Summary of Iosef Stalin

Joseph Stalin was born Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili on December 21, 1879. He was born in Gori, Georgia. Iosif entered into a theological seminary in 1894. Five years later, in ’99, he was expelled. He was elected as a member of the Tiflis Social Democratic Committee. In 1902, he was arrested for the first time of several to come. A year later he married his wife, Yekaterina Svanidze. He was then later transported to Eastern Siberia. In 1904, he escapes Siberia, returns to Tiflis and becomes Bolshevik. He then adopts the alias Koba. That year his son, Yakov is born. The Russo-Japanese War also starts that year and in 1905 the Russian Revolution occurs.

Iosif joins the Caucasian combat unit, taking part in bank robberies in order to gather funds for the Bolshevik party. In the next year, his wife, Yekaterina Svanidze, dies of T.B., or tuberculosis. He then becomes a member of the Baku Bolshevik Committee. Iosif is exiled to Solvychegodsk, Northern Vologda, but escapes after four months and returns to Baku. Three years later he is then again arrested on a visit to St. Petersburg, deported to Western Siberia, escapes after 2 months, and returns to the capitol. Iosif also that year clearly takes the alias of “Stalin” which means “steal.” Stalin is then again arrested in St. Petersburg and this time exiled for four years.

In 1924, Lenin dies and, suspiciously, is chosen to succeed him. Stalin’s victory was a triumph for the Communist party control over all government branches. He sets up the Comintern, the Communism International; a guide for international revolutionary activity. He pulls back the revolutionary ideas in other states to concentrate solely on Russian development. Stalin represented the traditional anti-Western strain in Russia. In mid-1926, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and Kamenev are expelled from their positions. Joseph Stalin then begins his mass-censorship. Instead of killing and threatening them though, he buys the press and monopolizes it. He has his rivals killed or expelled.

In 1929, Stalin begins his system of Five Year Plans to help industrialize Russia completely and without Westernizing Russia. These were extremely successful. They were completely controlled and built up by the government and state. That year, Stalin also began his Collectivization, which was to help to Communize Russia agriculturally by putting the state in charge of agriculture and distribution. This was refused by many, thus was a failure and created a mass famine all over Russia.

Stalin ruled with an iron fist and totalitarian rule. From 1937 to 1938 he led his Great Purge, where all opponents to Stalin and his version of Communism were arrested, exiled, and executed. Most of them were in fact killed and thousands of others were exiled to coerced labor camps in Siberia.

During WWII, Stalin found it hard at first to find a solid ally to side with. In the end, Stalin fought with the Allies against Hitler, gaining back territories and showing the rest of the world that Russia was a true, strong superpower to be reckoned with.

Joseph Stalin, when looked at without moral outlooks, was a great leader, like Hitler. Also like Hitler, he was morally a terrible person, killing as many if not even more people than Hitler during his reign.

Latin America: Industrialization and Ecnomy

Since 1450, or more appropriately 1492, Latin America’s trade system has been molded and changed over the years due to industrialization, foreign investors, and other external and internal factors. The interactions of Latin Amerca with other nations along with its own regional factors have created those changes. Latin America starting out was near complete dependent upon foreign investors, would slowly build itself, and later on would become completely self-dependent.

The backbone of Latin America was its part in the Atlantic Slave Trade and Triangular Trade, African slaves. Indian annihilation lead to this need. Latin America had needed and been using African slaves for agriculture and mining, but around 1550, dependency increased. Between 1450 and 1850, 10 to 11 million slaves arrived to America. Between 1700 and 1800 was the highest import of African slaves. The Triangular/Atlantic slave trade went as follows: African slaves were exported to Latin America, where the raw materials and crops produced would be exported, through Spain, to the world, and finished luxury products would be exported from Europe to Latin America. This cycle would last all the way into the mid 1800’s.

Latin America’s trade and economy grew very slowly. Early discoveries of gold and silver production created the first basis of its economy. Mining of raw materials, metals, and especially silver would remain a huge source of Latin America’s trade and exports. The mines were usually started by private investors and companies, but backed by governments, primarily Spain. Mexico and Peru were the sites of huge silver mines which would continue to flow for years and years to come. The influx and import of so much silver would lead to higher prices and inflation in first Spain and later all of Europe. Silver mining/exports would make up more than 2/3 of Latin America’s economy, trade, and income.

Plantations, agriculture, and the crops produced would make up the majority of the rest of Latin America’s trade/exports. Sugar and cacao were two of the biggest major crops exported, but sugar was the ultimate largest. Sugar plantations would be and were set up from the very beginning of foreign investing, exploration, and discovery in Latin America. Sugar would also continue to be the major trade crop and economic booster and boom for Latin American nations and would continue to be a huge part, even into present day. There were still other trade crops as well, though. During the Bourbon reforms (the period when Spain was controlled by the Bourbon dynasty) state monopolies were formed on “essential” products such as tobacco and gunpowder. Cacao production/export was initiated by the private Caracas Company. There were strict limits on Latin American trade, contraband, and imports, which lead to complaints, rebellion, and conflicts between free-traders and those desiring import limits. Cuba’s economy boomed and became a plantation/slave colony, importing huge amounts of African slaves and exporting goods such as coffee, sugar, and tobacco. New demands for Latin American products cam around the 1850’s during expansion of the European economy. Brazilian coffee, beef and hides from Argentina, and grains and minerals in Chile created a base for growth. Guano, bird droppings used as fertilizer, was huge in Peru. Peru earned more than 10 million pounds from guano exports alone between 1850 and 1880. These economic boosts gave Latin America countries the ability to end Indian tribute and later on even slavery and completely coercive labor. This helped to almost “restart” Latin America.

After the many wars for independence of Latin America, the economy and trade staggered. The Industrial Revolution of Europe helped Latin America recover some from their wars for independence, but there were problems with this as well. During the time of industrialization, Latin America’s mining of minerals and resources also helped them and became a huge factor and part of their trade and the Industrial Revolution. There was almost no industry in Latin America though and they became nearly completely dependent on others and trading resources to them. There wasn’t enough capitol or investments in Latin America. But, as said, there were new, more demands for Latin American products (coffee, sugar, beef, drugs, guano). Latin America was then able to industrialize a bit and improve transportation and communication by introducing steamships and railroads. This helped open possibilities for trade with other countries. The U.S. though set up the Monroe Doctrine stating that no other countries could intrude in Latin American affairs or try any colonization. The U.S. was trying to cut off Latin America from the rest of the world and leaving Latin America’s resources, goods, and markets to them. Foreigners wanted the resources, though, and began investments, which helped Latin America immensely. Latin American economies were expanding due to exports. Each country seemed to have specialties; i.e.: bananas and coffee from Central America, tobacco and sugar from Cuba, and rubber and coffee from Brazil. These were extremely beneficial in allowing them to import more luxury goods and helping government fundings. They were risky though in that they were vulnerable and dependent on the condition of the outside world. They also lead to hostility and war, such as the War of the Pacific, in which Chile increased size by a third and Peru’s and Bolivia’s governments fell. Because of the rapidly expanding commerce and trade, there was a large interest from foreign investors from the major powers, the British, French, German, and the less major U.S. These investors helped the Latin American economy and provided capitol, but were lessening their independence. Much of Latin America began to industrialize. Foreign investments were encouraged and policies were changed to help promote investments as well. The U.S. especially began to take part and expand in investments. The U.S. backed Puerto Rico and Cuba in the Spanish-American War, but after helping them win independence, the U.S. took control themselves.

During WWI, Latin America had been somewhat cut off from the rest of the world in trade. Efforts during the Great Depression set estates to exporting more coffee, rubber, and sugar. Demands weren’t as high as production; therefore prices dropped and lowered demand for imports.

The success of the 19^th century continued on into the 20^th century during World War I. With each area/nation specializing in a certain crop, all they needed was demand to remain high and they would gain immense profit. Some immediate effects though from WWI would be the industrialization of Latin America. Being cut off from supplies of imports, they had to resort to producing these former imports themselves. Therefore, they experienced what some call import substitution industrialization. This was mostly light industry, such as textiles. Lack of capital, markets, and low technological advancements continued to plague them. WWI stimulated the economy at first, creating a high European demand for goods. This quickly dropped after the war and wages declined and conditions worsened. After the Great Stock Market Crash, investments and purchases declined and economic programs went bankrupt. After World War II, Latin America began to be isolated further. Towards the beginning of the Cold War, in the mid 1900’s, Cuba became public. Fidel Castro, a communist took control of Cuba, forcing the U.S. to isolate them and put a trade embargo on Cuba, meaning no one could trade with them. This was the last major event or change concerning the trade of Latin America. They still are huge agricultural producers and traders. Now, there is also a mass amount of drug Cartels, or major organizations devoted to or controlling a certain market (such as drugs such as cocaine, heroine, marijuana), in Latin America.

Latin America has had an ever-changing trade commerce. Since 1450 to present day they have undergone many different stages and ways of trade. Foreign investing, industrialization, wars and conflicts, and other internal and external factors have created the changes in Latin America’s part in the international trade network.

Fun Essay on the Right to Grow Facial Hair In School

At Bishop Brossart High School, there is a certain rule pertaining to the growth of facial hair for the male students. Many including myself feel restricted and insulted by this rule. There is a lack of fairness and reason seen behind it. I mean not to insult or suggest any infliction upon anyone. I ask only that you, Mr. Seither and the Board of Education who create the rules, would consider this plea seriously and earnestly. This rule should be changed or removed from the handbook so as to give students more freedom and equality among the faculty and school community. I wish that you do take this seriously, as much time and effort has and will continue to be put into it. Once again I inform you that this is in no way an attack or insult on anyone or the handbook. I am also very willing, encouraged, and obliged to discuss this issue with you personally. Thank you very much for your consideration of this plea.
Historically, socially, culturally, and even religiously, the beard and ability to grow facial hair has always had much importance and reason. The ability to grow facial hair has always been viewed as a sign and symbol of respect and maturity, along with many other ideas such as health, individuality, and common growth. All men should be allowed this common right and passage of adulthood.

The association of facial hair and respect is historical, religious, and cultural. Historically, facial hair has gifted many with added support and respect. Many of our most respected and successful leaders have born beards and facial hair: Colonel Burnside, the creator of the side-burns; General and President Ulysses S. Grant; and every president between Grant and President Theodore Roosevelt are but a few. For one specific President, and also one of the greatest, the beard played a very large role in his campaign. President Abraham Lincoln was told by a young girl that he couldn’t be taken seriously unless he grew out his facial hair. After this incident, he grew his famous beard, gaining him much support and respect as a more rugged, healthier, respectable-looking man. Even in the classroom the respect given to the bearded is significantly explicit. Before the Christmas break, when Mr. Shonebarger had his beard grown out, many of the students complimented him and there was a sense that students were more quiet and respectful. Students mocked Mr. Shonebarger to his face after he shaved his beard. They said that he “looks like a child” and “shouldn’t be a teacher” and also that he “looks like a student.” I was even told that I should have been sitting up there and looked more like a teacher or professor than he did. Also, juniors Tara Enzweiler and Dave Webster both told me that they too believe that people give more respect to someone with a beard or facial hair. These statements are all evidence of the sense of respect given to those with facial hair. In other cultures and religions the same associations are very relevant. In the Islamic religion and in many other Middle Eastern cultures and religions, the ability to grow facial hair is highly respected and hailed. Moqtada al-Sadr, a political and Shiite religious leader and a main U.S. ally, has been criticized by many of his elders and opponents for his inability to grow a very full and healthy beard. Those same Muslims believe this to be a significant sign of respect since their most high prophet, Muhammad, wore a beard and tells his followers to (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Hadith # 780) “Do the opposite of what the pagans do. Keep the beards and cut the moustaches short.” Along with the respect for facial hair is the ever-present sense of wisdom and solidarity found and given to those behind it. “Father Time,” the respectable old figure of wisdom and sage, is always depicted with his long, white beard. As are two other great figures, the god of gods in Greek religion, Zeus, and our own Lord, God the Almighty, of all Christian denominations. Every artist’s rendition, child’s imagination, and most believers’ depictions show these important figures with great, white beards distinguishing them with the wisdom and respect that they hold. Respect is a very important trait and characteristic associated with and given to many who bear facial hair.

Along with the idea and sense of respect is the physical and psychological maturity associated with facial hair. Facial hair makes our faces healthier by restricting the oils that clog pores and cause acne. Acne causes severe anxiety and stress for many, which acts as a block toward further maturity and learning. The possession of facial hair can thus emulate maturity in thought and feeling in a person, allowing him to be more secure and to focus on the task at hand. Facial hair is also a very clear, significant, and substantial sign of true, physical maturity. “The hair of the chin showed him to be a man” (St. Clement of Alexandria, a Greek-Catholic convert and Church teacher [c.195, E]). Facial hair is a natural and important part of growth and maturity as a man. It shows that we are finally coming into our own. It is a form to show we are shedding our youthful shell and growing into the life of adulthood-as maturity is the essence and purpose of our learning and education, with all of the notes, homework, books, tests, etc. to educate us and bring us into a new, mature, adult world. “The nature of the beard contributes in an incredible degree to distinguish the maturity of bodies, or to distinguish the sex, or to contribute to the beauty of manliness and strength” (Lactantius, an early Christian leader, [c. 304-314, W]). To restrict growth is only to deny the inevitable and take a right of manhood away. “This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness” (St. Clement of Alexandria). One part of the physically maturing person is the responsibility to cleanse and care for his growing symbol of maturity and manhood, his facial hair. Facial hair is a very important symbol of maturity and growth into manhood.

In a place in which we are taught and told to be individuals and encouraged to grow and mature, we are ironically suppressed and forced to conform to a few individuals’ ideals, instead of being allowed our own right of expression. This leaves us little for our own preference and expression. Growth of facial hair is truly one of the few things we as individuals have to show for our own development and individualism. One cannot stop another from growing taller or wider, so why should one be given the right to stop students from growing in a way that they are able because of their physical maturity, their individuality? To face the facts, many of us are already very close to being finished in our vertical growth, but if all we have now to show our growth and individuality is such a characteristic as facial hair, why not allow or even encourage that? One’s status does not give him the right or superiority over another to force his own preferences upon another, especially in a true, loving Christian community. Our open community of God would become but a fascist state, disallowing all that is different, where the message of Christ Jesus is to be different and to love and accept all for who and what they are. And to be different in the sense of Jesus’ message is to be loving and accepting of all, as the world around us is full of much contempt, bias, intolerance, and bitterness. We must ask ourselves, “What kind of message are we putting out there if we take Christ’s loving, accepting message and turn it against the world to control and conform all?” Not a very accepting and loving one. We are also sending mixed messages already, and they are there for all to see in the Bishop Brossart High School Handbook. Our school’s philosophy and objectives state respect, maturity, learning, and individuality as goals and virtues, yet page 18 has rules for the dress code and under grooming are these qualifications: “Hair should be properly groomed, neat, and clean.” This I see as important and understandable for the point of maturity and responsibility. “It may not be worn/colored in a distracting manner. Sideburns may be no longer than the middle of the ear. No facial hair may be worn.”

But who is to truly say that something is distracting, especially when we should not base judgments upon looks, and those things can not harm our education? Most find the loud interruptions of others to be much more distracting than the way someone looks, as that would be an insult to call anyone “distracting.” Also, if wearing sideburns or facial hair is a form of individuality, why is it restricted and disallowed to flourish? Is it not hypocrisy and a paradox to say so much about goals of individualism, growth, maturity, and respect, only to go on and completely restrict and suppress students from that growth? Individualism can take many forms, but when restricted in nearly all ways and forms, how are we to grow in those goals?

All in all, I believe that the growth of facial hair is a very important symbol of respect, individuality, and maturity, all things which are clearly relevant and present today. To rob one completely of this right and growth is feckless and can only lead to the unhappiness and loss of that responsibility, individuality, respect and maturity. I believe that our own Bishop Brossart Handbook is one of the best pieces of evidence to prove my point and to move our school into a much more accepting path. The Philosophy and Objectives of Bishop Brossart High School on page 3 states these objectives and responsibilities:

“The integration of religious truth and values with the rest of life is brought about at Bishop Brossart High School by:

-providing a distinctive, Catholic environment based on Gospel values.

-stressing love and responsibility to God, self, family, Church and world community.

-providing a structured atmosphere conducive to learning.

-advancing the level of competency.

-encouraging the exercise of self-direction, critical thinking and creativity both intellectually and morally.

-emphasizing, for faculty and students, recognition of and respect for diversity of individuals.

-providing programs that encourage the development of the entire person through intellectual, social, and athletic programs.

I believe these missions best support and describe my own in liberating our students from the restraints of conformity and allowing our maturing, respectable, and individualistic students to have the same freedoms as adults and faculty in the subject of facial hair. Facial hair is a very important and long-standing historical, social, cultural, and religious symbol of respect, maturity, and individuality. The restricting and insensitive rule should be changed or taken out from the handbook immediately to allow our students to grow and mature and receive the same respect and freedom as our faculty.

Persuasive Political Essay Against the Execution of Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein wears black ironed pants, an ivory white shirt, a luxurious, black topcoat, and burnished black shoes, with his hair dyed black and silver beard trimmed. He wears plastic handcuffs and his legs are tied together. After being read his sentence and speaking to a Sunni cleric, Saddam is led into a large, cold room, with the stench of death and a large gallows. The guards in black help the ex-Iraqi dictator up the stairs of the gallows. “I am not afraid, I have chosen this path,” Saddam tells a top Iraqi official. He refuses to put on a black hood over his head. “He was holding tight. He was not scared,” says Munqith al-Faroun, the prosecutor against Saddam. As Saddam approaches the floor of the gallows, he repeats his prayers a second time, despite the direct insults and antagonizing from guards and officials. The hangman asks for silence, the floor drops, and snap! The “Butcher of Baghdad” is dead.

There are many who believe the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein to be righteous, deserving, necessary, and more than fair for such a ruthless and horrifying dictator. “An important milestone,” Bush calls Saddam’s execution, that “closed a terrible chapter” for Iraq’s new government. Saddam had killed so many people, enemies and innocents. Newsweek’s “CW” jokes, “Onetime strongman gets some bad noose. No tears for the Butcher of Baghdad.” But I believe that Saddam’s execution is another grave mistake that only deters us further from our mission. Our Christian and humane morals, the skewed and messy trial and execution, and extended anger and violence caused by his death all cause me to believe that the execution of Saddam Hussein is wrong.

My own Christian, humane, and democratic morals and values cause me to believe that the execution of Saddam Hussein is wrong. Our scriptures, laws, and human nature tell us not to harm, hurt, or kill others, no matter what the circumstances. I believe firmly in this. A humanitarian group asks, “How does killing people who kill people bring peace?” The simple answer is; it does not. Christian values and morals tell us to help, save, love, and forgive one another. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you,” Jesus tells us. “For this is the Golden Rule.” Each World Religion, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, has one Golden Rule. This Golden Rule is universal through the entire world: “Love others as your self.” That means that this is not just a Christian value, but general humane value. Our God and Jesus Christ are both loving and compassionate beings that call us to bring justice and righteousness to those who hurt us, through love, teachings, and forgiveness. Referring to the old Jewish law, Jesus tells us that “You have heard, ‘love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy.’ But I say to you love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.” We are also told, “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. For with the same measure you use it will be measured back to you.” This is another teaching of Jesus Christ, who many in America declare to be their Lord and follow; but how are we following in his footsteps and guides if we allow and encourage the same immoral behavior as those we are trying to stop? How does condemning and killing Saddam Hussein for his horrendous crimes of genocide and mass murder, really solve anything; especially when Saddam has been out of power and out of the picture for the last three years? George W. Bush himself, after saying how “important” his execution is, told the same reporter that he is sad and ashamed with how it was handled and how inhumane Saddam was treated before death. Also, America declares this war to spread democracy and wants to influence and guide Iraq to be a more forward, democratic state. One of the major parts of democracy, however, is the unalienable right to life. Yet, the U.S. allows such a brutal, inhumane, and socially ancient act of murder to occur. Furthermore, the execution proves to be a huge folly in itself. All involved are called in and rushed to the location at 3:30 in the morning. Saddam is ready and accepting of his punishment, but even right before death his enemies must inveigh, flaunt, and antagonize him. Not only do the reports of this incident prove my point, but to make things much worse and apparent, the execution was taped by camera phone. Now most of the world has the capability to see this horrible sham of justice with their own eyes, only further proving my point. This immoral, inhumane, and dictatorial event proves that the execution of Saddam Hussein is just that and should not have occurred.

The handling and interferences in the trial and execution are further proof that Saddam Hussein should not have been executed. The trials were very messy and handled very unskillfully; sessions often ended in yelling and fighting from both sides. Some involved, such as attorneys and a judge, were beaten and or killed; one killed right outside the court building. There were too many skewed views and voices interfering in things as well. The Kurds are a mostly peaceful people who are part of Iraq and control all of Northern Iraq. They eventually tried to overthrow and hurt the power of Saddam Hussein. Saddam held genocide on them during his rule, killing tens of thousands of them, mostly with chemical weapons supplied by the U.S. The Sunni sect of Islam and its followers believe that the prophet Muhammad is the last sent from God. The Sunnis are the majority of the Islamic world except for in a few countries; they are minorities in Iraq. The Shia, or Shiites, is the other main sect of Islam which believes that there were twelve other prophets after Muhammad. They are also minorities in the Islamic world, except for Iraq, where they are a very poor and very large majority. After the death of Muhammad, the schism fell into an all out war. For hundreds of years they were primarily peaceful until the first Iraq war when the U.S. interfered then as well. Saddam Hussein had been a Sunni believer. The Shiites, believers of Shia, were executed, suppressed, and persecuted by Saddam and his rule. Vengeful Shiites along with the Maliki regime, which is Shiite, wanted a rushed, quick trial and execution. They did not allow Saddam to go under any other trials for his other crimes. The Kurds are upset because they wanted to keep Saddam alive so they could give him and his crimes the correct justice and damnation that they deserve. The Kurds wanted to put him on trial for his genocide of tens of thousands of Kurds in Iraq, mostly by chemical warfare; they should have been given this gesture. Many were hurt and persecuted by Saddam, but the bias of the powerful did not allow things to take their course. In the end, Saddam was sentenced to death for the killings of about 130 male Shiites, but before death, he would have to listen to his enemies chant against him and then have them flaunted for all to see with the internet. All of these interferences and the handlings of these events hold much proof that Saddam Hussein should not have been executed.

The execution of Saddam Hussein has caused much more anger, offense, and violence as well. As said, the Kurds are infuriated and frustrated that they do not get the chance to take Saddam to trial and receive justice for his genocide against them. Much deeper a wound dealt and problem now is how Sunnis see and feel Saddam’s execution to be an insult to injury. Many Sunnis interpret it to be a direct attack to them. They are only fueled with more anger towards the Maliki regime, Shiites, and U.S. Furthermore, his execution completely negates the last three years of healing. The weeks after Saddam’s execution, a spike in Sunni killings and even higher anti-American feelings became apparent. All of that due to our fatal mistake of handing Saddam Hussein over to his enemies for them to carry out their vengeance. Also adding to the Sunnis anger and hate towards the U.S. and the Shiites is the video and exploitation of Saddam’s execution, with taunts and flaunting against him right before and after death. The further anger, hate, and violence caused by Saddam’s execution are additive proof of the transgression of his murder.

The execution of Saddam Hussein is proven to be wrong and that it should not have happened. All of these reasons more than depict and support this fact. The skewed and messy trial and execution, our own Christian, democratic, and humane values, and the heightened hatred and violence caused by Saddam’s death are all perfect evidence of the injustice and malice of his execution and that he should not have been killed.

The Boston Tea Party: Setting the Scene for the American Revolution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Boston Harbor a tea-pot tonight! Hurrah for Griffins Wharf! The Mohawks are come!” are the words that triggered the Boston Tea Party, the most archetypical protest in American history (Hull 25). The Bostonian colonists had been in plight since the arrival of new tea under the Tea Act. The Boston Tea Party was the colonies’ supreme protest of the Tea Act and tax. Although the colonies suffered greatly after, they were united even stronger and moved even closer to revolution and independence from Great Britain. The Boston Tea Party was a sign that America would be born from hostility and would serve as a foreshadowing of events to unfold into the American Revolution and would further influence its development ever since.

The Boston Tea Party was the reaction of the Bostonian colonists due to repeated antagonizing from Great Britain. The British excessively tried to suppress the colonists and make them into their subjects. They did so by repeatedly attempting to force their own legislature and taxes upon the colonists. The Writs of Assistance were the first of these British legislatures forced upon them. These were blank search warrants allowing the search and seizure of any property the British deemed necessary. The Writs of Assistance were one of the most despised of all acts forced on the colonists because they infringed upon the colonists’ rights and privacy and cut into the colonists’ smuggling (Hull 32). The Proclamation of 1763 was another act that would cause much disdain among the colonists. This proclamation restricted colonists from moving west from the Appalachian Mountains. The Proclamation of 1763 enraged the colonists because they felt it was their right to move west (Shonebarger). The Sugar Act was one of the first actual taxes on the colonists. This act taxed all sugars and molasses shipped to the colonies, upsetting many as sugar was a very important and beloved additive of the colonists. It infuriated them even more though because it was the first act used to directly raise money for Great Britain (Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum: Boston Tea Party History). The Stamp Act of 1765 was the next significant act put on the colonists. The Stamp Act put duties on all official documents which required colonists to buy a mandatory stamp with a tax on it. The act was protested throughout the colonies and was met with much aggression from colonists. In Boston, mobs formed and rioted, even destroying Massachusetts Governor Hutchinson’s house. The Stamp Act was repealed in 1766 due to the widespread outrage. After repealing the Stamp Act, the British found it necessary to state their right to tax the colonies if they so chose to (Hull 120-121).

The Townshend Acts were the next major legislature established in the colonies. These acts put duties on many imports and goods such as tea, paper, and glass (Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum: Boston Tea Party History). The revenue raised from these duties would be used to pay for the salaries of governors and other British government officials. Before the Townshend Acts, governors and government officials depended solely on the colonists for their wages. With colonists in control of wages, officials would be subject to answering to the colonies and taking more responsibility for their actions. These acts infuriated the colonists because they wanted to be in control of wages, but now they would no longer have that power over the government (Hull 8-9). The frustration and anger of the colonists toward the Townshend Acts gave rise to new leadership, especially from a Bostonian radical named Samuel Adams (Appy et al 84).

Samuel Adams, cousin of future president John Adams, was a radical and revolutionary. He emerged as a leader for citizens of Boston in calling for the repeal of the Townshend Acts and even severance from England. Samuel Adams would create the Sons of Liberty and Committee of Correspondence, radical spy and communications networks and group between Boston, Massachusetts and the rest of the colonies. Samuel Adams eagerly and openly protested against the Townshend Acts and other unjust legislatures and eventually led a boycott of all taxed goods. The Governor Hutchinson, Governor of Massachusetts, even complained that “Every dip of his pen stung like a horned snake.” Samuel Adams would go on to help end the Townshend Acts and to lead the country closer towards revolution (Appy et al 84).

After the emergence of such leadership as Samuel Adams, the Townshend Acts would be mostly repealed, but not before certain tragedy in 1770. On March 5, 1770, British soldiers shot into an angry mob of workers and youths, killing five colonists. This was the Boston Massacre. Colonists all over were outraged. Only two out of the eight soldiers who fired were convicted of manslaughter, and that did not even hold up. There was barely any response from Great Britain. Less than one month later, all but one duty of the Townshend Acts were repealed to calm things down. The one duty left from the Townshend Acts was the duty on tea to signify that Great Britain still had authority and power over the colonies. This angered many, yet they were willing to handle it for the time being and current peace (“Boston Tea Party”).

Without doubt, the leading cause of the Boston Tea Party would be the passing of the Tea Act. The Tea Act not only put a duty on tea, the beloved drink of the colonists, but also gave the East India Company a complete monopoly on the colonial tea trade (Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum: Boston Tea Party History). The East India Company had been the long-time, royal tea shipment company of Great Britain and was in financial trouble. The Tea Act was to help the nearly bankrupt shipping company by eliminating its tax and putting it on the colonists to pay. The Tea Act only allowed certain agents and merchants to distribute tea as well, ruining many people’s occupations. Also, the Tea Act threatened the Dutch tea trade and smuggling industry. Before the Tea Act, most bought tea smuggled from Holland because it was cheaper and better tasting. With the installment of the Tea Act, however, there would be almost no possible way for the trade to survive. This troubled and vexed even more colonists (“Boston Tea Party”). With the wake and anger caused by the Tea Act, more people were driven to follow Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty. Tea had been very popular, but people began to prefer to drink coffee, beer, or just go. It became a symbol of defiance, unity, and patriotism to boycott tea (Hull 8-9). The Tea Act became the final straw and would lead directly to the Boston Tea Party.

The Patriots of Boston were very diverse, just like Boston. Many were very skeptical of their unity (Liberty! The American Revolution). Groups of angry, concerned colonists organized together and called themselves Patriots. They banned together to oppose and protest the British policies. They held mass meetings and organized protests and activities. Their utmost goal was to achieve greater freedom for colonists (Hull 10-11). The radical Samuel Adams would lead the Sons of Liberty and Patriots together and welcomed all to the American colonists’ cause (Appy et al 84). Other clubs the Patriots joined include the Loyal Nine and Boston Committee of Correspondence. These groups wrote to other Patriots and Patriot groups calling for grater organization. These other groups were composed of other, later, key revolutionary leaders, such as Paul Revere, Joseph Warren, and John Hancock (Hull 11).

The Patriots were not just angry, uneducated citizens. Many held powerful, political ideologies. One major belief and right that echoed throughout all of the colonies and by every politician and lawyer was “taxation without representation,” which is the idea that the colonists were being taxed by Great Britain and Parliament, yet had no representative or voice in Parliament. This action was illegal, yet Great Britain declared that they owned the colonies, thus it did not apply (“Boston Tea Party”). Many other Patriots and intellectuals soon emerged to remonstrate the actions and policies of the British against the colonies.

Thomas Paine was an intellectual, radical, and outspoken revolutionary against the transgressions of his birth land, England. With his outspoken and inspirational pamphlet Common Sense, he became one of the most influential pamphleteers of all time. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, echoing the radical movement for Revolution against the British rule and taxing. Thomas Paine was able to express Colonial feelings and sentiment. Thomas Paine wrote, “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.” This statement depicts the Colonial feeling against the forced government of Great Britain on their society. Paine also wrote on monarchies and hereditary succession. He wrote that we are all “equals in order of creation,” thus there is no reason or justification for either. Paine also declared that they both cause wars and civil unrest. He stated that the disgruntled people must rise up and all will have to pay for the evils of the government and monarchies. Thomas Paine’s final reason and purpose was to make a call to arms. Paine wanted to “cajole hesitants into accepting break wit England both inevitable and justified [as] relations so intolerable only complete independence would suffice.” Thomas Paine believed that in a war with Britain, America would emerge the victor. He expressed this clearly in his final call to arms by stating, “Arms as last resource decide the contest” (Paine xvi-xviii). Paine spoke and wrote straight to the hearts of the Patriots and gives us a perfect example of the mindset of those Patriots and revolutionaries.

Much like Thomas Paine, John Locke was another very influential, radical, philosopher of the time. John Locke believed the power of the government came from the consent of the people. Thus, by this decree, Great Britain should answer to its colonies. Also, John Locke had the ideology and beliefs that all people are born free and equal, with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Many of the Patriots and colonists followed and believed in John Locke’s ideology. The Patriots would carry it with them in their actions and would even become the framework for the Declaration of Independence (Shonebarger).

November 28, 1773, the Dartmouth, the first ship under the new Tea Act, arrived at Boston Harbor (Hull 11). As soon as the Patriots heard of the arrival, the Committee of Correspondence asked the importation officials to wait to log the arrival, but they could not and the ship was already in jurisdiction under the new Tea Act law (Labaree 128). Express riders were then sent out to tell of a meeting at Faneuil Hall to determine what to do with the Dartmouth. Five thousand people showed up at Faneuil Hall, which was too small. They moved the meeting to Old South Meeting House and John Hancock, a ship-owner, smuggler, and future revolutionary, mediated the meeting. Samuel Adams suggested they prevent the tea from being unloaded, refuse payment of the duty, and return it to England. The body approved the motion. A Son of Liberty, Dr. Thomas Young, foreshadowed the future by suggesting that only dumping the tea would suffice. The body disapproved of the motion due to high public respect for private property and the desire to return the tea back to the East India Company. The body then designated six experienced horseback riders as messengers whom were to alarm town of trouble and inform of unfolding events. Next, the body motioned to station a guard of twenty-five colonists over the Dartmouth. Francis Rotch, the owner of the Dartmouth then made his plea to the body (Hull 13-16).

Francis Rotch, a twenty-three year old Quaker, owned the controversial Dartmouth. His ship was the first tea ship to arrive under the new Tea Act, but it also had many other goods he felt more important and profitable that he wanted to sell. Rotch was pressured by the Patriots first to just return to sea, and later, to not report his ship. After getting advice from his father and John Adams, however, he declined because they suggested it would financially ruin him. Rotch then pleaded to the Patriots not to seize his ship or damage any goods. The Patriots declined and once again demanded he get permission to send the tea back (Hull 15-16). Rotch then went to Governor Hutchinson and the Consignees, the importation officials. Governor Hutchinson was in control of Boston and Massachusetts. Hutchinson hated the Patriots and wanted a bout with them. Hutchinson was hoping that the Consignees would hold out and not give in. He wanted to use the royal His Majesty’s army and navy to seize and land the Dartmouth and defeat the Patriots. Governor Hutchinson even went so far as to prepare the castle for the retreat of the Consignees. Hutchinson denied Rotch permission to leave the port.

As all of the colonies awaited to hear what would become of the Dartmouth in Boston, many events were unfolding in the quick eighteen day period between the arrival of the Dartmouth and the Boston Tea Party. In the first days after the Dartmouth’s arrival, the Boston government receded into the castle. The entire army, Governor, Consignees, officials, and others hide away. They stay out of fear of the Boston citizens (Labaree 133-134).

As all government receded and hid away, the Patriots and Committee of Correspondence took control of Boston. Samuel Adams and the radicals forced the Dartmouth to be brought up to Griffin’s Wharf. They did so because they feared the navy would attack if the Patriots board the ship by the castle and also feared the army would attack people if the castle had the Dartmouth. The Patriots began to threaten British and Tories, British sympathizers, with mob violence, destruction of stores, and tar and feathering. All of the pistols and weapons in Boston were even bought up by the Patriots just in case of a battle (Hull 16-20). Admiral Montague of the British Navy watched the Patriots from the castle. He was struck by the military conduct of the armed guard and even noted that they patrolled the waterfront “like sentinels in a garrison” (Labaree 133-134). Boston was growing tense and these events only showed the preparations and precautions everyone took because of their uncertainty for the future of the Dartmouth, Boston, and the Colonies.

On December 13, 1773, word was received about incidents in other colonies. New York and Philadelphia were both able to force the ships back to England and to convince the tea Consignees in their cities to resign. Now, it seemed, everyone was looking to Boston. Both sent word that they deeply feared the failure of Boston. That day, the Committee of Correspondence held a meeting with the heads of the five neighboring towns. The meeting was held all day and although the official minutes say that nothing important was discussed or decided, it is most likely to be then that the Boston Tea Party was planned (Hull 20-22).

At 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 16, 1773, a meeting was assembled at the Old South Meeting House in Boston, Massachusetts. A body of about seven thousand people gathered. Francis Rotch was brought before the body once again. A recess was given so he could appeal one last time to ship out. He was denied once again, but this time Sons of Liberty member Thomas Young defended Rotch and demanded nothing of his be damaged. Samuel Adams then stood and approached the front of the meeting house. Seemingly, as if a signal, Adams announced that all resources and tactics of the Patriots had been exhausted. “Boston Harbor a tea-pot tonight! Hurrah for Griffin’s Wharf! The Mohawks are come! Every man to his tent!” A group of Patriots dressed as Mohawk Indian waited at the door, cheering and whooping for all to follow (Hull 23-25).

The patriotic meeting was over! Now the Boston Tea Party had begun, as the crowd started to follow the “Mohawks” to Griffin’s Wharf. There were about fifty or so participants dressed up in guise for the revolutionary act of protest. Most were stern and prepared, but a few were drunk and hollering (Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum: Boston Tea Party History). Two-thirds of the participants were under twenty years old and most were common laborers. Most of the participants also kept the truth of their involvement secret until death.

The organization and leadership of the Boston Tea Party was thought to be very decisive and intellectual than most would think. Samuel Adams was once again a key player in the events. Although he did not take any actual part in the destruction of the tea, he did orchestrate and lead the Sons of Liberty and other Patriots who did get involved (“Boston Tea Party”). Paul Revere, the renowned horseman, was a leader of the mechanic class and helped gain supporters for the Boston Tea Party protest (Boston Tea Party Historical Society). There were definitely more methodical, higher-thinking people involved because of the careful, precise style in which the protest was executed. The actual destruction of the tea was so quiet, that people on shore could hear the hatchets whack at the wooden crates. Also, great precautions were taken to assure that no one took any tea. One man who was caught was beaten severely and stripped. Some Patriots even got into boats and made sure the tea either sank or mixed in the harbor (Labaree 144).

Three-hundred forty-two total chests of tea were methodically dumped into Boston Harbor from the Dartmouth and two other boats, the Eleanor and the Beaver, while the British watched the even unfold from afar without any intervention (Hull 85, Labaree 145). The navy had even gone out within one-hundred yards of the Dartmouth but took no action, nor tried to intercede in any way. Admiral Montague witnessed the Boston Tea Party from his house on Griffin’s Wharf and reported that he could have easily stopped it, but it would have endangered many innocents in Boston. As participants and Patriots marched past his house gloating with pride, he told them they would pay for their deed. And he was right (Labaree 145).

Colonists all over the colonies shared the same reaction and feelings about the Boston Tea Party, for the most part. The excitement and joy over the Boston Tea Party was so high and widespread that most colonists knew of the events by New Year’s. Most were jovial and relieved that the episode was over and done with (Labaree 152). John Adams, who was not involved but did witness it wrote, “This is the most magnificent of all. There is a dignity, a majesty, a sublimity in this last effort of the Patriots that I greatly admire,” in adoration of event. However, there were those that disapproved and were worried about the aftermath. Most kept quiet and hidden though. The Tories and those who were nervous did not dare raise protest, out of fear of further violence towards them (Labaree 152).

The British took severe measures to suppress and take back control of the colonies, especially Boston, Massachusetts, in the immediate aftermath of the Boston Tea Party. Parliament was outraged at this demonstration from the colonists. They demanded immediate compensation for the tea. They never would receive any payment (“Boston Tea Party”). Parliament then declared Governor Thomas Hutchinson worthless and decided to replace him. General Thomas Gage was made Governor of Massachusetts. Governor Gage immediately instated Marshall Law and Boston Harbor was immediately closed. Benjamin Franklin, a politician and constructor of the USA and Declaration of independence, was the Massachusetts agent to Great Britain. He was harshly censured for the Patriots’ actions (Liberty! The American Revolution). The next step of the British in punishing Boston and the colonies was the passing of the Intolerable Acts.

The Intolerable Acts were legislature used to utterly punish and suppress Boston, Massachusetts, and the rest of the colonies swiftly and effectively. The Intolerable Acts, officially known as the Coercive Acts by the British, were to ensure the prevention of future uprisings by the colonies. The Intolerable Acts made all Massachusetts assemblies, mass meetings, and local town meetings illegal. If desired, colonists could ask permission from the Governor General Gage, but would most likely be denied. This measure was instituted to ensure the colonists could not plan or orchestrate another revolt. Next, the Intolerable Acts exempted British officials from trial in the Massachusetts colony. Lastly, the Quartering Act was instated into the Intolerable Acts. The Quartering Act allowed for the housing of soldiers in the homes of citizens where deemed as necessary by military leaders (“Boston Tea Party’). The Intolerable Acts were effectively used to punish, harm, and control the colonies, especially Massachusetts, in many ways.

Another “intolerable act” installed upon the colonies was the Quebec Act. The Quebec Act initially gave the land east of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio River to the Quebec province, which was mostly French. This angered the colonists because many had already claimed land there and felt it their right to explore and settle there. The Quebec Act also granted religious freedom to Catholics, who colonists despised and distrusted, as most colonists were Protestants. The Protestant colonists did not trust Catholics and did not want any encouragement of the spread of Catholicism in the Americas or the colonies. The colonists felt that this was another deliberate punishment and assault on the freedoms and feelings of the colonies. Although the Quebec Act was not intentionally a punishment, it was the last initial punishment and blow to the colonists for the Boston Tea Party (Hull 110-111).

Although the Intolerable Acts, Quebec Act, and other actions were taken by the British to break, punish, and weaken the colonies, the colonies were in fact strengthened much more. There was a much greater sense of unity created and felt throughout all of the colonies. The British response in fact helped unify the colonists and brought them even closer to a movement towards American independence (World Book). As response to the closing of Boston’s port, food, money, supplies, and other goods were sent to Boston to help relieve suffering. With the port closed, thousands lost jobs and were unable to get supplies, so the items sent from the other colonies helped immensely. To help address the issues and find resolves, the colonists would meet in the First Continental Congress.

The colonies held the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Fifty-six delegates met to decide on further action in which to protest Great Britain. The colonies created and signed a Non-Importation Pact in which the colonists would boycott all British goods until the annulment of the Intolerable Acts and Quebec Act. They also drafted a Declaration of Colonial Rights and Grievances, which declared the Intolerable Acts and Marshall Law in Massachusetts as unconstitutional, as they were against the Massachusetts charter. The First Continental Congress also declared the creation of militias in New England colonies. They would train, practice drills, and store up supplies in case the colonies needed to defend themselves. The First Continental Congress declared that if their demands were not met by mid 1775, they would take further action (Appy et al 86).

After the First Continental Congress, tensions escalated as the New England militias were growing. They had been practicing drills and readying supplies for an attack or defense. In 1775, Massachusetts militias ran into British troops at the towns of Lexington and Concord. The Battle of Lexington and Concord rang out across the world and sounded off the American Revolution. The war between Great Britain and American colonies had begun. The struggle for independence would lead the American colonists to victory and to the birth of the United States of America (Hull 121, Labaree 264).

As Labaree says, “The Coercive Acts threatened Colonists’ freedoms, thus a Continental Congress was made to decide on what to do…Revolution!” The Boston Tea Party, a single act of protest, had brought on the necessary steps which would lead the colonists toward revolution and security of independence and freedom. The Boston Tea Party had built up a country of anger, tension, excitement, and unity that would bring all together for a common cause. The Boston Tea Party was a sign of many things to come and characterized the American culture. First, the Boston Tea Party was a symbol and architect of the American culture of protest, candor, and violence. Our culture has been defined by this symbol as our prime example of protest, as we can see so much of in today’s culture. America is also very forthright in his actions, declarations, and emotions. America’s people have no problem with protesting and expressing anything. Also, the Boston Tea Party proved that our country would be born from violence, which has always been and will continue to be a major part of our culture. This can be seen in everyday life, the media, and our actions across the world. Most importantly though, the Boston Tea Party showed how if our country comes together truly and works at a common goal, we can and will accomplish anything for the good of all mankind.

Works Cited

Appy, DiBacco, and Loran Mason. History of The United States. Evanston: Houghtin Mifflin Co., 1995.

Boston Tea Party Historical Society. The Boston Tea Party Historical Society. 9 April 2007. <http://www.boston-tea-party.org/>.

“Boston Tea Party,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia. 2007. Microsoft. 3 April 2007. <http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565150/Boston_Tea_Party.html>.

Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum: Boston Tea Party History. Historic Tours of America, Inc. 3 April 2007. <http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/history.asp>.

“Boston Tea Party.” The World Book Encyclopedia. 2006 ed.

Hull, Mary E. The Boston Tea Party in American History. New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, Inc, 1999.

Labaree, Benjamin Woods. The Boston Tea Party. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Liberty! The American Revolution. PBS. 3 April 2007. <http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle_boston1774.html>.

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. New York: Barnes and Nobles, Inc, 199

Shonebarger, Andy. “The Revolutionary Era.” U.S. History Class. Bishop Brossart High School, Alexandria, KY. 28 Aug. 2006.

Essay/Reflection on Good Will Hunting for Mr. Phirman

The film Good Will Hunting is the journey and story of a young, South Boston man’s troubled life and his opening up and moving on into the world. Like Will Hunting, the main character, many of us go through stages and periods in our life and can probable relate to him in some way. I have lived almost 18 years, three shy off Will, but know many of his feelings, experiences, and ways and I relate to him in many ways.

There are many key points in the movie Good Will Hunting that signify important stages in the development of Will Hunting. Will works at MIT College as a janitor, and one night he easily does a near-impossible equation/proof. He runs away when he is caught working on another. One night Will and his degenerate friends go to a preppy, college bar where he displays his wit, genius, and defensiveness for his friends by talking down some preppy, stuck-up student. Will meets Skyla, a rich, British MIT student. The next day, he and his friends are driving around, and they see some guy yelling at a young woman. They are highly offended and angered by this and proceed to fight the guy and his friends. When the cops show up, Will is the only one who continues to fight and is arrested. In his trial, we see his mass intelligence and wit as he smoothly defends himself. We also hear about his criminal record and rap sheet. Gerald Lambo, the MIT professor who caught Will at school, strikes a deal with the judge to get him out of jail as long as Will works with him, goes to a psychiatrist, and finds a real, good job. Will goes to psychiatrists, but only makes fools out of them. We also see the South Boston way of life of rough and toughness and drinking with Will and his friends. Will eventually meets Sean, a very brilliant psychiatrist who grew up in the same neighborhood and way as he did. Sean begins to really get through and work with Will. As Sean progresses, Will begins to mature and progress in his relationships and openness, especially with his new girlfriend: Skyla. Eventually, Will feels he is being pressured and forced too much to do what Lambo and others want him to do. Will becomes very frustrated with Lambo’s difficulty with math and begins to take this out on others; on Lambo and primarily with Skyla. He breaks up with and avoids her, as he feels they are too close. Will begins to skip out on Lambo and almost on Sean as well. While at construction work, his friend Chuckie tells him he is wasting his life and talent and wishes for his abilities or anything even remotely close. Will must change and decides he must go to Sean. When he goes to Sean, he finally breaks down and opens up completely. Will later takes a job at some firm and learns that Sean is leaving to go travel and “put his chips back out on the table”. Will then decides that he is “gotta go see about a girl.” Will leaves a note telling Sean and then goes to find Skyla in California.

Will Hunting is a highly intellectual, brilliant young man from the South Boston area who is scarred from his birth to his childhood all the way up to his present status. Will was abandoned as a baby by his birth parents. He was in and out of foster homes. His foster father was a drunkard who beat, burnt, and stabbed him. Will is emotionally and literally poor and in poverty, never really having anyone there to truly trust, rely on, or connect to in his life. He feels betrayed by all and rejects all that is different. He never really gets a chance to explore life or to take advantage of his genius. Will later falls into crime and has to grow up fast. Will Hunting develops a “tough-guy” and “screw off” attitude, persona, and style, using foul language and doing anything he pleases. He is hardened by his early child-hood experiences and his bad-neighborhood, South Boston settings. Will creates a fake, hard outer-shell to keep anyone from getting to close and has developed several defense-mechanisms to barricade himself. Will uses quips, sarcasm, cruelty, anger, facts, sheer-brilliance, and frankly just the “a**hole” attitude all as part of this barricade. Will cherishes his friends as his only true family and really fears veering from them too much or differentiating at all from them and their lifestyle. Will is so hardened that he is afraid to step out into the world and truly try and taste the fruit of life and see what it holds. Will is also very wary and trusts no one other than his three closest friends. He denies to let anyone else inside and know his feelings and pains. He can not be real and he hurts others to hide. As another defense mechanism he has developed, he hurts and pushes others away to “protect” himself from the inevitable and future pains and feelings that come with all. He is already so disappointed and hurt that he is scared. Too fearful to open up himself, he criticizes and chews up all those that try to help him who he feels have fallen into ruts and pains of their own or that he just cannot trust fully. In this way he becomes self-righteous and a hypocrite, as much as he may call and “prove” them to be. As Will progresses we see how self-critical, self-deprecating, self-loathing, and self-blaming Will is from his upbringing and past. But he still tries to hide and deny it, not wanting anyone to truly see or know him for how he feels. By feeling those feelings and using those defense mechanisms, Will does not ever truly see or appreciate everything or everyone for what it is worth and in the way in which all around him want to be. Will truly fears moving on in his life and is filled and controlled with ultimate cynicism, pessimism, guilt, and distrust. Will has become a hardened shell of clay that has been baking in the sun. After too much time, it is only a matter of time until he just entirely falls to pieces.

I can relate to many of the experiences, attitudes, and traits of Will Hunting. Throughout life, I have felt like many that I have trusted, depended, or cared deeply for have let me down, deserted me, or betrayed me in some way. One way is that although I know my parents and family love me and care about me, I always felt like I could not live up to their expectations or what they wanted me to do or be. I always felt like a let down and failure which really adds to the sense of worthlessness I always felt and sometimes still do. I also have felt the feelings of betrayal and abuse that Will does. Something I have only told one other person is that when I was 10-ish I had a very close friend who was a couple years older than me. He was of course older and knew and understood things at which I had not come to know yet, and he took advantage of me. Although I had no idea of what any of that was or meant at the time, I still feel a huge feeling of guilt and stupidity and am so ashamed and angry at myself. I tried to tell one person about that though. She is my ex-girlfriend and when we broke up she took what she knew and distorted it to use against me and start mass rumors about me at school which I still hear from people today. I now find it almost impossible to even want to get that close to anyone now because of that betrayal so I feel I can definitely relate to Will. When someone takes something that you cannot even tell a soul or get over and uses it as a weapon, it makes it that much harder when I hear those rumors and such. That entire relationship with my ex-girlfriend and some of the things we did to each other really tore me apart. There was so much fighting; I find it insane that we went as far as we did. She is an emotionally abusive human being and made two years of my life a living hell. Her betrayal is truly a lot of what has made me such an extremely bitter, angry, hardened, mistrusting person like Will. Throughout my childhood as well as today I have always been ridiculed and attacked for my liberal ways and extreme individuality. I was always a shy, quiet person, despite how much my voice carries, but for some reason kids always felt the need to make fun of me. It is so annoying and immature that now I realize that that is all it is, but the fact that I have been victim has made me so pessimistic and cynical. Sometimes I feel that there is no point to people because they can get so out of control in their childish affairs, but I know that after high school when they get into the real world, they are going to get hit very hard by reality. Having those closed minded people around has left me empty and unfulfilled in finding someone to really open up to, be able to trust, or really connect to and have real conversations with. That is really part of the reason I have tried forming relationships with adults such as some teachers like Mr. Shonebarger or other adults such as Father Sterling because of the maturity I know is there. (I actually would like to admit that I like and appreciate having to type this essay and I thank you Mr. Phirman.). Another way in which I relate to Will is that I have very much formed an angry, screw you, tough guy attitude and style to hide those feelings and push off those attacks. I have formed the same self-defense mechanisms as Will. Whenever I really start getting close to a person, especially girls, I tend to become and act bitterly and make a huge butt-hole out of myself and push them away. I hate it too, because I do not want to push people away, it just comes naturally and I hate it. I have even developed the trait of clever facts and quips to fight back. It is a natural defense mechanism to keep myself from having to get too involved and feel the inevitable pains. I know that it holds me back, but I have been going out more, trying new things, and putting myself out there. I also used to curse just by nature like Will and his friends, but I worked greatly at fixing that and succeeded. Another trait I hold as Will does is my great defense and care for those I love. I will fight to the bitter end with anyone for my friends and family, despite my rather pacifist beliefs. My friends are my family my life; just as for Will. One other major way that I have been like Will is the untapped potential. I know I am nowhere near the genius of Will, but I do know that I really work only about 50% of my true potential most of the time. I just do not feel challenged or interested enough in the subject matter get into it and do the work. In grade school, I worked and had straight A’s; getting in trouble for anything under a 90%. But ever since high school started up I just fell out of interest and stopped caring. I want to show people what I can really do because I made a fool out of myself. I have been working hard this year because I missed the feeling of accomplishment. Now, such as in Pre-cal, when I make myself pay attention, I really get interested and I really have come to really enjoy classes like Pre-cal and you Mr. Phirman as a teacher, like Will and Sean. I am working just as Will and getting back out into my life.

The story and development of Will Hunting in Good Will Hunting is a very deep and reflective one. We can all think of some one or some way to relate to his story. I have found many ways in which I relate and am reflected by Will Hunting’s life, style, and feelings. In conclusion, this essay with the film has really been a great outlet for me to reflect and relate my feelings and life to you. I thank you very much Mr. Phirman for this opportunity and hope to continue a relationship in which we students, including myself, can fall back to you for guidance and outlet as Will did with Sean. Thank you again.

The Running of the Bulls

The Running of the Bulls is the most wide-known and famous event of la Fiesta de San Fermin, or in English, the Festival of San Fermin. The festival is to celebrate the martyred bishop, Saint, or San Fermin. The festival is in the Spanish city of Pamplona. This fun-filled, risky tradition began at first as a necessity as a way to bring the bulls to market to sell and butcher. As the years went by, though, the risk and excitement made it famous and a spectacle for thousands to enjoy and participate. This event was immortalized in the book The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, which also helped to catapult its renown. There is even a nude run as protest for the run called the Running of the Nudes. The Running of the Bulls is an extremely exciting world-famous event.

The Running of the Bulls is the kick off event of each day of the festival. The festival starts on July 7^th and runs for a week until July 14^th. The run sets off at sunrise, usually around eight o’ clock a.m. The run is roughly about 800 meters and usually lasts for only a mere two to three minutes. There are several strict, yet very general rules for the run. Most of the runners are young men, but all age, sex, and body types are welcome and allowed to enter the run (except minors).

The morning schedule runs as follows. There are three rockets all together: the first to let the bulls out, the second to let all the people know the bulls are out, and the third for after the entire race is over. In the morning of each day, the fencing lining the route of the run is closed off. Next, the police come in and clear the streets of any people suffering from hang-overs or other such things from the morning before. Then, the street cleaners come and make sure there is no rubbish or debris that could interfere in the run. Spectators must stay behind the double fencing and only the medics are allowed between it. The Run is a rough two to three minute, 800 meters. At the start at the bottom of Santo Domingo Street, the runners sing a homily to San Fermin: “A San Fermin pedimos, por ser nuestro patron, nos guie en el encierro dandonos su bendicion,” translated to, “We ask San Fermin, as our Patron, to guide us through the Bull Run and give us his blessing.” The beginning is at the bottom of Santo Domingo, a sloped street that has a stretch about 280 meters. This is the most dangerous part because of the initial burst and overcrowding and there is no fence or place to duck until the third part of the stretch. The stretch then widens onto Ayuntamiento square and then onto Mercaderes. This stretch is about 100 meters and is the longest stretch of fencing to escape at. There is a sharp turn at the end of Mercaderes onto Estafeta, which is very dangerous on the wide/left side. Runners must be very careful not to get in the path and side of the bulls because of their inertia. Estafeta Street is a long 450 meters leading to the 90 meter stretch in front of the Telephone Exchange. This leads to the corral to the entrance to the bull ring. Many runners, usually the inexperienced, tend to bunch up and create potential hazards. Callejon, the narrow corral to the ring, is quite tight and sometimes causes pile-ups. Once runners get through, they’ll want to scatter out in all directions and head for the sidelines. The center is dangerous to go because it may catch the bull’s attention easier, which can be dangerously deadly.

These are all important details to be kept in mind during the run. The recommended way to run this is to start out slowly, since the bulls will be as well. But, very quickly, speed up to stay in front of the bulls. Hang near for a short time and then get out as safely, smoothly, and swiftly as possible. It would be smart to look for a gap or else even plan a spot the night before. The bulls are extremely dangerous, obviously, so one must take crucial measures to keep the safety of themselves and others in mind. The bulls weigh about 600 kilos and have two very large, strong, rock-hard horns that can and will cut through pretty much anything. Also, runners will want to avoid overcrowding, which may lead to knocking over, which may lead to the painful experience of being stomped on by people and the bulls. If a runner falls, they should stay down because it’s much safer to get bruised than to trip others as well. Also, one does not want to risk the chance of getting impaled by a horn, which has happened, tragically, to a few. Runners should keep these details in mind in their running.

There are several rules and guidelines runners must follow. The following rules should be obeyed at all times:

· Look for official gates; the officials don’t like runners to exit just anywhere

· Drunken and disorderly is out of order, stupid, dangerous, and strictly forbidden

· Be aware of all: keep eye on bulls, other runners, possible exits, etc.

· Don’t distract/attract the bulls’ attention. It’s highly dangerous, serious, and rouses the anger of others and getting your “come-up-ins” from the others.

· Concerning trip-ups: stay down because of the danger of tripping others and getting impaled or seriously injured by the bulls or their horns.

· Don’t try to touch or trail the bulls, don’t stand still, and fan out in the ring.

· Don’t disrupt or disturb the drovers or herders. Don’t carry anything with you.

· Forbidden: minors under 18; going over police barriers; getting in zones of itinerary; hide in corners, angles, doors; leave open doors; enter under influence of drugs and alcohol; carrying objects; wearing inappropriate clothing; to call, distract, mistreat or run at/behind the bulls; any other kind of occurrence that could interfere in the normal functioning of the run.

These rules and guidelines must and should be followed at all times throughout the runs.

La Fiesta de San Fermin in Pamplona Spain is to celebrate the martyred bishop San Fermin. A French bishop, San Saturnino came to Pamplona where he successfully converted many to Christianity, including the prominent family of Senator Fermo and his family. Fermo’s son, Fermin, started being taught by the bishop. At 17 he began preaching and at 24 was confirmed a bishop in France. He returned to Pamplona and then back to France. When he returned again to Pamplona to finish up his and Saturnino’s work there, he stood up against the local powers. He was then tortured, beheaded, and made a martyr. Centuries later, his remains were found, placed in the local cathedral, and remain there now. The festival is to celebrate his great work, yet, ironically enough, he isn’t even the patron saint of the city or region.

The Running of the Bulls is a world-renown event. It is the most profound part of the Fiesta de San Fermin. It is a time of fun and excitement for all who watch and participate.

“Pamplona.” Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. 1980, ed.

San Fermin Guide. 6 Feb. 2006. http://www.sanfermin.com/guia

Vernon, Jennifer. Running of Bulls Helps Kick Off Pamplona Festival. July 9, 2004 National Geographic News. 8 Feb. 2006. http://news.nationalgeographic.com

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 3 Feb. 2006. The Running of the Bulls. 8 Feb. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!