Write a reflective learning journal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Write a reflective learning journal - Essay Example Whilst the slowdown of last year can be expected to influence the luxury sales growth to raise upto 2.5% for the Chinese consumers, many insignificant players are however predicting the sales growth to increase by â€Å"double-digit rates†. Organizations have now decided to exploit this prevailing trend in China to the fullest and niche brand fashion, clothing and beauty retailers like Lane Crawford, Galeries Lafayette and 10 Corso Como have started running their outlets recently in the locations of the mainland China. The minor boutique brands are on the growing phase in both the e-commerce and the brick-and-mortar domains. The online outlets for individuality such as new social media websites and fashion blogs are reshaping the tastes of the Chinese consumers in the coming years and the retailers are presenting more personalized and special-edition products, as well as  Ã¢â‚¬Å"VIP  services†, to the Chinese market (Doran, 2014). These changes are the result of incr eased penetration of online shopping trends and enhanced visits of the Chinese customers to the foreign nations. Thus it can be stated that in the recent months, the changes in the taste and preference of the Chinese customers has affected the fashion and clothing trends of the population and as a result more and more foreign brands are entering the nation to serve those transformed fashion patterns. PETA  has recently acknowledged the fashion brands that are "kind to animals" in its 2nd yearly PETA-Approved Vegan Fashion Awards. The long time promoter  of cruelty-free fashion, Stella McCartney  is pleased to be counted among the â€Å"long-time the line-up†. The designer stated to Vogue, "PETA are always willing to put their necks on the line and always with a provocative sense of humor† (Miligan, 2014). McCartney is strictly against the usage of animal skin and fur in apparel designing. She herself never used animal skins in her accessory or clothing

Management Consultant Industry Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Management Consultant Industry - Essay Example There has been a lot of criticism of consultants, consulting companies as well as consulting as a profession. This also spurred a large number of jokes and sarcastic comments being made on consultants, one of them being ‘All that management consultants do is to borrow their clients' watches and tell them the time, then send in a huge bill’. Many articles have also been penned on various unethical practices being carried out by consultants especially in big consulting firms (Kitay & Wright 2004, Pinault 2000). While some amount of criticism is valid and makes sense, a large part is also exaggerated. This essay aims to critically analyze both sides of the picture before arriving at the do’s and don’ts for a successful marriage between business and consulting. Criticism against Consultants (Stage 3- Root Definition) Consulting by nature is a service industry and hence its deliverables are highly intangible and subjective (Lemann 1999). Therefore, different bus iness organizations have different evaluation of work done by consultants for them. Consultants generally charge a very high fee. Many times, their recommendations actually lead to worsening of conditions. Moreover, consultants have the inclination to implement or suggest certain standard solutions which have developed in their own organizations or are generally used best practices in the industry. Hence, they don’t make it a point to customize the solution for a particular organization or come up with a new solution. (Pringle 1998). Consultants are often seen focusing on latest management fads in the market or using fashionable business jargon to impress the clients but which may have no implications on the output (Clark & Salaman 1998, Pinault 2000). A large number of consulting projects have simply failed to deliver the results while many others lost touch with reality mid-way and had to be scrapped (Klenter & Mollgard 2006, Seidl & Mohe 2007). In many cases, implementatio n of the consultants’ advice has produced disastrous circumstances for an organization (Byrne 2002). Ferdinand Piech, former CEO of Volkswagen, even went to the extent of saying that â€Å"If you want to ruin a company, you only have to try fixing it with the help of external consultants† (Seidl & Mohe 2007). Analysis of Client- Consultant interaction through CATWOE approach Let us understand the client consultant relationship through CATWOE approach proposed by Checkland (Williams 2005). a. Customers: The customers here would be the end consumers the client caters to. For example, for a steel manufacturer people buying utensils may be the customer. The impact of the client consultant relationship on the customers may occur in the medium to long term. b. Actors: Actors would be the consultants or consulting firm who enable the transformation. The role of consultants is the most significant for the success of this relationship. Now days, consultants work in teams which comprise members of the client side as well. Therefore, in such cases certain client side employees are also actors. c. Transformation: The transformation is the conversion from an unsolved problem to a well laid out solution. The solution may be a suggestion, recommendation, documentation, model or an end to end implementation depending upon the nature and scope of work. d. Weltanschauung: The compensation of the consu

How Did the Buildings and Landscapes of the Secular Elite Shape Term Paper

How Did the Buildings and Landscapes of the Secular Elite Shape Medieval Settlement and Social Relationships - Term Paper Example Deer parks were formed only on those estates of the very rich, nobility and the great clerics, who spent much of their time hunting, however by the end of the15th century, according to Michael Reed (page 124) the wood contained in the parks had become more valuable than the deer. Deer are notorious for stripping bark and so destroying woodland and the animals would be excluded in order to allow the trees to grow undamaged. Occasionally land in private ownership would pass back into public ownership as when Henry VIII gave his private hunting ground, Sutton Park to the people of Sutton Coldfield in 1528, as described on the web page Sutton Coldfield, but this did not necessarily mean it could then be farmed. When poor men hunt it is called poaching and punishable, but it was the rich who had the horses, weapons, and birds of prey, so once again it was they who were the main beneficiaries. The deer park was of economic importance in that it provided food, leather, wood etc, but also employment for many people. Just as with the fish ponds they provided an easily available larder of fresh food before the advent of modern-day preserving methods and chill rooms and freezers. Hunting was an expensive pastime but there were other advantages in that if the king was kept happy then social advancement was possible. The Medieval Source Book recording an Inquest of the Sheriffs Regarding the Forests in 1170 mentions reward, promise, and friendship as being the products of hunting. Hunting was both a pleasure and a necessity – a way of entertaining guests and also of filling their bellies. By the later medieval period new methods of farming were being used and hunting for survival was no longer required. Instead, hunting moved on from being a necessity into a stylized pastime for the aristocracy. James III of Scotland in the 15th century had several hunting lodges, as described by Gilbert, 2003, (page 42).  

The Waste Land Essay Example for Free

The Waste Land Essay T. S Eliot’s The Wasteland, whilst being laden with rich cultural references and allusions, is a confronting representation of re-establishment and rejuvenation across the entirety of a European post-war society. Eliot addresses the cyclical nature of life and death, encompassed by carefully crafted language and structure designed to disorientate the reader. The reader is offered an interpretation of human behaviour which is akin to all beings across the cohort of society, regardless of ethnicity or social class. There is realism to Eliot’s poetry that is confronting and unflinching, perhaps disturbing at times. While his poems are often filled with harsh imagery – imagery of death, despair and degredation –they are often indicative of his own perceptions of the changing environment around him during his time of writing, and are therefore somewhat genuine and personal. The Waste Land attempts to explore the necessity of rejuvenation in a society that Eliot considers to be tarnished and displaced, and has thus created a delicate balance between portraying a war-torn society where â€Å"the dead tree gives no shelter† and â€Å"the dry stone no sound of water†, and communicating the idea of renewal. As the poem progresses, references to season accumulate, and the reader is given a sense of cyclical, passing time. The reader is given anecdotes set in distinctly different seasons, whether they be â€Å"under the brown fog of a winter dawn†, or â€Å"[listening to] the sound of horns, which shall bring Mrs. Porter in the spring†. Such references remind the reader of two things; time is passing throughout the poem, and life is ephemeral, as can be seen in the dialogue: â€Å"That corpse you planted last year in your garden, Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year? † A similar method is implemented by Eliot in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, where the prime focus of the poem is the passing of time and the complications that arise from its influence. Furthermore, The Waste Land draws on a wide range of cultural reference to depict a modern world that is in ruins yet somehow beautiful and deeply meaningful. Languages such as German, French and Latin are implemented alongside abrupt and unannounced changes of speaker, location and time, in order to convey the idea that there are no exemptions to Eliot’s interpretation of common human qualities and experiences. Conversely, social class is also explored – in part II of The Waste Land, â€Å"A Game of Chess†, Eliot juxtaposes a lower-class bar conversation with satire of the opulent, while endorsing – via the comparison of the two – the idea that sexual fulfilment is a critical element in feeling valuable and secure in the society depicted. Indeed, it was Eliot’s opinion at the time that too much emphasis was placed on the importance of fertility, aesthetic appeal and marital security – an idea which is also explored in Portrait of a Lady through the satirical portrayal of a fussing woman, who is described as sitting in â€Å"an atmosphere of Juliet’s tomb†. It could perhaps be considered that Eliot’s prime objective during the early years of his poetry was to paint a picture of the uncertainty and social decay that resulted from the aftermath of WW1 and perhaps even the from the end of the Edwardian era. Consequently, readers must look upon his unpoetic diction and lexicon and remember that he is attempting to create a new type of poetry which reflects the complexity of modern living. Often the sincerity and detailed imagery in Eliot’s work results from a lot of his speakers being vessels through which he expresses himself. It has been speculated that ‘J. Alred Prufrock’ and the speaker of Rhaspsody share the same concerns and characteristics as Eliot; often being solitary, neurasthenic, overly intellectual, and utterly incapable of expressing themselves to the modern complexity of the outside world.

Essence Of Decision A Review Politics Essay

Essence Of Decision A Review Politics Essay Graham Allisons Essence of Decision offered alternative conceptual models on foreign policy decision making and a specific discussion on the Cuban missile crisis; and has been one of the influential book in history of foreign policy analysis. It gives a significant contribution to political science study, as it has been heavily cited in most international relations textbook and also discussed by foreign policy analysts. However, despite the models strong influence in foreign policy study, it has been heavily criticised by foreign policy analysts about its utility and value in decision making analysis. In Essence of Decision, Allison proposes three different lenses that offers a multi-level analysis rather than a regular solely system-level to analyse foreign policy decision making. His first model, Unitary Government Model or Rational Actor Model (RAM) explain government as a black box, thus the internal actors have the same goals and opinion on how to achieve the goal. On the other hand, model II and model III will open the black box and discuss at two different things inside the box and later known as bureaucratic politics model. Model II or Organizational Process Model looks at the key organizational or agencies with their own function, mission and structure. Lastly, Model III or Governmental Politics Model will focus on key individual decision makers and the political bargaining process among them. Nonetheless, Allisons conceptual framework has been not only highly praised by foreign policy analysts, but also has been much criticised since its first edition. Number of criticism has risen regarding Allisons conceptual framework, ranging from its originality until the problem of evidences that have been used by Allison in explaining the Cuban Missile Crises. Conford and Horelick, for example, argue that Allisons model is not wholly original work, rather than it is developed from previous study. Moreover, another group of criticism have questioned the account of the Cuban Missile Crises that explained by Allison. Despite these two criticisms, there are number of criticism that will be discussed in the following section. By looking at number of criticism about Allisons model, there is a big question about the usefulness of the model in foreign policy decision making process analysis. This essay aims to evaluate the utility of Allisons conceptual policy in foreign policy decision making. This essay will also critically discuss each of the three models by looking from some perspectives. Moreover, taking into account that this essay relies on Allisons Essence of Decision, this essay will also look at the decision making process regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Allisons Conceptual Framework Model I: The Rational Actor (RAM) Model I is the basic yet critical conceptual framework that mostly utilized in foreign policy decision making analysis. RAM is the best model in explaining and predicting of an individual behaviour, as well as purpose generalization in states action. The model reduces the organizational and governmental political complications by looking at government as unified actor.  [1]  Thus, a complete-informed government -regarded as black box- will process information to optimize rational action. The internal structure within decision making process will calculate the potential pro and con and later rank all the options by their chance to succeed.  [2]   Its feature of being easy to utilize, RAM could be useful when a state has limited or even no available information about the enemy. Therefore, since it does not require information to analyse a case, RAM would be very suits in a crisis situation. It would safe more time since a state does not necessary do a complex evaluation about their enemy. Lastly, RAM that stresses interaction among states, will immediately produce prudent decision after considering the pro and con. Its simplicity in analysing a case makes RAM one of the popular methods in foreign policy decision making process. On the other side, some foreign policy analysts argue that in the real foreign policy formation, number of external and individual interest factor will eventually give a big impact. Moreover, RAM tends to ignore a large state with complex bureaucratic nature that has various kinds of departments with their own different political and ideological perspectives.  [3]  Therefore, along with the argument that intra-national factors are very importantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦yet critical when one is concerned with planning policy, Allison has proposed so-called, Bureaucratic Politics Model.  [4]   Model II: Organizational Process Difficulties will arise when the case that are going to be examined is not the behaviour of an individual or a state with simple bureaucracy model, but the behaviour of one organization or government with complex structure inside. Therefore, Allison provides two alternative conceptual frameworks that will open up the black box to evaluate internal structure inside the government, which is later known as Model II and Model III. Model II or Organizational Process Model focuses on the existing organization and their standard operating procedures (SOP) for gaining information, defining possible option and implementing programme.  [5]  Each organization has an agreement for both its mission and function. Afterward, series of program are developed to carry out those missions. In defining feasible option, Model II argues that it is restricted based on SOP that will enhance performance and efficiency. Moreover, Model II is not optimizing rational actor, as model I does, but rather, it is satisfying decision making actors. Its account that foreign policy outcomes are derive from bureaucratic programs, routines and SOP, makes number of advantage from this model. It emphasizes the important domestic political influences on process of foreign policy decision making that sometimes missed out from RAM. Therefore, model II reminds the analysts that the policy was formed not only by a high level decision-maker, but sometimes it is formed by organization.  [6]   Nevertheless, a set of criticism has arisen in the utility of model II. Its emphasis on organisational culture may ill-serve higher level officials and finally can lead to impair the analysts understanding of organizations and their behaviour.  [7]  Even though this kind of problem does not occur for most of the time, but we can take it as a consideration of the effectiveness of the model. Model III: Governmental Politics Governmental politics model or government bargaining model focuses on key individual decision makers with their great influence in deciding on organizational actor. Moreover, the model assumes that decision makers have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and also organizational positions (where you stand depends on where you sit). Therefore, model III assumes that governmental actions are the result of a political bargaining process among key players. Furthermore, bargaining and negotiation processes will result in satisfying rather than optimizing decision making result. It obviously explained because personal ambition of key actor may diverge from public policy position and may lead to personal power considerations when making decision. Between Allisons three conceptual frameworks, model III adds important detail about domestic politics that obviously, cannot be found in model I. In addition, model III not only explains the roles of key individuals, but it also explains why individuals are working at contrary purposes to the interest of the government as a whole. Lastly, model III gives us explanation why policy sometimes appears to be irrational if we look it from a unitary government perspective. Nevertheless, model III also received many critics, especially on the complexity of the model. It is focus on individual key actor that makes it difficult to study and analyse. Moreover, it requires too many variables, some variable are unknown and it is hard to apply for other countries with unclear bureaucratic politics inside. Criticism toward Allisons conceptual framework Allisons conceptual framework has been attacked by number of criticism, varying from the originality of the model, different interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US political system, and also methodological criticism. As Stephen D. Krasner has argued that Allisons model à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is misleading, dangerous, and compelling.  [8]  Therefore, in this section, number of criticism of Allisons model will be critically discussed and assessed. Some foreign policy analysts, such as, Cornford, Horelick, Ball and Art claimed that Allison did not present a pure brand new approach to analysing foreign policy process; but rather it just development from previous theories. Conford has claimed that organisational process mode is previously done by writers such as, Simon, March and Simon, Cyert and March.  [9]  Furthermore, Conford has claimed that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Model IIIà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is pure Neustadt.  [10]  Horelick et al.  [11]  supported Confords argument by suggesting that the bureaucratic model is closely related to previous work done by Kremlinologists.  [12]  Ball and Art  [13]  also mentioned names of analyst that originally make the bureaucratic policy model, such as Huntington, Hilsman, Schilling, and Neustadt.  [14]   Nevertheless, Allison has dedicated a section in his book to acknowledge previous scholars that become his foundation in developing his methods. He is fully aware that he utilizes and developed earlier scholars work as he mentioned in his book, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this encourages much repackaging of existing theoriesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [15]  Therefore, he identifies a group of writers such as March and Simon, Barnard, Cyert and Simon and so on for foundation of model II.  [16]  Furthermore, Allison also acknowledged his intellectual debt to previous scholars that related to model III paradigm,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦model III variety have attracted increasing attention since 1960à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the publication of Presidential Power by Richard E. Neustadt.  [17]  Hence, we could argue that Allisons originality does not lie in his model, but rather in his approach to apply his models consistently to one particular case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis.  [18]   Another criticism can be seen from methodological perspective; numbers of similarities between model II and model III have shaped ambiguity between those two models. In many occasions, some foreign analysts will combine model II and model III to analyse a case study, including Allison himself. In his article with Halperin, Allison combines those two models and become one major model the bureaucratic politics paradigm- as an alternative model to RAM.  [19]  As Conford argues that the three models is not totally incommensurable model to analyse foreign policy making process.  [20]  Therefore, even though Allison distinguishes three kinds of model in foreign policy analysis, those models is not easily separable in their actual application. In bureaucratic politics model, decision is not arise from one unitary actor, but through some bargaining between organisation structures with their own agenda. Model II and model III have identical characteristics that enable them to be grouped as bureaucratic politics model. The two models are similar in a sense that both models focus on departments and organizations inside the decision maker; however, it is slightly different, in a sense that, if model II will reach a decision through Standard Operation Program, model III will make a decision through bargaining between various players within government. Despite the insignificant difference between those models, they are usually combined as the bureaucratic politics model.  [21]   However, Caldwell has raised bureaucratic politics models major problem regarding the use of evidence and data. The model requires detailed data that hardly available in term of quantity and quality. In addition, Caldwell argued that there is huge possibility for analyst to imposing the model on the evidence rather than testing the model against it. Therefore, bureaucratic politics model has significant problem in analysing the data and evidence, since previous empirical problems show that data was made to fit the model.  [22]   Allisons alternative model has also been argued that it eliminated decision-makers responsibility toward the policy. The strong criticism has risen from Steel and Krasner, which argued that no one, even the President, holds responsibility of the policy as the outcome from bargaining process among bureaucratic groups. As Steel argued that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦where everyone is responsible for a decision, no one is responsible.  [23]  The same argument also comes from Krusnet who argued that bureaucratic politic eliminates the importance of election: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Elections are a farce not because the people suffer from false consciousness, but because public officials are impotent, enmeshed in a bureaucracy so large that the actions of government are not responsive to their will.  [24]  In contrast, Smith argues that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this criticism is only valid to the extent to which the President is unable to get his wishes carried out.  [25]  Therefore, the criticism from Ste el and Kranser is not applicable for all cases and need to be modified. Furthermore, following previous criticism, there is criticism about Allisons model utility to other countries. Even though Allison clearly points out his intention to present two additional frameworks to other countries foreign policy analysis (not only limited to the US and Soviet Unions policy making)  [26]  , a group of writers has argued the inability of the model to analyse foreign policy behaviour in other countries, to be precise, un-industrialized countries. As Hill has noted that there is a growing consensusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦over the inapplicability of the insights of Allison, et al. to foreign policy-making inside less modernised states.  [27]  Migdal has also argued that the model cannot be applied to the countries that do not have stability of organizational structure, routine, and even bargaining process.  [28]  Moreover, Brenner also argues that Allisons model is not a universal model and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦more distinctive in the United States than elsewhere.  [ 29]  Despite all criticisms regarding its utility to other countries, Weil has proved, in fact, the model could be utilised in the North Vietnamese foreign policy analysis. As Weil notes that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦examining North Vietnamese foreign policy decision making from a governmental politics perspective complements understanding gained from a rational actor analysis.  [30]   Nevertheless, analists argued that the model is not even applicable to the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union foreign policy has been heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. It is not only because the model requires more specific information than is available, but also as Dawisha has noted that the bureaucracy in some countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) is fundamentally different from its position in the United States because the persistent influence of the Communist Party.  [31]  Therefore, there is a doubt about the utility of Allisons model in other countries, as Wagner has pointed out, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the extension of Allisons model III to other countries may be a less straightforward enterprise than he implies.  [32]   Singapores defence posture change in the early 1980s In the early 1980s, Singapore announces a major important change in its defence policy, from a defensively deterrent strategy (poisonous shrimp) to a more actively deterrent strategy (known as the porcupine). In an article done by Pak Shun Ng, he applies Allisons model to analyse Singapores domestic decision making process. Pak Shun Ng treats Singapore as unitary rational actor to utilizing model I (RAM); the military organisations as the unit of analysis for model II; lastly, the military and political party leadership (including senior military leaders and civilian leaders of Singapores ruling party, the Peoples Action Party (PAP)) as units of analysis for model III.  [33]  The article argues that model II and model III provide the most reasonable explanation of the change in Singapores defence position in the 1980s; while model I has failed to fully explain the change. Model II first reveals the appropriate development of both Singapores military capability and military planni ng ability. Furthermore, model III then prove details how the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) could announce the change convincingly to improve its stature among Singaporeans and foreigners by persuasive them that Singapore has appropriate capability to defend and survive any potential threat.  [34]  Even though the article heavily honours the utility of Allisons model, but it still proposes modification of the models in order to be able to analyse a decision making process in a small and non-western states under absence of crisis condition. Furthermore, the case study of Singapores policy making shows the evidence of model II and III complete each other and make one alternative model against RAM, namely, the bureaucratic politic model. Therefore, it supports the criticism that previously discussed that Allisons models, especially model II and III, have strong similarities and hardly separate. The utility of Allisons model also can be tested in the US foreign policy in Iran hostage crisis in 1979. The bureaucratic politics model is applicable in analysing the decision making process under President Carter administration. The key group in Carters government consisted of number individual who have important position in the executive branch, and also political outsiders that rarely well known, yet have close personal relations to the President. Within the key group that were known as the Georgia mafia, there are two closest advisors for the President; the chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan and Carters press secretary, Jody Powell. Even though these two advisors are not familiar in politic and foreign policy process, they were loyal and intelligent. When sixty American were taken hostage at the American embassy in Iran on 4 November 1979, the initial response from Carter is criticised to be quite slow. On 11 November, the US gave economy sanction by initiating embargo of Iranian oil. While the economy sanction was undertaken, there were ongoing debates about the next step dealing with the crisis. There were two major options; a commando raid to rescue hostages and outright air strikes and military blockades.  [35]  Here we can clearly see how each faction in the government has their own argument to propose to the President is clearly explained by Allisons bureaucratic politics model. A strong debate was occurred between Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance; National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzenzinsky and Carters inner circle, Powell and Jordan. Vance was explicitly being in opposition to any military action after considering that American allies would not tolerate such behaviour. Therefore, he believed that the national security of the US could be maintained without endangering the lives of sixty American citizens.  [36]  On the other side, Brzezinsky strongly opposed military measure as the best means to protect Americas vital interests.  [37]  Moreover, the argument was supported by the director of the CIA, Stanfield Turner, after considering the CIAs best estimates that 60 percent of the hostages could be killed as a result of very complex rescue process. These two faction also argued that they are responsible for the national security, roughly 250 million Americans, and they couldnt simply compromised for the sake of sixty hostages. The final faction c ame from Carters inner circle, including Powell and Jordan, who were concern about the impact of Iran hostage crisis on upcoming election in 1981. The President concurred Vances opinion that a negotiated settlement would be the best for maintaining both national interest and national security. As the response of Carters decision, he received public support, which is important for the upcoming election. However, after considering the effectiveness of the plan, Powell and Jordan opposed the President for tough action against Iranians, again, in order to win the election. In the end, with strong pressure from some faction and absence of Vance in decision making process at the time, Carter called for an immediate military rescues on April 11. The military rescue plan ended in failure with crash of number of helicopters and planes; and killing eight US servicemen. Finally, in 1981s election, Reagan came into power and selesai lah sudah This illustrates the absence of one faction who opposes one specific argument could impact the decision making process as a whole.

The House on Mango Street :: House Mango Street

The House on Mango Street At the novel's end, Esperanza declares that she is too strong for Mango Street to keep her forever. What is the nature of her strength? How does Cisneros establish this characteristic elsewhere in the book? Esperanza feels she is too strong to live on Mango Street. She feels her life would be better if she lived somewhere else. She wants to leave Mango Street so that she can find herself. Esperanza knows that she is not like the others on Mango Street, and she wants to move to a place "with trees around it, a big yard and grass growing without a fence" (page 4). To leave, she must have strength. Where will she get it? I believe her strength comes from within. Esperanza builds her strength off the mishaps that occur while living on Mango Street. In the vignettes, Esperanza describes some very interesting things that take place on Mango Street. She recalls a time when Sally befriended her and told Esperanza to leave her alone with the boys. Esperanza felt out of place and was very uncomfortable and very ashamed to be in that situation. She wanted more from life than that, so she left the scene. There was another time when Esperanza wanted to eat lunch in the canteen at school. She was not allowed to eat at school, because she lived close enough to walk home for lunch. But, Esperanza wanted to feel special like the other kids, so she convinced her mother to write a note to the nun in charge giving her permission to eat in the school canteen. The mother wrote the note, but the nun was not convinced. So, she made Esperanza go to the window and point to her house. She was too ashamed to point to the old-run-down home where she lived. This was one of her most embarrassing moments. Not to be outdone, Esperanza said, "I knew then I had to have a house. A real house. One I could point to" (page5). In "Four Skinny Trees," Esperanza compares herself to the four skinny trees outside her house. Like the trees, she too, has not found her place in the world.

African Americans in Pop Culture Essay

African Americans have had an incredible lasting impression on popular culture. African American singers, artists, entrepreneurs, athletes and actors have all had their say and have really stood out within the past few years. They’ve also grown and not grown in different ways all around from music, to television, to movies. African American stereotypes still exist in all aspects of pop culture, while many are trying to get away from what audiences assume is the typical black person. African Americans have been fighting for and against their own stereotypes when they started breaking out into music, then branching out into television, and making it big in the film industry. They’ve gone from being the dumb, uneducated, and underprivileged minority of America, and have started to make themselves more known as gang bangers and thugs, which are often seen as heroes in popular culture. African Americans haven’t only made a name for themselves or left a footprint in only their culture, but in American culture all around. African Americans have been making their mark in music all throughout history. Many started with the jazz and bebop rebellion during the 1940s and ’50s in Detroit. They made their point by trying to be different. They didn’t want to follow the typical white, swing music criteria, and that’s exactly what happened. Bebop wasn’t so mainstream, and that’s what made it their own. They preferred small, unique combos to play instead of big named stars in the music industry. Detroit was shedding light on the working class people of the town and wanted to really make a sound for them. â€Å"The 1940s created an â€Å"afro-modernism,† a response to the urbanization, industrialization, and modernization of African American Culture. † Because of their movement ahead in music, they also made their movement in business. And so emerged an incredibly successful, black capitalist enterprise, Motown Records, founded by Barry Gordy. Along with the movement in Detroit, the Harlem Renaissance had happened even before all the rage for jazz and bebop, which raised awareness to the visual arts, which led to even more developments in music. And even earlier at the beginning of the 20th century, blacks were starting to be accepted into acclaimed schools to study music and they were allowed to join the base of white people in symphony orchestras. During the ’50s, doo-wop and soul music became popular. That’s when legends like Ray Charles emerged and paved the way for others. Soul music remained popular among blacks for long after the pop sounds started to wave through. By the end of the decade and moving into the ’70s, blacks were starting to crossover into the typical white music trends. Psychadelic music had become popular. Jimi Hendrix, along his wah-wah pedal innovation, became one of the most popular guitarists during the era. Right after that, soul had become the popular music in the black community and was starting to revolutionize African-American music. Soul had continued success in popularity during the ’70s, but the ’70s also brought along a rise in black bands. White people were listening to country, disco, and all sorts of rock music, while the African-Americans had their funk, pop, soul, and jazz music that was on a totally different spectrum from their white counterparts. The ’70s was also when Djs started mixing their own beats and playing their funk records the way they wanted to so they could get their audience to dance. And with the beats produced by Djs along with the poets who would read their poems to those beats, came the emergence of hip hop music. The era of hip hop music was a new revolution in African American popular culture.