Mesopotamian and Egyptian Civilizations Essay Example for Free

Mesopotamian and Egyptian Civilizations Essay The ancient Near East captured much of the region between modern day England and Western Asia, including much of Northern Africa and Mesopotamia. From this domain, arose early civilizations that made significant contributions that paved the way to how we live our lives today. Two very distinct civilizations arose from the Neo-lithic period that initiated the basis for a great many people’s political structure, religion, society, and culture. Mesopotamian civilization occupied the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, while the Egyptian civilization formed a prosperous society along the Nile River. The Mesopotamians and Egyptians, unique in their own right, laid the foundations of a flourishing civilization in the region. Mesopotamians, particularly the Sumerians, helped lead the transition from nomadic living to urban folk after the Neolithic Period. As more people began living a settled life, numerous towns sprang up, ushering a new way of life and the earliest forms of government. The towns, diverse and populous, developed a central authority governed by laws that brought about order and peace. In addition to forming one of the earliest forms of government, Mesopotamian’s invented writing that helped unify their society and the spread of their culture and ideas to a broader world by making communications easier. New advances in mathematics helped bring about the building of cities, palaces, temples, and canals. Even before Christianity, the Mesopotamians had originated religious beliefs, believing that many gods brought order to the world and life itself. They acknowledge that though there were many deities, each had a specific task, such as overlooking music, victory, law, and sex. They, however, found that gods themselves were not equal to one another and offered sacrifices to the more powerful deities, often building their cities around shrines, which made it easier for them to worship the gods. Similar to many religious beliefs of a world built by a higher entity, the Sumerians believed that the Heaven and earth were united and gave birth to Enlil, their foremost god who powered over the entire cosmos. This myth by the Mesopotamians became one of the earliest attempts to account for the creation of the universe. In addition to creating an early form of government and religious ideas, the ancient Mesopotamians also established the basic social patterns of their ancient world. Their society consisted of nobles, clients, commoners, and slaves. Elected into power by the citizens, the king and his family was the head of the noble class. Clients were free individuals who received portions of land in the kingdom from the noble class in return for labor. Commoners were citizens who had a voice in political affairs and could own land in their own right, unlike the slaves who were often prisoners of war, forced into labor by their owners but possessed the opportunity to purchase their freedom. Much like the Mesopotamians, the Egyptian civilization was able to develop a political structure, worshipped gods, established social classes, and possessed a unique culture. Often referred to as the â€Å"gift of the Nile†, ancient Egyptians looked to the Nile as the lifeblood of their civilization, not only shaping their everyday lives, but their society and history as well. The Nile provided the people raw materials for pottery, jewelry, ornaments, architectures, sculptures, and many other applications. Because of the fertile Nile, Egyptians didn’t have much reason to look to the outside world and rather flourished within their region. The period known as the Old Kingdom ( 2660-2180 b.c.e.), gave birth to new innovations and ideas, particularly religious ideas. Similar to the Mesopotamian civilization, the Egyptians believed in many gods and often developed contradictory ideas of their gods. They also believes some gods to be mightier than others, with the most powerful gods being Amon and Ra, the sky and sun god respectively. Like Enlil, Amon reigned over the cosmos. Ra also played a significant role in that he was considered the creator of life and associated with the falcon-god Horus. Similarities in their roles eventually led to Egyptians worshiping both gods as the single deity, Amon-Ra. Other deities such as Osiris, the fertility god, Anubis, the jackal-headed god, and Isis, Osiris’s wife, were also worshipped by the people and were key figures to their belief of an afterlife. Much of Egypt’s political and social structure revolved around the pharaoh. This king, was believed by the people to be the Human form of Horus, and would be the only to integrate the people with their gods. The pharaoh controlled everything from wealth to the people themselves and of course, stood alone at the top of the political, social, and economic scale. Slaves and peasants occupied the bottom of the social class, above them the serfs, then ordinary folks, and officials. Peasants and slaves were forced to labor and were forced to work on pyramids. Able-bodied young men served the pharaoh either in his army or labor force, sometimes both. Farmers tended the land, and in some cases, faced brutal tax collection. In conclusion, the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations possessed qualities that distinguished themselves from one another but also bore similarities between the two. Both civilizations were polytheistic, established social and political structures, and brought about ground breaking new innovations and ideas. The Mesopotamian’s gave us writing, the wheel, and the foundations for settled life, while the Egyptians gave us the great pyramids, still mysterious and marvelous to this day. Reference McKay, John P., et al. A History of World Societies. 8th ed. Vol. I: To 1715. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009.

Death of a Salesman :: essays research papers

Death of a Salesman   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The American dream is, in part, responsible for a great deal of crime and violence because people feel that the country owes them not only a living but a good living.† Said David Abrahansen. This is true and appropriate in the case of Willy Loman, and his son Biff Loman. Both are eager to obtain their American dream, even though both have completely different views of what that dream should be. The play Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller shows the typical lives of typical Americans in the 1940’s. Miller’s choice of a salesman to be the main character in this play was not a coincidence, since it represents the typical middle-class working American, some of which have no technical skills what so ever. Miller’s play gives us insides on the daily lives of many Americans, this through the eyes of Willy and Biff Loman, he also shows what kind of personalities, what dreams they have, and their different points of view of what the Ameri can dream means.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Willy Loman is a sixty-one years old who has been taken off salary, put on straight commission and eventually fired from the Wagner Company because he is no longer effective. In the story he is portrait as a tragic figure that’s largely to blame for his own downfall. He puts his wife Linda into the position where she is totally dependent on him. Because Willy has an incorrigible inability to tell the truth, even to himself, and an unreasonable mode of thinking, he justifies his death by saying that his sacrifice will save his sons, particularly Biff; he believes that the insurance money they collect will be a tangible remembrance of him. Willy’s dream was to become like Dave Singleman, who was a very popular salesman, liked by his clients and, able to do business by just making a phone call. Because he was so well liked, when Singleman died, customers from all over his region came to his funeral. Willy dared to believe that his funeral would be similar to Singleman's. Throughout his life, Willy believed that if one were attractive and well liked, everything would be perfect. The doors would automatically open for such a man, and he was sure to be successful. Willy’s American dream was to become rich and famous through his sales, a dream that consumed his life, making him live in an imaginary world where he would often talk to himself.

Compare the first impressions of school we receive in ‘Hard Times’ and ‘To Sir with Love’ Essay

Charles Dickens set the play in the 1850’s during the industrial revolution in Lancashire. ‘Hard Times’ is set in a town called ‘Coaltown’ which is stricken with poverty and this is reflected in most of the town’s inhabitants-in their garb and in the way they look. There is a big rift between the rich and the poor and the rich like this arrangement. The school which the children go to is more like a military training camp, where the children are taught only facts: â€Å"Teach these boys and girls nothing but facts† â€Å"Facts alone are wanted in life† The children at this school are partitioned-boys on one side of the classroom and the girls on the other. The teachers are all male. ‘To Sir with Love’ is set in the East End of London during the 1960’s, this was a period of rebellion and change with teachers unable to punish pupils, and certain people took this opportunity to cause havoc, with the powerless teachers unable to do anything. The class in the play come from working, families and are all dressed scruffily. In Dickens Hard Times the pupils are not allowed to let their minds wonder, they are taught constantly. The classes were run by organisations and in some places there were up to a thousand pupils in one room, they are all taught at once, their age is irrelevant. The teachers are shown an amazing amount of respect and the children would never backchat or disobey any order they were given. Since there were so many children being taught the teachers addressed them by a number instead of name. The teachers in Hard Times, all dress in suites in an attempt to gain even more respect than they have-this is nearly impossible. To Sir with Love is a complete contrast the children have a choice of what to wear, even though they come from working class families, they still look like the children in Hard Times: â€Å"Those rough looking untidy children† The teachers first impression of the pupils is lazy, dirty scruffy kids, they talk in slang and at the start they act like kids always shouting and screaming: â€Å"The words bloody and bleeding were hardly ever absent from any remark† Both sexes interact constantly especially during break when they all start dancing in the hall. During classes the pupils annoy their teacher so much that he gives up teaching and throws all the text books in the bin- this is very symbolic because it is when he stops treating them as kids and starts treating them as adults. This is when the teaching moves on from teaching facts to telling them about life (e.g. how to behave, address each other, speak properly etc). The pupils and teachers in Hard Times have no personal relationship, in fact the teachers try too rid the pupils of any unwanted imagination or personality: â€Å"You are never to fancy† This basically translates to ‘you are not allowed to imagine or have your own opinions.’ According to the teachers there is only one way to live and they mould the pupils into their perfect image of person, leaving no room for argument. The relationship between pupil and teacher in ‘To Sir with Love’ changes as the play progresses, it starts off with the pupils ignoring whatever their teachers and not cooperating, this is only while he is trying to teach them facts, the main reason they shun him is because he acts and dresses like a gentleman (he is different to them). Everything changes when he throws the books away because they understand that he isn’t like their other teachers and is really like them-he has faced all the problems that they have faced-and with time they grow to respect him and almost care about him, just as he does them. Unique things happen for example the teacher gets taught about their lives and he gains an insight into why teenagers are the way they are . after he hears some of their problems he feels compassion for them. He treats them as individuals whereas in ‘Hard Times’ they are treated as objects and the teachers don’t really care about any of them . The language used in Dickens’ ‘Hard Times’ starts significantly with the title which on its own signifies a time of poverty, unemployment and a general struggle. The names of the teachers also have hidden meanings-Mr Choakumchild is one name which as soon as you say it the word ‘choke’ comes to mind-as in choking the ‘fancy’ out of his pupils. Mr Gradgrind’s name brings words like ‘hard work’ and ‘grinding’ or ‘crushing.’ As in crushing the imagination out of pupils. They speak very formal/standard English. The book often repeats that Mr. Gradgrind is â€Å"square†, this means he is dull and boring but also suggests that he is sharp, rigid and harsh, it is repeated so that you get the picture about him. As well as how â€Å"square† Mr Gradgrind is, you get the message that all that should be learnt is facts since it is shouted by the teachers so many times. The language used tells a lot about characters and how they behave/teach, for example Mr Choakumchild is said to have too much knowledge and so cannot teach as well as he could: â€Å"If he had only learned a little less how infinitely better he might have taught much more† In ‘To Sir with Love’ the characters use of language varies between each person. The teacher talks in polite, standard English. Whereas the pupils use an informal colloquial speech with an Anglo-Saxon dialect mixed in (Swearing!!). The teacher speaks with respect. He wants to help the pupils and tries to set a good example. He is well educated and wishes no harm to anybody. There are many things that are the same in both plays, yet there are also a lot of things that vary as well-the teachers all speak aristocratic whereas the pupils speak colloquially, also in both novels the teachers try to do their best to help their pupils even though they do it in many different ways.

The Most Evil Character in King Lear Goneril Essay

There is such an incredible amount of killing, violence, and deceit in King Lear by many characters that it is difficult to choose the most evil character. The most evil character may deceive one into thinking she is less evil than she is, but upon closer inspection it is quite clear that the most evil character is Goneril. Nevertheless, some may think Edmund, Cromwell, or Regan are the worst, but for a variety of reasons Goneril surpasses their evil. First of all, how does one define evil? Anything highly immoral is evil. In terms of the play King Lear, the most common form of evil is deceit and cruelty. Cromwell and Regan showed violence towards Gloucester by gouging out his eyes. However Cromwell does not try to deceive anyone. He†¦show more content†¦Goneril killed herself when Albany found out she killed Regan. Goneril did not have any true allies. She was not even an ally with herself because of her suicide. Cromwell and Regan had each other for allies. Not only did Go neril lie and cheat, but also as mentioned earlier she committed many acts of violence. She killed Regan and herself. She conspired to kill Albany. If she did not turn her back on her own father, the whole tragedy would have never happened. Goneril was more of a leader than Regan, so it is suspected that Goneril devised up the plan for Lear. Her actions spurred on a spiral of tragic events. Consequently, her decision destroyed many characters. Gloucester would have never been blinded and eventually killed from misery because he would not have tried to help Lear. Therefore Goneril is more evil than any other character because she lied the most, and did the most harm to everyone else. Goneril is not loving at all. She fakes her love for Regan and Lear. She has a supposed love with Edward. This is most likely not true love. She never showed true signs of love (even for Albany) prior to her ‘love’ with Edward. It could not have been true love because it was tainted with jea lousy. Love is never jealous. When one loves another, they want the other person to be happy and make their own choices. If Edward did prefer Regan, and Goneril truly loved Edward, Goneril would letShow MoreRelatedShakespeare s King Lear Essay : Power Of Honesty1149 Words   |  5 PagesMathew Larosiliere King Lear essay Dr K The Power of Honesty Shakespeare s King Lear is a play that follows Lear, the aging king of Britain, as he decides to step down from the throne and divide his kingdom evenly among his three daughters. Lear and a handful of other characters encounter many obstacles throughout the story. This play highlights human nature at its highest and lowest. Characters such as Edmund, Regan, and Goneril illustrate the ugliness andRead MoreGood and Evil King Lear1275 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿Ã¢â‚¬Å"In King Lear good does not vanquish evil: it is evil that destroys itself† Shakespeare’s tragedy â€Å"King Lear† discusses many notions the most important being the relationship between good and evil and the constant battle of the opposites; their dependency and the origin of wickedness, as well as the fact that something good can never â€Å"destroy† anything all play a key role in the question of if it is evil that destroys itself. The following essay will deliberate these ideas and compare good andRead MoreKing Lear Character Analysis1222 Words   |  5 Pagesthy father† (King Lear III-IV 75). What that means is, to honour your father.Edmund, who broke a sin by dethroning his father Gloucester and, as a result Edmund was slain by his brother Edgar. Next, King Lear was betrayed by his three daughters. During act I, scene IV, Lear said. â€Å"Degenerate bastard, I’ll not trouble thee. Yet have I left daughter.† (Lear I IV 242-243). This advises us that King Lear will not be bothering Goneril as Goneril is promptly an extraordinary character. Goneril breaks a sinRead More Blindness and Sight - Lack of Insight in King Lear Essays1082 Words   |  5 PagesBlindness as Lack of Insight in King Lear   Ã‚  Ã‚   Blindness can normally be defined as the inability of the eye to see, but according to Shakespeare, blindness is not only a physical impairment, but also a mental flaw some people possess.   Shakespeares most dominant theme in his play King Lear is that of blindness.   King Lear, Gloucester, and Albany are three characters through which Shakespeare portrays his theme of mental blindness, that blindness which was the primary cause of their poorRead MoreSocial Values in King Lear1229 Words   |  5 Pages In King Lear, Shakespeare portrays a society whose emphasis on social class results in a strict social hierarchy fueled by the unceasing desire to improve one’s social status. It is this desire for improved social status that led to the unintentional deterioration of the social hierarchy in King Lear. This desire becomes so great that Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall were willing to act contrary to the authority of the social hierarchy for the betterment of their own position within it. AsRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Romeo And Juliet940 Words   |  4 Pagesjust seems like they are just ensuring they are not being inconvenienced by their father, Goneril s letter to her sister (something to remember as the initial letter is taken with good faith as opposed to the letter between Goneril and Edmund which causes anxiety for Regan) shows the lack of good will the sister s gave. Shakespeare even shows the connection between the sister s in a subtle way when Goneril meets up with her father and her sister and embraces her sister by the hands, a seeminglyRead More King Lear - Theme of Blindness Essay846 Words   |  4 PagesKing Lear - Theme of Blindness In Shakespearean terms, blinds means a whole different thing. Blindness can normally be defined as the inability of the eye to see, but according to Shakespeare, blindness is not a physical quality, but a mental flaw some people possess. Shakespeare’s most dominant theme in his play King Lear is that of blindness. King Lear, Gloucester, and Albany are three prime examples Shakespeare incorporates this theme into. Each of these character’s blindness was the primaryRead MoreExamining the Villainous Characters of Shakespeares King Lear871 Words   |  4 PagesKing Lear by William Shakespeare is one of the ionic plays that depict behavior of mankind as either good or bad. As one of the earliest plays to show cast good vs. evil, King Lear paved the way for other such symbolic plays to written. Goneril, Regan, and Edmund, three of the characters from Shakespeare’s King Lear, are symbols of evil with in human society to its greatest entity. These three are the most hig hlighted villains in the play. A villain is a bad or evil person, usually the antagonistRead MoreEssay on The Untruthfulness of Language1360 Words   |  6 PagesUntruthfulness of language Throughout the play King Lear, written by William Shakespeare the theme of deception and the manipulation of language is the very root of the tragedy. The language used by individuals affects the relationships around them, hides the dark nature within them and creates fights between friends and family. The theme of deception goes hand in hand with the theme of appearance vs reality since most of the characters alter the way they seem to others so they don’t know whatRead MoreKing Lear : A Shakespearean Shakespearian Tragedy1540 Words   |  7 PagesThe play King Lear is what is known as a Shakespearian tragedy. All that this means is that it was written by Shakespeare, possibly one of the most famous playwrights in history, and that the play is considered to fit into the category of a tragedy. A tragedy can be simply described as a play with an unhappy ending. Shakespeare wrote a number of tragedies, and readers of the plays debate which tragedies were the best. King Lear is certainly a well-known tragedy, but should it be counted as one of