French Revolution Essays (1499 words) - Knights Of The Golden Fleece

French Revolution The French Revolution changed the face of France and all who were associated with it so drastically that it was almost the exact opposite of what it used to be. Most of the people in France at the time were very upset by the way the government had been being run for so long. Many historians believe that the period of increased knowledge and ideas, or The Enlightenment, was the cause of the revolution. In any case, the people wanted change. King Louis XVI ruled France under an absolute monarchy in 1789, but the government also consisted of three estates, or classes, of people who helped govern France. The first estate was made up of the clergy and Church officials who held much of the power, however they only made up a small percentage of Frances population. The second estate consisted of Frances nobles. The nobles only made up 2% of Frances population, but they owned more than 20% of Frances land. The third estate actually has three separate classes within itself. The first group, the bourgeois, were just as wealthy as the nobles, but had very little power at all. The nobles didnt have to pay taxes, so the bourgeois were angry that they had the wealth, but no political stature to go with it. The farmers and lower-class workers were always subject to huge taxes on literally every thing they owned to help pay for wars, and other political money problems. The poor people of France were outraged at the tremendous prices of bread and could no longer afford to feed their families. The third estate made up 98% of Frances population but had less power than the other two estates. The third estate began screaming revolt and Louis XVI was forced to call the first Estates-General since 1614. The Estates-General met at the Palace of Versailles and each of the three estates presented their problems with the way things were being run. The conference was supposed to be run based on the rules of Frances Old Regime. The Old Regime is a set of governing laws that were established in favor of the nobles and the clergy. For every problem, each estate would vote and then count and then their overall vote would count as one vote. Each estate had one vote, therefore, the third estate would always lose in a vote that the nobles and the clergy didnt like. The third estate had more members than the first two combined, so the third estate demanded a vote where everyone in the each estate counted as a vote. The third estate basically took over the entire Estates-General, changed their name to the National Assembly, and forced them to vote in this way. The National Assembly won a lmost every vote and completely demolished the Old Regime, and almost every taxing law in France. On July 14, 1789, the citizens of Paris stormed the Bastille Fortress. The people were armed with a few guns and some tools, but the soldiers in the fortress had cannons. The citizens were being slaughtered, but then many of Paris soldiers felt sympathy for the people and went to help. They took over Bastille, and gained artillery and ammunition. King Louis XVI was planning on hiring Swedish mercenaries to regain his power and bring peace back to France, but now that the people controlled Bastille, this was impossible. Since King Louis XVI could no longer trust the loyalty of his troops, he fled to the border. He was almost there, when he was recognized by a soldier and brought back to Versailles. He was thrown in jail. The National Assembly stepped down from power now that peace had been achieved. A new group, The National Convention took power and attempted to establish a democracy. This time in history, between September of 1793 and July of 1794, is known as the Reign of Terror. T he National Convention was basically ruled by two men, Georges Danton and Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre slowly gained more control than Danton. Thousands of suspects against the revolution were executed, by means of the newly invented guillotine, including the kings wife, Marie Antoinette. In the early months of 1794, other leaders were

Soap Operas Essays - Social Realism, Soap Opera, EastEnders

Soap Operas Essays - Social Realism, Soap Opera, EastEnders Soap Operas What forms of pleasure can be found in viewing the continuous serial on TV? The continuous serial is more commonly known as the soap opera, and is peculiar in that each episode cannot be watched and understood on its own; the viewer must watch the episodes before and after to understand what is happening. According to Brown the soap opera has 8 typical characteristics (see appendix 1). Television is becoming an increasingly important part of society. We have more televisions in our homes, and on those televisions there are more soap operas for the viewing public e.g. EastEnders, Coronation Street, Emmerdale, Neighbours, Home and Away, Brookside, London Bridge, and HollyOaks. Individuals undoubtedly get a lot of pleasure from them, and although the soap opera is viewed as entertainment, there should be a cautious approach to this view, because television is an influential part of our society. In this essay I will look at the pleasures and the consequences. Escapism is one form of pleasure. The soap provides an outlet for an individual to escape the responsibilities of their own life. As soon as the familiar theme music begins the viewer is transported to another world, although Mike Clark poses the question (page 19) What sort of escape is it that constantly refers to the very issues that may be troubling the viewer?. Another pleasure of soap operas is the continuity of the characters and settings (Clark, page 19). The familiar settings give a sense of a stability and order to the viewer. Most people know the Rovers Return in Coronation Street or the Old Vic in EastEnders. The individual feels at home with a soap and its characters, of which there can be up to 40; all are old friends to the regular viewer. For the most part they do not set out to shock. Because the characters are ordinary and believable, Mike Clark states that the actors must be the same in their lives outside television. He tells us that: When Peter Adamson, who played Len Fairclough, was charged with sexually molesting a child and subsequently killed off from the program, his crime was not that, precisely (he was acquitted), but rather one of deviating from the unexceptional norms of Coronation Street and of the viewers at home. Seeing someone who had been publicly associated with such an offence, and thinking I wonder what really happened, would be disruptive of the kind of low-key realism attempted by the program, therefore out he had to go. Im not sure that this argument would hold true today. His book was published in 1987 and since then I think the public has become more tolerant, and apart from that, Coronation Street has become more controversial in its storyline; these days generally any publicity is good for a soap. This leads to another pleasure derived from the soap opera. The private lives of the actors, reported in the press and on the television, provide an infinite source of pleasure for the viewing public. In the Evening Standard (Tuesday 3rd March 1998) there were three separate articles about three different actors from EastEnders: Barbara Windsor, Paul Bradley, and Patsy Palmer. However, such public interest can create a problem for the actors, in the form of admirers and stalkers and the public still perceiving them as their on screen character. Empathy with the characters can reduce the viewers own problems as they realise that other people also suffer; another good reason to watch a soap. Biancas abortion storyline, in EastEnders, may have helped people in similar situations think about the relevant issues before making their own decision. Regular soap opera viewers who have followed a particular soap for years, according to Clark acquire an expertise and a fund of archival knowledge, which enable them to experience the programs more fully, and more enjoyably. So, they understand the personalities, strengths and weaknesses of the characters in the soap, and will often know exactly how a particular character would act in a particular situation. For them, this makes soaps more pleasurable. The romantic interest in the soap holds many viewers. Who will fall in love? Who will have an affair? Who will get married? At the time of writing, in Coronation Street the

Daimler organization culture Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Daimler organization culture - Assignment Example 305). Moreover, neither the Americans nor the Germans liked the merger, and it destroyed both companies. Chrysler was faced with falling profits shortly after the merger, which destroyed Chrysler’s market advantage; meanwhile, Daimler was faced with the fact that their products were not as quality as they once were, which destroyed Daimler’s market advantage (Markowitz, 2003). The end result was that the company posted losses almost immediately after merging, and this occurred from the beginning, and Daimler had its biggest loss ever in 2001. The two companies finally de-merged in 2007 (Banal-Estanol & Seldeslachts, 2007, p. 1). Chrysler probably should not have been looking for a merger at this time, however, the CEO of Chrysler, Bob Eaton, felt that the coming years would bring problems for the company for three reasons. First, there was the issue of overcapacity. Chrysler had too much inventory and needed a new market, and wanted inroads into the European market. Two , there was the issue of environmental concerns, which threatened the existence of the internal combustion engine. Three, Eaton saw a retail revolution that would empower buyers (Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, 2002, p. 1). Daimler was also looking for a partner. It had failed to make inroads into the American market, and was longing for a partner that would help it do so (Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, 2002, p. 3). Daimler was also vulnerable, in that its company was dominated by one brand, Mercedes-Benz, which made up 95% of its sales. Therefore, it needed to diversify (Golitsinski, 2000, p. 10). A merger of equals proved not to be the case, however, as the German company Daimler insisted that the new merged company be domiciled in Germany, and Daimler CEO Jurgen Schrempp stated that Daimler would never be a junior member of any merger, and that Daimler must take the lead in the merger (Badrtalei & Bates, 2007, p. 309). Moreover, Schrempp never envisioned the company to be anything but a German entity. Finally, there was the issue of the name. While Bob Eaton, the CEO of Chrysler, wanted the name to be Chrysler-Daimler, the German company once again got its way, and the name was Daimler-Chrysler. Thus, Daimler managed to dominate on all the key issues – domicile & name, while still pretending that the merger of the two companies were equal. Later, Bob Eaton was made co-chair of the organization for three years, and this created a huge leadership vacuum in the United States end of the operations (Badrtalei & Bates, 2007, p. 309). Thus, within a year after the merger, many of the key executives from Chrysler had left the merged company and the stock prices for the company plummeted. In the end, however, much of the problem was that the merger involved a clash of cultures. Culture conflict is one of the leading causes of merger failure (Weber & Camerer, 2003, p. 412). The analysis of this problem, with regards to the failed merger of Daimler and Chrysler, will be conducted by using Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. These cultural dimensions represent four different ways that countries differ from one another in a fundamental way. The first is individualistic verses collective –