them was pretty nice. My ol’ man didn’t like that. I never knew till long later†¦ but now I know † (Chapter 4, page 79). Although this quote starts off as a happy  story, it doesn’t have a happy ending. In fact, it’s heartbreaking. Nevertheless from this quote, it can be understood that Crooks had a taste of ‘The American Dream’, but then he lost it. In addition, the color of his skin puts him down even though he was literate, and educated. Crooks wanted to belong somewhere, he wanted to have friends, he wanted for life to be as simple as it was when he wa s younger, but he knows that the odds aren’t in his favor. That’s why he isn’t the nicest person, and he has isolated himself from everyone else. In chapter four when Lennie came to see Crooks, at first he shut Lennie out, because of the rules he had to oblige and because he knows what it feels like to have friends and loose them. As one of his dreams was to have a friend, he compromised and he let Lennie accompany him while the others were gone. â€Å"Lennie smiled helplessly in an attempt to make friends. Crooks said sharply â€Å"You got no right to come in my room. This here’s my room. Nobody got any right in here but me†¦ I ain’t wanted in the bunkhouse, and you ain’t wanted in my room† â€Å"Why ain’t you wanted† Lennie asked. â€Å"†Cause I’m black. They play cards in there, but I can’t play because I’m black. They say I stink. Well, I tell you, you all stink to me†¦ well, what do you want?† â€Å"Nothing- I just seen you light. I thought I could jus’ come in an’ set.† Crooks stared at Lennie†¦ Crooks scowled, but Lennie’s disarming smile defeated him. â€Å"Come on in and set a while† Crooks said â€Å"Long as you won’t get out and leave me alone, you might as well set down.† (Chapter 4, pages 77-78). Finally, the novel ‘Of Mice and Men’ is a truly spectacular novel by John Steinbeck. The theme of dreams was very important during the course of the novel. All the main events in the novel were caused in relation to someone’s dream, and the sacrifices they had to make in order to achieve it. Additionally, dreams were equally important because they played a big role in the characters’ lives. The characters in the novel use dreams to motivate them through their tough lives, and through the great depression. The characters were also greatly affected by their dreams. For some of the characters, their dream was their weakness and they would literally kill to achieve it. For others it was a source of happiness, while for many of the characters their dream was both their weakness and their source of happiness. All of these three points are what made the theme of dreams such  an important part of the novel. The theme of dreams is what makes the novel ‘Of Mi ce and Men’ so fascinating. Dreams controlled all of the main events, as they were significant in the lives of the characters, their behavior, their ups and downs, as well as their fates.

Renaissance Art A Rebirth Of Classical Learning And The...

Renaissance Art The Renaissance art reflected a rebirth of classical learning and the rediscovery of Greece and Ancient Rome. The Renaissance began in Northern Italy right after the Black Death which was also known as the Plague, a disease that had occurred killing almost half of the Europe’s population. The only way to avoid the disease was to leave the city to a country, however, only the rich were able to afford the trip verses the poor. The plague had led to an economic depression, there were not many people to sell wares therefore merchants and traders had suffered losses in income. The economic struggle spread through the community and the people who dealt with the struggle had lost revenue. In the late fifteenth century, a new demand was created for services and for the goods thus allowing merchants and or traders having markets for the services and goods. An early piece of literature from the Renaissance was by Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) known as the Decameron and wrote it in every day Italian language which was a hundred stories that were told by ten men and women who escaped the Black Death by taking a journey to a country. Classical parts were what Renaissance artists and scholars had looked back upon and they denied any thoughts on the Middle Ages since they looked at the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages because since the fall of Rome, there were not any kinds of original content or creativity during this time. Since then they wanted to imitate the human formShow MoreRelatedGreek And Roman Classical Culture2251 Words   |  10 PagesTerms: Renaissance: --Rediscovery of Greek/Roman classical culture: In the rediscovery of Greek/Roman classical culture Greek scientific and philosophical works were available to western Europeans. It was an rebirth of classical learning and a clear rediscovery of the ancient Rome and Greece. The renaissance scholars and artist referred to the classical past and rejected religious thought of the middle ages referred to as the Dark Ages. They wanted to mirror image the art form of Classical GreeceRead More leadership theories and analysis Essay2506 Words   |  11 Pages The Renaissance was a rebirth of cultural awareness and learning that took place during 1400 - 1500. Art became a branch of learning during the Renaissance. It was a period of time when art was very important. Artists had finally recaptured the amazing detail and realism that the Greeks and Romans perfected. Artists broke boundaries with new exciting mediums and bright colors. Filippo Brunelleschi permitted artists to decide the proport ional size of a figure by inventing the vanishing point perspectiveRead MoreThe Importance Of The Renaissance And Why Is It Important?1965 Words   |  8 Pages What is the Renaissance and Why is it Important? â€Å"In Discussion: The Renaissance† â€Å"What a piece of work is a man! . . . in form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel.† –William Shakespeare, from Hamlet. At the core of Pater s study of the Renaissance lies the maxim l art pour l art, or art for art s sake. Originally championed by nineteenth-century French aesthetes, this notion of art as an end in itself helped shape Pater s conception of a life dedicated to aestheticRead MoreCrictical Examination of the Main Features Renaissance Humanism1817 Words   |  8 Pageshave led to a turn-around in the thoughts and general lives of the people. One of such periods is the renaissance humanism. The renaissance humanism is a term used to designate a period in history that is so spectacular and significant owing to its evolutionary of features. Renaissance here serves as an adjective to the word humanism; not any other type of humanism but the humanism of the renaissance period. This period falls from 14th to 16th century AD. Th e Church is and shall always be a societyRead MoreBranches of Philosophy8343 Words   |  34 Pagesincludes questions about justice, the good, law, property, and the rights and obligations of the citizen. †¢ Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment. †¢ Logic deals with patterns of thinking that lead from true premises to true conclusions, originally developed in Ancient Greece. Beginning in the late 19th century, mathematicians such as Frege focused on a mathematical treatment of logic, and today the subject of logic