Most Influential Jewish Musicians In World

Introduction

Jewish music has changed throughout history with numerous Jewish musicians who have revolutionized this unique musical landscape which is still today widely celebrated in Jewish culture. Beginning in early biblical times, Jewish music was traditional religious cantors that were sung in synagogues. Then Jewish music evolved into more secular music such as Klezmer, Classical or Israeli Pop Rock of today. Jewish music has been evolving with new musicians rising and sharing their music with a new generation of fans. Most modern-day Jewish musicians were heavily influenced by the Jewish musicians of the past. Of the many Jewish musicians over the years, three of them have had a significant impact on Jewish culture in the last century: Debbie Friedman, Shlomo Carlebach, and Matisyahu. While each musician has a unique biography and influence on the Jewish music industry, Matisyahu has had the most significance.

Debbie Friedman

Debbie Friedman was one of the most prolific female Jewish musicians during the Reform Movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. She was a quasi-folk song singer who originally started singing in the synagogue. Debbie Friedman’s music touched so many Jewish people especially the ones who believed in Judaism and Christian faith. She used her music to express her faith to the masses and spoke to community. She believed that all Jews are a community made up of individuals and her music healed the souls of each Jewish individual. (About Debbie)

Debbie Friedman was born in Utica, New York in 1951, but moved to St. Paul, Minnesota six years later with her family. Throughout her life, she moved to many places like Chicago and Los Angeles, and even lived in Israel for six months after high school. She did not have any formal training as a singer, but she began singing to her own guitar accompaniment and writing her own songs as a teenager. Her musical influences were Jewish folk singers like Judy Collins and Joan Baez. She had a passion for all genres of Jewish music whether it was instrumental or vocal, but she was even more inspired by her mother and grandmother. Her mother and grandmother gave her passion for love, justice, integrity, humor, and living Jewishly. (About Debbie)

Between 1971 and 2011, Debbie Friedman recorded 22 albums, in both English and Hebrew. She wanted to relay her positive message to as many Jews as possible all over the world. Her most popular songs are Mi Shebeirach and Miriam’s Song. Some of her most popular songs were written for life-cycle events, holidays, Jewish holidays, and world events. She even had albums written for children to teach them the Hebrew language. (About Debbie)

Even though Debbie Friedman struggled with an undiagnosed neurological condition for twenty years, that did not stop her from pursuing her a long music career. Debbie Friedman passed away on January 9, 2011 as a result of complications from pneumonia. She left behind a beautiful legacy of Jewish folk and spiritual music that Jews still love today and will pass on for generations to come. (Levin)

Shlomo Carlebach

Shlomo Carlebach was a prolific Jewish religious songwriter of the 20th century. He was known as Reb Shlomo to his followers. Not only was he a famous Jewish singer and composer for 40 years, but he also was a rabbi and religious teacher to many Jewish followers. He was known as “The Singing Rabbi” for his lifetime. Shlomo Carlebach’s religion was Orthodox yeshivot, but he also created his own style of religious teachings by combining Torah learning, Hasidic Judaism, personal interactions, and songs throughout his church services. (Shlomo Carlebach)

Shlomo Carlebach was born in 1925 in Berlin, Germany, as a descendant of an old Jewish rabbinical dynasty, which remains a prominent Jewish family. His father, Rabbi Doctor Naftali Hartwig Carlebach was an Orthodox rabbi as well. Shlomo Carlebach and his family moved to Austria in 1933, then immigrated to England in 1939 when it became too dangerous to live in Austria. In 1940, they moved to the United States. Shlomo Carlebach studied the Torah in great depth in college and was recognized by his teachers and famous rabbis. After his father’s death in 1967, he took over the rabbinate of the Congregation Kehilath Jacob synagogue. (Shlomo Carlebach)

Not only did Shlomo Carlebach take the steps to become a famous rabbi, but also began writing songs in the late 1950s. These songs were very religious songs that were primarily based on the verses from the Tanach, but he created his own tunes. His songs like Ve’haer Eneinu were first popularized in 1969 at the Hasidic Festival. Throughout his lifetime, he composed thousands of songs even though he never learned to read music. His soulful tunes of these Torah verses became standard verses for most of the Jewish community. His songs can be characterized has relatively short melodies and traditional lyrics with easy to learn catch tunes that were adopted to most prayer services in synagogues around the world. (Shlomo Carlebach)

In 1972, Shlomo Carlebach married Elaine Neila Glick, who was a teacher. They had two daughters, Nedara (Dari) and Neshama Carlebach and Neshama became a singer and songwriter with similar stylings to her father, Shlomo. On October 20, 1994, Shlomo Carlebach died of a heart attack on a flight to Canada. Even after his passing, he left a legacy of spiritual music that is still played in Jewish synagogues today. (Shlomo Carlebach)

Matisyahu

Matisyahu is a modern-day Jewish musician who first emerged in 2004 with his debut album titled Shake off the Dust…Arise. Born into a Jewish household, he combined rap lyrics about the glories of Judaism with reggae beats in the background creating an interesting mashup of music. He was one of the first to accomplish the feat, thus making him a pioneer in the evolution of modern-day Jewish music. (Ruhlmann)

Matisyahu’s birth name was Matthew Miller. He was born on June 30, 1979 in West Chester Pennsylvania but moved to California shortly after his birth. Eventually, he settled with his family in White Plains, New York. As a pre-teen, he rebelled against his traditional Jewish upbringing, and considered himself as a Deadhead and hippie. By age 14, during a camping trip to Colorado, he reconciled himself to Judaism. From there, he developed a passion for reggae and hip-hop, and participated at open-mike competitions in Bend, Oregon. At age 19, he attended New School for Social Research in Manhattan, while also attending Carlebach Shul, a synagogue where his musical interests were encouraged. He also met Lubavitch Rabbi. He became interested in the strict Lubavitch Hasidic sect of Judaism and renamed himself Matisyahu. He assembled a band and released his first album in 2004, and he began touring around the world. To date, he has made five studio albums, and the future is looking bright for this groundbreaking singer and songwriter. (Ruhlmann)

Compare and Contrast the Three Jewish Musicians

All three of these Jewish musicians have significantly impacted the Jewish music industry and have influenced Jewish culture over the last sixty years. All three of these Jewish musicians also have traditional Jewish lyrics in their songs that convey a similar message to a Jewish audience even though they may have a different rhythm or background music.

All these musicians have a passion for music and for their Jewish ancestry and heritage. They want to spread the joy and pride they have for Judaism through their music and lyrics and want to pass it down to future generations. Even though Friedman and Carlebach have passed on, their legacy remains. Eventually, Matisyahu will have a large legacy to pass on as well as a leader in the secular music wave of Jewish music and pave the way for other musicians in the future.

Friedman and Carlebach were both more traditional and spiritual with their musical interpretation of Jewish music using guitar, drums or acapella, while Matisyahu did a more modern and secular approach to Jewish music with rap and reggae. Carlebach and Friedman’s music is still played in synagogues and used during prayer today, while Matisyahu is a more mainstream genre of music, not played in a religious building.

Matisyahu studied Judaism and joined Carlebach Shul, which relates to Shlomo Carlebach’s family history of being a descendent of rabbis. Matisyahu was influenced by Carlebach’s music and synagogue while he was growing up and helped encourage his passion for music and songwriting as a career. Friedman and Matisyahu pursued a music as teenagers while Carlebach pursued music as a second career. Carlebach initially studied to be a rabbi in college and composed music on the side. Eventually, Carlebach balanced being a rabbi and a composer for his entire adult life.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Matisyahu is the most influential Jewish musician because he has revolutionized the Jewish music industry to reach out to a new generation of fans. Someone who has been so innovative in music deserves the title of the most influential Jewish musician. He is a ground-breaking artist who was influenced by the artists of the past, including Debbie Friedman and Shlomo Carlebach. However, he took their old traditions of songwriting, music, melodies and made it his own and made it new again by pulling in additional genres of rap and reggae with the Jewish lyrics. He is not only influenced by past Jewish musicians, but he will also be the musician that the next generation of Jewish musicians will look up to in the future. Additionally, he has fans all over the world, and includes more than just the Jewish population which is very impressive.

After taking this class, and doing this research paper, I am looking forward to listening to more Jewish music, especially Matisyahu in the future. I have a new appreciation for Jewish music. The eclectic blend of music that is Jewish music will continue to be passed down to future generations of not only Jews but everyone who appreciates interesting music like me. Jewish music will continue to evolve into something special and new in the future, and I am looking forward to listening to that beautiful music.

Works Cited

  1. “About Debbie.” The Life and Legacy of Debbie Friedman, July 2005, www.debbiefriedman.com/about-debbie.
  2. Levin, Neil W. “Debbie Friedman.” Milken Archive of Jewish Music, January 2011, http://milkenarchive.org/artists/view/debbie-friedman/.
  3. Ruhlmann, William. “Matisyahu: Biography & History.” AllMusic, www.allmusic.com/artist/matisyahu-mn0000075623/biography.
  4. “Shlomo Carlebach.” The Carlebach Shul, www.thecarlebachshul.org/shlomo-carlebach-6/

Essay about Princess Diana

Early Life and Education of Princess Diana

Our society is built of women and men. This includes women and men from all over the world. Our country’s founding fathers to our presidents. Normally, women didn’t get recognition in history as we do now. Women; Myself included are expected to cook, clean the house and have children. But we are more than that. Women are an essential factor in our world. Yes, Women have always been powerful but we are always underrated. It is 2019 and exactly right now society has started to really understand/grasp the true power of being a female. One woman who conquered all of these differences in the 1900s is the one and only Princess Diana of Wales. Lady Di made a huge impact from her early life to all her charities even fashion. How did a kindergarten teacher become a world icon?

From Norfolk, England on July 1st, 1961 an icon was born Diana Frances Spencer or now known as Princess Diana or Lady Di. Princess Diana’s early life involved being the youngest daughter of 4 children. At the age of 8, Lady Diana’s parents divorced and her father took custody. She went to a local school and hardly got an equivalent to a high school diploma. Although Lady Diana was not an exceptional student, she did excel in the arts like music, dancing, and swimming. In 1975 her father became the earl’s Spencer and then Diana became a lady. Soon after Lady Diana began to work as a kindergarten teacher with lots of charm but was seen as a shy person. By the end of the 1970s, Diana found her passion for children and teaching.

Royal Romance: Diana’s Marriage to Prince Charles

Diana then carried on with her life. Like any woman, working and having some love interest stir up in her life. Lady Diana met Prince Charles at a hunting party in 1977. Prince Charles is “ Prince of Wales is the heir apparent to the British throne as the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II.” Prince Charles was known as a very handsome man and being prince lifted the hearts of many including Lady Diana’s older sister Lady Sarah Spencer whom he dated for a year. Lady Diana and Prince Charles’s romance grew and they got married on July 29th, 1981. Their wedding was the wedding of the century, about 750 million people from all over tuned in to watch the couple say “I do”. Diana then earned the title of “Her Royal Highness Princess Diana of Wales”. Princess Diana got pregnant months after their wedding and had two children Harry and William. This is when Diana truly started to reveal who she was.

Princess Diana: Redefining Royal Motherhood

Diana was different from other Princesses as she wanted her children to have a normal life. Diana took her children to Mcdonalds, Disney World even a homeless shelter. Those occurrences really tested the boundaries as a princess and how she was raising her kids. Many remember her for bringing simplicity to the royal family. In 1993, Princess Diana took Harry and William to Thorpe Park, an amusement center near London where they savored the park beside everyone. The world liked that she was almost relatable. But Being a princess did come with lots of responsibilities and it could get overwhelming.

In 1992 a book about Diana revealed the amount of her ‘hopelessness’ her struggle with an eating disorder and attempts at self-harm and a very bad relationship with Prince Charles, which led them to separate. So all in all Diana got depression, had to deal with bulimia, and was suicidal. However, Diana turned to charities to help her cope with her illnesses. In a documentary, she had an interview and opened up about her struggles as a princess and it was really important that she did this because it showed that even the “Princess” has struggled as anyone could.

During all this time Diana became outstanding and active in charities and giving back to the community. We all know Charity is the act of giving love and compassion to people in need. It is an intentional action but the decision is made by the heart, without expecting anything in return. Charity is required in our societies. Charities are meant for public benefit and welfare. Most importantly it provides support for people in times of need in any part of the world, particularly victims of war, natural disaster, starvation, illness, and poverty. By doing simple acts like supplying people in need with medical aid and other needs. When we give to making the lives of a child, an adult, or even an animal better, it uplifts our well-being in the process and I think Princess Diana understood that.

Struggles and Triumphs: Diana’s Personal and Charitable Endeavors

Diana really put in the work when it came to these types of things like bringing awareness to those in need. She was admired by the world for her charity work her work with AIDS patients and for strengthening the campaign for banning landmines. She was an advocate to help those in need. Lady Diana was not playing any type of games when it came to her charity work.

In 1987, Princess Diana was one of the first popular figures to be photographed with a victim of AIDS. Princess Diana helped dramatically the charge to lift the stigma that HIV disease could be contracted by touch. In her own words, she stated: “HIV does not make people dangerous to know so you can shake their hands and give them a hug heaven knows they need it!” The London Middlesex Hospital is the UK’s first purpose-built HIV/Aids. Princess Diana went head-on without wearing gloves or wearing any type of clothing that would protect her from not contracting the disease by touch, Princess Diana went and shook the hand of a man suffering from the illness, openly defying the theory that HIV/Aids was transferred from person to person by touch.

After visiting Angola in 1997, Princess Diana became an advocate to clear landmines. People were missing limbs and getting killed because these landmines were not withdrawn from the grounds. Recognizing land mines are inexpensive to produce and simple to use. Their cost in human suffering and in financial failures is vast. In places like Cambodia, “1 in every 236 people is an amputee due to mines”.(New York Times). Lady Diana went on and supported a global treaty banning landmines. At the time she worked with organizations attempting to destroy them but it was seen as a political stance, not a charitable one. Diana had to go on and state in June of 1997 about her trip that “I am not a political figure. As I said at the time, and I’d like to reiterate now, my interests are humanitarian. That is why I felt drawn to this human tragedy,’ ‘How can countries which manufacture and trade in these weapons square their conscience with such human devastation?’. Many people in this day are agile to credit her with contributing to the passage of the Ottawa Mine Treaty (also known as the Mine Ban Treaty), which was signed by 122 states, not including the United States on December 3, 1997. According to the ICBL, the treaty is a legally binding international agreement that bans the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel mines.’

From that moment the princess became an international figure, photographed and documented but most importantly she became an international fashion icon. In Diana’s eyes clothes were a personal passion but also a requirement of her because of her public status ( being a princess, advocate, and lady). Being one of the most important members of the royal family, her apparel conditions were set in a system that required ball gowns hats, shoes/heels, and purses, items that were not typical of young women in the early 1980s. Lady Di broke the stigma of being a princess and alive. Lady Diana used her style to send a message, she was unlike any other royal family member.

Princess Diana’s Fashion Influence and Legacy

Diana’s style ranged from ‘sexy silhouettes to her eye for trends’, Diana’s fashion was a result of her fun, fresh character. Many saw Diana’s style as unroyal as she wore a range of ‘short skirts, sleeveless dresses, bold prints, and wasn’t afraid to bare her cleavage and body in figure-flattering ensembles.’ The fashion world and common young women related to her rebellious style choices. Lady Diana loved trends but she always wanted to wear clothes with a purpose. Particularly since Lady Diana was a humanitarian, she utilized her fashion options to get recognition from the press. The more attention there was on Diana, either what she was wearing or stating the more attention and awareness there was on what she was doing.

Princess Diana then got into a car accident in Paris trying to get away from the paparazzi. Her boyfriend at the time was already dead at the time when ambulances arrived. Lady Diana was hospitalized with no one knowing how she was. Lady Diana lost her life a few hours later on August 31st, 1997, having all parts of the world devastated. Most devastated being Britain which lingers to this day. In London, only a couple of after her passing her funeral was held. A predicted one million people filled the funeral route from her London home in Kensington Palace to Westminster Abbey.

Tragic End and Lasting Impact of Princess Diana

There were many questions and grief about what happened on the day of the accident. Officials gathered information and were shocked to find out that Paul was drunk during the incident and he was also on prescription anti-depressants In reality, they went as far as to take tests of Paul’s blood after the accident and it was revealed that his alcohol levels were ‘more than three times the legal limit in France for drunk driving. Investigators believe this caused him to lose control of the Mercedes.'(history.com) The hearing ruled that both Paul and the paparazzi chasing Diana and Al-Fayed were held for the crash because of “gross negligence.” ‘The deaths of Diana and Al-Fayed were also ruled “unlawful killings”—the court equivalent of manslaughter, In addition, the jury ruled that the couple might have survived the crash had they been wearing seatbelts.'(in her eyes documentary). So Lady Diana wasn’t all that perfect either, who could forget to wear their seatbelts it’s a typical need when you step into a car. Many people were shocked when they saw that Lady Diana would have been saved if she had worn her seat belt.

Lady Diana was a symbol of feminine charm, beauty, and being a princess at the same time. It is said that throughout her life she was the ‘most photographed person in the world, appearing on the cover of People magazine more than anyone else.’ Diana changed the View on what a princess should be. She reached out and physically touched AIDS patients and gave them the awareness they needed. Lady Diana also traveled to former combat zones to highlight the dangers of landmines posed to civilians. The people truly felt they could relate to her when she described her battles with bulimia, depression, and loneliness. Lady Diana made the influence of promoting the royal family, making it more open and forming people’s opinions about what the royal family signified to them. Lady Diana was never afraid to say what was on her mind. Lady Diana would even go as far as to speak with people who were residing in tents or under bridges while cameras followed her, saying, “If I’m going to have cameras pointed at me the whole time, I might as well use all this publicity for good.” All in all Princess Diana contributed to many lives and to this day is one of the most respected PERSON, not a female or woman but a person regardless of gender.

Essay about Serena Williams

Tennis is a sport dominated by men, as most sports are however, there is the rise of one specific female who seems to have a strong presence in this sport. Serena Williams is a tennis player who since her beginnings seems to have had something to show in this male-dominated sport. A player who appears to have found a way to make her name be heard and show she can be a respectable female player and not just a female doing the same males do.

Williams has changed the history of tennis. By defeating Venus, her older sister in the final of the Open, Serena Williams holds the most Grand Slam titles than any player in the history of the Open. To win a title, a player must win seven matches over two weeks on the sport’s greatest stages and against its most dominant players. Williams, 35, has done so 23 times in 66 Grand Slam appearances and has surpassed Steffi Graf’s Open era record of 22. Now that she has reached 23, history in tennis has been written and her name is part of it.

Her career has been so amazing that it’s complicated to comprehend, built of achievements upon achievements, as she became the first and the fastest. For more than two decades, she has amused the audience’s attention with her enigmatic personality.

As she continues her historic seasons, it is undoubtedly that she will continue writing history, and through this, she will inspire many new upcoming female tennis.

The successes built by Williams has made her one of the greatest competitors the sport of tennis has ever seen, this has been carried on to a point where she is no longer seemed as just a female player but as one of the best of this era, even among male players.

Serena Williams and Roger Federer have been considered the greatest singles players of history, according to CBS Sports. Considering their respective achievements through their carriers, you can easily tell why. Both players respect and recognized the other’s achievements. Roger Federer in an interview made with him by The Wall Street Journal said that he considers Serena Williams the greatest player in tennis history. Serena Williams on the other hand said they both could share that title.

Federer has been part of the top of the world men’s ranking for tenths of weeks, and with 20 titles he has the most men’s Grand Slam singles titles ever, he is considered to have a style that is aggressive and athletic. Serena Williams is just as inspiring. She alone has 23 Grand Slam titles, and she is well known for her serving pace and her confident playing style.

The Patriotism of Nathan Hale

The C.I.A. Headquarters in Virginia is a big, concealed campus surrounded by woods. The C.I.A. collects and organizes intelligence. On the C.I.A. website, their primary mission is, “to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security” (About CIA, 2019). There is only one person that has a statue on the premises. That person is Nathan Hale. C.I.A. employees who pass by this statue understand the risk of spying could be death. The statue also inspires bravery because Nathan Hale was willing to do something dangerous that few people wanted to do. Nathan Hale was a patriotic citizen who was willing to serve and die for his country.

Spying today is acceptable, but in 1776, spying was considered unfit for gentlemen. Back then, scouting in a battlefield was acceptable (Schellhammer, 2013). In August 1776, the Continental Army was forced to retreat from Long Island to Manhattan Island. General Washington was expecting an attack, so he wanted spies to gather intelligence about the British and what they were planning (Koestler-Grack, 2006). George Washington asked Lt. Colonel Thomas Knowlton to recruit a group of men to gather intelligence. There were not many people who wanted to go behind enemy lines. It is reported that one soldier said, “I’m willing to fight the British and, if need be, die a soldier’s death in battle, but as for going among them in disguise and being taken and hung up like a dog, I’ll not do it” (Schellhammer, 2013).

When Colonel Knowlton asked for someone to spy behind enemy lines, nobody wanted to do the dangerous mission. Nathan Hale then stood forward and announced that he would accept the mission to spy on the British (Tracy, 2007). His friend, and fellow captain in his regiment, William Hull, tried to talk him out of it saying, “Who respects the character of a spy?” (Fleming, 1999). Nathan Hale couldn’t be talked out of it. He wanted his country to be free, and to have liberty. He was only 21 years old, and he had never spied before, but he loved his country. He loved his country so much that he volunteered to join the militia in 1775. A year later, he hadn’t been in any significant action. That was another reason he wanted to spy on the British. He felt that any service for the public good, “becomes honorable by being necessary” (Fleming, 1999).

Nathan Hale didn’t receive any training on how to become a spy. He didn’t use a false name. He tried to pretend to be a Dutch schoolteacher, because before he was a soldier, he was a schoolteacher. He left on September 8, 1776 with his Yale diploma. He was travelling to Long Island to record enemy movements and positions (Nathan Hale, Wikipedia, 2019). On September 21, Hale was captured asking a boatman for a ride. When Nathan Hale was searched, they found his drawings of British positions (Tracy, 2007). Nathan Hale was sent to General Howe. It is reported that General Howe offered a full pardon if Nathan would join the British army, but Nathan refused. He was hanged on September 22, 1776 (Koestler-Grack, 2006). We don’t know what Nathan Hale’s last words were, and some scholars disagree, but on the base if the statue on the C.I.A. campus, it reads, “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country” (About CIA, 2019).

Nathan Hale was patriotic, and he died for his country’s independence. His patriotism was unshakeable. He was willing to do something many people wouldn’t do, even if he could die. He is a reminder today of the dangers of spying, but the bravery needed to go behind enemy lines.

What Is a Life Well Lived: Essay

The definition of a life well-lived is to speak for yourself, take risks, and put others before yourself. These rules are followed throughout the life of Cassius Marcellus Clay: a 19th-century American abolitionist.

Cassius Clay always spoke his own opinion despite the constant array of death threats and disagreements. Clay was born and raised in Kentucky which was a predominantly pro-slavery state. As an abolitionist in Kentucky, he often spoke against the raging majority, and while in the Kentucky House of Representatives he quickly lost the support of voters due to his opinions. “The most important conflict of Clay’s career, the one that lay at the root of his other clashes and brought him to the attention of the American people, was his attack upon slavery.” Despite the continuing threats from unhappy pro-slavery citizens he continued to fight for the end of slavery, going so far as to publish an anti-slavery newspaper called True American. The amount of backlash from his newspaper was so great that Clay had to publish his newspaper in Cincinnati Ohio after a mob of approximately 60 men broke into his office and stole his equipment. Another historical figure who spoke for himself was Alexander Hamilton: an American politician, statesman, military commander, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was a well-known writer who voiced his ideas and opinions, oftentimes against the majority of the public. Hamilton was a federalist, meaning he believed in a stronger federal government. However, many people were against and feared the idea of a strong and central government because of the corruption they experienced from king George the third before the American Revolution. Because of this fear, there was a massive struggle to find a successful balance between the state and the federal government. After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which gave little power to the federal government, the Constitution was presented and was heavily criticized due to its failure to present the rights of American citizens. “In most conventions, anti-Federalists outnumbered the Federalist delegates, sometimes by considerable margins. The anti-Federalists agreed that the Articles of Confederation had weaknesses and flaws but thought that they could be solved with amendments to the existing articles. An entirely new constitution was not necessary, they argued, particularly one that gave ultimate authority to a central republican government.” Hamilton wrote a total of 51 essays defending the United States Constitution, called the Federalist Papers, against the wishes of many anti-federalists who believed the Constitution gave the Federal Government too much power and not enough power to the people.

Cassius Clay also took many risks. While serving as a Kentucky State Representative his career was bound to lead him to wealth and luxury if he were to bend his opinions to those of other politicians. However, he continued to voice his own opinion hoping that the risks he took would pay off in the future. Every word he spoke was a risk and many times it led to the verge of life and death. There were multiple assassination attempts on Clay due to his outspoken opinions and beliefs. In 1843 during a political debate, a hired gunman named Sam Brown. Clay was shot in the chest, but managed to draw his Bowie Knife, tackled Brown, and stab him in the eye sockets multiple times, before throwing his body over a ridge. However, there was another attempt to end his life only six years later. While speaking about abolition, Clay was attacked by six men, the Turner brothers, who were all armed. Using his bowie knife, Clay managed to fend off all six and even managed to kill one. Both these assassination attempts were consequences of the risks he took to speak his mind. Another historical figure who took many risks is Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States. He took office during an unstable and dangerous period in the United States, the Civil War. With constant disagreements and conflicts arising between northern and southern states, it was only a matter of time till violence erupted and war was declared. As president, he was heavily criticized and was under lots of pressure. The blood of thousands of soldiers, citizens, and slaves was on his hands. So every word he spoke, every action he made was a great risk.“Why should there be patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either party without faith in being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.” During the civil war, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus to silence people in the border states from speaking of leaving the union. One of his biggest risks was the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all slaves were now and forever free. This was risky because it gave the border states another reason to leave and join the Confederacy. If those states were to leave, specifically Maryland, nothing could stop the confederate army from sacking the capital. Although in the end, the Union would win the civil war these risks ultimately led to Lincoln’s death: assassination by a pro-slavery believer, John Wilkes Booth.

Cassius Marcellus Clay put others before himself. Throughout his entire life, Cassius put others before himself, despite the possibilities of wealth, success, and recognition. After his appointment as U.S. Minister to Russia, the civil war started. Before leaving for Russia, Clay gathered around 300 volunteers to protect the White House and U.S. Naval Yard from possible attacks from the confederacy. He refused to depart to Russia until Federal Troops arrived to protect the capital. This group of men was later known as Cassius M. Clay’s Washington Guards. About a year later Clay returned to the United States to accept the position of a Major General in the Union army from Lincoln. However, Clay publicly refused this position unless Lincoln freed the slaves that were under the control of the Confederacy. Both these examples show Cassius putting his country before himself despite the consequences it may have on his career and reputation. One more example that displays Cassius’ selflessness is his founding of the Cuban Charitable Aid Society, which helped the Cuban independence movement against Spain. Cassius donated a decent amount of his money to smaller organizations and people, showing his ability to help others before himself. Another group of people who follows this part of a life well-lived are Buffalo soldiers. Buffalo Soldiers was a nickname given to African-American cavalry soldiers. They often had to endure terrible conditions and discrimination to fight for their freedom. However, they were known to be some of the best soldiers because unlike white soldiers they had a true cause and motivation to fight. One Soldier who followed this definition perfectly is Henry Ossian Flipper, the first African American to graduate from the Military Academy West Point and became a second lieutenant of the U.S. Army. He faced constant discrimination from his peers but fought through it to benefit his country and his fellow African Americans. “One must endure these little tortures–the sneer, the shrug of the shoulder, the epithet, the effort to avoid, to disdain, to ignore–and thus suffer; for any of them are–to me at least-far harder to bear than a blow. A blow I may resist or ignore.” Regardless of his success as the second lieutenant, Flipper was eventually removed from his position due to racism in the military. However, the struggles he faced for the greater good of his people show how he put others before himself.

Cassius M. Clay lived a life well lived by speaking for himself despite the array of backlash, threats, and failures he stood out from the crowd and continued to voice his opinions. He also took risks which led to multiple assassination attempts on his life, yet he continued. Lastly, he put others before himself by refusing positions, wealth, and recognition for the benefit of others. In Conclusion, Cassius M. Clay is the perfect example of a Life Well Lived.

What Is Nye’s Purpose in Her Essay

The author that I chose to analyze as far as identity is Naomi Shihab Nye. The author is a woman who is multicultural. Naomi Shihab is Palestinian and white. Her culture is tougher on women in terms of abiding by their culture. Naomi is aware of her culture.

In Naomi’s poem Blood, she speaks of the qualities of a ‘true Arab’ while being torn between two forces, her American half and her Palestinian half, whose home country is in turmoil. Nye’s poetry, and Blood specifically, are a product of Nye’s Palestinian family history and her struggle to choose between her birth country, America, and her war ravished native country, Palestine. Throughout her poems, she shows feelings of confusion and anger that many people of other cultures can identify with.

I believe that Naomi Shihab Nye sees herself as being more interdependent, and I think that Naomi would agree with Jen’s statement that women tend to fall towards interdependence more. When looking at the definition of interdependent, it means dependent on each other. Within Nye’s poetry, she examines her place within two cultures. Her poem title, Blood, alone suggests family and lineage. The title ‘blood’ implies that she is questioning which aspects of her life are inherited and which are brought on by political and cultural forces. The first line of Blood is as follows, “A true Arab knows how to catch a fly in his hands.” Naomi Shihab is heavily influenced by her father and his ancestral roots. She is constantly torn between the two cultures. For instance, in the poem Blood, she states, “what flag can we wave.?” Not only is Naomi a part of two different cultures, but she’s also a woman. From personal experience, I too am part of a different culture (Chaldean, born in Iraq), and the culture is strict but even more strict on females. If Naomi was to separate from their community it would cause lots of imbalance within the family. In most traditional Arab families, the females are to obey the men. For instance, in my household, if I wanted to go to a party or even hang with friends, I have to ask my dad for permission, and if he says “no”, it was a no and there is no arguing it. Furthermore, the men are allowed to move out of the house, but the females have to wait until they are married to do so. If Naomi is to strictly follow the traditions of a Palestinian household, she will most likely just live a sheltered life. Personally, I do not think it’s a bad thing. Having to strictly abide by my family’s rules has greatly influenced me in the sense that I do not act out. A lot of teens spend their college years drinking and partying, but my culture has kept me away from that scene, which honestly saved me the trouble of experiencing any of the consequences that come about from partying. Lastly, in stanzas 4-5, this is referring to the tragedy of 9/11. Nye views this event as a terrible representation of Arab culture. She says, “it is too much for him, neither of his two languages can reach it. “The event is too large to fathom to the point that even with the two languages, neither one of them can encompass the pain of it, especially when Arabs are constantly blamed for the tragedy. Events like this make it difficult to identify with your own culture.

Analysis of The Philosophy of Mexicanness

Samuel Ramos dedicates a section in his book Profile of Man and Culture in Mexico to a ‘psychoanalysis of the Mexican character’. In that essay, he writes: Others have spoken about the sense of inferiority of our race, but no one, as far as we know, has systematically used the idea to explain our character. For the first time, in this essay, we make methodological use of these old observations, rigorously applying [Alfred] Adler’s psychological theories to the Mexican case. What must be presupposed is the existence of an inferiority complex in all those individuals who manifest an exaggerated preoccupation with affirming their personality; who take a strong interest in all things or situations that signify power, and who have an immoderate eagerness to dominate, to be the first in everything. Adler affirms that the sense of inferiority appears in the child in realising the insignificance of his strength in comparison with his parents. At its birth, Mexico found itself in the civilised world in the same way that a child finds itself with his elders. It appeared in history at a time when a mature civilisation already prevailed, something that an infantile spirit can barely understand. From this disadvantageous situation emerges the sense of inferiority that is aggravated by the conquest, mestizaje, and even by the disproportionate magnitude of nature.

In a session at the Center for Philosophical Studies [at the National University in Mexico City], held this previous year [1950], we proposed to Ramos to substitute the concept of inferiority, which he applies to the Mexican individual, with that of insufficiency. In the case of the Conquest, we argued, we could certainly be talking about a relation of inferiority, similar to the relation between a father and a son, as Ramos proposes; but, in the case of Independence, the relation with the European was no longer one of father and son but, rather, one of teacher and student. We had, then, two ‘illustrations’ that themselves expressed a difference between sufficiency and insufficiency, and no longer one between superiority and inferiority. We thus proposed a phenomenological analysis that would very precisely disentangle inferiority from insufficiency.

Inferiority is a modality of insufficiency, but it is not the only one. How does one go from a constitutional or ontological insufficiency to inferiority? Answering this question means giving an account of what Ramos has called the Mexican’s inferiority complex.

In the first place, in what sense should we understand, in an ontological manner, that the Mexican is insufficient? According to Ramos, the inferiority complex should serve to systematically explain ‘our character’. But, what is our character?

When one considers their character, Mexicans are sentimental. At the core of this very particular human being there is a strong emotive mixture, involving inactivity and the disposition to ruminate on each one of life’s events. Mexican life is impregnated with a sentimental character and it can be said that the tone of that life sets up the play of the emotions, of inactivity, and of a tireless internal rumination.

Emotionality is a species of internal fragility; the Mexican feels weak or fragile inside. He has learned from infancy that his interiority is vulnerable and brittle, which gives rise to all the techniques for preservation and protection that the Mexican constructs in order to impede external forces from penetrating and injuring him. This helps explain his frailty, the elegance of his dealings, his avoidance of surprises and his crude expressions. But it also explains that constant preoccupation with keeping a low profile, with being inconspicuous, and the impression he eventually gives of evading and hiding, of not allowing himself to get noticed. Finally, of that sensation, so uncomfortable at times, of hiding one’s person, of demureness, that almost borders on dissimulation and hypocrisy, and that is ultimately nothing more than the conviction of an incurable fragility.

Fragility is the quality of always being threatened by nothingness, by the threat of falling into non-being. The Mexican’s emotive life psychologically expresses or symbolises this ontological condition. Whoever lives always threatened by destruction feels fragile, destructible, and tends either toward self-protection, if he values life, or opens himself to annihilation if, for instance, in the hurriedness of a decision he chooses emptiness and nothingness. From there arises that characteristic contempt for human life attributed to the Mexican, as well as the familiar idea that the Mexican lives constantly ambushed by death. Mexican life is sensitive and delicate because the fundamental project of protecting a fragile being requires constructing the surrounding world as a practical system of resilient, elastic and ‘soft’ networks. But together with these protective networks, there is also a vast zone of brutal edges lying there as threat. The contrast between brutality and fragility is as Mexican as the Mexican himself. Mexican life offers to emotive life complicated structures of preservation, species of Baroque altars in which thousands of twisted figures have been sculpted and from which one must skilfully pry oneself so as not to be assaulted by the brutal and the grotesque.

Inactivity is the mark of the sentimental character. The various obstacles that oppose themselves to the various activities of the Mexican do not motivate him to grow or overcome those obstacles, but, rather, fold him over and drive him into himself. This is unwillingness in all of its forms; it is to disconnect oneself from all tasks, to leave everything for ‘tomorrow’. On the surface, to be unwilling is to be bored, since associations of unwillingness with boredom are always in abundance. When unwillingness dominates, human reality appears, from the outside, as if given over to an overbearing boredom; however, deeper inspection removes that appearance and we are confronted with aspects of human reality that are unrelated to boredom pure and simple.

In unwillingness, our spirit colours itself with a particular repulsion for things, with a quiet repulsion for everything that surrounds us. But, the unwilling man does not stop seeing a meaningful structure in the world (the world does not appear to him as it appears in Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1938 novel, as a copy of insignificant and gratuitous things. Rather he sees a meaningful process that beckons his collaboration, his decision, his action, and that demands to be fulfilled by a surplus of determination. Unwillingness appears when life, soft and elastic, nevertheless forces a decision. We are unwilling so as not to choose. In this sense unwillingness is indifference before things, an unwillingness that could pass as contemplation if not for the obscure feeling of overindulgent irresponsibility that accompanies it. Being thus shows itself as a repertoire of meanings that wrap and bind us, and simultaneously as a structure of ‘supplicants’ [suplicantes] whose lamentations have the precise sense of not being heard. Unwillingness is then indifference before a supplication; or, it is a resistance, if you prefer, toward the spontaneous and originary voice of things or of others. When we are unwilling, the world sends us messages that arrive at an inattentive destination. And it is not to consciously cause harm that the calls go neglected, but rather because we have no desire to lend them our attention, because we decide not to move, to remain in inactivity (for instance, when we decide to let the phone ring rather than unplugging it). The unwilling individual lacks precisely the will to bestow sense. While he may feel in possession of a mechanism for sense-bestowal, he will not act, and will keep to himself the centrifugal impulse to attribute meanings.

Unwillingness is found in the opposite extremes of generosity. Generosity is, in effect, a determined choice to collaborate, a will to sympathise, to enter into auxiliary contact with things, with history, with social movements, of adding or synthesising the capacity for teleological determination that emanates from freedom with the causality that weighs things down, with the dialectical course of the world that straightens itself toward a goal but which without that surplus of determination can degrade or minimise itself into inadequate compromises. If history entails an essential indeterminateness, and freedom can force it to pass to a lesser degree of indetermination and toward greater precision and unity, then to not graft that degree of probability, to refuse to make history into a making that concerns us, is a lack of generosity, a lack of joy for an abundance that overflows, and that is precisely unwillingness.

In unwillingness there is disgust [asco] for the meaning that things have, for the sense that they contain. When it is said of something that it provokes disgust we are not saying that we disapprove of the contingency of its being, of its stubborn lack of all sense or transcendence, but rather that as an indeterminate sense it calls on my collaboration while chaining me to a task that, as over-determined, can bring me only closer to abjection. Unwillingness is precisely the disgust that overtakes us when we foresee that our action might contribute to a consolidation of the abject sense of things. All action is therefore valued, in unwillingness, within the horizon of its contribution to depravity and corruption [podredumbre]. It is thus conceivable that unwillingness emerges by the simple fact that one is Mexican. It is an attempt to dislodge oneself from that contingency, to uproot oneself from that facticity; an attempt to be disgusted with contingency and facticity. Unwillingness not to be otherwise, for our history not to be otherwise, for our customs not to be otherwise; unwillingness that prepares the choice for another who will be our saviour or the choice for an inferiority complex. From there emerges that eagerness to see things as the outsider sees them, of allowing ourselves to be justified by others. From there emerges also ‘pochismo’, ‘malinchismo’, ‘Europeanism’, and ‘indigenism’. With unwillingness, one of the modes of insufficiency, the Mexican flees from himself by choosing inferiority. Here we bear witness to how insufficiency transforms itself into inferiority by means of unwillingness – an inferiority that predisposes the Mexican to his sentimental character.

But inactivity also gives rise to other feelings that we will qualify as dignity. The Mexican lives in a constant state of indignation. Noticing that things begin to go badly, he is always prepared with a principle in accordance with which to condemn those things; however, he is also not disturbed by them going badly, and so he does not throw himself into action; all he does is protest, allowing free reign to his indignation. The obstacle, that is, does not redouble his activity. A task saturated with difficulties will not be incentive enough for the Mexican to redouble his efforts. Dignity resides in the will to stay clean, in the will to flee from any association or involvement with whatever is base. Being dignified is to make oneself immune to the wiles of irregularity, to maintain oneself safe from suspect commitments. It corresponds very well to what [in 1781 Immanuel] Kant calls freedom in the negative sense, that is, the capacity for autonomy before inferior tendencies. A will to cleanliness, to rectitude and correctness, are aspects of the feeling of dignity. With a patience that ignores its origins, the dignified man surrenders to the decision to pass through life as cleanly as possible, to dedicate himself to causes that will not expose his vulnerabilities, and to avoid the paths that will make him a target.

What in the Spaniard shows itself as honour, in the Mexican appears as a proper sense of dignity. With this we touch upon the most profound layers of the different modes of being human. We touch upon the idea that freedom, which every human being represents, cannot be subjected to any law; it is unconditional. Because of freedom, the human being can be anything he wants in any given situation; he can be mean or noble, magnanimous or petty. In short, because of freedom the individual enlightens the world with values and anti-values without any sort of hindrance. This is what the Spanish drama of Don Juan very accurately represents. When the fair maiden has surrendered, when she has placed her life entirely in Don Juan’s hands, she can no longer ask him to do what is right, to put things aside for a better time, for instance, for a time after the epithalamium [a kind of poem, originally sung at the marital chamber to bless the newly weds on the night of their wedding] sanctioned by human and divine laws. What is to be done is within the purview of Don Juan’s unconditional freedom, and the only thing that matters is to appeal to his honour, to rest in his dignity which is a quality of freedom, a very peculiar colouring that always shows itself when one speaks of freedom. The French call this quality generosity, not honour or dignity. The free man is for the French the generous man, for the Spaniard the honourable man, and for the Mexican the dignified man. From a dignified man, likewise from an honourable or a generous man, we can expect anything, and can trust him with the most important and delicate situations, commitments, etc, and trust him also with what is most disturbing, for which he will always respond … with dignity.

Dignity as a qualification of freedom is indefinable. It is impossible to convince someone about the meaning of dignity who has not experienced it in the exercise of freedom. Here, as in every other case, understanding presupposes a previous grasping, a comprehension. Dignity is, as we said before, a will to distance oneself from suspect motivations having to do with our conduct. Every free act presupposes dignity, since the exercise of freedom is always preceded by an act through which the individual dislodges himself from a system of inferior motivations. But in the execution of the free act such distancing is not enough. Escaping from the sensible while not morally determining oneself is a state of indifference that mirrors unwillingness and indecision. This is why dignity, unwillingness and fragility are always tied together. Dignity needs the support of an active determination, or better yet, it is a virtue of inactivity and not of activity. As with honour, dignity has its advantages and its disadvantages.

A certain honesty bordering on arrogance comes with honour; a certain discretion bordering on immodesty accompanies dignity. The atmosphere that honour adds to our decision is one of clarity and warmth, while that which is added by dignity is nebulous and cold. The dignified man, through his decisions, allows a certain fragility to shine through, a certain incurable inconsistency. An internal rumination constitutes the third characteristic element of the sentimental man. Preserving our being means nothing else than allowing or bringing about an internal substitution of activity, allowing or bringing about a certain species of dreaming that involves re-living everything that has been lived, going to and fro in interior life. Behind every face that evades activity and nausea we find an interior life, what every person has lived, their memories, their worries, their joys, a repertoire of facts that every Mexican cares about and continuously retells. The Mexican individual always gives the impression of having already lived, of carrying deep within his soul a world that has already been, and that because of its emotive weight was indelibly recorded. On that is grounded our melancholy, and that appearance of a man of bitter experience.

There is an almost supernatural correspondence between dignity and abruptness [brusquedad], an insight that our interior pains respond unequivocally to external obstacles, and that our timidity and our modesty are not only sources of dreams and worlds that deplete themselves in our heads but forebodings with hard external edges. The Mexican suffers and unravels; outsiders recommend that he reverse his marasmus [emaciation], that he escape the asphyxiating ivy of his internal jungle, and do so with the sense of urgency that his surrounding world jealously awaits his awakening and his work. But as soon as that marasmus, those nightmares, are dissolved; as soon as the decision is made to consider the whole interior life as a macabre dance that will come to an end with the first ray of light; as soon as this is done and he throws himself courageously into the adventure, he is violently attacked, reviled and reproached, maltreated and humiliated. These are the oscillations, so familiar to Mexican existence, of a diligent enthusiasm, a hopeful deliverance to a movement that is followed almost immediately by a deep depression, by a falling once again in a hopeless dreaming.

In psychology it is said that the introvert, as a means of coping, very delicately lives the weight of the objects that she flees. In this sense, we must understand what we said before regarding dignity, namely, that it foresees obstacles that externally oppose themselves to its projects. Take the man who, from a sense of dignity, has retired from a corrupt business. This man later tries to convince himself that his scruples were based on unfounded apprehensions, and thus that he must return to the business. Very frequently, however, this man realises that his apprehensions were not unfounded, that the warnings given to him by his sense of dignity corresponded to real difficulties and that his tortured imaginings reflected, although in a twisted way, and obliquely, actual obstacles. This man soon realises that it was his own cowardly nature that did not dare to see those obstacles for what they were, nakedly, directly, rightly, but rather allowed them to be expressed in the painful manipulations of his frustrated consciousness. The dreams of the melancholic, the doctors of old used to say, loosely represent in their scenes of horror the frightening struggle of his unruly humours.

The Mexican is a creature of melancholy, a sickness that belongs more to the imagination than to the body, but that expresses the human condition most acutely. The Mexican is a being without ground [un ser de infundio], with all the nuances of dissimulation, concealment, falsehood, affectedness and duplicity that belong to that word, but mainly with that characteristic of unfoundedness or ungraspability toward which the etymology of that word takes us. To be groundless is to lack a foundation, and only the human being can be the ‘groundless ground of value’, which is ontological melancholy. Melancholy is the psychological reflection of our ontological constitution, of the precarious structure of our being, a being that is the ground of its own nothingness and not of its own being. Melancholy is more originary than anxiety, since, found in its ground, anxiety delivers us to the ecstasy of loss or care precisely because melancholy reveals us as groundless beings, as sick in our imagination. Melancholy also explains the motility of being, the transience of all things, the movement and becoming without hope of a future salvation in some foundational ground. With melancholy the incurable motility of an entity can be seen and foreseen from the side of the object. In regards to values, freedom is the foundation without foundation, the fundamental groundlessness that infects us with melancholy. And in the Mexican this melancholy constitutes the groundless ground of his being, the nothingness in which he dwells.

Melancholy as a psychological phenomenon is possible only if we posit the human being as the ground of his own nothingness but not the ground of his own being, in other words, if we perceive that the human being is a being who dreams and imagines. The melancholy individual is trapped in his interior abode whence he brings to the life of the imagination a thousand worlds to which he bestows value and sense, while never losing sight of the fact that those worlds are grounded on nothingness, that they are suspended over nothingness, and this knowledge about the deception regarding the groundlessness of the world is precisely what we are apt to call melancholy. Individuals who have projected a world, and who have realised it, eventually turn their gaze toward the foundations or grounds of those constructions, and upon finding them in the imagination are thrown into an incurable uneasiness, into an inevitable restlessness of finding the human edifice built on contemptible grounds. Individuals belonging to the greatest empires have thus been the most prone to melancholy. It is almost the national, imperial sentiment in the English; in the Roman, it is enough to refer to the writings of Lucretius. All that is human rests in ‘nothings’ [naderias], in cold or burning imaginings, and every image is a subtle secretion of that nothing that is the human being. The mystery of the imagination is contiguous with that of nothingness, and this with that of the human. Melancholy expresses the intimate connection [trabazón] between the human being, nothingness, and sleep.

There exists for the Mexican the possibility, which is always open, that the world gives itself as ‘friend’ or ‘enemy’, as a danger or salvation, as threat or ally. These categories are especially valued in what is known as the political attitude. For the politician, being appears above all with a profile of neither friend nor enemy. Thus, Ramos deduces an inferiority complex from the Mexican’s interest in power. And it should not be surprising that the Mexican should be interested in the constellations of power, since the world appears to him primarily in the background of the distinctions between friends and enemies, as with political Manichaeism.

That neutral state of being that does not show its destructible or resistant, fragile or vulnerable profile is only possible if the individual liberates herself from things in freedom and assumes the condition of ‘zozobra’. Zozobra is the state in which we find ourselves when the world hides its fragility or destructibility; zozobra is the state in which we aren’t sure if, at any moment, a catastrophe will overwhelm us or if we will be secured in the safety of asylum. In zozobra we remain in suspense, in oscillation, as its etymology clearly announces (sub-supra; the world assumes a lack of definition and we assume indetermination). We are at the mercy of whatever might come, we are constitutively fragile, we have made ourselves fragile in choosing the world as insinuation, as threat, or as siege. By its very essence, destruction includes within itself the possibility of resistance; likewise, protection, the possibility of fragility. Being will appear as fragile for whoever seeks to protect it at all costs; it will appear as resistant for whoever seeks to destroy it. We must always know what we can count on, but the belief that we can never know what we can count on constitutes restlessness, or zozobra. In destruction we approach being in order to reveal it as fragile or as resistant. But this fragility or resistance is forbidden to us. What is given appears to be first and foremost, and originally, in a state of expectant indifference. It is the state of the animal before jumping over a trench, the state of interest before situations of power, of interest before dominion. The Mexican is ‘introverted’ [huraño], ‘withdrawn’ [retraído], quick to jump or defend himself. Such an attitude is inexplicable if it is first not assumed that being appears as indifferent, and that only an unforeseen ‘accident’ will bring about peace and confidence, on the one hand, or destruction and death, on the other. Confronted with the world, the Mexican stands as ‘friend’ or ‘enemy’, and does so in an unpredictable manner, in zozobra.

Questioning presupposes the intuition of non-being. Before questioning any existent being there is always a prior familiarity with being and non-being. Simply put, being-in-the-world is to be thrown simultaneously toward being and non-being. We are open to the entire field of experience and in that field we find spaces of non-being. Experience appears to us as neutral before being and non-being. Only further experience will reveal it to us as being or as non-being. This oscillation between being and non-being is what goes by the name of ‘accident’. Being is always somewhat exposed, and so is nothingness. But the accident hides and flees. We don’t know what to depend on. This neutrality should not be threatening, but it is; this is because consciousness has previously been affected with fragility, has opened itself up to zozobra. Only when consciousness lives in zozobra can it fear that neutrality in such a way. In any other consciousness, one not qualified as fragile, neutrality is the condition of possibility for penetrating the real.

We have now arrived at an analysis of the characterological structure of the Mexican individual and her ontological constitution. Ontologically speaking, fragility and zozobra reveal us as accident. This is our inner constitution, and it emerges likewise in that radical feeling of insecurity and evasion that affects all of our activities. Accidentality is insufficient before substance; it is precariousness before the massive and compact being of what subsists. It is what [Ramón] López Velarde indicates when he speaks about our ‘living today’ – it is he who has placed zozobra and fragility at the centre of his poetry. Thus, the analysis of our character has made unequivocally clear certain deficiencies and insufficiencies. But, what about inferiority? Is the insufficiency of accidentality already inferiority in some way? Inferiority presupposes insufficiency, but not the other way around. On the basis of insufficiency, we can choose inferiority. Inferiority is one of the modalities of insufficiency – not the only one, and of course not the possibility that Heidegger would qualify as authentic.

Ontologically speaking, inferiority marks the project that involves being saved by others, of transferring onto others the task of justifying our existence, of unburdening us of zozobra, of allowing others to decide for us. So that such a project can be realised, it is necessary to have bestowed others with unlimited justification. And this is precisely what happens when we rely on the decisions of others. Allowing that our own life become a project for others is to place in their hands every possible authenticating justification, it is to imagine that others always do the right thing, that they are closed off to the possibilities of accident, that they always know what to do. It is the ‘normal’ situation of the child before his parents. This is why Ramos says that the inferiority complex that he attributes to the Mexican is acquired at the moment of the Conquest, since in the eyes of European culture we played the part of children. But that explanation does not satisfy us at all. There is a more profound dimension for the inferiority complex. Parents do not appear to their children as beings who are merely justified, but as beings who are absolutely justified. Sartre has seen this clearly. Being absolutely justified can be said only of God, and in the inferiority complex, in the project of being saved by others, there is transference of properties that belong only to being-for-itself, to anxiety, and to being-for-another.

Put in religious terms: in inferiority there is idolatry, a will to make the other an absolutely justified existence. According to Sartre, man fundamentally desires to be God. The transference of an intentional relation to the person of the other is precisely inferiority. One is inferior to the extent that one is idolatrous. The confusion between men and gods that we find at the origins of our Conquest already made it possible for us to easily accept an inferiority complex. If being itself is lacking, if it is unjustified, it becomes impossible that on its own it would generate or present justifications for itself, thus it would have to find in the other, or see the other, as a repository of being and, moreover, as its source. By definition, others have being. In analysing myself I can discover myself as accident, but I cannot speak of the other likewise as accident. No. The other is understood as massive consistency; the other is ripped away from zozobra and comfortably placed in subsistence. The individual who lacks the inferiority complex will not be able to say, as López Velarde writes, ‘Our lives are pendulums,’ which means that he will not be able to take part in a unified project of zozobra. His life does not oscillate, but is rather frozen in the absolute justification of self-sufficiency [aseidad]; it is not accident, it is substance.

From the choice to be saved by others, a complex series of practices will emerge aimed at promoting [propiciar] the giving away of the power of justification. Imitation, in particular, will be the ploy that will resemble original possession. A culture of imitation is a culture that rests in the fundamental project of being saved by others. Imitation is to appease [propiciar], to gain a favourable opinion. To the culture of imitation we oppose the culture of insufficiency, constitutive of those who have renounced the project of being saved by others and who risk the search for justification on their own terms.

If the Mexican as inferior is fundamentally an attempt to be saved by others, if he has chosen himself as accident, but one inevitably referred to a self-sufficient being, if he has chosen himself as a contingency thrown against a necessity; an unjustified reality against a reality that has justified itself with reasons, then such a being will exist in a dialect driven by the search for that substance to which he has attributed the self-sufficiency that will save him. In this way, the Mexican has, as of late, chosen himself as accident that refers itself to an indigenous substance. Indigenism is the latest of our projects involving an inferior mode of self-justification. When the European sees the mestizo, he stumbles over nothing, he crosses that space and stops only with the indigenous, which fascinates him. The mestizo who has taken account of this situation has already arranged his affairs: he will approach the European gaze presenting only his indigenous side so as to be saved as the accident of that substance. The mestizo is an accident of the Indian, a nothingness attached to the being-in-itself of the Indian, who upon being loved, justified, by the European and the North American, will likewise gain its own justification. The mestizo claims the indigenous, he places it ahead of himself and chastises others whose perspectives presuppose anything else but the indigenous: he has learned to break away with the substance to which he would bind his fate.

When indigenous relics seem to fascinate North Americans, the mestizo feels vindicated; it is then that he wishes that everything else could be transformed into an indigenous product, that life itself was transformed into an indigenous way of looking at the world. Every revolution carried out in the name of the Indian, artistic or political, has within it the unmentionable intention of saving the mestizo. In this way, the indigenous serves as a means, as a substance that will reflect, or radiate upon the mestizo its atmosphere of justification. Only the indigenous has been able to achieve universal worth; mestizo culture has not been able to go beyond its regional horizons. Thus we have the appeal to the indigenous as a reality that would come to save the mestizo; thus we have the perpetuation of the inferiority complex belonging to the mestizo when he becomes indigenist.

Just as frustrating as this project of salvation is the project of the ‘malinchista’. For the latter, the Spanish is the means to exclude accidentality. Recently, a friend proposed that an ‘accident’ that occurred during a bull run would not possibly happen in Spain. According to my friend, Spain represented the absolute exclusion of all accident; he felt with vigorous peculiarity that accidentality exists within us, and chose to transfer to Spain the absolute justification that excludes accident. Both the ‘indigenist’ and the ‘malinchista’ are mestizos who refuse to be alone; who throw upon the shoulders of another the task of justifying their own existence. But the mestizo must remain alone and, like López Velarde writes, open himself resolutely to the horizon of zozobra and accidentality.

Unwillingness, dignity, melancholy and zozobra expose us to the field or, better yet, the abyss [el pozo] of our existential possibilities; they unmask and reveal us to our fundamental project, to the unprejudiced unity that we must attribute to things in the world, but not so as to prematurely blind us to the abyss, but in order to remain there, to tirelessly nurture ourselves from the wellspring of originary possibilities. The danger lies precisely in closing off the road toward the originary, to allow a certain scarring to deceive us and conceal the living blood that runs beneath, that moistens the bandages. The secret to a fundamental project lies precisely in repetition. To repeat is to re-open, in the sense in which it is said that one must ‘scratch’ and re-open a scar that has inconveniently healed so as to allow the wound once again to exist in the play of its own possibilities. With this re-opening, we allow life itself, accidental and in zozobra, to remain immersed in its originary possibilities; we allow it to access its own sources and we keep it there, and there we nurture it. Inferiority is an insufficiency that has renounced its origins, that has lost itself and seeks to cover over the demands that its own decisions impose on us – rooted as they are in zozobra and accidentality. What will we do as beings in zozobra? How will we cover up our accidentality? How will we escape the proximity of death and zozobra? In maintaining oneself in the accidental, are we deprived of the possibilities for action? These questions no longer belong to ontology proper, but to morality. Now is not the time to answer them.

Abbey Nicole Curran as a Great Influential Person

“Accomplishment begins with two words, I’ll try”. This quote that Abbey Nicole Curran once said is saying that there is no possible way of succeeding if you don’t take the shot at trying. The quote is about trying, because if you don’t there is no way of succeeding. Abbey Nicole Curran tried her best to become a pageant girl even though she had cerebral palsy. Abbey was an important and influential figure in history that had a positive impact on the world because she encouraged many other young girls, who had a dream but had a disability, to try their best and eventually be able to accomplish their goals. I can relate to this situation because my cousin had mixed cerebral palsy, she was in a wheelchair and she couldn’t talk she only made noises. She wanted to be in a beauty pageant, that’s why I chose Abbey Nicole Curran. Later on, my cousin passed at 12 years old from a brain blackout.

Abbey was born July 28, 1988. She was born in Kewanee, Illinois. Her parents’ names are Mike and Katie Curran. Abbey was raised on a hog farm in Illinois. Abbey went to high school at Kewanee High School. For college she went to St. Ambrose University. Mike, Abbey’s father, was a farmer for the hog farm. Katie, Abbey’s mother, was a nurse. When Abbey was growing up on the farm, she always watched beauty pageant shows, she even got a pencil and paper and ‘judged’ the contestants with her mom and grandmother. One day in high school she saw a flyer for a contest, a beauty pageant. Her teacher told her not to even try because there was no point. That made her want to do it more just to prove her wrong. She competed but lost, the next year she competed again and won. Every time people doubt her and her goals, she is encouraged to prove them wrong and even conquer more of her goals to. Now she is a person to never give up, just like in high school. She’s motivated by the words ‘you can’t’, then she proves them wrong.

Her high school teacher is the person who made her who she is today. Her teacher said: “Be realistic, you can’t do that”. Abbey was motivated by those words just so she can prove her teacher wrong. Her first pageant changed her life, she didn’t win the first one, but since she didn’t, she was more motivated to win the next one. She did win her second pageant, she started going in pageants regularly. When she first started the pageant, she got noticed by a lot of people because she was the first disabled girl to compete in a pageant. She was even the first disabled girl to win a pageant. She got in the top ten for the first competition. She just changed her outfit and worked on walking better for her next pageant. Abbey always wanted to be in a pageant when she was younger, she always watched pageant shows, therefore when she got older, she already knew the rules and how to fairly judge someone. She did not really need to overcome who she was because she knew that she was already perfectly fine.

When Abbey got a bit older, she started a campaign for younger disabled girls to pursue their dreams. She inspired so many children and even adults. She taught many others that with hard work, dedication, and positivity you can accomplish anything. After her first pageant she’s gotten the confidence to win more pageants. She won Miss Iowa in 2008, which made her the very first disabled person to ever win a pageant.

Her most difficult problem to get through was to conquer a beauty pageant with cerebral palsy. It was very difficult for her to walk on stage, so she has an escort, someone to help her along the way. The escort pretty much was holding her up so she could balance and walk easier. Another problem she had was all the hate, disbelief, and negativity from everyone else. Not a lot of people believed in her let alone believed she could win a beauty pageant, or even participate. Instead of letting all of the negativity get to her she just ignored it and kept going. The only belief and positivity she needed was her own. She believed in herself so much and was so determined to prove all of those negative people wrong that she won quite a few pageants. She didn’t even let her disability get in her way.

Abbey inspired so many young children and even adults to just give it a shot, anything can happen if you just try your best and be positive and believe in yourself. Abbey is such a great influential person. She influences many people around the world. Many more people were inspired by Abbey that they pursued their dreams. Abbey is like a hero to many young disabled children. After she won more pageants, everyone was surprised because she was the first ever disabled person to join a pageant. People were skeptical to let her be in the pageant but now they’ll no longer judge one because of a disability since Abbey proved them that disabled people can do the same things to.

Abbey was a very generous, funny, positive girl. She believed you could do anything if you set your mind to it. She was always so upbeat and happy about everything, even with the things she was going through, she was so confident that she wanted to prove all those mean people wrong.

I feel like if I was always as self-confident as Abbey, I wouldn’t think that I’m fat or ugly, and I wouldn’t take all those hateful words from everyone else. If I was as positive as her, I would always think the best out of things not the worst. If I believed in myself, I would be able to succeed in a lot more things. If I had her mind set or a similar personality, I would be able to brush off the hateful words and keep the good ones in mind.

I chose to write my essay about Abbey Nicole Curran because I had a cousin and she had severe cerebral palsy. She couldn’t talk very well, she also had to sit in a wheelchair. One day she told us all about her dream the night before. She dreamed that she was in a beauty pageant and that she won. Ever since then she wanted to be in a beauty pageant. Later on, she ended up having a brain blackout and passing away at the age of twelve. So, Abbey reminded me of my cousin and what she could’ve been.

Gustave Courbet as One of the Most Extraordinary Realistic Artists

Gustave Courbet, born Jean Désiré Gustave Courbet, was a famous French artist of the 19th century. He devoted himself to presenting his own artistic style, while turning away from the techniques of traditional art. His unique styles have even become a source of inspiration for cubists and impressionists. It was his paintings in the 1840s that made him very popular. Meanwhile, his masterpieces have attempted to challenge the conventions. Most of his photos also contain fewer political themes such as nude photos, still lifes, hunting scenes and landscapes.

The controversial French painter was one of the first representatives of realism – a nineteenth-century style of French painting characterized by a representation of contemporary life, without idealization, without sentimentality and without nobility. This makes him one of the best genre painters of his time and one of the most influential modern artists in France. Realistic artists such as Courbet have rejected both the vagueness of Romanticism and the heroism of neoclassical painting in favor of objective truth, as ugly as it is unpleasant. For Courbet, art is not only about painting beautiful pictures, but also about depicting the irregularities of nature in all their beauty and rigor. By displaying such a daily naturalism, he rejected the conventions of the French Academy and the Paris Salon, but brought the art of genre painting to a level comparable to that of the 17th century at the time of Dutch realism.

His work includes portraits, female nudes, still lifes, landscapes and animal photographs. Courbet is closely associated with other realists such as Honoré Daumier (1808-79) and Jean-François Millet (1814-75), known for masterpieces such as ‘A Burial at Ornans’ (1849, Musée d’Orsay, Paris) and ‘The Stone Breakers’ (1849, now lost) and ‘The Artist’s Studio’ (1855, Musée d’Orsay). Courbet’s independent behavior and contemptuous attitude towards academic art had a major impact on Parisian artists, both impressionists and post-impressionists.

‘The Desperate Man’

Courbet’s self-portrait as ‘The Desperate Man’ is a first example of 1845 that marks the culmination of the artist’s melancholy and romantic disillusionment. Courbet presents himself frontally in a narrow and claustrophobic horizontal frame. His expression seems to be both fear and psychosis. His arms reach his head and shake his black hair. Tense muscles bounce off his wrists and forearms. The smooth line and friction combined with the dark shade represent there is no way to escape and the confrontation with the viewer reaches an intensity rarely seen in the history of art. It was thought that Courbet’s aim was to “share the intensity of a moment in which the artist, having come to the end of his romantic education and suddenly overcome at the spectacle of his imminent downfall, finds the strength to repudiate a destiny that is not his”. Thus, appearing as an important work in the life of the artist and remained in his studio until his death.

Courbet has made a series of romantic self-portraits, including this one. ‘The Desperate Man’ is one of the first works of the artist completed in 1845. Eyes wide open, Courbet fixed and tears his hair. The romantic approach to portraits, which was popular at the time, was to express the emotional and psychological states of the individual. And although Courbet never considered himself a romantic painter, he mastered the task very well. If you look at this self-portrait, you feel not only despair (as the title suggests), but also the personality of Gustave Courbet himself. Bold, intelligent, radical, ambitious and determined. Determined to challenge established genres of painting, to protest against traditional stereotypes and to change the course of art history.

‘A Burial at Ornans’

This 22-foot canvas is located in a main room of the Musée d’Orsay and buries the spectator as if he were in a cave. In a pronounced unconventional composition, the figures roar in the dark without focusing on the ceremony. An excellent example of realism, the painting adheres to the facts of a true burial and avoids an increased spiritual connotation. Courbet emphasized the temporary nature of life and did not let the light of the painting express the eternal. While the sunset could have expressed the great transition from the soul of the temporal to the eternal, Courbet covered the evening sky with clouds, so that the transition from day to night was merely a reflection of coffin, from the light to the darkness of the ground goes away. Some critics have considered respecting the rigorous facts of death as a disregard for religion and have described it as a poor composition of exhausted workers, tailor-made in a gigantic work, as if they had some kind of noble sense. Other critics, such as Proudhon, worshiped the inference of the equality and virtue of all people and saw how such a painting could contribute to changing the course of Western art and politics.

Moreover, Courbet’s life-size mourners are not affected by dramatic funeral gestures or other emotions suggesting a noble character. Some people in mourning look more like caricatures, as if the artist had made ugliness a virtue.

Despite its modernity, ‘A Burial at Ornans’ contains a number of traditional composition elements. First, the image sector is deliberately narrow and busy to emphasize the monumentality and solidarity of the occasion. Furthermore, the silhouette of people in mourning follows the skyline and nothing can go beyond the crucifix in the evening sky. This emphasizes not only the fundamental terrestrial nature of life, but also emphasizes that all people are equal before God. Finally, through the use of soft colors (marked by white hoods, handkerchiefs and dresses) and the dark and sober reserve of mourners and priests, the artist emphasizes the importance and dignity of life and the death of an ordinary person.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Gustave Courbet is extraordinary artist in his field. He followed for a different style, unique to him, in the effort to mark his creation in history. He is known for his realistic works, the most impressive and famous of which are ‘The Desperate Man’ of 1845 and ‘A Burial at Ornans’ of 1849.

Essay on Inspirational Oprah Gail Winfrey

With a net worth of $2.8 billion (according to Forbes), Oprah is one of the richest African Americans in the United States and the country’s first African American multibillionaire. Oprah Gail Winfrey is considered a role model to many because of her unfortunately tough childhood, remarkable charity work, her long-running syndicated television show, and the true relationships she has built with her fans. Oprah stands out among many people in her field because of her ability to help those people get through troubling times. Her dedication to charity has touched the hearts of the world and made influenced others make an impact on the world as well. She cares for people and provides opportunities to so many. She sets a great example showing people that she can do anything despite the challenges that life places on her. She sticks up for what she believes in no matter the consequence. She walks her truth and is positive in her beliefs.

Her life was no walk in the park and came with a lot of tragedy. She grew up in a life of poverty. From the age of 9, she suffered abuse by the hands of multiple family members. She then ran away from home at 13 and became pregnant at the age of 14. She lost her child in infancy. At the age of 46 then lose her younger brother Jefferey Lee who died of AIDS in 1989, and in 2003, Oprah’s sister, Patricia Lee, died of an overdose of drugs. But Oprah never let any of this stop or hold her back. She grabbed opportunities and skyrocketed up the ladder of success. She excelled in school and made that her primary focus which would later pay off as she quickly snagged a job after graduation from Tennessee University on a full scholarship. While in school, Oprah became Miss Fire Prevention, Miss Black Tennessee, Miss Black Nashville, Miss Black America.

Oprah Winfrey grew up in a world of adversity, despite her early accomplishments. Earlier in her career she was hired as a primetime news co-anchor, an incredible feat considering she was a young, black woman in an era where old, white men made and enforced all the rules. But the show failed and when it failed, she received the blame and not her older, white, male co-host. She was then demoted to a writing and reporting gig which did not work for her because she was a slow writer and did not want to cover the types of stories that were asked of her. For a large majority of her career, Oprah struggled with the stereotype that as a black woman she would only be stuck in a box and hold jobs like an assistant anchor on the news. In every position she also found herself being paid less than her white co-workers. Determined, Oprah made sure to find ways to break the mold and make change in the broadcasting and media world. At the time, she was in a field that was dominated by white males, so she had to stand out in what she was doing to stay ahead. She worked hard and was eventually recruited to host a morning talk show in Chicago. That show became a household name. And Oprah became an international sensation. ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show’ was one of the longest running talk shows having aired for 27 years. The show has also won 47 Daytime Emmy Awards. She has also earned an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, and an Oscar Award.

Oprah used her television platform as a safe medium to make her voice and the voice of others heard by the world. She made people think, talk and share their feelings. She was relatable, current, genuine, and different from anything else on television. As a kid she connected me to a whole new world of inspiring ideas and life stories. I would watch her show daily and be fascinated by her presence and how she carried her interviews with the influential and the famous. She touched on topics on global issues and new trends and even difficult conversations about rights and lives of minority groups and individuals that no other stations were covering at the time. As an inspiring woman figure, she has shaped values that much of the world, including myself, cherish. Someone once said: “She is ordinary and extraordinary at the same time”.