Category: Free History Essays Examples

Elegy, according to the OED is a song that expresses sorrow, such as a funeral or lament. These were a popular form of Anglo-Saxon poetry and Middle English poetry. Elegies allowed peace weavers to speak up when faced with the challenges of living among men of enormous power.

An elegy is a discussion about the loss of something and the grief they feel as a result. One of the earliest elegies was “The Wife’s lament”. The grief and sadness that the wife felt can be felt by readers. An elegy can affect you deeply, and you feel closer to the story. She fears being isolated and is finding it difficult to accept this. She says that the man’s kin plotted to seperate them so they could live in such a hostile world. She feels alone because her husband has abandoned her and left her without any protection. “First my Lord went away from his people across the storm-tossed ocean” (4). She also discusses how she keeps her safe while writing her lament. This shows tremendous courage and determination. This elegy reveals the torture and pain Peace weavers went through. They were not looking for love or respect, but power and silence when they married men. Women were considered second-class citizens and had to play the role of peacekeepers and mistresses. Men could give women to them who could provide a prosperous life. Sometimes, they would buy wealth into a marriage. Men were just as protective of women as their husbands. The women’s decisions were made by men. The Elegies give readers the chance to look into the lives of these “peaceweavers” and to understand what they went through. This woman was forced to leave her family to live with a hostile tribe. The wife of this hero is brave because she must handle everything on her own, while also dealing with the severe consequences. This poem is about a woman who finds herself in a predicament. It’s a melodramatic poetic soliloquy with extraordinary emotional language.

Hildeburh, another peace-weaver who felt under pressure, was another example. She was the Danish king’s daughter, and she married Finn, the King Of Jutes. She is at first a happy princess. She is “deprived” of her beloved ones at shield-play, of brother and son (121). Finn, Finn’s brother and son, died when she married him from a hostile tribe. She lets go her passiveness and tries to assume her role of peace-weaver. Hildeburh demonstrates her disgust for the social norm by taking complete control of her elegy. She brings out the peace symbol, even though we don’t hear it. Hildeburh is known to mourn through “geomrode gaidum,” or songs of sorrow. Some may argue that Hildeburh was not able to fulfill her peace-making role. But, Hildeburh shows her power by ordering the burnings of bodies. Hildebruh used “Beowulf,” an elegy, to bring together a hostile tribe and a peaceful one.

Judith, AngloSaxon heroine, has a distinctive personality that sets her apart from previous peaceweavers. Because she is a widow, her household includes servants and enormous power. She also has a lot of money and she uses that to purchase gold to seduce Holofernes. Her appearance is described as “laden with rings” or “bedecked by ornaments.” This power allows her to command the Jews to go against Holofernes. It is her guilt and love for her husband that drives her to fight. Her touching and poignant elegy ignites the fire that she needs to defeat Holofernes. She said, “Lord God Israel, grant me strength! Now, guide these hands right, and give Jerusalem relief that thou promised. 8 Then she moved to the couch’s head and unfastened her scimitar. 9 She took the man’s hair by the ear and grabbed him. “Lord God, I need your strength now!” (134). After her powerful elegy Judith is able to decapitate Holofernes.

Elegies serve two purposes: to help them deal with painful events and motivate them to live on. Even though the Elegies were deeply sad, these women had courage and showed hope. Elegies gave women the freedom to express themselves freely, even though they were not able to do so in the Middle Ages.

In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase was an enormous land sale that took place from France to the United States. It was Thomas Jefferson’s most important act and legacy. The Louisiana Purchase allowed the French to acquire large areas of land. This acquisition also gave the United States much more southern and midwestern land. Thomas Jefferson said that “every eye” in America is now focused on the Louisiana matter. The Revolutionary War, perhaps more than any other war, has created a more uncomfortable sensation in the nation’s body” (Louisiana Purchase). The historic deal allowed for forward expansion of America’s economy and exploration.

After the French and Indian Wars in 1802, which saw the defeat of France by the United States, the Louisiana Purchase was made. France signed land over to Britain and Spain after its defeat. Spain was granted New Orleans. This city was used by the United States for export goods stockades. Spain acknowledged this and permitted the United States access to this port through the Pinckney Treaty. Spain had been struggling to establish its foothold in New World. Spain therefore considered the possibility of transferring its territory from Spain to France. France’s control over Louisiana could lead to massive economic sanctions. France and the United Kingdom were the two world superpowers at the time. However, the unease in the newly formed United States was caused by the leader of France. Napoleon Bonaparte, who was elected to power 1799, had the ambitious goal of making France great yet again. Bonaparte’s military brilliance and the desire to see France rise above the war debt it incurred by supporting the colonies for independence would make any deal with France futile and pointless. The United States was also at risk of another war because of the French territory it had gained. Bonaparte wasn’t the only war mongrel who made it difficult to reach a deal for the Louisiana Territory. The Federalist Party was also not willing to follow diplomatic procedures. They wanted to seize the territory and declare war. These events prompted Jefferson to urgently negotiate with France in order to end the troubles of a nation.

Due to the complicated and difficult circumstances, Thomas Jefferson made the purchase of Louisiana territory his legacy. Thomas Jefferson needed to act immediately to ensure the survival of the nation he had worked so hard to build and protect. With the nomination of James Monroe to the position of Minister Extraordinary, Jefferson’s plan for gaining the territory was put into practice in January 1803. Monroe was a close friend of Jefferson and a political ally. He also wanted the territory. Jefferson stated that Monroe was a close friend and political ally. “All eyes and hopes are now focused on you… because on the event this mission depends on the future fates of this republic.” (Louisiana Purchase). Monroe was appointed to sell the land. Three options were available to Monroe: The first was to buy land east of Mississippi, Florida or Louisiana. Both of these transactions could fail. He was required to negotiate New Orleans’ use as a point for trade. The purchase was limited to ten million dollars.

Monroe would have been en-route now to France and would be amazed when he arrived in Paris. He would also avoid the need to show force for the two nations. Napoleon’s plan to restore France’s supremacy in the New World was quickly falling apart. Also, with the recent failure to quell a Saint Domingue uprising, France wouldn’t be able to deploy troops to defend Louisiana. Napoleon’s minister in finance also misunderstood the value of Louisiana and said to Napoleon that it wasn’t worth the effort to preserve without Saint Domingue. Monroe arrived in Paris knowing that France was ready to hand over Louisiana to America. Negotiations took place that resulted in the sale of all Louisiana territory. France agreed that the territory would be sold for fifteen million dollars by April 30th.

Monroe arrived immediately and Louisiana was sold. But, the news got home a little slower. It was nevertheless received with the same amazement as Monroe. The news of sale didn’t reach America until July 4th. There was also much controversy among Jefferson’s cabinet about where the new land should be placed. These boundaries were not to conflict with Spain’s territories in the south and France in the north. His cabinet was split on whether to amend or let the purchase proceed without approval from the United States. As Jefferson felt that an unapproved amendment to the Constitution would create an uprising in addition to a negative view of the purchase, tensions rose again. The problem was that the United States didn’t have the entire amount promised to Napoleon. They would need to borrow money at two of Europe’s biggest banks. With no time left to amend the agreement, Jefferson accepted the purchase. The issue was then sent to Congress for approval. It was approved by a 24-7 vote. Jefferson had doubts regarding the Constitutionality of the Deal, as evidenced by the quote, “… stretched it until it had cracked.” (Greenspan 2013, 2013). This would be forever etched in American history as the largest real-estate transaction and a rare chance for the United States to avoid conflict so quickly after its independence.

The United States was forever transformed by the Louisiana Purchase. It allowed the United States to grow forward, as well as other national events like Manifest Destiny (the Civil War) and the Civil War. Thomas Jefferson left a legacy that allowed the nation to develop and become its own power. The United States no longer had tariffs to Spain to use New Orleans. This also allowed land development that quickly elevated the United States to a global power. This deal enabled people to reach the west and begin the United States’ development. It also maintained the dream to self-preservation, freedom and the ability to achieve ones own goals.

The Great Depression had a huge impact on all Americans. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president of The New Deal, a variety of programs were created to improve the economic well-being and economy. The Federal Writers Project, which was part of the Work Progress Administration, was one such program. John Steinbeck would become a major American literary figure thanks to his participation in this project. Steinbeck was the author of The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men, his most well-known novel. These books better reflect the hardships that many Americans had during the Great Depression, Dust Bowl and subsequent years. Steinbeck was a Federal Writers Project member and all literature he wrote was based on a single theme. To understand men, it is essential to be able to communicate with them. Steinbeck intended his writings on Great Depression to contribute to large-scale social reform. The Federal Writers Project was set up in 1935 to support writers, teachers, and librarians. The original intent of the FWP is to publish a series of guides on the United States. Steinbeck was shocked by the quality of their lives after being displaced during the Dust Bowl. He admired their determination and willingness to continue to try to rebuild their lives. Steinbeck wrote Of Mice and Men after his encounters with these workers. He focuses more upon the hopes of displaced worker to finally have their own land and to settle down and reclaim their former lives. Of Mice and Men became an immensely popular novella and stage performance. It was popular because of its mirroring of American citizens’ lives from not too long ago. Even those citizens who were not as badly affected as farmers or other members of lower classes began to see the impact of the Depression on the rest. Steinbeck would then write The Grapes of Wrath. The Grapes of Wrath focuses on the Joad family’s journey to California in search of rebuilding their lives after their family farm was destroyed by the Dust Bowl. Steinbeck’s experiences working with migrants was a huge influence on the novel. The camps of migrant workers spread across the country to California and played a significant role in many key scenes. Steinbeck won the Pulitzer Prize for The Grapes of Wrath and the National Book Award. But, many schools had to ban the book because of its crude language and obscenities. The Associated Farmers of America protested the book’s portrayal of corporate farmers throughout. A film version of the novel starring Henry Fonda was released in 1940. However the Kern County Board of Supervisors attempted to stop production to stop the spread of the book’s negative messages outside of California. Steinbeck accomplished his main goal of social change with The Grapes of Wrath. Elanor Roosevelt was supportive of Steinbeck’s truthfulness. Roosevelt would influence congressional hearings concerning the conditions of migrant camps. Steinbeck spent his time traveling the world to learn more about the world. Steinbeck was a war correspondent for The New York Herald Tribune during this period. Steinbeck wrote East of Eden about America in the period from the Civil War up to World War I. Steinbeck described it as “the story of America” and “the tale of me”. Steinbeck earned many awards for his literary work on the American people as well as the gradual shift in American history. President Lyndon B. Johnson awarded Steinbeck the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1946 for his efforts to help the American people discover themselves again through shared experiences, such as those seen in his works. Steinbeck traveled to the Soviet Union with Robert Capa, a photographer. Steinbeck was under FBI investigation for pro-worker sentiments he expressed during his writing. His trip to the Soviet Union seems to have confirmed suspicions that Steinbeck was a socialist. Despite Steinbeck meeting with many communists. organizers of labor, and strikers it was not clear that Steinbeck was a Communist card-carrying member. Steinbeck’s friendship and reporting pro-war during the Vietnam War led to more speculations about his morals. Steinbeck, who was 64 at the time, was a journalist working on the frontlines in Vietnam War reporting back. These letters would eventually be published as the last Steinbeck works. Steinbeck’s disturbing letters were originally published in Newsday. Newsday was owned by Harry Gugenheim during 1966 and 1967. Many Steinbeck readers were shocked to learn that Steinbeck was pro-involvement in Vietnam. Steinbeck was primarily involved in Vietnam reporting because he wanted to. He and his sons became war veterans with the encouragement of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Steinbeck denied that he was there for Johnson. Steinbeck did not participate in the war. However, his son confronted Steinbeck about his support. Steinbeck felt that the United States was in Vietnam wrongly and unnecessarily. Steinbeck had doubts about the necessity of involvement later in the war. However, the doubts were never published by Newsday. John Steinbeck was a writer before the Federal Writers Project was created. However, this program marked a turning point for John Steinbeck’s writing career. Steinbeck’s work for the FWP was based on his personal experiences as a displaced worker in the wake of the Great Depression. The Dust Bowl only made matters worse. The FWP’s mission is to unify Americans and help them look back on their lives. Steinbeck was also given a lot of popularity and respect by the American people. Despite doubts over his political views or ties, John Steinbeck still plays a significant role in American literature.

Boccaccio writes in Italy in 14th-century Italy. His historical dilemma is between the blind adherence that permeated Middle Ages Christianity and the new Humanism of Renaissance Italy. Boccaccio prefers to look ahead, as he is open to frivolity and scathing depictions of churchmen. His epilogue addresses the topic of obscenity, anticipating that he will be confronted with moral objections to his stories. Although Boccaccio acknowledges that his stories may be perceived as moral, he eventually argues that the book’s purpose is not to offend. Boccaccio is able to uphold some values in his short stories. They include a personal morality, humor, and the value of trifles.

Boccaccio is basically defending against the accusation that he has committed obscenity. He claims that obscenity instances are minor and don’t make his work moral. He claims that his occasional “trifling indiscretion in speech” is similar to using words with amoral connotations like “mortar” or “sausage.” This is a common practice in speech. He also attacks anyone who might have a problem using his work and calls them “preciousprudes,” saying they are more concerned with appearances than morality. He claims that readers who are offended are people who care more about appearances than true moral action. There are many examples of people who live sinningly private lives and it is easy to see that this attack may be directed at the church. He also uses the analogy of his work to wine or fire or arms, as well as to the bible. These are all good things but they can also cause “manifold mischief,” he says. It’s the same with mine stories, I tell you” (012).

He offers some practical and superficial solutions to the problem. He notes that the stories can be skipped, as they are not connected and independent. “None should be misled. Every one bears on their brows the epitome that it hides inside its bosom” (019). Boccaccio seems to be primarily telling his audience that obscenity doesn’t matter and can easily be avoided.

He shifts his focus to communicate the purpose and claims that his audience is made up of women passing the time. In this moment, there is evidence that his defense of his work is shallow. He does not believe that simply skipping the offending story renders his work inoffensive. Boccaccio can see the epilogue as a formality and an opportunity to name those he believes are immoral. He claims that his work wasn’t meant to be serious nor part of any scholarly study. It is interesting to note that his work is not intended for intellectual purposes and is only meant to be read by women to pass the time. Boccaccio doesn’t mind having his standards lowered, since he doesn’t consider passing time for women to be intellectually insulting or degrading. It is clear that Boccaccio is mocking his work and attempting to make it funny.

“I am of no gravity, but I affirm that I’m light. And considering that friars preach to people about their sins in sermons, they are filled with jests and merry-conceits and drolleries. So I thought it would be good to have similar stories to banish women’s dumps. If they make too much of it, they may be quickly cured of their sins by the Lament of Jeremiah.

Boccaccio also portrays the Church’s members as being potentially immoral in this instance. His comedy and exaggeration feel superficial and there is a possibility that he has not been sincere in his defense. His reversal may suggest that he has some issues with morality. Although Boccaccio says that the work is frivolous, it seems like he might attach some value. This makes it difficult to analyze the stories and see if Boccaccio actually had an appreciation for morality.

First, evidence is found that Boccaccio values a basic morality. This can be seen in the stories. In a number of stories, characters are either punished or rewarded for their morality. These characters are not punished after death, but in their real lives. The Second Tale of the Fourth Day shows a brother named Alberto being humiliated after seducing an angel-like lady.

The Ninth Tale of the Fifth Day is an example of this type of morality that is based upon action. Federigo, a man, falls in love Monna, a wealthy and beautiful woman. He attempts unsuccessfully to court her until he is able to leave the country and return home. Monna Giovanna requests a favor for her sick son by giving her her falcon. Federigo was unaware of the request and had nothing to offer Giovanna but his falcon. Giovanna marries Federigo because of his kindness and unwavering love for her. Federigo shows a strong moral character despite his poor circumstances. He is ultimately rewarded. This morality is not the result of faith and piety but simple ethical action. Giovanna also stated that she would rather marry a man who is poor than one who is wealthy (043). This stratification mirrors Boccaccio’s earlier statements about those who “weigh words instead of deeds” (005), which allow us to assume Boccaccio is indeed a supporter of this kind.

Boccaccio also tends to make many characters who are part of the Church look immoral because of their exploiting of their church status. As previously stated, Brother Alberto uses priesthood to seduce women. His mistress is also convinced that the Archangel Gabriel loves her and is coming through him. To aid him sin, he direct uses figures from the Church. Another example of a sinful, exploitative character is the First Tale of the First Day. Ser Ceperello (a scoundrel) leads a corrupt life and is later praised for his virtue and made a confession. He is then made a saint. Boccaccio claims Ceperello would prefer to be in Hell than Paradise (090), but it seems that Ceperello has not suffered any physical consequences. Ceperello is prayed to daily by those who believe that he is capable of miracles. Boccaccio views the Church’s system as superficial. But, this manipulation also shows that not all Christians are moral. Boccaccio sees morality as not being centered on the Church. It is about the individual.

Yet, Boccaccio does not show his morality in every story. In fact, most stories don’t end in heavy moral retribution as punishments or rewards for bad actions. They are more lighthearted or focus on a trivial aspect. Boccaccio might not find the morality or frivolity mutually exclusive. This is evident in the case of Ceperello’s sainthood or Federigo’s marriage to Giovanna. These ironic conclusion can be viewed as amusing. Some stories depict sexual impropriety that has no moral qualms. This almost leads into disaster, but the story is comically resolved with a rewrite. These stories show that Boccaccio is a entertainer.

Boccaccio’s morality is addressed in The Decameron in two ways. First, he deflects claims that his work violates morality in the epilogue. Second, he gives the impression that he values human actions more than corrupt Church morality. The central issue of the book is not morality. Recognizing the value of frivolity as well as escapism is the main issue. This not only matches his original description, but it also matches what the stories are told within: escapism.

The ten women and men fled the city to escape the plague. The group then tells fictitious stories to escape the waiting. These stories are meant to be funny and entertaining for both the audience and the nine people listening within the context. Boccaccio writes stories that are mostly entertaining, which promotes frivolity and man’s importance. This morality, as well as the humanism-inspired stories, are perfectly in line with Humanism.

Alexander the Great could be described as a general or king. He was also a leader. Alexander expanded the advanced technology found in the Greek culture and invaded cities-states. Alexander made his army extremely smart and advanced through the use of engineers and the introduction of longspears to his army. Alexander was very tactile, and he conquered a lot of the world quickly. Alexander was not an exceptional man. He was greedy, power hungry, and very well-pampered.

Alexander was very power-hungry. Alexander took over all of India’s land and was likely to take over more if he had his army not refused to continue. He also planned to force his culture on other conquered civilizations, building large mock cities and libraries that included his cultures information. Alex would kill anyone who disagreed with him. Ian Worthington writes, “Thus in 335 he issued an execution order for Philotass and Parmenion, two senior generals who had been critical of Alexander’s increasing favoritism towards Oriental Practices.” This quote confirms my claim that Alexander was not open to criticism. All of the above traits are indicative of someone who is power hungry. Alexander had an insatiable appetite. Alex wanted control of everything. Everyone should know who he is, what his beliefs are, and where they came from. Alex would abuse the military and push his soldiers to the limit, making conquest after conquest until his soldiers gave up. Alex then had to give up and leave the army. The Hellenistic Era was the result of Alex’s conquests. Alex was also receiving everything he required from his father Philip 2 before his 336 death. Alex felt that he was invincible and set about spreading his Hellenistic Era through the Eastern World. This is a clear example of Alex’s disregard for who he had slaughtered to obtain his goals.

Alexander was loved. Alexander was loved and cared for by his father, Philip II, who died in 336. Alex was nothing if it wasn’t for his father. Ian Worthington says that Alex wouldn’t have the ability to become a ruler and lead the Hellenistic Era. This statement is true. Alex’s harsh and impulsive ways would probably not make him an ideal leader for a city in turmoil. However, Alex rose to power without having to worry about such a city.

Alexander was power hungry and greedy. Alex was not able to handle opposing views. He wanted to control everything. Alex also had a greedy streak, wanting to be the center of all culture. Alex was loved by his father and given an ready-to-go civilization by him after his passing. Alex was considered a leader and a ruler. Many people ignore the bad and terrible things that he did. Alex was a man who was somewhat obsessed with everything.

The French Revolution was an attempt to change France’s monarchy from unequal and establish a republican government. It was based on Enlightenment ideas like natural rights and legal equality. It failed to fulfill its promise of liberty and extinguished all opposition voices. The French Revolution claimed that these radical and authoritative actions were essential to reach its ultimate goal of creating a perfect society. It is a hallmark of many totalitarian governments around the globe since the French revolution. These include Stalin’s Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. To achieve their ideal society, the leaders employed radical methods like the French revolutionaries who used terror and propaganda to suppress dissent.

Rousseau’s philosophy was the inspiration behind the French revolution. Rousseau believed citizens had to ignore their personal wants and needs in order to reach the general good. Furthermore, all forms or dissent should be stopped. This philosophy was at its peak during the Terror. Robespierre took power to implement the Terror. The Terror caused citizens to “politicize every aspect of their lives” as they were required to follow the general will. To ensure loyalty citizens to the government, opposition to the revolutionary government was “perverted” and made it a crime. This led to thousands of people being sent to death by the guillotine during this short period, even though they were suspicious that their opinions were not supported by evidence. Similar to this, people who opposed the state or condemned it were treated as enemies in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and other countries. They were often sent to concentration camp instead of being executed. These harsh punishments for minor differences in opinion created fear among citizens of France, Russia, Germany, and Germany. This fear made it nearly impossible to overthrow each totalitarian regime. Modern totalitarian leaders used fear to end dissent in a manner similar to Maximilien Ropespierre’s French revolution leaders. Indoctrination of citizens through propaganda was an additional method by modern totalitarian regimes to suppress dissent. Propaganda wasn’t as common in France after the revolution as in totalitarian regimes, but it was there. Jacobins were one example. They formed in the wake the French Revolution. They played a crucial role in instituting Terror. Similar trends were observed in the past totalitarian governments, like Nazi Germany. Hitler’s Third Reich used education as a means of indoctrinating youth in Nazi ideology. School courses were designed to instill anti-Semitism among children by promoting racial theory and educating them about the Aryan race’s superiority. Stalin’s USSR propaganda also was used to condemn governments that were “degradations” of true politics. Although propaganda used during the French revolution wasn’t as effective as in modern totalitarian regimes, it was still useful and had the same effect of eliminating dissent.

The French revolution was motivated by progressive ideals such a equality of all persons before the law, liberty and justice. Ironically, however it was led by governments. It led to governments (like the First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte) who opposed these ideals. The radical Jacobins took control of the National Convention in 1793 from the moderate Girondins, using the state-of-emergency France as a justification for their power grab. The new government implemented radical changes to make the country more rational. They established a new calendar, and abolished Christianity. The Jacobins’ violent transfer to power and the subsequent changes they made were undemocratic, and a hallmark of totalitarian governments today like Nazi Germany. Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany, but he did not achieve the democratic goals he originally set out to. He was able to consolidate the power of the president and chancellor into one position, and also passed the Enabling Act through Reichstag. He became dictator and banned opposition parties, suspended civil liberties, and committed genocide on Jews, homosexuals, as well as other people he thought to be less than the Aryan race. As with Nazi Germany and French governments during the Revolution Stalin’s Soviet Union was ruled by one party. They were subject to undemocratic, atrocious legislation which resulted in the deaths of millions. The French Revolution, unlike other totalitarian governments today, was based on democratic and Enlightenment principles like equality and liberty. However, revolutionaries felt it was necessary to use all means to attain their goal of creating an ideal state that upholds these principles. Modern totalitarian governments also use brutal methods like terror, propaganda, and single-party rule to suppress dissent.

The striking similarities in the French Revolution and current totalitarian regimes are not enough to make the conclusion that the French Revolution is their source. The only reason totalitarian governments took the brutal actions they did is because the ends justifies their means. This was the driving force behind France’s brutal Revolution, which is the reason why totalitarianism today has its roots.

Hillel Cohen’s “Year Zero Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict” is an intentional effort to present the 1929 Jerusalem riots with a non-biased viewpoint. Cohen examines the riots using both the Jewish and Arab perspectives. Cohen is an Israeli professor, who has published extensively about Arab and Israeli relationships. This book stands out from his previous works like “Good Arabs” by Cohen (2009, Cohen) because Cohen considers 1929 the highest point in the Arab/Israeli conflict. “Good Arabs” compared this to a more extensive time frame on the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

This intricate and detailed account of the riots can be hard to understand. This is not because Cohen’s words aren’t necessarily true. Cohen deliberately tells Cohen’s story using a narrative with no identifiable victim or perpetrator. This storytelling style is difficult for an individual like myself who has embedded views on the conflict. The 1929 riots were ultimately responsible for a new level of conflict between Arab and Israeli. The riots, despite the title, were not responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict in its entirety. Anyone who doesn’t know the history of this conflict may be confused. However, it left a mark on the lives of both Jews and Palestinians. It also revealed how each group views and interacts with one another. Jumping between periods and back to the present, the book discusses important events from the riots. It was also possible to use small subchapters to talk about different stories. This can be distracting for the reader. Cohen claims that it is an intentional act but it disrupts the flow of his book.

Cohen looks at the different perspectives of the same event from Palestinian and Jewish sources. This is the strength of the book, but it doesn’t give a definitive right-or-wrong answer to the conflict. That may make the book difficult for some.

Cohen emphasizes that the two groups are very different, and although they have many stories to tell about 1929, Cohen paints very different pictures. Jews considered it a Monstrous slaughter’ of innocents who were legally seeking refuge within their God-given country. It’s striking to notice the depiction that ‘Arabs want Jewish blood’. They are inherently savage. Palestinians considered themselves victims to colonization and imperialism. Another attempt by Zionists and Europeans to depossess them of the land they had cultivated and lived on for hundreds of years was the 1929 riots. They reacted rationally to the decades of violence they had endured. Cohen is right to highlight the differences in both narratives regarding the riots. Both provide contradictory accounts and unverified stories, which may prove difficult for some viewers. Cohen also shows that both stories have similar beginnings. Both saw only their own deaths and not the deaths for others. Both refused to hear criticism that would have suggested they were at fault. What is most significant is the way that both groups saw their actions and acted in self-defence.

It is a good thing to appreciate the contradictions in the book’s narratives, but it can also be disadvantageous. Cohen would sometimes ask Cohen questions he was unable to answer. Cohen was unable, for instance, to explain why Arabs killed Jews when he discussed Safed and Hebron. Instead, contradictory explanations were offered. First, there is no explanation for why. This, as we already know, contradicts the Jewish belief that Arabs are innately violent. Second, he says that the Arab belief was that Jews were trying steal their land and identities to justify the actions of the Arabs. It is unclear for the reader who is the victim or perpetrator.

Cohen states that “studies in mass psychology have shown that we can commit deeds when we are part of a group action”. Cohen doesn’t discuss them in detail and these studies aren’t mentioned at all in Cohen’s book.

The book’s central feature, the Cohen-Memory link, is worth mentioning. Forgery is used by sources to recreate this event and their historical representations. This information has relevance for today’s Arab/Israeli crisis. Cohen uses both primary as well as secondary sources, both in Arabic and Hebrew, to discuss the topic. This is why it is so surprising that this book does not attempt to assess the contribution of these sources to the creation of the memories. Cohen suggests that Jews as well as Arabs recall the riots with their own national lenses. “People’s fundamental and overarching view determines how people see historical details.” Cohen claims that massacres are not “imprinted automatically on the national mind”. This statement makes it clear that we must ask who or what etched these memories of the riots.

Cohen was not criticized for his impartial view of events. He wanted to give a multi-dimensional view of the past. Cohen fulfilled his stated objective by providing a two-way perspective of the riots. While the book contains obvious gaps and numerous contradictions it still shows us how complex this event is and will continue to be. Cohen uses his skills to examine both primary sources and secondary information to unravel the complicated weave of the 1929 riots.

Bibliography

Cohen, H. (2009). The Israeli security services and the Israeli Arabs, 1948-1967. University of California Press in Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Cohen, H. (2015). Year Zero of Conflict between Arab and Israeli 1929. Brandeis University Press

Waltham,MA. (2016).https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ajs-review/article/hillel-cohen-1929-year-zero-of-the-arabisraeli-conflict-waltham-ma-brandeis-university-press-2015-312-pp/CB9DD922C400230722C7495F8D82AAC5/core-reader, viewed 13 October 2019.

The Hebrew University located in Jerusalem. (2012) http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~hilcoh/, Viewed 11 November 2019.

Holocaust is known for the period during which Europe’s Jewish community was decimated. Nazi propaganda promoted antisemitism and the superiority to the “Aryan Race” and persecution for those considered “inferior,” but other minorities were also persecuted and suffered. This was not recognized by the international community after the war ended. As with Jews, homosexuals suffered the same hateful crimes as Jews. They were subject to psychological torture and gas chambers. Even after the war was over, homosexuals were still subject to the deeply held homophobia of European society. This paper will focus on the persecution of homosexual men during and after World War II. I also discuss the conditions they lived in death camps.

Understanding the German approach to homosexuality before Nazism is crucial to understanding how the holocaust saw homosexuals persecuted. German unification saw courts establish sodomy laws that primarily addressed male intercourse. Paragraph 175, also known as this law, began to lose strength over the years. This was until 1929 when Germany went through a period of progressive growth for homosexuality known as the “Golden Twenties.” The context allowed a parliamentary committee to rewrite Germany’s moral code, almost eliminating the anti-sodomy statute. The Nazi party’s influence in the legal process meant that such a recommendation did not get introduced to Parliament. Nazis were concerned about homosexuals because Nazi opposition to emancipation appealed primarily to conservatives whom the Nazis wanted to co-opt. Although gay bars were shut down in many big cities following Hitler’s election, they were still a minority group. Jews were easier targets because they listed their religion on birth certificates, government records, and other documents. Paragraph 175 in 1935 was strengthened. Two men could not have sex with each other for conviction. You could be punished with imprisonment or forced labor in extermination camps for simply looking at another man differently. Heinrich Himmler, Nazi leader and Holocaust survivor, said that homosexuality wasn’t just a crime, but a threat for the future Aryan population. The Nazis wanted the Aryan race as the main project and therefore any attempt to stop natural reproduction was justified by persecution and death. The Nazis saw homosexuals as weak and dependent on state aid for survival. Their behavior as homosexuals was what made their ‘weak’. If they continued these behaviors, it would cause a ‘corruption’ to other citizens. Additionally, they were engaging in non-procreative sex while the Nazis sought to produce as many offspring possible. Hitler’s plan was to create and expand the Aryan Race.

Heinz Heger shares his story through The Men with the Pink Triangle. He describes his experiences of being a gay man in Nazi Germany and how he was tortured. The fact that he had been dating Fred, a Nazi high ranking official, was the first sign of trouble. Nazi officials found proof of Fred’s homosexuality when he sent a Christmas card to him. Heinz was unaware that he would be held in prison for six years for being homosexual when he was asked to visit the Gestapo headquarters. Heinz didn’t get the freedom he wanted after he was released from prison. He witnessed from every angle the homophobia rooted in him as he was pushed along a wagon by other criminals. He shared his wagon with two criminals and said that they soon made it clear to him that he was a “175er,” a “filthy queer,” as they called him. They also spoke with contempt for homosexuals, even though they were murderers and were therefore more disregarded by society. They insisted that they were still “normal men” and not a’manlike’. Because they considered themselves “naturally men”, and because the European male-dominated society encouraged heterosexuals to dictate rules and narratives, the murderers believed that they were morally superior. Homosexuals, like Jews and Gypsies were treated badly and considered to be the lowest of society.

Heinz was first to Sachsenhausen, where he saw the brutal treatment of gay men. Heinz describes the difference between the badges worn non-queer offenders and the pink triangles that gay men had to wear.

However, the pink triangle was approximately 2-3 centimeters bigger than the other, so we could easily be recognized from a distance. Heinz illustrates the segregation and abuse of homosexuals in the camps. It was a cruel and humiliating treatment that the homosexuals in segregation received. They were repeatedly kicked in stomachs and whipped. Heinz says, “It wasn’t January and the temperature was below zero. There was an icy wind blowing through camp camps. Yet we were left naked, barefoot, on the snow-covered floor, to wait.” An SS soldier in a winter coat with fur collar strode past our ranks, rubbing each of our feet with a horsewhip. He and others were tortured by the Nazis, which led to their fall.

Homosexuals were also forbidden from higher-ranking positions within the barracks. This was in addition to fear and torture inmates. The SS guards suspected they were “trying to seduce them” and prevented them from doing so. Heinz was tortured at Sachsenhausen. Heinz was taken into the Klinker backwoods’ clay pit. Heinz didn’t know what else brutality would await him. It was “the most difficult working conditions, along with actual torture,” Heinz described. Many would eventually succumb to exhaustion due to the fact the clay pits had been built on top of steep hills. The harsh treatment meant that they had to work in difficult conditions.

Kapos responsible for supervising homosexuals were also ordered by SS to ensure that no one was hurt if they failed to fulfill their duties. Heinz shows that there was no hierarchy within camps. However, Kapos who had immediate supervision over homosexuals were ordered by the SS to follow orders.

The SS officers treated homosexual prisoners with cruel and bizarre punishments at the Flossenburg Camp. Heinz witnessed the beating and beating of a homosexual Czech. His description was as chilling as it was real. Other games that the guards played with prisoners would lead to their deaths were also common. The barbed wire fence was the maximum distance that prisoners could be allowed to go within five meter of. The guards would pick a prisoner when they got bored and place a bucket on their head. They would then spin them around. The guards would then remove the bucket from the prisoner and push him toward the gate. The prisoner would feel dizzy, disorientated and start to feel dizzy. He would feel confused and dizzy before he could get back to his senses. The guards would then shoot him for trying to escape.

The Nazis made labor a murder game. Heinz Heger describes another kind of work he was forced in concentration camps. Along with homosexual prisoners, he was required to build dirt mounds that the Nazis could use as target practice. Heger needed to be careful and avoid being shot at by the Nazis. Although Heger was fortunate in that he was able to get transferred quickly, many prisoners who needed to continue working were killed while on the job.

The Nazis used the Holocaust’s most horrific horrors, including the pain and torture that gay men endured in the camps. There were experiments on all types of prisoners, from children and pregnant women to twins and disabled people, as well as homosexuals. The experiments that were done on the prisoners involved different methods. Many experiments were conducted on homosexual prisoners to test their ability to become “real men.” This belief was widespread by Nazis, which allowed them to discover a cure. It was clear that Nazis wanted to torture homosexual prisoner to prove their point.

Many homosexual prisoners suffered the consequences of these experiments throughout their lives, either because they could not trust the results or because the process was slow.

Castration was another notoriously cruel experiment on homosexuals. Castration was used to further emasculate and punish the men for their ‘crime. Castrated males would then lose their sexual desires and be able incorporated into the camp’s rest. Based on their additional criminal convictions, homosexuals could be forced to castrate. However, some prisoners were allowed to choose voluntary castration. This was believed by some to be a way to keep them from the gas chambers for longer.

Paragraph 175, a documentary about the persecution and survival of homosexuals, offers a good starting point to understand this story. It features the testimony of a few survivors of the SS guards’ brutality and their Kapos inside death camps. Heiz Dormer speaks out about his childhood as a boy’s leader in a boy scout organization. Hitler Youth was determined to ban gay boy’s clubs from being formed. Dormer described the takeover as “My group and me could only survive for six more months.” We were attacked by the Hitler Youth with other weapons and brass knuckles.

Albrecht Becker (another survivor) describes Ernst Rohm, a homosexual officer who was also a victim of the systematic attack upon homosexuals. He was a German Officer and helped consolidate and spread the Nazi Party’s influence. Rohm and the SA grew rapidly in the 1920s. Hitler became frightened of an uprising, and decided that he would kill this paramilitary group, which became known under the name “The Night of Long Knives”. Rohm opposed the party’s position on Paragraph 175 in Germany’s penal code which made homosexual acts against men illegal. Some German homosexuals thought that Rohm might finally change his Nazi position. The film claims that “opponents, eagerly to denounce Nazis, promoted Rohm’s homosexuality,” which was an exception to Hitler’s tolerance, as the Nazi party has always condemned homosexuality.

Rohm was executed because his SA membership was known and not because he was homosexual. Despite Paragraph 175 being restrictive on homosexuality in its definition, homosexual behavior was part of concentration camp life, especially for those who were gay. The relationships that homosexuals have with their commanders, particularly those of sexual nature, can make or break the life of these prisoners in death camps. Inmates of homosexual camps were more likely to have sex with Kapos or SS commanders. This would enable them to receive better treatment and less arduous jobs as well as more food. This was a strategy amongst the inmates but anyone caught in homosexual behavior could be punished. Heinz describes how his bond with Kapos was essential for survival during his time in clay pits. If I wanted to be his lover, I could just load the earth into the barrows. I don’t have to carry the stones to the butts. I would then be safe from the SS shots. Heinz was able to live with less work, which proved to be a valuable asset. These were easy relationships for both parties, which meant that homosexuals could survive. Heinz expressed gratitude for his protector, the Kapo who kept a protective hand over him. He saved me more than ten times, and I’m still grateful for that today, twenty-five years after it happened. Heinz, even though he was the Kapo’s ‘dollyboy’ and could do what the Kapo asked, still feels grateful for the Kapo having offered him “life”.

While there is not much testimony from gentile gay men, they are nearly all available. Gad Beck, one of only a few survivors, only briefly spent time in a transit center and not in a concentration.

He provided shelter and food to Jews hiding during the war. His story focuses mainly on his work in keeping Jewish citizens safe and helping them to survive. Beck’s story helps to illustrate the divide between different Holocaust victims. Research tends not to consider the intersectionalities of victims but only one group. Prisoners were not restricted to one group. Jewish prisoners who are members of a different group of prisoners would have one star of yellow and one triangle of that color to make their Star of David. One yellow triangle would form the Star of David for a gay Jewish prisoner.

Many Holocaust victims were freed after World War Two. They were freed by the Soviet and American armies who tried to restore order in Germany. Former prisoners tried to locate their relatives who survived and return home to their homes. After spending so much time in the camps and witnessing the horrors, it was hard to imagine how it felt to be back in a different world. The discrimination faced by homosexual inmates after being released from the camps was even worse. Knowing that the prisoners were there for the crime they committed, many were taken to Soviet prisons. Paragraph 175 was a law since 1871. The Supreme Court ruled that it was still illegal in 1957 because it was not created under the Nazi regime. Paragraph 175, which was included in the German constitution, remained until 1969. It meant that homosexuality could still be considered a crime up until that point. While other prisoners attempted to make sense of events and move on, homosexual prisoners suffered more discrimination. Inmates who were part of medical experiments or in homosexual barsracks often kept their stories quiet out of fear of being ridiculed.

Data collected by research institutes that study holocaustinstitutes, such Yad Vashem and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum says that Paragraph 175 was used to arrest over 50,000 people during the Nazi totalitarian rule. Around 15,000 people were believed to have been murdered by those held in prison. Since the Nazis had poor records and destroyed many of these records when they suspected their end, it is hard to know exact numbers. The treatment of homosexuals in camps was often avoided after the Holocaust. They were subject to discrimination, and often, if they revealed why they were sent, would be imprisoned. They were not able to request recognition for nearly 50 years after liberation. Even today, their suffering is not recognized and rewarded. It has become commonplace to testify about being a Holocaust survivor gay in recent years. They deserve to be respected and acknowledged for the suffering they endured in the camps. They should be heard and educated alongside all Holocaust victims. The Nazis will win if the world ignores or silences them.

Richard Vinyes, a historian and author, stated that the protection of memory is not a matter of duty. He spoke out on the occasion of the 80th anniversary celebrations for the Spanish Civil War. Spain is currently challenging Spain’s concept of the fundamental right to have access to an objective historical story about their own country. Some Spaniards regard the Franco period in Spain as one of economic growth and nationalist pride. However, others, including the Catalonian people view the Franco era to be one of cultural suppression and the end of independence. Spain has failed to achieve this, unlike other historical atrocities, such as the Holocaust. This is in contrast to other historical atrocities. The nation has not been able to make progress in creating a cohesive society through its inadequate handling of historical memory. Catalonia has felt ‘non-Spanish’ since the Spanish Civil War’s historical memory. This is because of the emotional wounds that remain and the need to grieve. This has been a contributing factor to the fight for Catalan Independence.

Catalonia’s National Day can capture Spain’s approach towards its history. While the Spanish Civil War does not have a particular significance, the National Day (La Diada), summarizes the dysfunctional relationships between history celebrations and explains the differences between Spain and Catalonia. National days “represent how a country functions” and the National Images associated with that day’s “affect behaviors and attitudes”. Therefore, the national day plays a crucial role in shaping the “image-making” of people towards their nation. Raphael Minder, foreign correspondent to Catalonia, describes Catalonia’s National Day in this way: “Celebrating victory”. It commemorates the day that Barcelona was conquered by Bourbon Ruler King Phillip V. King Phillip suppressed and removed the Catalan language and parliament as a vengeance. Phillip V suppressed the Catalans, setting a precedent of hatred towards Catalonia. This prejudice is what led to the birth of many ‘radical’ left ideologies in Catalonia and the Spanish Civil War. Unfortunately, the prejudice against Catalonia persists to some degree today. Antonio Vancells, a Catalonian citizen, says that “all we are fighting for now revolves about the times of 1714.” Any country has a national day. The day represents pride and patriotism in one’s nation, but it is not possible to express this pride fully for Catalonia due to its fundamental meaning. This affects the Catalonian national image of Spain. Instead, the Catalonian populace has reclaimed the day’s meaning and made it “part carnival”, part rally, and part protest”. This protest saw hundreds of thousands gather to support it. The 2017 Diada had two themes: independence and referendum. The National day for Catalonia is a symbol of Spain’s flawed historical process. However the recapturing this day allows for this flawed system, which can be turned into a movement for reform. La Diada, a place where all Catalans marched for independence, shows the division between Spain & Catalonia. The definition of fundamentally public history is “any history that has been applied to the actual world”. It aims to “engage and inform” the public, which Woodrow Wilson considered a goal. The public audience is made more aware by the history. This makes society more aware of its past and allows it to be used to address the current issues. Hayden White argues that history must have a greater practical purpose. History should not be constructed as a mere narrative. Public history can be represented by museums, statues or other forms. reflects the organization’s view of the past and how it should be applied today. The Spanish Civil War is a complex historical story that is not well-known. Most museums and statues, especially in Barcelona, are privately funded. Those that are federally or council funded are part of a complex narrative about Spanish history. This theme prevents social cohesiveness in contemporary Spain.

Spain’

Through the Valley of the Fallen, you can clearly see how public history was used to honor the Spanish Civil War. The site’s history promotes nostalgia towards the Franco era. Independent UK calls the Valley of the Fallen Spain’s most controversial visitor location. This mausoleum, built using Republican prisoners by Franco, was designed to commemorate the Spanish Civil War veterans. It contains the graves of approximately 34,000 war casualties. The mausoleum is home to only two graves, Antonio Primo de Riera, founder of Falange Espanola de las JONS – a far-right party supporting Fascism. Fransisco Franco’s grave is located opposite him. The Spanish Socialist Party is concerned that the site glorifies traditionalist, catholic and far left culture in Spain. This encourages nostalgia and detracts from the Spanish Socialist Party’s goal of reconciliation. This site reflects the current social dynamics in Spain, where “there are still many Spaniards willing to pay good money for Franco’s grave. There are also others who will gladly pay the 9 euro admission fee to lay flowers on Franco’s stone.” Modern political parties have failed to make any effort to alter the site’s nature, which is a sign of how right-wing nostalgia has corrupted Spain’s progressive historical narrative. The Valley of the Fallen was an inconvenient site that has polarized the left and the right, leaving little room for a cohesive social middle ground.

Contemporary Spain is facing a major problem due to historical memory. Spain has suppressed Catalonia at a cultural level since modern times. This was in response to the notion of creating a united nation, freed from regionalistic culture differences. The history of King Phillip’s suppression in 1714 is a precedent that will be followed by other leaders. The Spanish Civil War marked the end of Spain’s brutality and division. But, the failure of Catalonia to honor these events with a process that offered genuine reconciliation has created a deep emotional attachment towards the past. The public history of Catalonia, especially those who were directly or indirectly affected by the war, has not yet been reflected this.

There are two main reasons Catalonia has not been able to create a legitimate historical record through public history. First, there is a general reluctance by those in power for the past to be remembered. It is much easier for those in power not to remember the past. The emotional attachment Catalonian’s still have to the past could put parliamentarians at risk, if it is altered. Instead, efforts to promote historical memory through public history are shockingly absent at the governmental level. Many of these private organizations were linked to the Spanish Civil War. A second problem is that the history of the country is not clear, which leaves it divided. Is there a way to commemorate the war? We will be looking at case studies which summarise Catalonia’s history through public historical.

Montjuic Castle is one example of contemporary Spain’s influence on public history. It has witnessed the commemoration and remembrance of far right-wing history, which has helped to heal the emotional wounds felt in contemporary Spain, Catalonia, and Catalonia. This castle played a significant role in Catalonia’s use public history. It is literally a tower that overlooks the city. This castle has been controversially commemorated for the Civil War. A plaque in the castle honors the “heroes & martyrs of the glorious Nationalist Movement”, and a Franco statue, which was removed only in 2008. Historical memory highlights conservative, nationalist ideologies in the past that have prevented reconciliation and mourning for war victims.

Barcelona’s commemoration of their unique Civil War history has also created an unclear narrative. Social progressivism is hindered by the lack of genuine attempts to find truth and reconciliation.

Over 2000 Barcelona victims were killed by enemy aircraft raids in the Civil War.

Placa De Sant Felip Nari saw 42 of the victims, which is a nearby church. Two plaques are placed here side by side. Barcelona City Council installed the first plaque to commemorate the victims of bombing. It attributed it to “Francoist Forces”. Although it is difficult to read and hidden from view, the second plaque adds more detail to the bombing’s nature. The bombing was now attributed to the “Italian Forces”. This was because mentioning the Italian forces was initially considered too provocative for any tourists from Italy visiting the site. This is a sign of Spain’s general position in remembrance of its history. Uncertain historical narratives lead to ineffective grieving. Uncertain truths make reconciliation more difficult. The truth is essential for the progress of Spain today.

Museums have not been able to properly represent historical memory, which has had a negative impact on the ability of people to remember and advocate for the past. According to Eunamus, museums have the goal of understanding how the past can be used in negotiations to re-create citizenship. They also need to understand layers that form territorial belonging. The theory relationship between museums, particularly those funded by national governments, has been highlighted by research conducted by the organization. Lois Silverman says museums aid in the process of learning about a specific identity and “affiliation” to it. Unesco also states that museums play an important role in social cohesion, fostering a sense of collective memories, as well as helping society learn the fundamental principles of dignity and tolerance. Spain’s use museum collections has paradoxically altered the narrative of its national history. Spain has no national museum that focuses on the Spanish Civil War. Furthermore, Spain does not have a national museum that focuses on Spain’s past. Catalonia houses most museums, including those that are meant to remember the Civil War. Madrid does not have any Civil War museums. Madrid does not have any national museums. This has caused inconsistencies to the Spanish historical narrative and has made Spain’s history more regionalized and subjective. Social cohesion is hindered by the fact that each region in Spain has their own histories. Museum d’historia de Catalunya in Catalonia is a perfect example. This museum was funded by Catalan Autonomous Government and aims to create a Catalonian national identity. It is clear that the museum has a central theme which seeks to separate Catalonia from Spain. This idea of creating a separation between Catalonia, Spain and Catalonia has created tensions between Spain and Catalonia which has prompted unprecedented social movements like the Catalan Debate for Independence. In order to help the country tackle a broad range of social problems and tensions, it is possible to implement national museums on an even larger scale.

Spain’s obligations under its law to historical memory have had a major impact on contemporary Spain. They have led to tensions in diplomatic, politics, and social circles. UN described Spain as “timid” for its legal/political contributions in historical memory. In 1977, the unanimous but unwritten “Pact of Forgetting” motion was adopted. A law of amnesty was also passed to ensure that no one would be held responsible for the deaths of thousands during the Civil War. Spain was forced to “la deremoria”, or forget its past in order for it to move on. Although this may sound rational at the moment, it has been difficult to grieve. Although the wounds were covered, they are not healing. If not properly addressed and resolved, the problems of remembering and relating to the past will not go away. The Civil War ended 80 years ago. Yet, the Spanish people are still seeking justice and seeking answers.

2007 was the year that the Historical Memory Law was enacted by the Socialist Workers Party. It was meant to condemn the Franco State in all its forms, and to investigate historical archives. Its partisan nature has led to it being ineffective in practice. The opposition claimed that the law would “violate democracy’s spirit and awaken the ghosts Spain’s past bloody past”. Spain’s international credibility has been affected by the ineffectiveness of achieving historical memories on a legal/political level. Spain has always longed to be a strong member of the UN, but domestic issues related to historical memory have impacted this. Spain has been strongly advised by the UN to repeal the amnesty legislation, which continues to hold prominence despite the historical memories law. Spain has been accused of mishandling historical memory and justice to war victims in relation to unidentified masses graves. A report was completed in 2011 to identify 2,232 mass graves, with the majority remaining undiscovered. According to the Spanish Recovery of Historical Memory Association, exhuming graves can be difficult because of a lack of funding. Although graves have been exhumed only recently, it is slow and difficult because there isn’t any political funding. Not only does it undermine the Spanish diplomatic credibility, but the historical memory of Spain’s Civil War has also been a source of social disunity.

Spain’s fractured approach to reconciliation has affected all aspects of modern life. It has also shaped their identity as a nation. Due to the unclear and regionalistic historical narrative, Spain has witnessed a range of social inconsistencies. This can also be seen at a political level because of the partisan nature in historical memory approaches. The nation is divided clearly, making it hard to find common ground. This polarization is what has prompted the need for major change such as the Catalan Debate for Independence, and the recent induction of a Socialist Prime Minister. Social tension has been created by the emotional scars left from the Franco era and Civil War. Spain will become more progressive, inclusive and cohesive if it focuses on its historical memory.

The Battle of Gettysburg, which lasted from July 1 through July 3, 1863 was considered the most important phase of the American Civil War. This battle was Confederate general Robert E. Lee’s first invasion of the North. It was the deadliest battle in the Civil War, with more than 50,000 soldiers dying over three days. Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful and inspiring speech on November 19, 1863 dedicating Gettysburg’s battlefield cemetery, Pennsylvania. Lincoln’s speech was only three minutes long, a remarkable feat in an age when leaders often gave lengthy speeches. It is commonly known as The Gettysburg Address. Lincoln paid tribute during the speech to Union soldiers that gave their lives. Although Lincoln didn’t know it would become so well-known, the speech is still remembered and loved today. Lincoln uses rhetorical strategies including repetition, allusions and antithesis to remind listeners what the soldier’s sacrifice is for: equality, freedom, national unity.

Lincoln’s address begins by making an allusion at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The phrase “Fourty-seven years ago …”” was used to refer to the year of 1776 (Lincoln). Lincoln used this strategy to highlight the importance of equality and freedom in his topic. He also recalled the founding of America. His first sentence is concluded with an explicit allusion at the Declaration of Independence. (Lincoln). Again, this allusion appealed back to the common value equality, freedom, unity. Lincoln used many similar words for his short speech. Because he was emphasizing his points, Lincoln used repetitive phrases. He repeats the word “dedicate,” several times at the beginning his speech in order to honor those who have sacrificed their lives for the country. Lincoln believed Americans should devote themselves to building their country and adhering strictly to the founding principles. Lincoln was able connect the lives of those who give their last devotion to the country with the lives of those who dedicate themselves to its preservation. Lincoln’s address stressed the importance of equality and freedom through repetition and allusion. Lincoln continues his speech by using the rhetorical techniques of repetition, antithesis, and repetition to demonstrate his respect for fallen soldiers. Lincoln repeatedly repeats the words “our”, “we” throughout his speech (Lincoln). These words were important during the Civil War. The nation was fractured and it was necessary to repeat them several times. Lincoln preferred to address his message with the pronoun we’ rather than ‘I’. Because collective work is crucial for the development of the nation, this pronoun was essential to use. It’s not just the job of the president. Lincoln made it clear that repetition was crucial to his purpose. He stressed that all people share the pain of loss as well as the work ahead. Lincoln used the antithesis to contrast ideas. Lincoln uses the use antithesis to effectively contrast one idea with another. It is engaging and compelling to communicate an idea with its opposite. This helps clarify the purpose by honoring the fallen soldiers, while still adhering to America’s founding principles. Lincoln’s speech was made more hopeful by the antithesis. Even though many were killed in battle, the antithesis allowed Lincoln to convey a hopeful and inspirational tone. The sacrifice of others is what makes it possible for the nation to rebirth. It inspires those who survived the war to work for the cause of those who gave their lives. Lincoln created unity and purpose by using repetitions and antithesis.

Lincoln began his speech by referring to the Declaration of Independence. He then closes his speech by referring to the Constitution. “We the People”, the Constitution’s three first words (Madison), are the Constitution’s first three lines. They state that the Constitution’s power comes from the people. Lincoln ends the powerful triple with the words “of, by, and for the people”, which is a reference to the vital document.

As he tried to connect the broken country, he linked two of America’s most important founding documents. Lincoln began his speech by referring the Declaration of Independence’s principles of human equality. He then connected these principles to the desire to preserve the Union founded in 1776 and its ideal of self government. Lincoln used references to the nation’s founding documents to create a strong sense of unity in his speech to communicate the purpose of Civil War.

Lincoln used allusions. He also repeated the phrase antithesis. This was to remind the audience how soldiers have given their lives in order to achieve equality, freedom, and the pursuit of national unity. The Gettysburg Address is arguably America’s most well-known speech. It took the suffering of others and made meaning from it. Lincoln spoke less than 300 lines and paid tribute to the Union dead. He also tried to build the America that America’s founders envisioned. He reminded American citizens what they were fighting against. Lincoln spoke out stating that the Civil War would determine whether or not the North wins. The victory of the Northerners preserved the United States as a single nation and ended slavery, which had previously divided the country. Lincoln’s speech was persuasive because it changed Civil War’s purpose and nature. His speech, which he dedicated the nation to freedom, equality, and unity, is still worth considering today. Many Americans still remember the Gettysburg Address as a significant impact on society.