Paradoxes of Giants and Gods free essay sample

A look at the life of satirist Francois Rabelais and analysis of his book Gargantua and Pantagruel. This essay takes a look into the life of Francois Rabelais and into his book Gargantua and Pantagruel. Specifically, the focus is on the idea of the curse as mentioned in the book. The curse is that Christians are free and yet they are enslaved. Finally, the paper shows that through his book Gargantua and Pantagruel, Rabelais examines the curse of Christianity, namely that the Christian has free will, but that the free will he or she is given is limited. The book contains the story of the birth and upbringing of a giant child, Gargantua, and illustrates the authors views on bad education (Medieval) and good education (Renaissance), and how an ideal humanist leader should behave. The character of the battling monk, Friar Jean, is introduced, with graphically detailed anatomical descriptions of his feats of holy combat. We will write a custom essay sample on Paradoxes of Giants and Gods or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page

The Iranian Revolution Essays - Iranian Revolution, Free Essays

The Iranian Revolution Essays - Iranian Revolution, Free Essays The Iranian Revolution Iran is a country located in the Middle East. The main source of income for the country is oil, the one object that had greatly influenced its history. Iran's present government is run as an Islamic Republic. A president, cabinet, judicial branch, and Majilesor or legislative branch, makes up the governmental positions. A revolution that overthrew the monarch, which was set in 1930, lasted over 15 years. Crane Brinton's book, An Anatomy of a Revolution, explains set of four steps a country experiences when a revolution occurs. Symptoms, rising fever, crisis, and convalescence are the steps that occur. The Iranian Revolution followed the four steps in Crane Brinton's theory, symptoms, rising fever, crisis, and convalescence occurred. Numerous symptoms led to the crumbling downfall of Reza Shah Pahlavi, ruler of Iran until 1978. One of these symptoms is rising expectations which can be seen during the 1960's and 70's. The rich Shah cleared the way for the land reform law, enacted in 1962. The land minority had to give up its land to the government, and among those stripped of land, were the Shi'ah Muslims. Iran's power structure was radically changed in a program termed the "White Revolution". On January 26, 1963, the White Revolution was endorsed by the nation. By 1971, when land distribution ended, about 2,500,000 families of the farm population benefited from the reforms. From 1960-72 the percentage of owner occupied farmland in Iran rose from 26 to 78 percent. Per capita income rose from $176 in 1960 to $2,500 in 1978. From 1970-77 the gross national product was reported to increase to an annual rate of 7.8% ("Iran" 896). As a result of this thriving economy, the income gap rapidly widened. Exclusive homes, extravagant restaurants, and night clubs and streets loaded with expensive automobiles served as daily reminders of a growing income spread. This created a perfect environment for many conflicts to arise between the classes. Iran's elite class consisted of wealthy land owners, intelligencia, military leaders, politicians, and diplomats. The Elite continued to support the monarchy and the Shah. The peasants were victim of unfulfilled political expectations, surveillance by the secret police, and the severe social and economic problems that resulted from modernization. The middle class favored socialism over capitalism, because capitalism in their view supported the elite, and does not benefit the lower classes. The middle class was the most changeable element in the group, because they enjoyed some of the privileges of the elite, which they would like to protect. At the same time, they believed that they had been cheated by the elite out of their share of the industrialization wealth (Orwin 43). About this time, the middle class, which included students, technocrats, and modernist professionals, became discontent with the economy. The key event should have further stabilized the royal dictatorship, but the increase in oil prices and oil income beginning in 1974 caused extreme inflation. This was due to the investment strategy followed by the Shah, which led to a spectacular 42% growth rate in 1974. (Cottam 14). And because of the Shah's support structure which enabled the new rich to benefit from inflation, the government effort to deal with inflation was aimless. Poor Iranians and Iranians with a fixed income suffered major losses in real income. Better ezdards of living were no longer visible. Thus, the majority of the Iranian people developed a revolutionary predisposition. As the middle class became discontent in Iran throughout the 1970's, the desertion of intellectuals could be found in great excess. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini represented much of the discontent of the religious sector of Iran. For speaking out against the Shah's autocratic rule, Khomeini was exiled to Turkey in 1963. In 1965, Khomeini moved to Iraq where he became the central spokesperson for expatriate opposition to the Shah. On October 6, 1978, Khomeini was expelled from Iraq and moved to Paris, where he was accessible to a larger body of opposition forces. He was also accessible to the Western Press. Khomeini preached that he would displace the Shah and expel the foreigners. He also said he would enforce religious and traditional values, and redirect Iran's wealth away from large industrialization schemes and toward reforms needed by the common

Overthrow By Stephen Kinzer Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Overthrow By Stephen Kinzer - Essay Example US Regime Change: Changing Tactics, Causes and Results Stay the Same The first thing one must do to understand the series of regime changes represented in Overthrow is to note the ways and reasons the methods of regime change differed throughout history. The first set of regime changes during the Imperial Era, were marked by a unique combination of willingness to use military force and a frankness about the fact that the United States had in fact orchestrated the changes in power. One can see an example of both principles in the regime change orchestrated in Panama in the early 20th century. At the outset of the 20th century, Panama was a colony of Columbia, and the Columbian government was unwilling to allow Americans to build a canal across part of their country, and rejected a treaty that would have given America the right to build one. In response to this America undertook military action in support of a rebellion it started, including sending warships to blockade ports in Panama. This rebellion, with American military support, was eventually succ essful, leading to a pro-American government in Panama. When questioned about this forceful ousting of the Columbian regime, then president Roosevelt simply said that it was Columbia’s own fault for ignoring â€Å"the plainest warnings† that America would take power if Columbia did not capitulate. This shows the way that in this Era, America was more than happy to use military force, and was so bold to even freely admit it would depose regimes who opposed American interests. Following the close of the Second World War and the outbreak of the Cold War, America had to start becoming more discreet about the ways it took power. During this period, the Soviet Union â€Å"limited [American] freedom of action,†4 because America could not risk undertaking activities which could bring on a Soviet reaction, which could possibly escalate to a war between the Soviet Union and America – a â€Å"cataclysmic† nuclear war neither side would truly win.5 These meant American operations were driven underground – covert operations such as financing opposition rebels or political parties (as Nixon did when trying to oust Allende)6 or secret assassinations (such as the â€Å"several times the CIA has tried to kill† Fidel Castro).7 Following World War II America could no longer openly attack foreign leaders, and could no longer admit to their actions publicly. With the winding down of military tensions and the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union, the major restriction on American military might was removed. The United States responded by engaging in an ever more forceful foreign policy, Probably the first instance of this new willingness to engage in full blown military conflict was the American Invasion of Grenada, conducted in 1983.8 One of the major distinguishing features of Warfare during the era of Invasion was that, though militarily America could once again act with impunity, the ideology of both the world and American